The (Ef)feminization of the Church (Part II)
How American Christianity lost its way by losing its manhood
As we prepare to launch into the topic of birth control, we felt the need to pause and address the issue of effeminacy, a root cause condition underlying this issue, as well as several others we will be covering in our series The Seven Deadly Sins of American Christianity. Part I of the present series can be found here.
Going soft
In the previous post in this series, we examined the ultimate cause of effeminacy in the world today: Adam’s dereliction of duty as husband and head of humanity in the garden (Genesis 3). We showed how the Biblical account of the fall of man reframes the Church’s supposed feminization crisis as an effeminization crisis. We concluded that while feminism in the Church is indeed a real problem, it would not be nearly the problem that it is had not effeminism first taken root among the Church’s male leadership.
As we will see, the Bible has much more to reveal to us on this topic. But before going any further, we have to pause and nail down our definition: According to scripture, what exactly is effeminacy?
Although much has been written on this topic in recent years,1 at the broadest level, effeminacy is the swapping of gender roles and attributes such that men play the woman, rather than playing the man as God intended (2 Samuel 10:12).
Whereas scripture exhorts men to “Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong” (1 Corinthians 16:13), the effeminate man simply refuses to “man up” and fulfill his God-given callings. Instead, he routinely “wusses out” in the face of adversity, throwing his manhood, his family, and even his God under the bus in exchange for the passing pleasures of sin (Hebrews 11:25).
In the Bible, effeminacy is closely associated with sexual deviancies like adultery and homosexuality, and as such is condemned in the strongest of terms (1 Corinthians 6:9, 10, emphasis mine):
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous ones will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor coveters, nor drunkards, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.”
The word “effeminate” used here is the Greek term “μαλακοὶ,” “malakoi,” meaning “soft” or “delicate.” For this reason, malakoi was sometimes used to refer to the passive partner in a homosexual act.2 In modern parlance, we might refer to such men as having “gone soft.”
Armed with this understanding, let’s flesh out this concept by examining a most unlikely exemplar of effeminacy in the Bible: the mighty judge Samson.
The softening of Samson
Now I know what you might be thinking: “I thought Samson was the ultimate alpha male, the very embodiment of masculinity? How could he possibly be considered effeminate, of all things?” Good. Perfect. Hold that thought. As we will see, this reaction stems from a basic misunderstanding of what effeminacy is at its core. There is much more to effeminacy than meets the eye. But before we get to that, a bit of Biblical background.
Samson lived during a phase of Israel’s history known as the time of the judges, a period that spanned the roughly three centuries between the death of Joshua (c.1350 B.C.) and the reign of Israel’s first king, Saul (c.1050 B.C.). A repeated refrain in the book of Judges sums up the period best: “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6, 21:25). This was Israel’s wild wild west.
The most salient feature of the judges period was its repeated cycles of sin by the people, judgment by foreign oppressors, and salvation by a national leader called a “judge” (Judges 2:16–18). Like clockwork, as soon as a given judge faded from the scene, the people went right back to their old sinful ways and the cycle repeated all over again (Judges 2:19–23). We’ll return to the significance of these judgment cycles in the next newsletter, but for now, suffice it to say that they are extremely important for understanding the long-term, national effects of effeminacy on a people group.
Into an extended period of national judgment (Judges 13:1) enters Samson, the man who would “begin to save Israel from the hand of the Philistines” (Judges 13:5). But don’t let Samson’s role as savior fool you—he was certainly no choirboy. Indeed, many of Israel’s judges, like the kings who would eventually supersede them, had decidedly mixed track records. Were it not for the fact that several of these men landed in the book of Hebrews’ “hall of faith” (Hebrews 11:32), many Christians, upon reading these leaders’ biographies, might conclude that their standing in the faith was about as shaky as that of the pagans they crossed swords with.
Although Samson was a standout judge in many ways, both good and bad,3 what he is most remembered for are his Herculean feats of strength. Some speculate that since Samson’s strength was supernatural in origin that Samson himself may very well have been a thin, scrawny fellow for all we know. Nope. Not buying it. Samson was definitely a man’s man. He was hairy, built, and had off the charts T levels.4
Now that we’ve settled that debate, the real question becomes, how could someone who in so many ways epitomizes raw, unfiltered masculinity also serve as a prime example of effeminacy?
Despite his impressive externals, Samson was, internally, an extremely volatile, acutely vulnerable man. Like an undisciplined child, he was beset by weakness, immaturity, and unbridled passion. For instance, when his parents understandably pushed back against his request to marry a foreign woman, a Philistine no less, Samson insisted that they give him his way, which of course they did (more on this below). No matter that this was a direct violation of God’s law (Deuteronomy 7:3, 4) and a prima facie contradiction to his calling.5 What Samson wanted, Samson got. Refuse him, and you’ll regret it.
This precedent clearly set the stage for Samson’s later romantic rendezvous with the enemy, which would ultimately prove his downfall. Not long after casually sleeping with a Philistine prostitute (Judges 16:1), Samson would be seduced by Delilah,6 an obvious Philistine asset (Judges 16:4–6).
When you combine an impetuous personality with a lack of sexual restraint, it’s easy to see why Samson displayed such puny moral resolve. Despite his outward strength, if you pushed the right buttons and were patient, which the enemy almost always is, eventually, you could get him to cave (Judges 14:15–17, 16:5, 16,17).
And here lies the answer to the apparent contradiction we mentioned above: How could a rough and rowdy figure like Samson exemplify the soft, delicate features of effeminacy? The reason for this misapprehension lies in the fact that effeminacy, at its most basic level, is a spiritual condition, a deficiency of the heart that renders men incapable of holding up under testing.
Remember, “man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7). No matter how physically imposing a man may appear on the outside, if he lacks heart, giving up all too readily under temptation and failing to persevere when life’s trials are bearing down upon him, then by definition he is a pushover, a pansy, a spiritual sissy. In this sense, such men are the very definition of soft and impressionable effeminacy. As Steven Wedgeworth points out, quoting Thomas Aquinas’ magnum opus Summa Theologica:7
“the core problem with effeminacy is ‘withdraw[ing] from good on account of sorrow caused by lack of pleasure, yielding as it were to a weak motion” (ST II-II, q. 138). Thomas states that the opposite of effeminacy is perseverance.”
Bingo. Now we are getting somewhere.
Perseverance can be defined as “continued effort to do or achieve something, even when this is difficult or takes a long time.”8 The manly Christian persists in doing God’s will in spite of opposition or delayed gratification, enduring in service to God even in the lean and lonely times. No matter how bad things get, his mantra is ever “let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up” (Galatians 6:9).
By contrast, the effeminate Christian man folds under pressure, flaking out on the faith when times get hard (Matthew 13:20, 21). He is incapable of taking the heat, withstanding the blowback, making the sacrifice. He simply cannot do without that which his flesh craves most in the moment. He must have it. He will cut corners to get it. He will die without it (Genesis 25:32; Judges 16:16). And so, when the devil comes a-knocking during one of his all too frequent moments of weakness, he is prepared to sell his birthright to sate his carnal appetite (Genesis 25:34). In doing so, as Aquinas put it, he turns his back on the good and yields to a weak motion.
This is effeminacy, the condition that ensnares Christian men today by the thousands and that entangled the strong man Samson in his most difficult of binds.
And yet, as bad as the preceding indiscretions were, they merely served to soften Samson for his final and most egregious capitulation of all.
Breaking faith
At the end of the day, the thing that reduced this once mighty judge to a fragile shell of his former self was the violation of his sacred, life-long Nazirite vows.9 In Samson’s particular case, these vows included abstaining from wine (and other fermented drinks), abstaining from unclean foods, and never permitting a razor to touch his head (Judges 13:4, 5).10
Although we have no direct indication that Samson broke the first vow,11 we know for certain that the other two were violated when he ate unclean honey from a dead lion’s carcass (Judges 14:8, 9; cf. Leviticus 11:8, 27, 39, 40), and, famously, when the seven locks of his head were shaved by the Philistines. Through his deadly dalliance with Delilah, Samson quite literally gave his strength away to a woman (Proverbs 31:3).
One might assume that breaking these prohibitions represents a relatively trivial infraction relative to Samson’s flashier failures. After all, what is fudging on a mere dietary law compared to gross sexual immorality? Aren’t these merely symbolic, rather than purely moral, transgressions?
But these questions miss the point entirely, for the significance of violating sacred vows to God, no matter their outward signs, cannot be overstated.
The Nazirite vow, according to the law of Moses, was not just any old vow, but rather “a special vow” that a man took “to separate himself to the Lord” (Numbers 6:2). That said, it must be kept in mind that even ordinary vows were considered absolutely binding in ancient Israelite culture (Numbers 30:2; Deuteronomy 23:21–23). Vows, oaths, and covenants were viewed as completely sacrosanct, and thus were to be honored even at tremendous personal cost (Psalm 15:4).12 This was especially true in cases involving a most holy, binding agreement, such as a national covenant with God or a marriage covenant.13
It is for no small reason, then, that Jesus taught “Do not take an oath at all [...]. Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil” (Matthew 5:34, 37). Although largely absent from modern day sentiments, traditionally, a man’s word was his bond. Consequently, a man whose word was worthless was himself worthless. By breaking his vows he became flimsy, feckless, faithless, useless, unreliable, unstable, irresolute, infirm, and incapacitated. Since these attributes represent the polar opposites of what constitutes Biblical masculinity—sturdiness, strength, stability, faithfulness, firmness, fruitfulness, reliability, resoluteness, and resourcefulness—it’s safe to say that a man who does not keep his word is really no man at all.
Samson’s calling was two-fold and indivisible: serving as a judge unto his people and living as a Nazirite unto his God. If he dishonored the vows entailed in the latter, he would lack the divine power to accomplish the former. Put another way, what finally broke Samson was breaking faith with God.
Samson failed to treat his sacred obligations to God as matters worth safeguarding above all else. Instead, he took them entirely for granted, treating them with the most cavalier form of entitlement (Judges 16:20, emphasis mine):
“And she [i.e., Delilah] said, ‘The Philistines are upon you, Samson!’ And he awoke from his sleep and said, ‘I will go out as at other times and shake myself free.’ But he did not know that the Lord had left him.”
The tragic words you just read perfectly describe the present condition of the American Church: Through repeated compromises with sin and the enemies of God, we have become desensitized to the precious promises, holy responsibilities, and infinitely high stakes of the New Covenant (Hebrews 2:3, 8:6), paying so little regard to them that our strength—no, our God— has all but entirely left us, and still we are none the wiser!
God, help us! What a pitiable state we are in!
Like Samson shorn of his strength before the enemies he could no longer resist (Judges 16), we American Christians have unwittingly become blind, bound, and bereft of our native dignity as a holy people set apart for God’s special purposes (1 Peter 2:9).
O Lord, enter your powerless churches once again! You spoke long ago of this dreadful condition, as well as its remedy, but we have yet to take you up on your gracious invitation (Revelation 3:17–20, emphasis mine):
“For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see. Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent. Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with Me.”
Departed glory
Proverbs states that “The glory of young men is their strength” (Proverbs 20:29a). When the strength goes, so goes the glory.
We have seen that Samson’s glorious strength was uniquely tied to his Nazirite vows. While this is an accurate statement, it is somewhat imprecise. More precisely, Samson’s strength came from the Holy Spirit of God, with the vows and their observances serving as signs and seals of God’s empowering hand on Samson’s life (Judges 13:24, 25, emphasis mine):
“And the woman bore a son and called his name Samson. And the young man grew, and the Lord blessed him. And the Spirit of the Lord began to stir him in Mahaneh-dan, between Zorah and Eshtaol.”
The initial stirring Samson experienced here was none other than the living waters of the Holy Spirit welling up with his spirit (John 4:14, 7:38, 39). Soon, these waters would rush over him like a mighty torrent, sweeping away the enemies of God.
We see then that the rites of the Nazirite, like the sign of circumcision, were not merely external, performed by human hands (Romans 2:28, 29)—instead a true Nazirite was a Nazirite from the heart, one whose seal was the Spirit and whose sign was His almighty power (Judges 14:6a, emphasis mine):
“Then the Spirit of the Lord rushed upon him [i.e., Samson], and although he had nothing in his hand, he tore the lion in pieces as one tears a young goat.”
Time and again, it was the Spirit who strengthened Samson to fulfill his God-given mission (Judges 14:19, emphasis mine):
“And the Spirit of the Lord rushed upon him, and he went down to Ashkelon and struck down thirty men of the town and took their spoil and gave the garments to those who had told the riddle. In hot anger he went back to his father's house.”
Apart from God’s Spirit, a donkey’s jawbone is no match for an army of Philistine soldiers (Judges 15:14, 15, emphasis mine):
“When he came to Lehi, the Philistines came shouting to meet him. Then the Spirit of the Lord rushed upon him, and the ropes that were on his arms became as flax that has caught fire, and his bonds melted off his hands. And he found a fresh jawbone of a donkey, and put out his hand and took it, and with it he struck 1,000 men.”
The secret of Samson’s power was that it was not his power at all. Rather, his strength was a spiritual enablement, without which he was no stronger than you or I (Judges 16:17):
“So he told her [i.e., Delilah] everything. ‘No razor has ever been used on my head,’ he said, ‘because I have been a Nazirite dedicated to God from my mother’s womb. If my head were shaved, my strength would leave me, and I would become as weak as any other man.’”
Ironically, it was not until Samson’s eyes were gouged out that he saw where his help came from (Judges 16:28, emphasis mine; cf. Psalm 121:1, 2):
“Then Samson called to the Lord and said, ‘O Lord God, please remember me and please strengthen me only this once, O God, that I may be avenged on the Philistines for my two eyes.’”
It is no coincidence that in the early days of Israel’s final judge, the Nazirite prophet Samuel, the glory of God departed from Israel—“Ichabod”—on the same day that her armies were crushed by the Philistines in battle (1 Samuel 4).
A godless person is a powerless person, and a godless people is a powerless people.
Do not extinguish the Spirit
So where does this leave us today as Christians who find themselves in a largely effeminate, impotent Church?
Before ascending to the right hand of the Father, the resurrected Lord Jesus commanded His disciples (Matthew 28:19, 20a):
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”
Needless to say, in order to fulfill this “great commission,” the disciples needed divine help. So before embarking on this most awesome of tasks, Jesus instructed His followers (Acts 1:4, 5, 8, emphasis mine):
“not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, He said, ‘you heard from Me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now. […] you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.’”
With the empowerment of the Holy Spirit, the Church’s mission can and will advance, even in the face of intense persecution (Acts 8:1–8). Without the Spirit’s power, the Church is totally incapable of carrying out its calling (John 6:63a): “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all.”
“But,” one might hasten to add, “hasn’t the Spirit been poured out on all flesh (Acts 2:17)? What could possible hinder God’s kingdom agenda? After all, didn’t Jesus say that the very gates of hell would not prevail against His church (Matthew 16:18)?”
These things are, of course, quite true. But the Church’s ultimate triumph does not guarantee that all its apparent members will triumph along with it (Matthew 13:24–30, 36–43). Indeed, Jesus pointedly asks all wannabe disciples “Why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ but not do what I say?” (Luke 6:46). It is not merely those who profess Jesus as Lord who will enter the kingdom, but those whose profession is backed by genuine obedience (Matthew 7:21): “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven.”
Because many professing Christians can, and in fact do, stymie the work of the Spirit in their lives, the Bible warns believers against insulting (Hebrews 10:29), grieving (Ephesians 4:25–32), and even extinguishing (1 Thessalonians 5:19) the Spirit by sinfully resisting His will.
Scripture tells us to “be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might” (Ephesians 6:10) by walking in the Spirit and not gratifying the desires of our fallen human flesh (Galatians 5:16). By repeatedly refusing to resist his baser instincts, the effeminate Christian, like a body devoid of its spirit, becomes limp and lifeless, perfunctory and powerless (James 2:26).
The Spirit, or “strengthener” (John 14:16, 17, 26, 15:26), is the Church’s only hope of breaking free from the insidious cords of effeminacy. This much is clear. But it is equally clear that the Holy Spirit will not move in power among an unholy people.
Like Samson buried beneath a heathen temple (Judges 16:30), or those on whom the tower of Siloam collapsed (Luke 13:4), these men were not worse offenders than we are—unless we bear fruit in keeping with repentance (Matthew 3:8), we too will be crushed (Luke 13:1–5). Fruitless effeminates, be warned (Matthew 21:43, 44):
“Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.”
Postscript: Manoah’s sour grapes
Although we have only touched on this point in passing until now, the blame for Samson’s downfall cannot be placed solely on his shoulders, broad as they were. At the announcement of his birth, Samson’s parents were charged with critical roles in upholding the Nazirite vows, a point which merits serious consideration (Judges 13:2–5, 13, 14, emphasis mine):
“There was a certain man of Zorah, of the tribe of the Danites, whose name was Manoah. And his wife was barren and had no children. And the angel of the LORD appeared to the woman and said to her, ‘Behold, you are barren and have not borne children, but you shall conceive and bear a son. Therefore be careful and drink no wine or strong drink, and eat nothing unclean, for behold, you shall conceive and bear a son. No razor shall come upon his head, for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb, and he shall begin to save Israel from the hand of the Philistines.’ […]
And the angel of the LORD said to Manoah, ‘Of all that I said to the woman let her be careful. She may not eat of anything that comes from the vine, neither let her drink wine or strong drink, or eat any unclean thing. All that I commanded her let her observe.’”
For their son’s sake, for Israel’s sake, Samson’s mother was to abstain from forbidden food and drink and Manoah was to ensure his wife’s compliance. They knew full well that this arrangement was utterly holy since it was mediated by none other than “the angel of the LORD,” whom the Bible identifies with God Himself (Judges 13:15–22; cf. Exodus 3:2, 6, Joshua 5:13–15, Judges 6:22, etc.).
The covenantal, household nature of God’s dealings with His people prove that there is no such thing as generational compromise, only intergenerational compromise. In fact, this is precisely the sort of compromise that precipitated the period of the judges in the first place (Judges 2:1, 2, 7, 10–15, emphasis mine):
“Now the angel of the LORD went up from Gilgal to Bochim. And He said, ‘I brought you up from Egypt and brought you into the land that I swore to give to your fathers. I said, ‘I will never break My covenant with you, and you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall break down their altars.’ But you have not obeyed My voice. What is this you have done?’ […]
And the people served the LORD all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders who outlived Joshua, who had seen all the great work that the LORD had done for Israel. […] And all that generation also were gathered to their fathers. And there arose another generation after them who did not know the LORD or the work that He had done for Israel.
And the people of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the LORD and served the Baals. And they abandoned the LORD, the God of their fathers, who had brought them out of the land of Egypt. They went after other gods, from among the gods of the peoples who were around them, and bowed down to them. And they provoked the LORD to anger. They abandoned the LORD and served the Baals and the Ashtaroth. So the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and He gave them over to plunderers, who plundered them. And He sold them into the hand of their surrounding enemies, so that they could no longer withstand their enemies. Whenever they marched out, the hand of the LORD was against them for harm, as the LORD had warned, and as the LORD had sworn to them. And they were in terrible distress.”
The plight of Samson’s family was a microcosm of the plight of the nation. At every step, the sins of the fathers were entangled with the sins of the children (Numbers 14:18).
Samson developed a fatal attraction to Philistine women, and it was his parents who were the first to facilitate it (Judges 14:1–4, 5, 10).
Samson ate defiling food, and his unguarded parents tasted of it too (Judges 14:8, 9).
Manoah should have stood his ground against his son, like a man. He should have kept his family from faltering. Instead, he wimped out, opting for the path of least resistance. In doing so, he established a pattern of giving way under duress that took firm root in Samson’s character.
In this family’s case, the saying is fulfilled (Jeremiah 31:29, Ezekiel 18:2): “The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.”
Manoah’s sour grapes led to Samson’s bitter end.
The degenerate dangers of decadence
Now that we have covered effeminacy’s true origin and defined it essential attributes, it’s time to turn our attention to two of its main drivers: material affluence and sexual immorality. To understand these factors, we will look primarily to the period of Israel’s kings. As wealthy, sexually indulgent Americans, this discussion is going to hit close to home. However, if we are to avoid the fate of other prosperous nations, then we had better learn from their mistakes. All this and more in the next installment of the League of Believers.
Thanks for reading the League of Believers.
We are committed to offering this newsletter in its entirety completely free of cost. If you have not yet subscribed, you can support this free newsletter by becoming a subscriber using the button below.
You can also support this ministry by sharing this newsletter with friends or family that may profit from it.
As always, we would love to hear your feedback, including prayer requests, in the comments section below or through emails to:
garrettpleague@proton.me
Want to print this article or read it on your e-reader device? We’ve got you covered. Click the “Download” button below for an easy-to-print, downloadable PDF file containing this edition of the newsletter.
For a good overview of the topic, see pastor Steven Wedgeworth’s helpful article “What Is Effeminacy? A Survey of Scripture and History” written for Desiring God.
Hence the New English Translation’s rendering of malakoi as “passive homosexual partners” and the Berean Standard Bible’s rendering “men who submit to […] homosexual acts […].”
Samson’s life was, in fact, incredibly unique. He is one of the few men in scripture whose birth and life mission were announced by a heavenly messenger to his parents before he was born. He is also one of only a few Old Testament saints to have been empowered directly by the Holy Spirit to accomplish his great calling. Others in scripture who can check these boxes include John the Baptist, the forerunner of the Messiah, and the Messiah Himself, Jesus of Nazareth. Now that is elite company.
And yet, unlike these men, Samson’s life was filled with varying degrees of compromise. It was not until the very end of his days that he selflessly laid down his life in a humble act of repentant faith that would bring salvation to his people through the destruction of their enemies. In this way, ironically, his death powerfully prefigured that of the ultimate Savior.
Shorthand for “testosterone levels.”
Nevertheless, Judges 14:4 adds that “His father and mother did not know that it was from the LORD, for he was seeking an opportunity against the Philistines. At that time the Philistines ruled over Israel.” Apparently, despite God’s preceptive will (i.e., His will as revealed through His precepts and laws) being violated, His sovereign will was still at work in these developments for the greater good (Genesis 50:20).
Interestingly, although the etymology of her name is somewhat ambiguous, most think that “Delilah” means something like “delicate, weak, languishing” or even “(she who) weakens.” See, for example, the entry for “Delilah” from Name Doctor and Behind the Name.
Wedgeworth, “What Is Effeminacy?”
Cambridge Dictionary entry for “perseverance.”
The Nazirite vow is described in detail in Numbers 6:1–21. It is not to be confused with the similar sounding Biblical word “Nazarene,” which referred to someone who, like Jesus, hailed from the Galilean town of Nazareth. Samson is the first of only three men mentioned in scripture as having taken a life-long Nazirite vow, with the others being the prophets Samuel and John the Baptist. Most Nazirite vows only lasted about a month, with lengthier dedications not exceeding one hundred days. See entry for “Nazarite” in Easton's Bible Dictionary.
However, absent from Samson’s vows was the prohibition against going near a dead body, which is part of the typical Nazirite vow as enumerated in Numbers 6:6–12. This makes sense, since Samson’s vow was taken in service of his life mission (Judges 3:5), which would presumably entail close proximity to many dead Philistines. Perhaps God saw fit to accommodate the terms of Samson’s vow to his specific calling. Or, it could be that this missing prohibition was present in Samson’s vows implicitly, given what God had earlier prescribed in the Torah. If that is the case, then God could certainly have provided a means for Samson to defeat the Philistines without violating this portion of his vows.
Though some think it likely, given Samson’s reputation, that he would have partaken in wine at the wedding feast that he prepared in Timnah (Judges 14:10), a Philistine city that was associated with vineyards (Judges 14:5).
For a striking example of this from the same time period as Samson, see the story of Jephthah’s rash vow in Judges 11:29–40.
For more on the sacred nature of the covenant of holy matrimony, see “An exceptional covenant” in chapter VII “Be Reconciled to God” in Adulterating Marriage.