1 Samuel 15; Psalm 99; Romans 5

 May 26: These three passages all point to God’s unwavering strength: in being able to declare something as done that has not yet been done; in being the strength of His king and people, in being perfectly observant of His own Law after becoming incarnate as a man. This shows His ability to keep a promise, His faithfulness. He is worthy of our trust.

1 Samuel 15: When Samuel tells Saul (vv. 28-29) that He has rent the Kingdom from him and given it to a better man, past tense for a future event, to show it’s an inevitable fact, he adds that “the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent; for He is not a man, that He should repent” it’s literally the same Hebrew word that is used in v. 35 where it says “the LORD repented that He had made Saul king over Israel.” Is this a contradiction? Of course, skeptics say that it is, but they don’t understand Hebrew any more than I do. The word is <h5162> “nāḥam” which can mean, “to be sorry, rue, suffer grief” which God certainly did at the moment of Saul’s disregard for His explicit commandment. In the context of the earlier passage, when we see “lie or” used as a parallel with “repent” it’s very obvious something else is being stated: God is not going to lie or go back on His Word, is clearly what is meant there. Another meaning of this word is to “take comfort” or “ease oneself.” In contrast to Saul’s weakness before the people, (v. 24), God’s strength never wavers. He is the Strength of Israel.

Psalm 99: Why doesn’t God just reveal Himself from heaven? Why doesn’t He speak audibly today? Says a wicked and adulterous generation. What is this attitude but an utter lack of fear, which this Psalm extolls? When He did reveal Himself and speak from heaven, what did the Israelites say? “Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.” (Exodus 20:19) God answered people who sought His voice; who were holy, keepers of His testimonies, worshipers. If I want Him to speak into my life, I need to be the same way. If I’m willing to do this, He will be my “strength” as He is the King’s strength. (v. 4)

Romans 5: As Romans 5 concludes, it adds the purpose of the Law, that is, God’s commandments. If the deeds of the law offer no way to justify a person (Romans 3:20), if one is counted righteous because of faith in Him Who justifies the ungodly (Romans 4:5) without working, why was it necessary to bring the Law in at all? Ironically it was "that the offense might abound,” Romans 5:20. The law is the knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20) it was "added because of transgressions", Galatians 3:19. It makes sin “exceedingly sinful” to us by the revelation of the commandment against it. (Romans 7:13) Why did God effectively make us sin more, or at least “worse” (more offensively, seeing that we were made to understand that we violated His commandment)? Because the key to the contrast in Romans 5:15 and 5:18’s “many” vs. “all” (in contradistinction to framework of the Calvinists) is v. 17’s “they which receive.” All men were under condemnation by the sin of one man. The gift of grace by one man, Jesus Christ abounded unto many, and shall come upon (be offered to) all men unto justification of life for “they which receive.” Finally, the other reason the Law was brought in was to reveal Christ’s perfection. Without the Law, we wouldn’t be able to discern the obedience by which we are made righteous. (Romans 5:19)