1 Samuel 7-8; Psalm 94; Romans 3

 May 21: It seems to me that Samuel’s time represents the late stage of the time of the Judges. There’s a lot of ignorance about God, underscored by the repeated phrase “everyone did what was right in his own eyes,” (Judges 21:25) and “there was no open vision” (1 Samuel 3:1). Samson is illustrative of the whole nation at this time, called and separated from birth, strong but blinded by his own lusts. Jephthah is ignorant of how distinctive God is from the idols of the surrounding nations, but is nevertheless faithful in persisting in hope for deliverance. Ruth, an outsider, finds strength and redemption when she places herself under the wings of Israel’s God. The Psalmist of Psalm 94 may not be David, but he’s writing during the highest period of the monarchy, the united kingdom of Israel and his writing reflects the high quality of reflection upon the law that David’s peaceful and uniting reign brings. Meanwhile, Paul’s analysis of human history up to his time includes clarity about the pagan hedonism as well as Pharisaic Judaism’s judgmental legalism. The revelation of God’s standards alone does not save, for it carries with it no power to deliver from the death it prescribes. In fact, the ones entrusted with the oracles of God are judged by a harsher standard for that reason. And yet, the whole counsel of God, even in Paul’s day, contained more than Law, didn't it? Even the books of the Law themselves “spoke of” Jesus. (John 5:46) Lawful use of the Law leads the Psalmist to the security of hope in God and trust to await His redemption and the judgment of the wicked. Hypocritical use of the Law is an excuse to exempt oneself from it, missing that opportunity to be broken by it.

1 Samuel 7-8: So the capture and return of the Ark counter-intuitively led to repentance in Israel. How long was this period? The Ark was in Kirjath-jearim for 20 years, but it’s not clear how long before this revival comes, or how long the revival lasts before the people are said to have rejected the Lord (1 Samuel 8:7) in asking for a king. Either way, the threatened abandonment in Judges 10:10-14 must have been fresh in their minds during the repentance at Mizpeh.

Psalm 94: This Psalm is so in harmony with Romans: we inherently know that God must judge the wicked, and we are impatient for Him to do so. Yet Romans 1:18-3:20 shows how flawed our reasoning is. We inevitably think that simply having the perfect Law, being informed about righteousness is righteousness. And we immediately use what we know to judge one another. But we condemn ourselves when we do so, because we do the same things. How is this Psalm, which calls for the judgment of the wicked, different from that attitude? It’s different in very significant ways:

1. It begins, “O LORD God, to whom vengeance belongeth” - this is in contrast to James 4:11 and Romans 2:1-3 - the Psalmist knows the Law but leaves judgment to God. It’s the tension in the delay of judgment that troubles him, as it’s meant to.
2. It reasons, “blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O LORD, and teachest him out of thy law.” In other words, the delay of judgment does have the effect of giving men time to reflect and learn.
3. It acknowledges, “unless the LORD had been my help, my soul had almost dwelt in silence.” In other words, God helped him understand, in spite of the brutish, foolish, (94:8), vain, (94:11) nature of man, as he observed and considered the purpose of this delay.
4. During this delay the LORD caused him to realize and acknowledge that he had been helped from being irredeemably lost (94:18, see Deut. 32:35) by God’s help.
5. His reflection brings him to an important revelation: God will not cast off His people or forsake His inheritance. This has at times been taken the wrong way, (Jeremiah 7:4-12, John 8:33, 9:28) but Romans shows us the right way to understand it, (Romans 11:2, 5, 7, 29)

Romans 3:1-20: There’s no “therefore” beginning this chapter, but it’s very important to follow the argument that began in Romans 1:18. Given that there’s been this rebellion and rejection of God, and that the Jews, who boast in the law, have done it just as the gentiles have, proving that it isn’t those who only have knowledge and outward compliance but those who have trust from a sincere heart, to what advantage have the Jewish people retained their distinctive heritage and obedience to the Law? There are many benefits, according to Paul, and we could add here that side benefits include the physical health of the diet and all the observances, but mostly, as he does say, the possession of the Scriptures. The revival in Jeremiah’s day, for instance, occurred because of a reacquaintance with them. Because the Scriptures were preserved in their care, each generation had tremendous opportunity to hear and be converted that the gentiles did not, even if a large proportion of the Jews were in unbelief, and actually judged more sharply by the Law they possessed. But Paul’s point is that the Law itself has no power to make righteous; only to condemn. He brings up the objection, that if, in a perverse way, the world’s guilt only shows the righteousness of God in a clearer way, therefore why does He judge the guilty? To reason in this way only shows the effect of the fall on our ethical reasoning: God must judge the guilty. Yet Paul is going to go on to explain how He can also redeem.