II Samuel 1:19-end I Peter 2:19-end John 10:11-16
As has become my custom since last summer, I have been using the original daily office lectionary appended to the 1928 Book of Common Prayer. The first lesson given for this morning is the last portion of the 1st chapter of II Samuel. This is a marvelously providential choice as it allows us to do some hermeneutical heavy lifting with respect both to the overall Biblical narrative and to the Eucharistic propers for today more specifically.
From II Samuel 1:19-21: "The beauty of Israel is slain upon thy high places: how are the mighty fallen! Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon; lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph. Ye mountains of Gilboa, let there be no dew, neither let there be rain, upon you, nor fields of offerings: for there the shield of the mighty is vilely cast away, the shield of Saul, as though he had not been anointed with oil."
Firstly, consider these words at their 'face value' in the context of the narrative. This is a portion of David's lament after learning of the death of King Saul. Notice both his righteous indignation against the death of the anointed king as well as the depth of filial affection directed toward the man who had, earlier, persued David and those loyal to him in order to kill him. We'll come back to that in a while as we examine the Epistle.
In an effort to dig down a bit deeper from the surface of the literal meaning, the curious onlooker is as likely as the formal student to encounter the historical-critical method which seeks, as its name implies, to understand the biblical texts in their cultural and temporal contexts with as much scientific objectivity as possible and as little conjecture as necessary. Some who adhere to this approach as a principle vehicle of interpretation have, however, stretched the meaning of 'necessity' well beyond the breaking point.
Pope Benedict XVI, in the Foreward of the first volume of his work "Jesus of Nazareth" talks about both the usefulness as well as the limits of this methodology. "The historical-critical method – let me repeat – is an indispensable tool, given the structure of Christian faith. But we need to add two points. This method is a fundamental dimension of exegesis, but it does not exhaust the interpretive task for someone who sees the biblical writings as a single corpus of Holy Scripture inspired by God....On painstaking reflection, it can intuit something of the 'deeper value' the word contains. It can in some sense catch the sounds of a higher dimension through the human word, and so open up the method to self-transcendance. But its specific object is the human word as human." (Jesus of Nazareth; vol. 1, xvii)
So it seems clear from these remarks that there is yet something still needful when we approach the Scriptures. Going even further 'under the surface' from historical criticism, we arrive at the typological method of reading the Scriptures, itself quite prominent among the Fathers of the first Christian centuries. To be sure this methodology did not originate with them, but is found in the text of the inspired writers themselves. Consider Romans 5:14: "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come." What the Authorised Version renders as 'figure' is 'typos' (tóo-pahs) in Greek. According to Strong's Concordance, 'typos' (G5179) can mean (among other things): a stamp or die; a style or resemblance; a figure, form, manner, pattern, or print. In the specific context of this verse from Romans, then, Adam is the type whereas Christ is the anti-type.
In order to clarify the nature and function of typological interpretation further, consider this from OxfordBiblicalStudies.com: "Some of what happened in the OT is seen to be anticipations of events recorded in the NT, and some of the narratives in the gospels seem to be reflected in the Acts. The anticipations are called ‘types’ and the fulfilments are the ‘antitypes’. Thus the story of the Exodus is repeated in the synoptic gospels; the Israelites cross the Red Sea, yield to temptations of doubt and disillusionment for forty years in the wilderness, and then Moses on Mount Sinai presents the people with the Law. In the gospels Jesus is baptized in the water by John, is tempted for forty days in the wilderness, and then gives the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7). The difference is that where Israel failed, by repeatedly grumbling and doubting God's determination, Jesus succeeded. The gospels are, as it were, retelling the story of Israel, but giving the events of Jesus as its climax and rationale.... The principle behind such exegesis is that God had the same purpose in the NT as he always had (cf. Heb. 13:8). He is consistent. Though his plan failed because of Israel's weakness, he did not change his plan but brought it to completion through Jesus."
Now, all of this has been by way of preparation to consider the Old Testament lesson that I started out with. I would suggest that king Saul is, in this case, a type foreshadowing Christ on the Cross. He is, as indeed is the Lord Jesus, God's anointed, killed on the heights of Gilboa as Christ was on Golgotha. "The beauty of Israel is slain upon thy high places" by one who was unaware of the ultimate gravity of his actions. Saul's attendant tells David in II Sam. 1:10: "So I stood upon him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen: and I took the crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them hither unto my lord....And David said unto him, Thy blood be upon thy head; for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying, I have slain the Lord's anointed." Surely there is an echo and prefiguring of St. Luke 23: 33-34: "And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left. Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."
And while it is an easy thing to contrast David's order to kill Saul's attendant with Christ's call to the Father for forgiveness toward those who have crucified Him, in reality both are simply being faithful to the Covenant in place at the time, to wit: David has exacted an "eye for an eye" whereas Christ perfectly exemplifies the Summary of the Law we were reminded of at the beginning of today's Liturgy.
The other thing to note in this text from II Samuel becomes David's lament over the man who had persued him unto death. And that is a remarkable thing in and of itself. Who among us is possessed of sufficient virtue to genuinely lament the death of those who hate us and wish us harm, grevious or otherwise, justified or not? David's response is also noteworthy in that it preceeds the theology of the Epistle. "For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully....For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps." (I Peter 2:19, 21) Here, then, in David's lament, is yet another example of type preceeding antitype. "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."
The conclusion of the Epistle is a natural segue into the Gospel lesson. Jesus said, "I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep." (Jn. 10:11) In his sermon for this Sunday, the Rev. Isaac Williams noted: "As the Lamb was slain from before the foundation of the world, so is He ever the good Shepherd that gives His life for the sheep; it is His own inseparable attribute. I am the good Shepherd: the good Shepherd giveth His life for the sheep. He that died for us, and gave us that proof of His love, has not gone away, and departed, and left us in the wilderness, but is even now with us as the good Shepherd. He is not indifferent about us, of our ways and doings, but as a man careth for his own, which he hath bought at an exceeding high price, so He, as the good Shepherd, careth for us."
Once again, this returns us to a consideration of David. His original occupation was also tending his father's flocks from which he was called to defend the Israelites against the Philistine army and their champion Goliath who had inspired fear in all the men of Saul's army. Later on, he put his own life at risk once again defending himself against Saul himself in order to bring peaceful rule to Israel. And if David, as type, out of his sin with Bathsheba begat Solomon who would reign as the wisest of the Kings, so Christ as antitype would, out of the death wrought by Adam's sin, beget mankind again as adopted children of the Father who once again have access to eternal life. "I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep."
Now that we have gone hither and yon to consider some of the prefigurements of the Old Testament effective in and of themselves as signs and symbols of the glory to come yet never able to bring about what they pointed to until the Incarnation itself brought reality out of their shadows and into His own glorious light, there is one more thing to consider about Christ our Good Shepherd. The two verses which follow immediately upon today's Gospel lesson read: "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it up again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." [Jn. 10:17,18] We too have a share in this power of laying down and taking up again. Just as I have noted before that we share in the creative power of God's Word by use of our own words to build up or destroy, to bless or to curse with our tongue, so we too have an active and participatory share in the power to lay down our burdens and sins. Should it be your lot to be (over)burdened with anger, resentment, impatience, pride, envy, hatred or anything else listed in Galatians 5, as by your own will you had taken them up originally, so under God's grace now is the time to lay them down. As we read in Romans 6:19: "[A]s ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness" by the grace won for you by Christ our Good Shepherd.
In conclusion, Martin Luther, in his sermon for today, tells us: "Comforting, indeed, it is to be the happy lambs who have a welcome refuge in the Shepherd and find in him joy and comfort in every time of need, assured that his perfect faithfulness cares for and protects us from the devil and the gates of hell. Relative to this subject, the entire Twenty-third Psalm is a beautiful and joyous song, of which the refrain is, 'The Lord is my Shepherd'."
