David's Figuring of Our Lord's Passion--Commentary?

[NJada]

Hello, I have been reading 1 & 2 Samuel, and it is very clear that much of David’s life prefigures Christ’s Passion. Of course he also figured Jesus in a particular way by his kingship. All those times he is fleeing from Saul, and then his son Absalom, there is a lot of Passion symbolism, and the Psalms he wrote about these events also often point toward this too. There are some beautiful instances of this (how he does good to those who persecute him, how he leaves everything in God’s hands), and the meaning for some are pretty clear, while others are very obscure to me. I searched and have been very surprised to find little commentary on this, but I would love to read an in-depth look at David’s parallels to the Passion. Does anyone have any recommendations?

Ave Maria!

 

[NJada]

And just some additional particular thoughts/questions, if anyone can offer some insight:

It’s a little tricky getting a sense of how this all fits together. On the one hand David is a suffering servant. But also much of the Passion symbolism is used in reference to David’s enemies:
Like when Absalom’s head is caught in the oak (2 Sm 18) (“cursed of God is everyone who hangs on a tree”), and Joab pierces his heart with three lances.
“And Joab sounded the trumpet, and kept back the people from pursuing after Israel in their flight, being willing to spare the multitude.” (v.16) (Reminds me of Caiphas’ counsel: “Neither do you consider that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.” (Jn 11:50))
And the messenger comes to David, thinking he brings good tidings of Absalom’s defeat, but David mourns for him, saying, “Would to God that I might die for thee, Absalom my son, my son Absalom.” Breaks my heart!
But here we have David as the suffering servant, but who God rescues ultimately from perishing, whereas his persecutor does perish. I guess that makes David like Isaac in that sense: For only Christ went all the way to the death, and indeed did die for His persecutors so that His persecutors would not have to. Just kind of trying to work this OT figure out for myself–so please if you can correct or improve my understanding of this, please comment.

But now here’s something much less clear:
When Saul is seeking David’s life for a long, long time, there are two times when David has an opportunity to kill Saul, but David decides against it saying, “I will not put out my hand against my lord, because he is the Lord’s anointed.” (1 Sm 24:11).
The first time, while Saul is “ease nature” in a cave and throws his cloak aside, David sees his opportunity, but his heart strikes him with remorse and he decides not to. So to prove to Saul that he could have killed him but didn’t, he cuts off the hem of Saul’s robe, and shows it to him.
The second time, a similar thing happens, but this time Saul is with the camp of his army and his officer, sleeping, when David sees his opportunity. But this time “David took the spear, and the cup of water which was at Saul’s head, and they went away: and no man saw it, or knew it, or awaked, but they were all asleep, for a deep sleep from the Lord was fallen upon them.” (1 Sm 26:12).
What this makes me think of is at Christ’s Passion, the dividing of His garments (the hem of Saul’s robe), the piercing of His side (Saul’s spear) and the blood and water flowing from His side (the cup of water).
And again it said, “for a deep sleep from the Lord was fallen upon them,” which recalls both God making Adam’s bride Eve from his side (“the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam: and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it. And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam.” Gen 2:21-22); and Christ falling asleep upon the Cross, after which His side was pierced and from the blood and water (the Sacraments) His Bride the Church was born.

Any idea how this all ties together?

 

[Seagull]

This is a fun watch

 

[Reuben_J]

Any idea how this all ties together?

I am not much of a fan (of David). Perhaps politic just does not impress me in how to make one holy and righteous. I am glad to be persuaded otherwise though.

No, they do not tie, IMHO. There might be dividing of the garment or blood flowing from the side or a deep sleep, but these were in different context. Except for the same words, Jesus’ experience in his passion was entirely different.

David was an astute person and his grasp of politic was shrewd with far-reaching consequence.

Politically he had much more to gain in the long run by allowing people to know that he did not kill Saul when he had the opportunity to do so, than to kill him. Considering the stigmatization of killing a king, which in their nation was God anointed, killing Saul would make him as a man bent on revenge and hungry for power rather than God’s chosen one.

OTOH, sparing Saul instead would put him in high standard as a man who would be king - kind, just and righteous.

Not to forget, David was a murderer and an adulterer. His repentance was nevertheless classic, and that probably covers his sin and salvages his image.

If he wanted to be king of Israel, those considerations must first and foremost be in his mind.

God bless.

 

[NJada]

Thanks for your reply. I also find politics and military two of the least interesting topics. But I don’t suspect this is what the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is pointing to in these Books. God was the reason for the success of the kingdom of Israel during that time, and David’s relative holiness the reason he was more successful than other kings amidst so many trials. Does not the whole Old Testament point toward Christ?

“‘Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into his glory?’ And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning him.” (Lk 24:26-27)

I don’t necessarily disagree he was being political astute. One could always suspect that his kindness toward his enemies was merely strategic without real charity, but I don’t see why we would assume that, especially when much else in Scripture points toward him living (in general) a deeply devout life. He wrote a large part of the Psalms (many while he fled from his enemies, and are applied to Christ) and was called by God “a man according to my own heart”. A strong theme of 1 Samuel is that David did not grasp for the kingship when it was told that he would become king; but God chose him and gave it to him when it was the right time. David didn’t seek to be king, he simply accepted that he would be king. Certainly he did some terrible things, as it often happens when he finally became successful, especially what he did to Uriah, which was no small thing and I felt my respect for him lost at that part–but as you say, he repented sincerely, and was forgiven.

Even then, a biblical person doesn’t necessarily need to be holy to prefigure Christ in particular ways. I find it hard not to see Absalom’s death as figuring the Crucifixion, but he was living a very sinful life; so he is a figure of the just punishment due to sin, which Christ unjustly received but chose to bear. It isn’t as if St. Paul was blaspheming when he applied that quote from the law: “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written: Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” (Gal 3:13).
So too, Samson is certainly not an example of a good moral life, but G.K. Chesterton called him “a sword in the hand of God,” someone who represents the raw power of God; whereas a Christian is meant to be a living image of Christ in all parts of life. Yet Samson undoubtedly prefigures Jesus in many ways (it just is that his morality is not one of those ways).
It seems Christ had to be figured by many, many people, in a variety of ways, and in a variety of contexts, because no single man or account could prepare us for who He is and what He would do when He took on flesh. The context of Adam was entirely different when God created Eve from his side (nothing at all like Jesus’ experience in His Passion), yet this is a commonly understood parallel.
So even if David was simply being strategic and not pious, (and surely it could be a mix), then he was still chosen by God that his imperfect works would be a shadow of some of the perfect works of Jesus Christ.

 

[Reuben_J]

Well said. I am open to the idea of pre-figurement of Jesus in the reign of David. As it is, it still looks a stretch to do so.

I did not say David was not pious. In fact if I am asked about him, I would think he is a good man indeed, a God fearing man.

The Old Testament is a candid narrative of God chosen people. It presents both aspects, the good things, warts and all. In retrospect, therefore, it becomes a very useful books for us, especially for lessons learnt.

A good man David was, he fell to temptation and committed sins during his idleness (he stayed home while others went to war). A sin which bred another as he plot the killing of Uriah.

Looking back, the sparing of Saul would be the most reasonable thing to do. If would be foolish of him if he had killed him, when he could get political mileage for not doing so.

The more obvious observation we can see from this, is that he was pragmatic (and shrewd) rather than driven by revenge. He was the anointed one. The kingdom would be his. Saul was old and Jonathan was on his side, which eliminated the potential risk of him usurping the throne. Saul was on the losing way, it was a matter of time when David took the throne. It seemed he was already planning his rule.

Reading the book, the palace intrigues were quite real.

And David fell to the privilege of power. And so was Solomon later, though he started brightly.

God bless.

 

[NJada]

Fair enough, it does seem the best that was expected in those times, before the Incarnation, was a kind of practical religion where justice is for mutual benefit and making things even. And no doubt the Old Testament is not a series of simple hero vs villain stories, but is about real and highly flawed people. I do see your point about his decisions being the most reasonable thing to do anyway–It does say that David’s public lament for his political enemies (Saul, Abner, Isboseth) showed the people that he was not behind their deaths.

But when looking at his life as a whole, I get much more of an impression of charity from David than those who came before him, and a general habit of seeing the good in his enemies and willing them good. I would think these accounts, while fully historical, are also full of allegory and that no word was written without purpose. But that doesn’t mean I’m necessarily seeing it correctly; I could be seeing a pattern where none exists, so that’s why I’m wondering if there are some good and credible commentaries on these. I was very surprised to find almost no available patristic commentary on 1 & 2 Samuel.

 

[Reuben_J]

I fully agree with your assessment of David in the last para.

The lack of commentary on what you wanted (as in the topic of the thread), is one reason why I am reluctant to tie his life as a pre-figurement of Christ, unlike Adam, which waa mentioned by Paul.

The reality of David’s life being sucked into power politic and sins, to me has pretty much denigrated the goods that he did. Thus my comment in my last post.

He nevertheless still a prophet and a king, through which the Messiah did come.

However, much of his action can be explained by human reasons, if we want to.

He was a good musician, a bard, and it is not surprising that he could express his thought poetically. It is not surprising too that Solomon did take to some of his gene, who has a book of songs of his own.

David’s adultery and having more than one wife had unfortunate consequence in his reign and kingdom. The infighting of his princes was obviously the result.

In Solomon, it got worse, when he had more wives and more children by different wives as a result. This led to the disintegration of the kingdom of Israel. It’s a pity that it should last two generations, and eventually trickled to an end after the split.

I am a strong believer of marriage fidelity. Perhaps that may influence my opinion of David.

God bless.

 

[Reuben_J]

The public show of repentance was not so much of a choice as it was of necessity. He was reprimanded by the high priest (Nathan). His public repentance looks like a response to that since he now cannot deny his sins anymore. He tried to, initially, though.

 

[NJada]

I think I do see your point, and I certainly don’t want to cling to an interpretation without support from the Church. You are very reasonable to be reluctant, and you may be more prudent than I who am particularly enthusiastic and curious about this. Your feedback is very helpful to me, although I do not quite agree overall. What each parallel would mean, I don’t know; and many of my connections may be false; but that there are many parallels is plainly evident.

I’m not overly concerned with defending David’s overall character, nor am I saying his whole life was a single allegory for Christ. But if his particular instances of grave sin prevents us from seeing typology between certain of David’s actions and the life of Jesus, then it would be very strange to call Adam a type of Christ. But I don’t think Adam’s holiness was St. Paul’s reason for calling him a type of Christ.

Sometimes David acts like Christ, sometimes the opposite: but either way, there are parallels in language pointing toward certain aspects of Christ and His life. Even if his actions are explained only by human reasons, the composition of the Scripture cannot, not to mention God’s Providence in his life. Some things Christ fulfilled which David failed to do. But okay, Adam’s typology is stated explicitly in Scripture, so we can be certain of it, whereas these parallels with David are not as explicit; but they very much there.

In 2 Sm 7, David wanted to build a physical building of a temple for God, out of both piety and ignorance, so Nathan prophesied that Christ would do this both physically and spiritually (as Bishop Challoner notes in the Douay-Rheims).

That David’s wished to die in Absalom’s place, Challoner also notes that “he was a figure of Christ weeping, praying and dying for his rebellious children, and even for them that crucified him.”

“These things saith the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David…” (Apo 3:7)

Interestingly, from the Gospel, it can be said that in one sense Christ is the Son of David, and in one sense He is not (Lk 1:30-34; Mt 22:41-45).

But this has certainly prompted me to question my basic assumptions. And to remember that there are so many commentaries on the Psalms, several of them being written during David’s exiles.

All throughout the Passion in the Gospels, Psalm 22 is quoted. At Psalm 22:1, immediately after the words Our Lord quoted on the Cross, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” David then writes, “far from safety are the words of my transgressions.” That would seem like a strange thing to apply to Christ, but having quoted the first line, Jesus applied the entire Psalm to Himself. Aquinas notes: “Christ spoke these words in the person of a sinner, or of the Church.” And “he says, Words, by which he seeks to be freed, which are, of my transgressions, that is of the faithful, for whose transgressions I suffer…”

 

[NJada]

More from Aquinas:
Psalm 16:
““Deliver my soul from the wicked one”, that is, from Saul, “and from the men of your hand” who have contradicted your hand. . . . According to the Gloss, “Saul” signifies “death”, and just as with the death of Saul, David reigned in peace, so too Christ banished death after the resurrection.”

Psalm 17:
"And this psalm, word for word, is to be found in 2 Kings 22. The story is, as in 1 Kings 19, how Saul sought to kill him: and when Saul had died, 2 Kings 2: Again Abner and his son were against him.
"In the end David was victorious over them. And on this account he made this psalm. And Jerome says the same thing. And since Christ is signified by David, all these things can be referred to Christ, either according to the head, or according to the body, namely the Church, which is liberated from Saul, that is, from death: the name “Saul” is translated as “petition”, because he was given, or rather extorted (from God) because the people asked for him, and he was not given so that he would remain for any length of time.

Here he explains that the typology is sometimes less straightforward:
Psalm 22:
"In the preceding psalms, we saw an earlier act of tribulation which David endured from his son and from Saul; however here, in the third group of ten, the discussion is about the persecution which was suffered by all people, who threw him aside into Saul’s command. . . .
"This very Psalm, among others, treats of the passion of Christ in a spiritual manner. And for this reason, this is its literal sense. Therefore, Jesus referred to this psalm particularly during his passion when he cried out “Eli, Eli, lema sabacthani”, that is, “My God, my God” as begins the psalm. Thus, although this psalm speaks figuratively about David, nevertheless it is especially referred to Christ in a literal sense.
"At the Synod of Toledo, a certain Theodorus Mopsuestenus, who was explaining this psalm literally with respect to David, was condemned, because of this approach, and for many other reasons; he ought to have explained it with respect to Christ. Let it be known this is treated of abundantly before the passion of Christ, of which this very Psalm is the first. . . .
"The discussion in this psalm is principally about Christ’s passion. It touches, secondarily, on the resurrection, because it is given that the passion is to be understood in it, and that the passion is ordered to the resurrection, just as if I were to say that “This slave is freed”, shows that he was a slave. Therefore, the psalm itself is of David, that is, of Christ.
"The title here refers to the time when David was a fugitive, and was hiding in desert places like a stag. Thus, he previously said, And he set my feet as of a stag. Therefore, this psalm itself is entitled for the very tribulation which symbolized the passion of Christ.
“Nevertheless, this mode is referred better to Christ, so that by the stag is understood human nature in Christ, because the stag crosses a thicket of thorns without injury to its foot, just as Christ crossed through this present life without defilement.”

Sorry this was so lengthy. Please do correct me if I am mistaken.

God bless!

 

[Reuben_J]

Thank you for the nice explanation of your intention in your posts. They are most reasonable to me, which I cannot fault. It’s a reminder to me too especially during this time of Lent and as we approach the Holy Week. Also that the New Testament is hidden in the Old. Okay, I am touched by the parallel of David’s weeping for his son to Jesus’ own in his passion.

My apology if I sound negative in my comment on David. I know that it is not the stance taken by the Church and I am somewhat influenced by secular historian in those view. The good side of the ‘humaness’ of the partriaches and kings (and the apostles) demonstrated the mercy and love of God; but more so in looking at them, that we too can have a chance to be great in the Lord despite ourselves.

Have a blessed Lent.

 

[NJada]

I’m happy you find you have known David a little better, being moved by his good works without forgetting his sins.

It did seem like your point of view was coming from a bit of a modern historical view, which although I have not spent as much time with history, I can see opens so much insight, but knowing historians are often correcting themselves and often work under the assumption that there is nothing supernatural; and the Church has the final say. I am little a bit wary of the NAB translation’s notes for some of these reasons, but I use it as my secondary Bible (DRV primarily), which has excellent cross-references and many notes to explain some historic context (though I take it with a grain of salt).

Thank you Reuben for your (name removed by moderator)ut and conversation and humility. Please pray for me, and I hope you also have a blessed Lent.