It would be impossible for me here to produce anything like a complete bibliography of books to read on typological hermeneutics, but here are a few that should be at the top of anyone’s list:
Through New Eyes by James Jordan
Knowing God Through the OT by C. J. H. Wright
Jesus and Israel by David Holwerda
From Shadow to Reality by Jean Danielou
—
In 1 Samuel 30, David defeats the enemy, rescues the bride, recovers the plunder, restores all that had been lost, and distributes gifts to his people
Who does these things for you? Who defeats your enemy? Who rescues you? Who recovers all that you lost in the fall? Who gives you gifts?
Not David , of course, but the greater David, King Jesus. And because Jesus is greater than David, he gives even greater gifts.
—
The point of the typology in 1 Samuel 30: We must look through David to Jesus. We do not just look at David; we look beyond to him to the one he prefigures. David is the type, Jesus is the much greater fulfillment.
—
In my 8/24 sermon, the point was: Be a David! You are supposed to be like David, stregthening yourself in the Lord.
In my 8/31 sermon, the point was: Jesus is your David! You supposed to receive and rest in the Greater David. You must trust in the New David, the promised Son of David who saves you, who gives you gifts, who wins the great victory for you.
These readings are not at all incompatible. It’s simply the way these OT texts work – they are layered (the medieval Quadriga was getting at this). Because of the church’s union with Christ, a text can be about Christ and about us. This is Augustine’s first rule of biblical interpretation in his book On Christian Doctrine: totus Christus, the inseparability of Christ and his people. Thus, the historical events can give us types in the Christological sense and in the moral sense. We are supposed to be conformed to the image of Christ, which means the pattern of Christ’s life is to be reproduced in our own lives. Christ is much more than an example to us, but certainly not less.
—
My communion meditation following the sermon: You can think of this meal as one of the gifts Jesus distributes to us as the spoils of victory. As we saw in the sermon this morning, we look through David to Jesus. We don’t just look at David, we look through and beyond him to Jesus and all he accomplished for us. Jesus is our warrior, our champion, our victor, our rescuer, our king. He is the fulfillment of the Davidic pattern. In the same way, this meal is the fulfillment of so much from the old covenant. God gave his people the Passover as their central feast. Their households were under the blood of the lamb, and ate the lamb together as the Lord protected them from the Angel of Death; this is your new covenant Passover feast. He gave them manna from heaven; in this meal, you partake of the bread that has come down from heaven. He gave them numerous other feasts and festivals, and this meal fulfills them all. Indeed, this meal is greater than them all, because in this meal the glorified and resurrected Christ gives us himself, his own body and blood, for our salvation. It is a foretaste of what is to come in the eternal wedding supper of the lamb. Let us give thanks…
—
In the 8/31 sermon, I made several comparisons between David and Saul. The two kings in 1-2 Samuel represent the two Adams. Saul represents the first Adam. He starts off well. He’s physical specimen, and he’s made a new man with a new heart. At the start of his reign, he drives out the serpent (Nahash) and is in an Edenic situation. But in chapters 13-15, he undergoes a threefold fall. He’s becomes a demon-king, a cruel tyrant who seeks to murder his innocent rival. He becomes the very thing Samuel warned about – a king who takes.
David is a type of the second Adam. He prefigures Jesus, albeit imperfectly. He is anointed and then goes into battle against the serpent-like giant. He wins victory after victory for his people. He is strong, and he uses his strength to serve. He gives gifts, freely, widely, extravagantly. He rescues the bride. He establishes a kingdom based on grace.
In historical context, it could be argued the book of 1-2 Samuel is making a polemical political point: Israel as a whole should prefer the House of David to the House of Saul. (Judges and Ruth also make this point with their focus on Judah in the early chapters of Judges, and the king-like qualities of David’s ancestor, Boaz.) And certainly this is true: Saul has failed to be the kind of king Israel needs, while David has shown precisely the traits Israel should want in a king. Saul has become a curse to his own people (as Samuel warned in 1 Samuel 8), whereas David has been a blessing. The Israelites demanded a king because they wanted someone who would fight their battles, but instead of fighting Israel’s enemies, Saul has been obsessed with fighting David. David, meanwhile, has been fighting Israel’s enemies, starting with Goliath and even continuing into his time in exile. Besides, behind all of that is the promise in Genesis 49 that Judah is the kingly tribe.
But, without ignoring the realpolitik aspects of the narrative, we should not miss the deeper theological concerns that drive it. God has not preserved all of this history just so we will understand the political dynamics of Israel 3000 years ago. The text is given to us to bear witness to Christ, to his sufferings and glory. Samuel, like the rest of the OT, is a Christocentric book. If we do not find Christ in it, we have missed its main point.
—
In the 8/31n sermon, I pointed out that David gave gifts to 13 cities in Judah. Perhaps he is repaying people who helped him during his years of wilderness wandering. Perhaps he is making restitution for what the Amalekites stole. But there’s something else going on. Before long, all 13 cities will be ruled by David. He is establishing his right to rule these cities (and cultivating their loyalty) by giving them gifts.
—
David has been in exile. In chapter 30, he defeats the Amalekites and distributes plunder. The references to plunder recall the exodus. What comes next? Obviously it must be the conquest of the promised land.
David fulfills a Moses typology, leading a new exodus. Like Moses, his own people want to stone him, he makes a show of strength, and then defeats the Amalekites (cf. Exodus 17). But he will also fulfill a Joshua typology, conquering the land, in order to set up his kingdom, culminating with establishing Jerusalem as his capital city. Typology is not just a move from OT to NT; even within the OT, there are layers and waves of typology. Jesus is Greater David, but David was a Greater Moses and a Greater Joshua.
The patterns:
Moses -> Joshua -> David -> Jesus
exile -> exodus -> conquest -> kingdom
Jesus bears the ultimate curse of exile on the cross. He is crucified outside the city. He makes the cry of dereliction (Psalm 22:1). His resurrection and ascension are his exodus, as he redeems his people (a terms that has exodus connotations) and gives them plunder (the gift of the Holy Spirit; the gifts given to his church in Ephesians 4). He now carries out his conquest of the whole earth and inherits the world as his “promised land” as the gospel goes forth in fulfillment of the Great Commission. He is inheriting the nations, dispossessing the wicked “Canaanites” of the world. His kingdom is present now but will be consummated at his final coming.
—
It’s important to remember that everything David does in chapter 30 is accomplished downstream from verse 6, where he strengthens himself in the Lord. His strength almost seems supernatural. He fought the Amalekites from one evening all the way through the next day. The victory is ascribed entirely to his efforts (though there is no doubt the 400 men with him). The fact that hardly any Amalekites survived – and yet the number of survivors was 400, indicates david won the great victory depsite being hugely outnumbered.
When must strengthen ourselves in the Lord, but the strength God gives is precisely so we can fight the battles he calls us to fight and fulfill the missions he gives us to accomplish. We strengthen ourselves in Christ, who is the Strength of God incarnate.
—
I said most of what I have to say about the third day theme in the 8/31 sermon, but I do want to follow up on one issue here. In the Nicene Creed, the phrase “the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures” could simply be referring to the gospel accounts. The problem is that the Creed is quoting from 1 Corinthians 15:4. It is likely that two or even three of the gospels were written by the time Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, and the gospels certainly would have been considered “Scriptures” already (cf. 2 Cor. 8:18 which many think is a reference to Luke, and therefore to his gospel). But in the context of 1 Corinthians 15, it seems that Paul has in view not only the gospels that had already been written, but the OT Scriptures. And this brings us back to the question: Where did the OT predict a third day resurrection of the Messiah? And as I argued in the sermon, the third day theme – the association of the third day with life/new life is clearly established in numerous ways as a pattern in the OT.
—
In chapter 31, the men of Jabesh-Gilead buried Saul under a tamarisk tree. Interestingly, the last time we saw Saul under a tamarisk tree was in chapter 22, when he had his spear in his hand and was complaining about David to his men. I think this is a sign Saul died as he lived. Yes, deathbed conversions do happen, but they are rare. Few people change course in the final moments of life. There is no evidence Saul repented of his egregious sin.
—
The 9/7 sermon dealt with some big issues, including suicide, cremation, and euthanasia. Each one of these topics deserves its own sermon, I suppose, but there just isn’t time for that. If you have questions on any of these issues, let me know and I’d be glad to talk further or point you to some good materials.
—
Some have suggested that 1 Samuel was largely written as apologetic for the House of David. The narrative is driven by realpolitik considerations, to curry loyalty for Saul’s successor. There may be some truth to that, though we should trust the narrative is an accurate historical account. But it’s crucial to keep in mind that the real point of this book as canonical Scripture is not to show us David’s role in the midst of petty tribal political squabbles in a small near eastern nation over 3000 years ago; the true purpose of the narrative to is to present David as a type and pointer to Christ. The text is christological before it is political; or, its political sense depends upon its christological sense.
TPC Pastor's Page 