In the last post I put up my sermon on this passage. In this post, and ones to come, I’m putting up spin offs, that there either wasn’t time to cover, or didn’t fit with the main points of the passage.
In this post I will consider the idea that the text portrays David and Jonathan’s relationship as one involving sexual attraction/activity. I wouldn’t necessarily choose to do this – but a quick Google of David and Jonathan will reveal that this is an idea seriously advanced by biblical scholars, and then used in current debates on sexuality.
Those who argue this typically pick up on one or more of three features of the text: the language of love and delight, the physical contact, and the language of covenant. There are also occasions when David and Jonathan are just listed by people making the argument for some kind of biblical support for same sex sexual activity as likely same sex partners in scripture – and so it is that makes me think it is important to dig into texts like this to see what they really say, to make sure we are not using Scripture simply for our own ends.
I did not raise this in the sermon because it would take too much time, and would divert attention away from the main points of the text. I think I would only ever preach it in a sermon if I knew lots of people in the congregation would see it this way – or if it featured prominently in some news discussion of church debates. Instead I outlined the nature of the relationship in a positive manner, that I think shows the way in which none of the three things above need to imply any kind of sexual activity – and this is the way I will outline the relationship in this post.
The first key passage is this:
18 After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. 2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return home to his family. 3 And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 4 Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt.
1 Sam 18:1-4
Here we first need to remind ourselves of the immediate context – so in my sermon I talked about David and Goliath, and the victory won in that context by David because he trusted in God. I then told the congregation about 1 Samuel 14 – and in particular these verses:
6 Jonathan said to his young armor-bearer, “Come, let’s go over to the outpost of those uncircumcised men. Perhaps the Lord will act in our behalf. Nothing can hinder the Lord from saving, whether by many or by few.”
. . . if they say, ‘Come up to us,’ we will climb up, because that will be our sign that the Lord has given them into our hands. . .
13 Jonathan climbed up, using his hands and feet, with his armor-bearer right behind him. The Philistines fell before Jonathan, and his armor-bearer followed and killed behind him.
14 In that first attack Jonathan and his armor-bearer killed some twenty men in an area of about half an acre. 15 Then panic struck the whole army—those in the camp and field, and those in the outposts and raiding parties—and the ground shook. It was a panic sent by God.
1 Samuel 14:6-15
Compare that to 1 Samuel 17:
45 David said to the Philistine, “You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the Lord Almighty, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. 46 This day the Lord will deliver you into my hands, and I’ll strike you down and cut off your head. This very day I will give the carcasses of the Philistine army to the birds and the wild animals, and the whole world will know that there is a God in Israel. 47 All those gathered here will know that it is not by sword or spear that the Lord saves; for the battle is the Lord’s, and he will give all of you into our hands.”
1 Samuel 17:45-47
Notice the language both of them use about Yahweh’s saving, and the way in which both know that the battle belongs to Yahweh. Both are brave warriors willing to defy the odds because of their trust in Yahweh. No wonder then, that they become “one in spirit”. This phrase means something like “joined together”, and its most common use in the historical books is to do with conspiracy – conspirators are said to be “joined together” because they have a united aim. David and Jonathan have a united trust in Yahweh that means they see the world the same way.
This incidentally makes us wonder why Jonathan did not fight Goliath. I can think of three reasons, but the text does not tell us – the first was that Goliath was just too big even for Jonathan to face, and so Jonathan did not come forward, the second was that Saul and/or his council of war did not permit Jonathan to fight and the third is that Jonathan deliberately stepped back because he knew that his family had been decisively rejected from the kingship. In any case, what the passage in chapter 18 makes clear is that David and Jonathan see the world the same way, and have the same basic faith in Yahweh.
The next word we need to examine is covenant. In the ancient Near Eastern context this word is often used of relationships between kings and their vassals, and in the Bible the language is used of God and the people. God delivers his people, and gives his blessing while in turn they are to love him with complete loyalty. In the historical books various character make covenants with each other which we likely call ‘treaties’ or something similar (e.g. Abraham and Abimelech in Genesis 21). It is not until Malachi that marriage is described in covenantal terms (the woman is described literally as ‘wife of your covenant’, and the purpose of the marriage is described as ‘godly offspring’) – so it seems unlikely we are expected to link covenant with marriage in 1 Samuel. For David and Jonathan to make a covenant is to declare loyalty to each other in a situation where natural circumstances would make them sworn enemies). In the context of covenant the language of love is mostly to do with complete loyalty – and in the story of Jonathan and David we see more of what this looks like as the narrative progresses.
Jonathan’s loyal love leads to him removing his robe, tunic and weapons and gives them to David. The word here translated tunic is the same word used of Saul’s armour in the previous chapter. Jonathan is removing the robe that is likely associated with his position as crown prince, and giving his weapons to David. It seems to be an implicit acknowledgement of what he later says openly – that he knows David will be king after him, and he is happy with that. I think that then the delight Jonathan is said to have in David in chapter 19 relates to this pleasure that David is God’s anointed king.
None of this requires, or seems to indicate anything, sexual. The only other physical description used is their farewell kisses in chapter 20 – which are fairly typical greetings in Scripture – the word is used of greetings between men and men, women and men, greetings within family – as is typical in many cultures today. Reading in a UK or USA culture it may seem odd, but in many other places of the word such kisses are common place – indeed Paul instructs one of his churches to “greet one another with a holy kiss.”
A related question also raised by some thinkers concerns whether the concept of two men making a covenant can speak to a covenanted relationship in the context of blessing same sex relationships today. It seems to me that we would have to be quite careful about transferring this idea without first thinking of the particular context of David and Jonathan’s relationship.
David is God’s anointed king, and the covenant between them encompasses Jonathan’s loyalty to David, and in return David’s commitment to Jonathan’s family. In context today one could think of two friends who promise to support each others ministry and family life – but that is quite a long way from same sex relationship blessing services.
The final text used to suggest a sexual relationship is actually in 2 Samuel where David describes Jonathan’s love as better than that of women. It doesn’t seem to me that this demands a sexual interpretation. In the context of this story I think David is reflecting both on the selfless loyalty of Jonathan and the united outlook of Jonathan and David – a kind of friendship and support that it doesn’t seem like David had with any of his wives. The language is poetic to emphasize the special nature of his friendship with Jonathan, but doesn’t imply anything more.
This friendship of David and Jonathan then, is more or less irrelevant to the question of what the Bible has to say about same sex sexual relations today. Instead this study of David and Jonathan has lots to say about same sex (and opposite sex) friendship. It encourages us to think about how we can be true friends to others. Are we the sort of people who encourage others to stand in God’s strength? Are we committed to a loyal love that seeks the best for the other – and that reflects God’s kindness and mercy. One of the joys of serving together in Christian ministry and mission is the forming of such friendships where we look together to Christ, and seek to encourage and help each other. In those contexts I think it would do us much good to encourage other people by telling them about the good that we see in them, and the ways in which they have helped us.
As I pointed out in the sermon the friendship between David and Jonathan also encourages us to look at how they fulfilled their promises to one another.
Jonathan, at great risk to his own life, protects David’s life from Saul – he is a voice speaking up for his friend? Is that us? Speaking up for others when wrong is done?
David, when he comes to the throne looks for a way to show kindness to Jonathan’s family – and brings Mephibosheth to the king’s table. He keeps his promise. Such promise keeping reminds us of the one who no longer calls us servants, but friends – and who shows his loyalty and steadfast love to the cross.
Joshua's Tree Rooted 