“Your friendship was more precious than a woman's love.” The story of David and Jonathan

Biblical reflections* published on the site Would Jesus Discriminate? (United States), freely translated by Silvia Lanzi

David declared at Jonathan's funeral that he had loved him more than any other woman. This is just one of many biblical passages that describe and celebrate an intense love between these two men that went far beyond friendship. It is thought that the author of Samuel 1 and 2 may have been a member of King David's court: he seems to know intimate details of David's life and hides nothing when he tells of the reign of David and his predecessor, King Saul. As part of the story, the author tells of Saul's son Jonathan and his unique relationship with David.

You may have heard of the story of David and Jonathan, but if you're like most people, you probably haven't considered it closely. If your pastor has made this the subject of a sermon, he will probably have talked about the “friendship” of Jonathan and David.
Some Christians look to Jonathan and David as an idealized example of male bonding – a type of “brotherly love” not “tainted” by the romantic entanglements of a male-female relationship. The biblical text, however, is completely at odds with this forcing. We will present the biblical evidence and let you judge. Decide: Were Jonathan and David just good friends (brotherly love) or was there a deeper (romantic) level to their relationship?

The author of Samuel 1 tells us about a man named Saul, who became king of Israel and was Jonathan's father. David, who was a shepherd of the smaller tribe of Israel, came to the attention of Saul and Jonathan when he volunteered to fight a giant who was causing trouble for their nation. The text tells us that David was not afraid because he believed that God was on the side of the Israelites. Showing his courage, David fought the giant with only a slingshot and a handful of pebbles. Miraculously, he emerged victorious. Saul was intrigued by this courageous young man and so called David to speak with him. The text says:

“When David had finished speaking with Saul, Jonathan's soul had already become so bound to David's soul, that Jonathan loved him as himself. Saul took him that day and did not let him return to his father's house. Jonathan made a pact with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the cloak he was wearing and gave it to David and added his clothes, his sword, his bow and his belt.” (1 Samuel 18:1-4)

Now, imagine if this story had been between Jonathan and a woman. Suppose the author had written that “Jonathan's soul was bound to Miriam, and that Jonathan had loved her as his own soul.” And suppose Jonathan immediately gave her his most prized possessions. (A prince's armor and weapons were important symbols of social status and power.) If 1 Samuel 18:1-4 spoke of Jonathan's first encounter with a woman, theologians everywhere would have written of it as one of the most great love stories of all time. The story of Jonathan and his love would be the inspiration for dozens of Hollywood films. But because the object of Jonathan's affection is a man, our cultural prejudices grow and we insist (despite the biblical evidence) that this can be nothing more than a deep friendship.

This “culturally correct” reading will not stand up to scrutiny. It asks us to interpret this story that is completely at odds with our experience of human behavior. When did you last see a heterosexual man, carried away by brotherly love, offer another man his most prized possessions during their first meeting? Suppose the pastor of your church (assuming he is a man), meeting another man for the first time, takes off his robe and gives it to the other man. Suppose that at the same meeting he also offers his most prized possessions – perhaps a family Bible, a wristwatch with an inscription from his parents, and his beloved pickup truck. Wouldn't this sound a little more than “strange” to you? Let's look carefully. The author of Samuel 1 is describing a classic love at first sight that just happens to involve two men.
But there is more here than the story of an encounter. The text continues by telling us that David became a powerful warrior and his popularity among the people of Israel threatened Saul's throne, so Saul thought it best to kill him. But Jonathan warned him and he fled the palace before Saul could act. Eventually, Jonathan convinced his father to allow David to return, but Saul soon set out to kill David again.

Then Jonathan and David met in secret. Jonathan begged David to return to the palace, but David feared for his life. So they hatched a plan: Jonathan would return home to try to find out what his father was thinking. If his father had calmed down, he would have told David that he was safe.

One evening, at the royal table, the subject of “David” came up, and Jonathan spoke on his behalf. Saul said to Jonathan:
“Son of a lost woman, do I not know that you take the side of [David] son ​​of Jesse, to your shame and to the shame of your mother's nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be safe." (1 Samuel 20:30-31)

Many gay men have experienced dinner conversations that look a lot like this. They made the mistake of talking about their loved ones at the table and their fathers became furious. Very often the blame goes first to the mother, who was "too soft" or "too hard", or who "perverted" her child in some way. Then the father vents his anger on his son: “Don't you see how much shame you are bringing on your family? Don't care what happens to your career? You will never achieve anything until you give up this madness!”.

In the biblical text, the arguments are the same. And, even more significantly, Saul's reference to Jonathan's mother's shameless nakedness introduces a sexual connotation. Exposing the nakedness of a family member was a euphemism for incest in the sacred codes of the Old Testament, and Saul could not use this phrase lightly. The implication is that Jonathan was bringing sexual shame to his family.
Immediately Jonathan ran away from the table, and that night he went to bring the bad news to David. The tale of their final meeting is full of tragedy and pathos:

“David moved from behind the hill, fell on his face and prostrated himself three times, then they kissed each other and cried together, until it got late for David. Then Jonathan said to David: 'Go in peace, now that we two have sworn in the name of the Lord: The Lord be with me and with you, with my descendants and with your descendants forever.' He got up and left; Jonathan returned to the city.” (1 Samuel 20:41-21:1)

This was the last time they saw each other. David hid and Jonathan was eventually killed in battle, alongside his father. Maybe they had a feeling it was the end. They certainly knew their love was doomed. And Jonathan reminded David of their alliance with each other. She reminded him that even if they weren't together, they had made a promise and their bond would last from generation to generation. All their children and grandchildren would be like one family, bonded by their love for each other. Later, after taking the throne, David would commemorate this connection by adopting Jonathan's only son – something completely unheard of in an age when kings were expected to kill anyone with any connection to a previous rival king.

So, we ask, was it just a deep friendship or a romantic relationship? At their first meeting, Jonathan said he loved David as his own soul and gave him his most precious things. In the next episode, Jonathan's father uses language of sex and shame when he denigrates Jonathan and David's relationship in a fit of anger. Then we see Jonathan and David's passionate, tearful farewell, and Jonathan reminding David of an everlasting covenant they made with each other – a covenant that David still honored many years later, even though such behavior was politically incorrect. But, if you are still not convinced that this is a romantic relationship, there is still biblical evidence – the smoking gun, so to speak. The story has another exciting chapter.

In the first chapter of Samuel 2, the author tells us that after Saul and Jonathan were killed in battle, David tore his clothes and fasted as a sign of mourning. He wept and wrote a song, which he ordered all the people of Judah to sing. In this song he included the following words:

“Saul and Jonathan, lovely and kind!
neither in life nor in death were they divided;
they were faster than eagles,
stronger than lions.

Because the heroes have fallen
in the midst of battle?
Jonathan, for your death I feel pain,
anguish grips me for you,
my brother Jonathan!
You were very dear to me;
your friendship was precious to me
more than a woman's love."

(2 Samuel 1:23, 26, emphasis mine)

This is black and white. David declares that the love he shared with Jonathan was greater than the love he had felt for women. Have you ever heard a heterosexual man say that he loves his friend more than his wife? This goes far beyond a deep friendship between two heterosexual men.

In this story we have a biblical answer to our question: can two people of the same sex have a loving, committed relationship with God's favor? The answer is “yes,” because Jonathan and David did it, and the Bible celebrated their relationship.

The author doesn't feel the need to explain the love between these two men by putting a note that says "this may seem like a love story but nothing sexually objectionable happened." When King Saul assumes that the relationship is more than a friendship, the author records his comments and leaves the reader to assume the same. The author must have been aware of other similar stories in the ancient Near East that contain homoerotic aspects. He must have known that his story would be interpreted by readers of his day with these other examples in mind, yet he did not bother to distinguish the relationship between Jonathan and David.

Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the author of Samuel 1 and 2 wrote this wonderful love story and saw no contradiction between the older Scriptures and Leviticus. How is this possible? Apparently, the author of Samuel 1 and 2 understood the Leviticus passage as we do, seeing it as a condemnation of Canaanite temple sex which, therefore, did not apply to a deep romantic relationship between two men who loved and served the God of Israel. If anyone had questioned the author of Samuel 1 and 2, he might have responded: “This is not what Leviticus was intended to condemn. You must understand the context in which Leviticus was written. This is a very different situation.”

Why don't we use the same common sense today? Why are some Christians so determined to condemn what God has so clearly approved in the Scriptures?

Remember, David is no minor hero of the Bible. He is called “a man after God's own heart” (1 Samuel 13:14); he is one of Israel's most beloved kings; he is one of the most prolific authors of Scripture (having written many of the Psalms); he is of the lineage of Jesus Christ. And he loved Jonathan.

* The biblical passages are taken from the Jerusalem Bible/CEI

Original text: David loved Jonathan more than women