The Best Friend

1 Samuel 18:1-5

¹As soon as he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. ²And Saul took him that day and would not let him return to his father’s house. ³Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. ⁴And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt. ⁵And David went out and was successful wherever Saul sent him, so that Saul set him over the men of war. And this was good in the sight of all the people and also in the sight of Saul’s servants.

After David’s stunning defeat of Goliath (and the entire Philistine army) he is thrust into the public forum. He now has the full attention of King Saul and his son, Jonathan. In these five verses, we find a stark contrast between the attitudes of Saul and Jonathan to the man who would be the next king.

Sau has largely ignored David until he defeats Goliath. Now David is a national hero and Saul must pay attention to this young man. Jonathan is the apparent successor to the throne, but we know that David has already been anointed for that role and the story takes an amazing turn as Jonathan embraces David, recognizing that he will not be king, but David will. A strong and binding friendship is forged between these two men that will last into the coming decades.

I will only mention this briefly, as it warrants no more attention than a few sentences. In our time, looking through the lens of our own warped sensibilities, some have suggested that David and Jonathan engaged in a sexual relationship. Without going into the linguistic details, suffice it to say, the Hebrew does not support that idea in any way whatsoever. Because you deserve the opinion of someone more learned than I, here is a somewhat more scholarly explanation.

One topic first introduced in this chapter that has become much discussed in recent decades is the relationship between David and Jonathan. The love of these two men for each other is mentioned in 1 Sam 18:1, 3; 20:17; 2 Sam 1:26. Some have argued that David and Jonathan’s relationship had a sexual dimension and that they were homosexual lovers. This proposal is conditioned by contemporary Western society’s changing attitude toward same-sex unions. It is an anachronistic imposition of a modern antiscriptural perspective onto a biblical text. It also fails to deal adequately with the evidence from an ancient reader or writer’s perspective.

First of all, it ought to be noted that the verb אָהַב, “to love,” occurs over two hundred times elsewhere in the OT and never once denotes homosexual activity or attraction. In fact, outside of the Song of Songs, it entails sexual attraction in only a minority of cases, and all of these are heterosexual.⁵ Most often it has no sexual dimension (e.g., 2 Sam 19:7 [ET 19:6]; 1 Ki 5:15 [ET 5:1]). Moreover, a close parallel exists between the language of 1 Sam 18:1–5 and that of Gen 44:20, 30. Those verses employ the verbs אָהַב, “to love,” and קָשַׁר, “to bind,” along with the noun נֶפֶשׁ, “soul, life.” Genesis 44 portrays Jacob’s love for Benjamin with the same two verbs and the same noun: Jacob “loved” (אָהַב) his son Benjamin (Gen 44:20), and his “life” (נֶפֶשׁ) was “bound” (קָשַׁר) with Benjamin’s “life” (Gen 44:30). Thus, Jonathan’s love and close relationship with David is akin to Jacob’s love for his son. Zehnder also observes the context in which Jonathan’s love for David is first described:

It is noteworthy that the first encounter of David and Jonathan with the subsequent binding of Jonathan’s נפש [“soul, life”] is not combined with 1 Sam 16 where David’s handsomeness is noted, but rather with 1 Sam 17 which focuses on his cleverness, prowess, and even cruelty. This creates an atmosphere probably less suggestive of homoeroticism than would be the case had the first encounter between Jonathan and David been linked to 1 Sam 16; rather, it is the political and military sphere that is present in the description of their relationship from the very beginning.

Zehnder’s observation that the relationship had a political dimension has also been noted by others.

Second, it ought to be noted that the relationship between Jonathan and David is depicted in covenantal terms (“made an agreement” in 18:3 is literally “cut a covenant”). That covenant involved Yahweh as the one who bound together David and Jonathan (“a covenant/agreement of Yahweh,” 20:8; see also 23:18). Jonathan describes it in 20:42 as an oath invoking Yahweh, and he extends it to his and David’s subsequent “seed” (זֶרַע). Given Pentateuchal prohibitions against homosexual activity such as Lev 18:22 and Lev 20:13, it is inconceivable that the author of the book of Samuel would portray Yahweh as a participant in a covenant that involved a homosexual relationship. Moreover, the agreement between Jonathan and David also bound their offspring (1 Sam 20:42), which assumes that both men were or would be active heterosexually. David’s offspring would be born after Jonathan’s death (2 Sam 3:2–5), and on the basis of this covenant David would graciously elevate Jonathan’s son Mephibosheth in 2 Samuel 9. Thus, their agreement assumes that the sexual attraction of both David and Jonathan was for women (not men) in accord with God’s design for the natural procreation of children under his gracious blessing (Gen 1:26–27; 9:1). There is no hint of any homosexual activity, which would be a cursed “abomination” (Lev 18:22; 20:13) eliciting the wrath of God (Rom 1:27; see also, e.g., 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:9–10).

Finally, there is nothing in any of the texts concerning David and Jonathan’s relationship that uses any of the Hebrew vocabulary for sexual relations elsewhere in the book of Samuel, such as בּוֹא אֶל, “to go into” (as in 2 Sam 3:7; 12:24; 20:3; see also Ps 51:2 [ET superscription]); the verb שָׁכַב, “to lie with” (1 Sam 2:22; 2 Sam 11:4, 11; 12:11, 24; 13:11, 14); the verb יָדַע, “to know” (1 Sam 1:19); the verb עָנָה in the Piel (D), “to oppress, rape” (2 Sam 13:12, 14, 22, 32). Neither does the account contain any of the explicit terminology for sexual relations found elsewhere in the OT. Thus, the alleged homosexual aspect of the relationship between these two men is imagined by contemporary readers with a libertine agenda, but is not stated or even intimated by the author.

Other passages that have been taken as indications of a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan are found in 1 Samuel 20, where they kiss each other (the verb נָשַׁק, 20:41) and where Saul refers to Jonathan bringing shame on the nakedness of his mother (20:30). As far as two men kissing each other, it ought to be noted that in most cases in the OT kissing is not romantic or erotic. Of the thirty occurrences of נָשַׁק, “to kiss,” only three (Prov 7:13; Song 1:2; 8:1) have an overtly romantic or erotic connotation, and all are heterosexual. In most instances in the OT, a person kisses a close relative as a sign of familial love.¹⁰ Earlier in 1 Samuel a kiss had a political connotation when Samuel kissed Saul (10:1). In the case of David and Jonathan kissing each other, it likely indicated their friendship, their familial relationship as brothers-in-law, and even their political relationship, with David acknowledging Jonathan as a prince and Jonathan acknowledging David as the king-designate.

As for Saul’s angry accusation against Jonathan because of his alliance with David (20:30), it appears in this context: Saul addressed him, “You son of a perverted, rebellious woman! Don’t you know that you are choosing the son of Jesse to your shame and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness?” Thus, “your mother’s nakedness” refers to Jonathan’s mother giving birth to him and, therefore, does not carry an erotic connotation. Saul alleged that both Jonathan and his mother had been shamed by Jonathan’s greater loyalty to Jesse’s son than to Saul himself. Moreover, the “nakedness” was that of Jonathan’s mother; there is no reference to “nakedness” on the part of Jonathan, which would be required if this were a reference to homosexual activity between David and Jonathan. Zehnder also notes the possibility of an alternate meaning for Saul’s accusation: Saul may have been claiming that Jonathan was not his son and that Jonathan’s mother was impregnated by another man.¹² That would explain why Saul called her “a perverted, rebellious woman.” If that is the case, there is still no reference to homosexuality in Saul’s words.

Therefore, nothing in the text of the book of Samuel is suggesting that Jonathan and David’s relationship had a sexual aspect. In the text of the book of Samuel, it is clear that these two men had a close bond that can be characterized as love and that it had emotional, brotherly, and political components, all under the surpassing love of Yahweh and his administration of his kingdom (1 Sam 20:8, 42; 23:18).

Steinmann, A. E. ©2016. 1 Samuel. (pp. 347–349). Saint Louis, MO: CPH.

What is beautiful here is this lifelong friendship that is born when Jonathan and David meet. Because of Saul, their friendship will be a struggle sometimes, but it one of loyalty and brotherly love. May God grant all of us such a beautiful relationship in our lives.