King David and Jonathon were not homosexual
 |
| "David and Jonathan," by Rembrandt. Jonathan is the figure in the turban. Hermitage News (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
IN THE EVENT that any reader could conceivably doubt David’s sincerity in mourning for Saul and Jonathan, the text now moves to an elegy in which David’s deepest emotional responses are expressed lyrically.
Old Testament tradition assumes that David was a man especially gifted in music and song (1 Sam. 16:18, 23; 18:10; 2 Sam. 23:1; Amos 6:5; often in the Psalms, where seventy-two individual psalms are associated with his name).
Many have noted that at various levels this poem implies that David himself is the composer, and the burden of proof lies with anyone denying this assertion. The poetry has a lofty quality; “only a rare spirit deeply moved by an event of great moment is likely to have produced a little masterpiece like this.”10
In one of the most emotional and moving scenes of the Bible, David’s genuine pain comes through with singular clarity. In a series of vocatives, David addresses first the nation Israel, then the specific geographical location of the fateful battle (Mount Gilboa), and finally the “daughters of Israel” (1:19, 21, and 24). The theme of the dirge is clear from the phrase repeated three times (vv. 19, 25, and 27): “How the mighty have fallen!” This simple phrase (only three words in Hebrew) powerfully captures the depth of David’s emotions and serves as a literary marker for the structure of the poem.
Just before the end of the poem, we have a verse that is at the heart of one of the great ethical debates of our times. In verse 26, David becomes intensely personal in his lament for Jonathan:
I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
you were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful,
more wonderful than that of women.
We have already seen how the narrator of 1 Samuel emphasizes the love between David and Jonathan (see comments on 1 Sam. 18:1–4). Some modern interpreters take this statement as evidence that David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship. Thus, certain aspects of the narrative of 1 Samuel are thought to have been subverted by later editors because of cultural abhorrence of homosexuality, while other aspects such as Saul’s irrational outbursts against David (1 Sam. 20:30–34) are explained as the senseless rage that accompanies homophobia.
However, this interpretation should be rejected for the following reasons.
(1) The noun for “love” used here (ʾahabah, and its verb ʾhb) has important political and diplomatic connotations. Since David’s and Jonathan’s relationship has already been marked as a covenant sealed by their love (same word), this part of the poem is referring to the depth of that covenant relationship (1 Sam. 18:3). By contrast, the standard Old Testament verb for sexual activity, whether homosexual or heterosexual, is “know” (ydʿ), and it is never used to describe the relationship between David and Jonathan.
(2) David’s comparison of his relationship with Jonathan with that of women is probably a subtle reference to the promise of 1 Samuel 17:25, when the young David learned that whoever killed Goliath would receive the king’s daughter as reward. But David did not immediately receive Saul’s daughter. Instead, he won the immediate admiration and love of Jonathan (1 Sam 18:1–4). The love and covenant relationship between David and Jonathan has been referred to in the text elsewhere (19:1; 20:17); now upon the occasion of Jonathan’s death, David returns to the theme. He realizes that his covenantal relationship with Jonathan, which had nothing to do with sexual activity, proved more meaningful to him than his relationships with women.
(3) We possess an interesting parallel in the greatest literary piece from ancient Babylonia, the “Gilgamesh Epic.” The hero of the story, King Gilgamesh, is informed in a dream that a friend will come into his life who will match him in strength and whom he will love like a woman. The account explains how Enkidu soon arrives on the scene.
They engage in a titanic battle, in which Gilgamesh and Enkidu prove to be of equal strength. Instead of one prevailing over the other, they become close friends, and the epic continues with a series of adventure themes involving both of them. Most scholars agree that it would be a misinterpretation of the story to assume this has anything to do with homosexuality. The phrase is merely a rhetorical expression of the great depth of friendship experienced between Gilgamesh and his friend, Enkidu.
(4) Homosexual acts were unequivocally condemned in Israelite law (Lev. 18:22; 20:13). It would be incongruous for a narrative so devoted to portraying David in positive light to describe him engaged in homosexual love with Jonathan.
In short, the controversy surrounding verse 26 is more a reflex of our modern society’s impulse to defend and justify homosexual activity than it has to do with accurate exegesis of this text. The controversy itself also illustrates an unfortunate contrast between modern Western culture and that of the ancient Near East. Ancients (and some moderns of the Middle East) refer to and display affection between members of the same sex easily without implying homosexual attraction. Conversely, public displays of affection between men and women are scandalous in the Middle East today.
Arnold, B. T. (2003). 1 & 2 Samuel. The NIV Application Commentary (pp. 411–414). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
