Abstract
This article demonstrates that if there was love between Jonathan and David, it was primarily Jonathan's love for David; or at least, that it was a relationship based on both parties’ personal interests. Jonathan, under the guise of this love, seeks to obtain guarantees for private interests associated with his own future and that of his family and descendants. David, in turn, is concerned about his public image. He never expresses any sentiment for Jonathan; nowhere does the book of Samuel even hint that David returns Jonathan's love. Even when David, after Jonathan's death, pours out his soul in his lament and says: ‘I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me’ (2 Sam. 1.26), he is not expressing sincere grief. Instead, the purpose of the lament is to enhance Jonathan's image after his death, in keeping with custom (de mortuus nil nisi bonum). It is also plausible that his mourning is a calculated pose, intended to impress the people and persuade them that he is deeply grieved by the death of the previous king's son, with all this implies.
1. Introduction
The books of Samuel tell the story of the relationship between Jonathan and David, which becomes closer as the bond between Jonathan and Saul deteriorates. Jonathan's love for David runs like a connecting thread through part of the scenes in which both of them appear (1 Sam. 18.1, 3; 19.1; 20.17). The literature on the topic describes their love as mutual; notable is the Mishnah (Avot 5.19):
All love that depends on a [transient] thing, [when the] thing ceases, [the] love ceases; and [all love] that does not depend on a [transient] thing, lasts for ever. What kind of love depends on a [transient] thing? The love of Amnon for Tamar; and [what kind of love] does not depend on a [transient] thing? The love of David and Jonathan.
Jonathan's fervent love for David is viewed as the epitome of uninterested love, as ‘a fierce love between two intertwined souls’. 1
According to the Jerusalem Talmud (Pesaḥim 6.39b), ‘three set aside their crowns in this world and inherited the life of the world to come; namely, Jonathan son of Saul, Eleazar son of Azariah, and the elders of Beteira’. That is, Jonathan earned his place in the world to come by abdicating his right to the throne.
The Babylonian Talmud (B. Met. 84b–85a) cites the statement by Rabbi Judah the Prince: ‘Three were humble; namely, my father, the sons of Beteira, and Jonathan son of Saul… Jonathan, son of Saul, for he said to David, “you shall be king over Israel, and I shall be your second-in-command” (1 Sam. 23.17)’. Because Jonathan, although a king's son, placed himself below David, Rabbi Judah the Prince saw him as one of the three paragons of humility in history. 2
Abravanel writes in his commentary on 1 Sam. 20.41: ‘This shows the extent of Jonathan's love for David, to the point that he wanted him to be king. Perhaps this is what his son Solomon had in mind: “One who loves with a pure heart and whose speech is gracious has a king for his friend” (Prov. 22.11)’. That is, Jonathan loved David with a pure heart.
In modern scholarship, too, we encounter frequent praise of the love between David and Jonathan. Consider Payne's comment: ‘Jonathan's utter loyalty to David was expressed in words and deeds and provides a model of true friendship’. He also praises Jonathan for knowing how to be a friend. He believes that one can say of Jonathan that ‘a friend loves at all times’ (Prov. 17.17). ‘Only a friend like Jonathan, who is loyal, ready to sacrifice for his friend's benefit, and gives more than he receives, is a true friend’. 3 According to Liver: ‘Even though Jonathan was Saul's designated heir, he knew that David would be king, but did not envy him or assail him, and instead demonstrated friendship and love for him’. 4 For Levanon, ‘Jonathan can serve as an outstanding example of generosity, magnanimity, friendship, and human comradeship, which transcend all egoistical restraints’. 5
2. How Did Jonathan Fall in Love with David?
The very first encounter between Jonathan and David (1 Sam. 18.1–4) describes Jonathan's love for David. What was the background against which this love emerged?
The roots of Jonathan's acquaintance with David lie in the episode in which an evil spirit terrifies Saul (16.15). Saul's courtiers propose that a musician be summoned to calm his mind. When Saul agrees, they describe their candidate's promising qualities: he is ‘skilful in playing, a man of valour, a man of war, prudent in speech, and handsome in appearance’ (16.18). Saul cannot turn away such a talented candidate and sends messengers to David's father to fetch him. When David arrives, Saul takes a fancy to him and makes him his armour-bearer (16.21). To keep the lad nearby, Saul asks Jesse to allow David to stay at court.
Even though Jonathan is not mentioned in this episode, we may assume that David's service at court gave Jonathan an opportunity to get to know him, to learn of his military prowess, 6 to observe his meteoric rise in his father's service, and to fall in love with him. It is plausible that this was not a spontaneous emotional reaction but a long and protracted process, in which Jonathan's devotion to David matured until Jonathan's soul was linked to David's (18.1).
The link between the story of Jonathan and David's first encounter (18.1–4) and Saul's first meeting with David (16.21) is even clearer when we note the identical language employed to describe Saul's affection for David—‘Saul loved him (ןהבהאין) greatly, and he became his armour-bearer’ (16.21)—and Jonathan's bond to him: ‘Jonathan loved him (ןהבהאין) as his own soul’ (18.1). The use of the same word tightens the link between the two units. Note, too, that in both of them David neither reacts nor speaks. 7
On the other hand, the sequel, found in 18.1–4, indicates that Jonathan's love for David was ignited when he saw David in combat with the Philistine giant (17.48–51). It is also possible that later, when Jonathan watched David speaking with his father, he was captivated by his charm (17.57). In any case, the narrator tells us that Jonathan's soul was linked to David's and that a bond of love was forged after the conversation between Saul and David (18.1). As Simon puts it: ‘Jonathan was present at the chilly meeting between the anxious king and the lad who is holding the Philistine's head in his hand. By the time this was over Jonathan knew that he was not jealous of the lad who had overcome the Philistine giant, but loved him… He admired David for doing so well now what he himself had done at Michmas.’ 8
The intensity of Jonathan's love for David 9 —‘the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul’ (18.1aβ-b)—is emphasized by the repeated use of the word שפנ, intensified by its recurrence two verses later: ‘because he loved him as his own soul’ (1 Sam. 18.3). Here the word שפנ is a Leitwort that functions as a keyword. 10 Repeated four times in four short verses, it points to the central motif of this narrative: the intensity of Jonathan's love for David.
The intensity of Jonathan's love for David is further emphasized by the sequence of actions that Jonathan takes. 11 He makes a pact with David, removes his cloak, and gives it to David along with his armour, sword, bow, and sword belt. 12 The cloak and sword are mentioned first, separately from the other items. This style sets the cloak apart from the other items (18.4) and triggers associations with other scenes in which a cloak represents a challenge to the incumbent regime. 13
In addition to the cloak, Jonathan gives David his armour, 14 along with his personal weapons (his sword and bow) 15 and his belt. Jonathan was a commander in the army; this presentation of his armour and weapons to David signifies a transfer of his military authority. 16 Note the emphasis in the description: ‘…and his armour, and even his sword and even his bow and even his girdle’ (1 Sam. 18.4) expresses the radical nature of Jonathan's gesture. 17
The narrator plumbs the depth of Jonathan's soul and reports on his feelings for David; but he never says anything about David's reaction. 18
The description of the character's inner state (Jonathan's love for David), which comes soon after they conclude their pact (18.3), explains why he behaves as he does. 19
It seems that the love that inspired Jonathan to conclude his alliance with David has two implications: (1) on the emotional and personal level and (2) on the practical and political level.
(1) On the personal and emotional level, the locution ‘soul knit to soul’ expresses a deep bond between two individuals; in our case, the depth of Jonathan's love for David. 20 Certainly the metaphor is apt for the fierce love of two souls that are intertwined. 21 But the bond is not two-way and the love is not mutual. 22 The description focuses on Jonathan's emotions and actions: ‘he loved him’, ‘he made a covenant’, 23 ‘he took off’, and ‘he gave’. The pronouns, too, place Jonathan in the centre: ‘his love’, ‘his soul’, ‘the cloak that was on him’. Jonathan's many actions emphasize David's passivity. The description of Jonathan's emotions and actions, in contrast to David's closure and passivity, suggests the extent to which we are dealing with a one-sided love. The only way to understand this unbalanced description of a relationship that is so deep for Jonathan is to assume that there is some additional objective other than defining the relations between the two. It is unlikely to be an innocent description of a relationship between two people, or an indication of how one feels about the other, given that from the outset we are talking about an ambiguous emotion. There is no logic to this love. It is not clear what provoked such a strong emotion that erupted suddenly and beyond all measure. How is it possible that Jonathan, who sees David taking his place, step by step (Saul's love for David and his appointment of David as his armour carrier, 16.21), does not envy or hate him, but rather loves him from the bottom of his soul? Alternatively, how is it that, in the wake of David's combat with the Philistine and interview with Saul, Jonathan recognizes David's superiority, manifested in the spontaneous love that makes the crown prince fall into David's net?
(2) The situation becomes clear if we understand that the root בהא is used here in an anticipatory fashion that alludes to another sense. On the practical and political level, the root בהא can also express political relations anchored in an agreement or treaty. 24 With regard to the relations between Hiram and David, we are told that ‘Hiram always loved David’ (1 Kgs 5.15 [RSV 5.1]). Thompson claims that the alliance between Hiram and David remained in force after their deaths. When one of the two parties to an alliance dies, the other must send emissaries to his heir to reaffirm his loyalty. Hiram sent ambassadors to Solomon (1 Kgs 5.15 [RSV 5.1]); and David did the same thing with regard to Hanun of Ammon after the death of his father Nahash (2 Sam. 10.1). 25 In the treaty between Esarhaddon, king of Assyria and his Median vassals to the east, we read: ‘If you do not love Ashurbanipal…your Lord as your soul’ (lines 266–68). 26 Here the words love and soul express the vassal's fealty to the king. The verb fills a similar function in the Amarna letters: ‘My Lord the king, just as I love my lord the king so too the king of NUHSSE and the king of NI, all those kings serve my lord’. 27 We may infer from this that the use of the root בהא and of the word soul expresses Jonathan's feelings for David and, what is more, the inversion at play here: it is the king's son, the heir to the throne, who loves David. That is, he behaves as if he were the vassal and anchors his fealty to him in a pact. Thus at the very beginning of the story we have a hint of David's superiority in this one-sided relationship. We may be able to learn something about the nature of the pact between Jonathan and David from the following: ‘Therefore deal faithfully with your servant, for you have brought your servant into a covenant of the Lord with you’ (1 Sam. 20.8). This is effectively a pact between overlord and vassal. Because the delegation of authority creates an inversion, David is the lord and Jonathan the vassal.
By using words with double meaning, such as ךשק 28 and בהא, the narrator gets readers to pay attention to the complex nature of every aspect of Jonathan's relationship with David. Here the same reliable narrator who described love of such intensity that it is a bond between two souls provides us with an anticipatory allusion to the hidden motives behind Jonathan's actions. What are those motives? The answer is that Jonathan understands that he is being supplanted by David, both with his own father and with the army (1 Sam. 16.21). Hence he makes his preparations for the future and concludes an alliance with David, though this is tantamount to intriguing against his father the king. The events described here are the beginning of a process intended to ensure Jonathan's future alongside David, a process that is continued in the next text unit.
This explanation suggests that Jonathan's actions are not motivated solely by his emotions. He may also be thinking about the future: concluding an alliance expresses not only his loyalty to David but also his concern for himself and his descendants. 29 Apparently Jonathan accepted the fact that he would not inherit his father's throne and decided to do whatever he could to ensure his future alongside David. He does not say this explicitly, but we may infer it from his transfer to the latter of his cloak, armour, and weapons, which represent the beginning of the process of the transfer of power. 30 From this point on Jonathan is depicted as the ‘anti-heir’. 31 He recognizes that he is subordinate to David, does not fight to hold on to his natural role, and waives in advance his claim to the throne. We might infer from this that he is not eager to rule. But we can also understand that Jonathan understands that David is his superior and that he himself will never be king.
3. Jonathan between Saul and David
Another station in the progress of Jonathan's loyalty to David is depicted in 19.1–7. This devotion is part of a relationship that began in 18.1–4, continues in this episode, develops further in 20.1–21.1, 32 and reaches its zenith in 23.16–18, when Jonathan gives up his right to the throne.
Here Jonathan returns to centre-stage at a time when the relations between Saul and David are deteriorating badly. Saul announces to Jonathan and his courtiers that he intends to kill David. Jonathan decides to intervene and deter his father from his purpose, but not before he has warned David of his father's plan.
At the beginning of the episode Jonathan is in a state of severe emotional instability. As a son he has a duty to his father—all the more so as the king's son and heir. On the other hand, the person in danger is very dear to him: ‘But Saul's son Jonathan was very fond (ץפח) of David’ (19.1). Should he betray his father, or betray the person for whom he feels such affection? Later in the narrative, we learn that Jonathan has chosen David. Because he does not trust his father, he goes to warn David even before he attempts to persuade Saul to spare him. This certainly represents a betrayal of Saul. 33
The use of the root ץפח to describe Jonathan's bond to David (19.1) suggests that his desire to save David is not motivated by love for him. 34 We have already noted the use of polysemic words (רשק, בהא in 18.1) to suggest other motives for Jonathan's relationship to David; that is the case here as well. Saul employs the root ץפח to deceive David: ‘Saul commanded his servants, “Speak to David in private and say, ‘Behold, the king is fond of you’” (18.22).
We may conclude that here (19.1) ץפח indicates that Jonathan seeks David's friendship and wellbeing but that the word does not necessarily denote that he loves him. It is perfectly possible that Jonathan has other, hidden motives. 35 Jonathan's conduct and emphatic pursuit of David's friendship and wellbeing are indeed most astounding. His behaviour is unnatural. It is difficult to accept that someone acts contrary to his own best interests. Perhaps Jonathan is guided by the knowledge of which way the wind is blowing, and his own interests guide him. 36
Edelman maintains that Jonathan has made his peace with the Lord's election of David as the next king. 37 If her assumption is valid, we can understand Jonathan's motives: Jonathan is continuing the process he began when he gave away his cloak, armour, and weapon (18.4). Now he reveals Saul's scheme to David, thereby betraying Saul's trust. He also does everything he can to persuade Saul not to kill David. In this way he cultivates a relationship with David that will stand to his advantage in the future.
Jonathan tells David to go into hiding, reveals his father's plan to him, and then brings him back to the palace. David says nothing. He does not answer Jonathan and merely does as he is told. Does David's silence tell us anything about his character? Perhaps. At the very least, it means that David cannot be accused of sedition. 38 Even if David aspires to royal power, he acts only in legitimate ways.
The reference to ‘the field’ (18.3) is not meant only to expand the setting. What Jonathan says to David—‘in the field where you are’—places David close to the location of the next day's conversation between Jonathan and Saul. Jonathan wants to make certain that David will be within hearing distance so that he can listen in to the conversation between Saul and Jonathan. Thus Jonathan's arguments to persuade Saul not to kill David are intended for David's ears, too. 39 Jonathan wants David to be aware of his efforts and to hear this proof of his loyalty. 40 His concern for David, which seems to be sincere, is not devoid of self-interest. When Jonathan shows David that he is more faithful to him than to his father, he may be thinking about the future and guaranteeing his bona fides with the next king. 41
4. The Relations between Saul, Jonathan, and David—the Rupture
The previous unit in which Jonathan appears (18.30–19.7) ended with a reconciliation between Saul and David: ‘and he served him as before’ (19.7). Almost immediately, however (beginning with 19.9), an ‘evil spirit from the Lord’ strikes Saul, who attacks David with his spear, after which David flees for his life.
David cannot fight back against his enemy, who is the king. When he realizes that the game is up he decides to exploit his ties with Jonathan. Taking the risk that Saul may capture him, 42 he goes to Jonathan (20.1) to find out why he has gone from being a person whom Saul esteems—‘Saul took him [into his service] that day and would not let him return to his father's house’ (18.2); ‘Saul put him in command of all the soldiers’ (18.5)—to his bitterest enemy: ‘Saul spoke to Jonathan his son and to all his servants, that they should kill David’ (19.1).
In the light of Saul's repeated attempts to kill David in the past, Jonathan's astonishment when David says that Saul wants to kill him (20.2) is hard to fathom. 43 How can we explain Jonathan's reply that Saul has no such intention? Even if we assume that Jonathan has heard nothing about Saul's current attempts on David's life, he certainly knows that Saul had this intention in the past: ‘Saul spoke to Jonathan his son and to all his servants, that they should kill David’ (19.1). What is Jonathan astonished at? 44 In my opinion, Saul had taken an oath, promising Jonathan that ‘as the Lord lives, he shall not be put to death’ (19.6). Jonathan could not believe that his father would violate this unambiguous oath. 45
Jonathan's agitation is manifested in the interjections הלילח (‘Heaven forbid’) and הנה (‘behold’); in the short clauses at the beginning and the end, with their emphatic negation (‘You shall not die’ and ‘It is not so’); in the repetition of ‘my father’ (twice) and ‘thing’ (three times); and in the merism ‘My father does neither a great thing nor a small thing’. The emotion is evidence of his internal conflict about whether he should side with his father or with David. 46 Despite his emotions, Jonathan tries to radiate confidence to David by means of a rhetorical question. Is it possible that his father would do anything, great or small, without telling him? 47 Jonathan uses the idiom ‘without disclosing it to me [lit. to my ears]’ (20.2) to demonstrate his father's confidence in him. Jonathan thinks that Saul feels very close to him and reveals all his plans to him. Jonathan has grounds for this idea, inasmuch as, in the past, his father had informed him when he decided to kill David (19.1).
But after Jonathan has been persuaded that David's story is true, he quickly resolves his problem of dual allegiance and goes over to David's side, just as Michal has already done. In fact, both of them use the word ךשפנ (19.11 and 20.4), though in the former case it has the sense ‘your life’ and in the latter ‘your wish’. Jonathan allows David to decide how he can help him: ‘Whatever you want, I will do for you’ (20.4). 48 Jonathan helps David reach the conclusion that the only solution is to run away. This is no longer passive assistance, but an initiative by Jonathan that infuriates Saul.
In this unit the relationship between Jonathan and David continues to mature. In the previous unit (19.1–7) Jonathan attempted to prevent a breach between David and Saul; now he takes David's side against Saul. 49
Jonathan makes two requests of David concerning the future: (1) that David not kill him (20.14); and (2) that David protect his descendants (20.15). Jonathan, anxious about his fate, must anchor his requests in a pact and an oath. 50 There are grounds for this trepidation. It was customary that when a new king came to power, the family and supporters of the previous king were exterminated, in order to wipe out all opposition to the new monarch.
In order to give greater force to his request of David, Jonathan twice employs the word דםח, ‘loyalty’ or ‘faithfulness’ or ‘favour': ‘If I am still alive, show me the דםח of the Lord, that I may not die’ (20.14); and ‘do not ever cut off your דםח to my house’ (20.15). 51 Jonathan's use of דםח echoes David's use of the same word when he needed a favour of Jonathan (20.8). Perhaps Jonathan's intention here is to ask David for דםח in exchange for the דםח requested by David to help him escape Saul (20.8). David asked simply for דםח, Jonathan asks for the דםח of the Lord’ (20.14), that is, דםח extended by virtue of the pact they have made with the Lord as witness. 52 Jonathan relates to David as if he were already king, even though Jonathan himself is still the heir apparent. 53 The alliance is concluded, meaning that Jonathan's request for a guarantee of his family's perpetual security has been granted: ‘Thus has Jonathan covenanted with the house of David’ (20.16). 54 It is obvious that David himself cannot guarantee the perpetual safety of Jonathan's family; hence the obligation must be handed down to David's descendants after his death.
Jonathan takes an oath to David, thereby expressing his great love for him. 55 The root בהא occurs three times here, in order to express this sentiment: ‘by his love for him; for he loved him as he loved his own soul’ (20.17). This is not merely an expression of his emotions. Rather, here the root בהא appears in its second sense, that of political obligation. 56 Jonathan makes it clear to David that there is a political obligation between them and that the two sides are bound to observe it. 57 Jonathan's anxiety about his future is unmistakable. He is at pains to anchor every agreement he makes with David in a covenant that obligates both parties. Conspicuous in this unit is Jonathan's disregard for his father and the other members of the House of Saul. Jonathan does not seem to be concerned for Saul's safety or for that of any other members of the family after David ascends the throne. Jonathan's fixation on himself and his descendants and total indifference to his siblings and their descendants are evidence of selfishness and apathy about the possible fate of Saul's other sons should David become king. In the event, this is borne out by the story of the Gibeonites’ revenge: David spares Mephibosheth, Jonathan's son, because of this pact, but hands over for execution several other descendants of Saul, the sons of Rizpah and the sons of Michal (2 Sam. 21.8–10). Jonathan does not ask David to refrain from harming his father and expresses concern only for himself (1 Sam. 20.14). Jonathan will protect David from his father; in return he expects the דםח that guarantees his own future and that of his descendants. Jonathan delivers two monologues (vv. 12–15 and 18–24), in each of which God is the witness and preserver of the covenant, which is eternal: ‘may the Lord be [witness] between me and you forever’ (1 Sam. 20.23). 58
5. Jonathan Renounces the Throne
Jonathan is wracked by internal tension in 23.15–18. On the one hand he is Saul's son: ‘Jonathan son of Saul arose’ (23.16); but on the other hand he is an intimate friend of David's, and David is Saul's mortal enemy. When he goes to David he is taking a serious risk, inasmuch as the act constitutes a rebellion against his father. He also endangers David, in that his visit may reveal his hiding place.
In the description of their meeting (23.16–18a), Jonathan promises David that Saul will not harm him 59 and tries to hearten his friend. This is not the first time that he displays solid confidence when he offers encouragement to David, as if he is blessed with foreknowledge of future events. 60 Jonathan has done so in the past as well: ‘Heaven forbid! You shall not die’ (20.2). 61 Does Jonathan know that David will be king, or does he merely hope so? 62 Or is he flattering David in the hope of gaining his favour? 63
Now Jonathan declares openly, for the first time, that David will be king. 64 In the past Jonathan has hinted, both by deed (18.4) and word (20.13–16), that the Saulide dynasty will not survive, that he waives his claim to the throne, and that David will succeed Saul. Jonathan relinquishes all his rights as the heir and tells David that he, Jonathan, will serve as his deputy. 65 Here הנשמ means ‘second in rank’, after the king. He does not ask for this position; rather, he announces to David that this will be his status. There are two sides to Jonathan's declaration. On the one hand, Jonathan is marginalized. On the other hand, he requests a position with broad powers in the new administration. 66 Jonathan's statement may indicate that he has withdrawn his absolute renunciation of his rights. Perhaps he now entertains the possibility that he and David will rule the kingdom jointly after Saul. 67 Is Jonathan taking advantage of David's difficult situation at that moment in order to obtain his request? 68 After Jonathan's statement, Jonathan and David do conclude an alliance. God is called on to witness it (23.18); 69 and it is God who will ensure that the crown will pass to David by virtue of this pact. Zehnder proposes that we understand the conversation between David and Jonathan (23.17–18) as another element of their relationship. According to him, it is not based merely on friendship, but is also part of the divine plan. 70
This pact anchors their future cooperation, in which each will play a clear role: ‘And he said to him, “Fear not; for the hand of Saul my father shall not find you; you shall be king over Israel, and I shall be your second-in-command” ’ (23.17).
The conversation between Jonathan and David is in fact a monologue; we hear nothing of David's reaction. Has he nothing to say about Jonathan's declaration that he, David, will be king, and Jonathan his deputy? Zehnder rightly argues that ‘in this chapter, the personalemotional aspect of the relationship is totally absent’. 71
After they conclude their pact, Jonathan and David go their separate ways and Jonathan goes back home (23.18). This parting of the two is also Jonathan's last appearance in the Bible. His plan to serve as David's viceroy is never realized. After he abdicates his right to the throne he disappears from the stage and fades into obscurity. To some extent his father Saul, too, gives up on him, or no longer has confidence in him. This is clear from the fact that, for the rest of Saul's life, it is Abner, his general, who stands next to him (26.5 and 14–16). The next reference to Jonathan is the report of his death (1 Sam. 31), where he is mentioned almost incidentally, and then in David's lament for Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. 1.22–23). 72
In that elegy, the relations between David and Jonathan are presented in a fashion that does not seem to be supported by the previous narrative. David mourns: ‘I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women’ (2 Sam. 1.26). Jobling suggests that ‘there seems to be an embargo in the narrative on suggesting that David cares for Jonathan’. It is astonishing that only after Jonathan's death does David express his feelings, and even then he speaks of Jonathan's love for him. 73
Peleg asserts that יל, ‘for me’, in David's lament (2 Sam. 1.26) can be understood in two different ways: the standard reading, that ‘for me’ (as I evaluated it) ‘your love was wonderful’; but also ‘your love for me’ (how you felt for me) ‘was wonderful’. As Peleg further notes: ‘In the first reading, David expresses his own feelings for Jonathan as well. In the second reading, he is simply paying homage to Jonathan's great devotion to him.’ 74 In his lament, David is revealed to be a master of the public eulogy. Later he proclaims another, after the death of Abner (2 Sam. 3.33–34). In both of them there is a repeated and systematic pattern in his behaviour, which expresses what he holds dearest of all—his own image. 75
6. Conclusion
According to Zehnder, the various opinions advanced in the literature about the relationship between David and Jonathan fall into four categories: (1) those interpreting the relationship between David and Jonathan as homosexual or at least homoerotic; (2) those claiming a middle ground, on which the relationship is suggestive of homosexual or homo-erotic overtones or allows such an interpretation; (3) those maintaining that the relationship between David and Jonathan as depicted in 1 and 2 Samuel is neither homosexual nor homoerotic, but an extraordinary example of friendship and loyalty; (4) those who take their own homosexual self-identification or experiences as the starting point of their reading and interpreting of biblical texts. Not surprisingly, the last group would almost entirely fall within the first group in the results of their analyses. Zehnder himself holds to the third view and proposes that we look at the relationship between the two from a perspective similar to that of the modern scholarship presented above at the start of the present study:
The story of the deep friendship of David and Jonathan may act as a counter model by showing how emotionally rich and profound a non-sexual relation between two persons (of the same sex) may be—at times even richer and profounder than sexual relationships. The reality of such relationships (between David and Jonathan) lived by many people shows that this vision is more than fiction or wishful thinking. 76
I have proposed a different reading, which sees the relationship as more complex. Jonathan's relations with David are indeed complex. But this complex relationship does not seem to jibe with the harmonious idyll depicted in David's lament for Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. 1.19–27). In the story as recounted, that love is first and foremost Jonathan's love for David, and David's emotions are hazy at best. David claims to show loyalty to Mephibosheth ‘for Jonathan's sake’ (2 Sam. 9.1), and he spares Mephibosheth's life ‘because of the oath of YHWH which was between’ David and Jonathan, when the Gibeonites demand blood for blood (2 Sam. 21.7). I fully agree with Exum's opinion 77 that David's loyalty to Jonathan and Mephibosheth (2 Sam. 9.7) is questioned. Perhaps his decision to have Mephibosheth eat at the king's table (2 Sam. 9.7, 13) always stems from a desire to keep an eye on the hapless Saulide. It is clear from 2 Sam. 16.1–4 and 19.24–30 that no trust binds David to Jonathan's son. Mephibosheth plays no real role in David's kingdom, and his son Mica (2 Sam. 9.12) simply drops out of the picture.
What is more, even from Jonathan's side, the personal, tempestuous, and disinterested love, offered without limit, is soon anchored in a pact—a series of agreements, in fact—whose ultimate role is to guarantee the future of Jonathan and his descendants; 78 furthermore, the pact also implies some element of rebellion against Saul. 79
Footnotes
1.
U. Simon, ‘Jonathan Son of Saul: A Paragon of Military and Moral Courage’, in Seek Peace and Pursue It (Tel Aviv: Yedioth Aharonot Press, 2002), pp. 114–76 (155) (Hebrew).
2.
But note the Talmud's challenge to this remark: ‘Perhaps Jonathan the son of Saul [spoke thus] because he saw that the people were flocking to David’.
3.
D.F. Payne, I and II Samuel (The Daily Study Bible; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982), pp. 106, 108.
4.
J. Liver, ‘Jonathan son of Saul’, in Biblical Encyclopaedia (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1965), III, pp. 533–35 (534) (Hebrew).
5.
A. Levanon, In the Days of Saul (Jerusalem: Carmel, 2001 [Hebrew]), p. 1.
6.
David was already renowned as a valiant warrior (16.18). Saul appoints him his armour-bearer, which means that David was present at all of Saul's battles.
7.
This in contrast to the duel with Goliath, in which David does indeed speak and is depicted as a bold and ready man of action.
8.
Simon, ‘Jonathan Son of Saul’, p. 155.
9.
M. Sternberg, ‘The Truth vs. the Whole Truth in Biblical Narrative’, Hasifrut 29 (1979), pp. 110–46 (121–22) (Hebrew), posits that Jonathan's love for David, as described in the opening, belongs to a different emotional world than the love that Saul and Michal feel for him. It develops in a gradual process built up by the narrator as he fills in lacunae. To begin with, the soul of the lover (Jonathan) is linked to that of the beloved (David); then the two souls (Jonathan's and David's) become one for him.
10.
The function of a Leitwort as a keyword is to guide readers toward the meaning of the literary work. It is an indirect stylistic technique for shaping the sense; see Y. Amit, ‘The Problem of the Multipurpose Use of the Term Leitwort’, Sadan 1 (1994), pp. 35–47 (43, 46) (Hebrew).
11.
J. Even, Character in Narrative (Tel Aviv: Am Oved Press, 1980 [Hebrew]), pp. 76–77, notes that the action is sometimes rather exceptional in its intensity and rarity—a ‘great deed’ that cannot be belittled or forgotten. This ‘great deed’ effects some change in the domain on which it acts and may modify the external or emotional state of the person who performs it. He or she is different after the deed than before it. Jonathan's gift of his armour and weapons to David is such an action, which effects a change in Jonathan and certainly in David.
12.
Simon, ‘Jonathan Son of Saul’, p. 154, notes ‘that Jonathan expressed the emotional closeness between them by giving [David] his own clothes and weapons’.
13.
There are other cases in which a transfer of clothes, and especially the rending of a cloak, symbolizes the transfer of authority (Num. 20.28; 2 Kgs 2.13). D. Gunn, The Fate of King Saul: An Interpretation of a Biblical Story (JSOTSup, 14; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1980), p. 80, argues that Jonathan's gift of his cloak to David symbolizes the transfer of the kingdom, just as the rending of the cloak symbolizes the division of the kingdom. We see this when Saul tears Samuel's robe (1 Sam. 15.27–28), and we see it again with Ahijah (1 Kgs 11.30). Simon, ‘Jonathan Son of Saul’, p. 155, argues that in the ancient East a sacral covenant (David will later refer to this pact, in Jonathan's hearing, as ‘a pact of the Lord’) received its validity from the force of the symbolic act.
14.
S.v. יימ, ימ: BDB, p. 551; HAL, p. 546. If the reference is to some military garment made to order for a specific fighter, Jonathan is giving David something personal. Clothes were very valuable in ancient times (Judg. 14.12; 2 Kgs 5.5). The use of garments in such transactions is evidence of their great value. See S. Bar-Efrat, 1 Samuel (A Bible Commentary for Israel; Tel Aviv: Am Oved Press, 1996 [Hebrew]), p. 236.
15.
J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1986), pp. 199–200, contends that the bow symbolizes the relations between Jonathan and David. David even mentions the bow in his lament (2 Sam. 1.22). By contrast, Saul did not give David his spear (1 Sam. 17.38). In the event, the spear represents Saul's antipathy for David: he throws it at David and tries to kill him.
16.
Fokkelman (Narrative Art and Poetry, pp. 198–99), says that ‘stripped himself’ (or ‘took off’) indicates both the removal of these items for his personal use as well as a symbolic renunciation of the crown. Simon (‘Jonathan Son of Saul’, p. 155) explains that the pact between the two acquired its force from the symbolic act, which Jonathan executes dramatically. He gives David his own outer garments and his own weapons, which he has just removed from off his own body. Simon sees this as an expression of their emotional closeness.
17.
Simon, ‘Jonathan Son of Saul’, p. 155, sees the threefold repetition of the word דען, ‘even’, as the narrator's way of indicating how astonishing the nature and scale of this gift were.
18.
See Y. Peleg, ‘Love at First Sight? David, Jonathan, and the Biblical Politics of Gender’, JSOT 30 (2005), pp. 171–89 (178).
19.
The legitimacy of inferring a character's inner motives derives from S. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (JSOTSup, 70; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), pp. 77–78.
20.
The same phrase is used with regard to Jacob's love for Benjamin: ‘his soul is bound up with his soul’ (Gen. 44.30).
21.
See Simon, ‘Jonathan Son of Saul’, p. 155.
22.
Pace Simon, ‘Jonathan Son of Saul’, p. 155, who believes that the affection is mutual.
23.
The singular verb תןךכיו at the start of v. 3 is a standard grammatical pattern in Classical Hebrew when the verb precedes a compound plural subject: thus, ‘Jonathan and David made a pact’. (We would use a plural verb today.) But given the continuation, ‘because he loved him as his own soul’, it is clear that the subject of the verb is Jonathan alone, rather than David and Jonathan. This means (1) that the waw prefixed to ‘David’ should not be understood as ‘and’ but as ‘with’; Jonathan is making a unilateral pact with David. We find a similar usage in Exod. 21.4, and in 1 Sam. 14.18. Alternatively, (2) perhaps we should emend דןדן, ‘and David’, to דןדל, where the preposition has the sense of ‘with’ (as found in the context of making a pact in Deut. 7.2; Judg. 2.2; 1 Sam. 11.1)—thus S.R. Driver, The Books of Samuel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), p. 140. M.H. Segal, The Books of Samuel (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1964 [Hebrew]), p. 148, asserts that the use of the prepositional lamed is standard chiefly in pacts between a conqueror and a subjugated people or between a king and his subjects (as in 2 Sam. 5.3). Bar-Efrat (1 Samuel, p. 235) believes that ‘the verb is in the singular because Jonathan is the more important figure and the initiator’. M. Garsiel, ‘Chapters 13–14, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23’, in 1 Samuel (World of the Bible; Tel Aviv: Chronicles Publishing, 1999 [Hebrew]), p. 164, agrees, adding that ‘the narrator's intention is to tell us that Jonathan is the moving spirit and initiator of the pact’.
24.
The terms of the pact between Jonathan and David are not clear. We only have the technical term keritat berit. It is possible that the content of their pact is represented by Jonathan's removal of his cloak and weapons. M. Weinfeld, Studies in the Books of the Former Prophets and their Editing (Jerusalem: University of Jerusalem Press, 1972 [Hebrew]), pp. 86 and 95, notes that the most common biblical expression for concluding a pact is תידבתדב, ‘cut a covenant’. This assertion is based on the fact that the locution is found in Phoenician (krtlt in an inscription from Arslan Tash, KAL 27.8–9) as well as in Aramaic (gezar'adya’, in a contract from Sephira, I A.7). Building on this conjecture, I believe we can infer the terms of the pact from similar ones in the East. Entering into a covenant with someone means binding him/her to a system of obligations of loyalty and fealty. Because it is Jonathan who makes the pact with someone of inferior status, this is not an agreement between equals.
25.
J.A. Thompson, ‘The Significance of the Verb Love in the David–Jonathan Narratives in I Samuel’, VT 24 (1974), pp. 334–38 (334). We learn that the use of the root ץפח to describe the relations between Jonathan and David indicates that their pact is valid both during their lives and after their deaths. This helps explain David's fidelity to Jonathan's descendants after his death (1 Sam. 20.15; 2 Sam. 9.3). In the Deuteronomist literature, too, ץפח expresses loyalty to the terms of the covenant between the Lord and his people: ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might’ (Deut. 6.5). Here this is a demand for loyalty and obedience to the Lord.
26.
D.J. Wiseman, ‘The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon’, Iraq 20 (1958), pp. 1–99.
27.
EA 53.40–44. W.L. Moran, ‘The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy’, CBQ 25 (1963), pp. 77–87 (79), notes that the Amarna letters use the root ץפח to refer to a vassal's obligation toward his suzerain.
28.
ךשק in the niphal has the sense of ‘plot’ or ‘conspire’ (s.v. ךשק, BDB, p. 905) or ‘rebel’ (Ben Yehuda, p. 6258). P.R. Ackroyd, ‘The Verb Love in the David–Jonathan Narratives: A Footnote’, VT 25 (1975), pp. 213–14, notes that it is impossible to determine the significance of ךשק in the niphal in 18.1 in advance. Perhaps we can infer its meaning here from Saul's use of this verb to reprove his retainers for supporting David against him (1 Sam. 22.8; see also v. 13)—and the occurrence of ךשק in accounts of intrigues against the ruler (1 Kgs 15.27; 2 Kgs 21.23). It is possible that the choice of precisely this verb hints that the strong bond between David and Jonathan is also an insurrection against Saul, although if so this is an anticipatory allusion.
29.
H.W. Hertzberg, I and II Samuel (OTL; London: SCM Press, 1964), pp. 101–35 (155); Payne, I and II Samuel, p. 95; S. Abramsky and G. Galil (eds.), The World of the Bible (Tel Aviv: Chronicles Publishing, 1999 [Hebrew]), p. 134, and Simon, ‘Jonathan Son of Saul’, p. 155, all see Jonathan's actions as expressing his love and friendship. Like H.P. Smith, The Books of Samuel (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1899), p. 166, however, I see them as having a political motive. Jonathan concludes an alliance with David in order to guarantee that he will have a special relationship with David when the latter comes to power. He does the same thing later, when he informs him that he will be his second-in-command (23.17). See also J.G. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel (TOTC; Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1988), p. 129. Baldwin argues that it is quite impossible that Jonathan spontaneously removed his clothes and weapons and gave them to David in order to show the strength of his love. Jonathan recognized David's merits. It is an extraordinary case and we cannot be certain what Jonathan was thinking when he gave his weapons to David.
30.
Jonathan, like his father and the rest of the people, knew that David had been chosen by Samuel and accepted the fact that the kingship would pass him over; see D.V. Edelman, King Saul in the Historiography of Judah (JSOTSup, 121; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), p. 136.
31.
Unlike Absalom and Adonijah, the sons of David, princes who boastfully assert their right to reign (2 Sam. 15.1–6; 1 Kgs 1.5).
32.
See P.K. McCarter, I Samuel (AB, 8; New York: Doubleday, 1980), p. 323.
33.
Gunn, The Fate of King Saul, p. 81, and Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, p. 131, describe Jonathan's actions as plotting with David against Saul. In this case, according to Gunn, the goal is to keep Saul from killing David.
34.
Can we learn anything about Jonathan's love for David from the phrase Jonathan ‘delighted in David very much'? BDB (p. 342) gives the meaning of ץפחas ‘desiring good for someone’, ‘desiring someone's proximity and friendship’. Segal, The Books of Samuel, p. 155, maintains that ץפח denotes ‘love’ and that it is used here to express Jonathan's love for David, as in Gen. 34.19. See also Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, p. 250; Y. Kiel, Samuel (Jerusalem: Da'at Mikra, 1981), p. 196; and Bar-Efrat, 1 Samuel, p. 248, all explain that Jonathan's desire is genuine and add that here ץפח is used in contrast to ‘the king is fond of you (ךב ץפח)’ (1 Sam. 18.22). Edelman, King Saul, p. 144, maintains that use of ץפח to describe Jonathan's relationship to David does not express love, but only that Jonathan has made his peace with the Lord's choice of David as the next king. Edelman, unlike Bar-Efrat, holds that the meaning of the word in 18.22 and 19.1 is identical and thus cannot express love. I agree that the use of ץפח denotes some emotion other than true love and should be understood with the sense of pleasing, as in Songs 2.7 (‘do stir not up or awaken love until it please [ץפחתשדע]’). That is, Jonathan was interested in David's wellbeing, but not necessarily because of his love for him.
35.
This assumption is based on M. Sternberg, ‘A Delicate Balance in the Story of the Rape of Dinah’, Hasifrut 4.3 (1973), pp. 193–231 (194) (Hebrew).
36.
See D. Jobling, I Samuel (Berit Olam; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998), pp. 98–99.
37.
Edelman, King Saul, p. 134.
38.
See Payne, I and II Samuel, p. 100.
39.
According to David Kimhi, Jonathan told David to hide in the field so that he would overhear his advocacy of his cause to his father. According to Joseph Kaspi, ‘Jonathan's intention was that David hear his words if he could’.
40.
A. Ehrlich, The Plain Meaning of the Bible (Berlin: M. Poppelauer's Buchhandlung Press, 1900 [Hebrew]), II, p. 147, asserts that Jonathan's love for David in this unit is an interested love. Gunn, The Fate of King Saul, p. 82, holds that Jonathan's brief to Saul consists more of flattery toward David than of sound arguments to persuade the angry king to change his mind.
41.
Edelman, King Saul, p. 144, notes that Jonathan has accepted David as the heir to the throne.
42.
Smith, The Books of Samuel, p. 184, and Segal, The Books of Samuel, p. 160, raise a difficulty: why was David not afraid to go to Jonathan after Saul had repeatedly tried to capture and kill him?
43.
Smith, The Books of Samuel, p. 184, wonders how Jonathan could be unaware of Saul's explicit desire to kill David. Ehrlich (Plain Meaning, p. 149), notes: ‘It is as clear as day that Saul wanted to kill David; so how could Jonathan say this?’ See also Segal, The Books of Samuel, p. 160; Payne, I and II Samuel, pp. 104–105.
44.
Some see no problem in Jonathan's astonishment that his father is trying to kill David, and offer several explanations: (1) all of Saul's later attempts to kill David were sparked by the evil spirit that troubled him. As Kimhi notes, ‘Jonathan thought that he wanted to kill him because of the evil spirit that troubled/terrified him’. See also Gersonides, Abravanel, and Keil and Delitzsch (C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Books of Samuel [trans. J. Martin; Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1950 (German edn, 1866)], p. 206). (2) Perhaps Jonathan had not been with his father and had not heard about the recent attempt to kill David. This argument is advanced by Isaiah of Trani: ‘We can say that Jonathan had not been with his father and did not know anything about this’.
45.
See Kimhi, followed by Kiel, Samuel, p. 102, and Payne, I and II Samuel, pp. 104–105. All of them argue that Jonathan knew, from personal experience, that Saul was scrupulous about oaths (14.39–44) and consequently thought that he would not violate his vow (19.6).
46.
F. Polak, Biblical Narrative: Aspects of Art and Design (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1994 [Hebrew]), pp. 282–84, calls this phenomenon the character's inner conflict.
47.
‘And he said to him, “Heaven forbid! You shall not die. My father does not do anything, great or small, without disclosing it to me” ’ (1 Sam. 20.2). Driver, The Books of Samuel, p. 160, notes that the qere השצי אל, rather than the kethib השצול, corresponds temporally to the future tense of הלגיאל.
48.
Edelman, King Saul, p. 155, notes that Jonathan's words to David, ‘Whatever you want, I will do for you’, recall what his armour-bearer told him in the Michmas war ‘Do whatever you like’ (1 Sam. 14.7). On the symbolic level, Jonathan has become David's armour-bearer and must now protect him. Later, too, David paints two possible scenarios, just as Jonathan had done for his armour bearer at Michmas (14.8–10).
49.
Jobling, I Samuel, p. 161, discusses the interpretation, which he considers to be perfectly legitimate, that David and Jonathan were engaged in a homosexual relationship, and that Saul's complaint in 1 Sam. 20.30–34 proves this. It could also explain Jonathan's motive for transferring the throne to David. He will be David's consort, and the pact between them will be like marriage.
50.
Weinfeld, Studies, p. 90, notes that in the ancient world alliances were expressed by means of an oath and obligation. Imposing a pact on someone meant binding him/her to a system of obligations guaranteed by an oath. This is why Jonathan uses the language of oaths: ‘may the Lord do thus to Jonathan and more’ (1 Sam. 20.13).
B. Green, How Are the Mighty Fallen? (JSPSup, 365; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), pp. 337 and 366, points out that we have to explain Mephibosheth's survival as fulfilment of the pact between Jonathan and David. So, too, the scene at the feast (1 Sam. 20.24) anticipates the complex relationship between King David and Mephibosheth.
51.
The
52.
This argument is advanced by Segal, The Books of Samuel, p. 164. In the event, David shows Jonathan's descendants the דםח of the Lord that Jonathan had requested: ‘And the king said, “Is there not still some one of the house of Saul, that I may show the דםח of God?” ’ (2 Sam. 9.3). Bar-Efrat, 1 Samuel, p. 261, understands דםח of the Lord to mean דםח of the magnitude that the Lord himself does, as in Ps. 36.7.
53.
McCarter (I Samuel, p. 342), notes that, at the start, it was David who begged Jonathan for דםח; but now the relationship has been inverted and the prince is begging the fugitive retainer for דםח.
54.
‘Jonathan covenanted’—literally ‘Jonathan cut’ (ןתנןהי נרכיו)—has no noun complement. Such uses of נרכ without נירכ, ‘covenant’, as its object is uncommon; but 1 Sam. 22.8 and 1 Kgs 8.9 prove that it is possible. The meaning is certainly that Jonathan made a pact with David.
55.
The link between ‘because he loved him’ and ‘adjuring’ (20.17) is problematic. Jonathan's love cannot be a reason for his asking David to swear. The
56.
See above, the discussion of the meaning of בהא.
57.
McCarter (I Samuel, p. 342) notes that the fact that the oath was prompted by Jonathan's love for David alludes to political loyalty, as we have already seen in 18.1.
58.
Smith, The Books of Samuel, pp. 190 and 192, argues that the word רצ, ‘witness’, must be interpolated here, because the standard formula is ‘the Lord is a witness between you and me forever’, as in Gen. 31.49–50, where it is God who serves as witness to the agreement. The
59.
Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry, p. 441, sees a link between Saul's ascension to power—‘do whatever your hand finds to do’ (1 Sam. 10.7) and Jonathan's declaration that Saul's reign is over and he will not be able to find David: ‘for the hand of Saul my father shall not find you’ (23.17).
60.
D. Jobling, ‘Jonathan: A Structural Study in 1 Samuel’, in The Sense of Biblical Narrative (JSOTSup, 7; Sheffield: Sheffield University, 1978), pp. 4–25 (21), notes that Jonathan did not have prophetic vision but nevertheless knew the divine plan for the future. Although this knowledge had been accurate in the past (20.13–16), his remarks to David now (23.17) are almost prophetic.
61.
See P.D. Miscall, I Samuel (ISBL; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986), p. 142.
62.
Miscall, I Samuel, p. 142.
63.
McCarter, I Samuel, p. 373, holds this view.
64.
W. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel (IBC; Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1990), p. 153, sees a problem here and asks why Saul has never proclaimed David his heir. He hypothesizes that although Saul knows that David will assume the crown and that Jonathan will be his second-in-command, he refrains from a formal announcement because he cannot or is unwilling to make it official. It is hard for him to relinquish power and he holds on to it tenaciously.
65.
ךלמל הנשמ, ‘viceroy’, as an official title, appears in two other places in the Bible (Est. 10.3 and 2 Chron. 28.7). In the case of Joseph (Gen. 41.43), the הנשמ word does not refer to a high office but to Pharaoh's reserve chariot. BDB, p. 1041, and HAL, p. 650 gloss הנשמ as ‘second in rank’—here, second after the king. S. Ahituv, ‘Mishneh, Mishneh ha-melekh’, Biblical Encyclopaedia, V, pp. 580–81 (580) (Hebrew), and S. Yeivin, ‘Office-holders’, Biblical Encyclopaedia, VI, pp. 540–74 (560), hold that הנשמ is not a permanent title or office but refers to a special status accorded to the person designated as such. In the case of Jonathan, it is a vague term to explain his status vis-à-vis David. McCarter (I Samuel, p. 374) maintains that it is an official title and that it refers to the king's son or the major domo.
66.
See Miscall, I Samuel, p. 142.
67.
See F. Polak, ‘Changes and Periods in the Language of Biblical Narrative’, Beit Mikra 43b (1998), pp. 130–60 (149) (Hebrew). Green (How Are the Mighty Fallen?, p. 361) notes that the encounter between David and Jonathan in the grove means that Saul cannot be deemed paranoid when he suspects the two of conspiring against him.
68.
Ehrlich, Plain Meaning, p. 158, maintains that Jonathan's request to be David's second-in-command is evidence that he is not motivated by pure love. Gunn, The Fate of King Saul, p. 89, and R. Alter, The David Story (New York: W.W. Norton, 1999), p. 143, think that Jonathan's request to serve as David's deputy, by virtue of their close friendship, is perfectly innocent. After all, David will supplant the Saulide dynasty to which Jonathan belongs. Edelman, King Saul, p. 188, is astonished that this is the first time we hear of Jonathan's plan to serve as David's second-in-command.
69.
The meaning of ‘before the Lord’ is not clear. According to Abravanel, ‘they concluded a pact in the presence of Abiathar the priest, who was holding the Urim and Tummim, in order to further reinforce it’. Josephus writes that Jonathan called on God to witness the curses he invoked on himself should he violate the agreement and modify or annul it. Segal, The Books of Samuel, p. 186, and Bar-Efrat, 1 Samuel, p. 296, explain that ‘before the Lord’ means that the Lord serves as the witness of their agreement.
70.
M. Zehnder, ‘Observations on the Relationship between David and Jonathan and the Debate on Homosexuality’, WTJ 69 (2007), pp. 127–74 (165–66).
71.
Zehnder, ‘Observations’, p. 163.
72.
As noted at the outset, Jonathan's name appears later in the story of his son Mephibosheth (2 Sam. 4.4, 9; 16.1–4; 19.25–31) and in the account of the Gibeonites’ revenge on Saul's descendants (2 Sam. 21.7).
73.
Jobling, I Samuel, pp. 162–65.
74.
Peleg, ‘Love at First Sight?’, p. 188.
75.
Y. Amit, Reading Biblical Stories (Jerusalem: Ministry of Defence, 2000 [Hebrew]), pp. 85–86.
76.
Zehnder, ‘Observations’, pp. 128–29, 174.
77.
J.C. Exum, Tragedy and Biblical Narrative (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 94, 120, 159, 175.
78.
Green, How Are the Mighty Fallen?, p. 401, maintains that, in his dialogues with David, Jonathan is strongly focused on how he can guarantee his descendants’ future (20.14–15, 42; 23.17).
79.
Saul repeatedly expresses his sense that Jonathan and David are plotting against him and that his courtiers are aware of the intrigue but do not tell him about it (20.30–34; 22.7–8, 13).