Translation
20 Then David fled from Naioth at Ramah and went to Jonathan and asked, “What have I done? What is my crime? How have I wronged your father, that he is trying to kill me?” 2 “Heaven forbid!” Jonathan replied. “You are not going to die! Look, my father doesn’t do anything, great or small, without letting me know. Why would he hide this from me? It isn’t so!” 3 But in reply David said, “Your father knows very well that I have found favor in your eyes, and he has said to himself, ‘Jonathan must not know this, lest he take counsel [with David].’ Yet as surely as the Lord lives and as you live, there is but a step between me and death!” 4 Jonathan said to David, “Whatever you want me to do, I’ll do for you.” 5 So David said, “Look, tomorrow is the New Moon feast, and I am supposed to dine with the king; but let me go and hide in the field until the evening of the day after tomorrow. 6 If your father misses me at all, tell him, ‘David earnestly asked my permission to hurry to Bethlehem, his hometown, because an annual sacrifice is being made there for his whole clan.’ 7 If he says, ‘Very well,’ then your servant is safe. But if he loses his temper, you can be sure that he is determined to harm me. 8 As for you, show kindness to your servant, for you have brought him into a covenant with you before the Lord. If I am guilty, then kill me yourself! Why hand me over to your father?” 9 “Never!” Jonathan said. “If I learn that my father intends that evil should come upon you, I shall inform you! 10 David asked, “Who will tell me if your father answers you harshly?” 11 “Come,” Jonathan said, “let’s go out into the field.” So they went there together. 12 Then Jonathan said to David, “I swear by the Lord, the God of Israel, that I will surely sound out my father by this time the day after tomorrow! If he is favorably disposed toward you, will I not send your word and let you know? 13 But if my father intends to harm you, may the Lord deal with Jonathan, be it ever so severely, if I do not let you know and send you away in peace. May the Lord be with you as he has been with my father. 14 But show me unfailing kindness like the Lord’s kindness as long as I live, so that I may not be killed, 15 and do not ever cut off your kindness from my family—not even when the Lord has cut off every one of David’s enemies from the face of the earth, 16 So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, “May the Lord call David’s enemies to account.” 17 And Jonathan had David reaffirm his oath out of love for him, because he loved him as he loved himself.
Text Criticism
There are many interesting text-critical variants found in this section of 1 Sam 20, multiple of which are found in 1 Sam 20:3. The MT says in v 3, “And David swore again” using the Hebrew וַיִּשָּׁבַ֨ע (wayisaba) which means “and took an oath”. The LXX asserts that it is “But in reply David said”, literally “But David made return and said”. The latter translation is more likely to be correct, as at this point in the text, David has not yet sworn once, so it would not make sense for him to “swear again”. For this reason, I have chosen to go with the LXX version, “But in reply David said”, in my exegesis. There is another interesting textual variant in 1 Sam 20:3, “lest he take counsel [with David]”. The LXXB says “lest he take counsel” and LXXL, Syr., and OL all support the version of the text found in the LXXB. The MT is where a variant of the text is found. It says, “lest he be grieved”. It is unlikely that David would have thought that Saul would be concerned with his son’s feelings. It is more likely that he thought Saul would be less concerned with whether or not Jonathan would be grieved, and more concerned with Jonathan knowing about his plan to kill David, lest he tell David. For this reason, I have used “lest he take counsel [with David]” for my exegesis. “He has sworn a pact” is a difficult translation. The MT contains the Hebrew כִּ֣יכְפֶ֔שַׂע (Ki kepesa) which could possibly be translated as “(it is) only a step (between me and death)!” The LXXB translation removes the word “step” altogether, as it reads, “Because, as I have said, he is sated,” (hoti kathōs eipon empeplēstai) which can also be read as, “as I have said, he has sworn (an oath between me and death)”. If the Hebrew in the MT כִּי כְפֶשַׂע, בֵּינִי וּבֵין הַמָּוֶת (kî kepeśa bênî ûbên hammāwet), meaning “he has sworn a pact between me and death”, then there is no parallel expression in the rest of the Hebrew Bible. Death here is depicted as being David’s partner, almost as if there is a covenant between David and death just like there is a covenant between David and Jonathan. When thought of using this metaphor, this translation makes sense. However, some scholars suggest that the “step” imagery is an allusion to David’s “quick dodging step that twice enabled [him] to elude Saul’s hurled spear”. Because Saul had sought to kill David twice in the past, the writer could easily be trying to get the reader to recall this fact about David and Saul’s history. Contextually, the “step” metaphor makes sense. While this version remains a difficult one to translate with certainty, I have chosen to go with the MT translation for my exegesis.
In 1 Sam 20:9, some of the verse has been lost. Before the last part of the verse, “I shall inform you”, there is something missing. The MT has וְלֹ֥א אֹתָ֖הּ (welō’ ‘ōtāh), meaning “and I shall not (read lū, “surely”?) inform you of it”. The LXX has it translated two ways, as “and if he is/he is not (…to your cities, I myself shall inform you?)”. None of these seemingly make more sense than the other, and are likely not the result of deliberate editing, but unintentional error. Attempts to make sense of the MT version have proved unhelpful. The way this verse is interpreted in context is simply with the ambiguous text omitted, “If I learn that my father intends that evil should come upon you…[?]…I shall inform you!”.
There are multiple instances in 1 Sam 20:12 where text has been omitted. At the beginning of this verse, the MT states only “Yahweh, God of Israel”, which is read as “by Yahweh, God of Israel”. However, in the Syr., “Yahweh, God of Israel ” is preceded by “is witness” (nshd) so the omission of this from the MT could represent a corruption of the original text. Both options “by Yahweh, God of Israel” and “Yahweh, God of Israel”, can be conflated and still maintain the same meaning. Therefore, the text is read, “Yahweh, God of Israel, is witness”. In v 16, the MT contains the phrase, “and Jonathan cut (a covenant) with the house of David” (wykrt yhwntn ‘m byt dwd). However, the LXX uses exarthēnai (ἐξαρθῆναι) which means “to be removed”, making the translation, “the name of Jonathan is cut off from (or removed) from the house of David”. The LXX translation makes sense when put in context of the previous verse, “never cut off your loyalty from my house. And when Yahweh cuts off each of the enemies of David from upon the face of the earth…”. However, the Hebrew word כּרת, which means “to cut”, can be used together with בּרית (covenant) to mean, “To cut a covenant”. In fact, כּרת is even used earlier in 1 Sam 18 to describe the covenant between Jonathan and David. Additionally, covenants in the OT were often made by sacrificing animals, like in Gen 15, God has Abram cut several animals in half as a sacrifice in order to “cut a covenant” with God (15:18). So, “to cut” is not always used literally in Hebrew. Also, כּרת is used several times in the OT, including other places in 1 Samuel, without בּרית to mean “to cut a covenant” by itself. For example, 1 Sam 11:2 says, “But Nahash the Ammonite replied, “I will make a covenant (כּרת) with you only on the condition that I gouge out the right eye of every one of you and so bring disgrace on all Israel.” This means that there is a precedent set by the Hebrew writer in 1 Samuel for using כּרת as a standalone to imply “cut a covenant”. Having Jonathan “cut a covenant” with David would also make sense in the context of the following verse, “And Jonathan had David reaffirm his oath out of love for him, because he loved him as he loved himself.” (v 17). Therefore, that is the interpretation I chose for my exegesis. The final phrase in v 16 is “then may Yahweh call David to account” (wbqš yhwh myd dwd), the literal translation for which is “then may Yahweh seek (it) from the hand of Yahweh”. The MT uses the word ‘yby (אֹיְבֵי), meaning “enemies”, which makes the verse, “then may Yahweh call David’s enemies to account”. Some scholars argue was likely a later addition “inserted to avoid an imprecation on David”.
History
The division of Samuel into 1 and 2 Samuel is an artificial one, as it does not appear that way in the original Hebrew text. The LXX divided it into two books, which are referred to as the first two books of Kingdoms (Reigns). 1 and 2 Kings is referred to in the LXX as the third and fourth books of Kingdoms. These titles make sense as the beginning of 1 Kings describes the death of David, who is the most prominent figure depicted in Samuel. It is probable that these four books actually belong together. There were four fragments of the Book of Samuel found at Qumran. These are referred to as 1Q Samuel, 4Q SamuelA, 4Q SamuelB, and 4Q SamuelC.
I Samuel tells of the establishment monarchy in Israel, and later, the expansion of the Kingdom of Israel. The narrative contains the trials of the first king of Israel, Saul, and of David’s early days in Saul’s court. Eventually, it tells of the rise of King David as Saul’s successor. The book contains great insight into the everyday lives of the people of Ancient Israel, and the religious, political, and cultural landscape of the region. While some early chapters of 1 Samuel seem to date back to the premonarchial era, there is obvious editing that can be dated to the late seventh or early sixth century. These edits are attributed to Deuteronomistic Historians, who edited the original texts to reflect their own theological understanding of Israel’s history. Their understanding is “based on the covenant between Yahweh and Israel laid out in the core of the book of Deuteronomy”. The two books of Samuel were originally found as a single scroll in the Dead Sea, written in Hebrew. Later, they were divided due to their length into Greek and Latin manuscripts. The Greek version of the text in LXX is longer than it is in the MT, which has led some scholars to believe that some text had been added to the translation. However, the Dead Sea scrolls show us that the LXX is faithful to the original text, and that some of the text had “fallen out” of he Hebrew due to scribal error.
As a historical account, 1 Samuel is deeply flawed. Specifically, there are several different accounts of Saul’s rise power and of how David comes to serve in his court. In reference to David’s appointment in Saul’s court, 1 Sam 16:17-22 says,
17 So Saul said to his attendants, “Find someone who plays well and bring him to me.” 18 One of the servants answered, “I have seen a son of Jesse of Bethlehem who knows how to play the lyre. He is a brave man and a warrior. He speaks well and is a fine-looking man. And the Lord is with him.”19 Then Saul sent messengers to Jesse and said, “Send me your son David, who is with the sheep.” 20 So Jesse took a donkey loaded with bread, a skin of wine and a young goat and sent them with his son David to Saul.21 David came to Saul and entered his service. Saul liked him very much, and David became one of his armor-bearers. 22 Then Saul sent word to Jesse, saying, “Allow David to remain in my service, for I am pleased with him.”
In the very next chapter, 1 Samuel 17, Saul seems to have no idea who David is until he kills Goliath. 1 Sam 17:58 says, “Whose son are you, young man?” Saul asked him. David said, “I am the son of your servant Jesse of Bethlehem.” How could it be that in 1 Sam 16, Saul knows that David is a musician, and more importantly, the son of Jesse, and is able to send for him by way of a message to Jesse, when in the very next chapter Saul asks, “Whose son are you?” As previously mentioned, it is clear that the book of 1 Samuel is not the work of the same author. Nineteenth century scholars divided 1 Samuel into two parts. The first part, chapters 9:1-10:16; 11; 13-14, portrayed a more favorable view of the monarchy, while the second part, chapters 7-8; 10:17-27; 12; 15, portrayed a far less favorable account of the monarchy. One explanation for this is that the first Deuteronomistic edition, which was favorable to the monarchy, was written during the time of Josiah. The second Deuteronomistic edition was incorporated after the monarchy had collapsed, during the exile, which would explain the negative attitude towards the monarchy. 1 Samuel also has two separate accounts for how Saul became king. 1 Samuel 10:20-24 says,
“When Samuel had all Israel come forward by tribes, the tribe of Benjamin was taken by lot. Then he brought forward the tribe of Benjamin, clan by clan, and Matri’s clan was taken. Finally Saul, son of Kish, was taken. But when they looked for him, he was not to be found. So they inquired further of the Lord, ‘Has the man come here yet?’ And the Lord said, ‘Yes, he has hidden himself among the supplies.’ They ran and brought him out, and as he stood among the people he was a head taller than any of the others. Samuel said to all the people, ‘Do you see the man the Lord has chosen? There is no one like him among all the people.’ Then the people shouted, ‘Long live the king!’”
In contrast, 1 Samuel 11:12-15 recounts,
“The people then said to Samuel, ‘Who was it that asked, ‘Shall Saul reign over us?’ Turn these men over to us so that we may put them to death.’ But Saul said, “No one will be put to death today, for this day the Lord has rescued Israel.”Then Samuel said to the people, “Come, let us go to Gilgal and there renew the kingship.’ So all the people went to Gilgal and made Saul king in the presence of the Lord…”
The apparent contradictions in the account of Saul’s reign, and later on the accounts of David and Solomon’s reign, make it difficult to describe with any accuracy the history of the united monarchy (the monarchy of Saul, David, and Solomon) of Israel. However, the historical accuracy of these accounts is irrelevant as they were not written to serve as historical reports. These are not stories about history. The existence of a united monarchy in the tenth century BCE was most likely not possible. Judah, the center of David’s kingdom, was mostly unsettled at this time. The capital city of Jerusalem was completely unsettled until around the year 900. There simply wouldn’t have been any kingdom for these kings to rule over, as Judah and Jerusalem were not populated with enough people. Clearly, the narrative contained in 1 Samuel has some relationship to history, but the author is far more concerned with the thematic and character aspects of the narrative than with historical accuracy. The second half of first Samuel deals with David’s rise to power. As previously stated, King David, the David of the Bible, is not meant to be seen as a historical figure. Similar to the rest of 1 Samuel, the account of David’s rise to power is more akin to a historical novel, rather than a kind of chronicle like those found in the books of Kings. Some scholars even debate whether or not David ever existed. Central to this debate is the Tel Dan Inscription, a ninth-century B.C.E. Aramaic inscription which seems to be a narration by the King of Aram, who claims to have defeated the “house of David”. This is the earliest known extra-biblical reference to David’s monarchy, and the Hebrew contained in the inscription reads, בית דוד (beyt David) or “house of David’. Additional Hebrew inscriptions read מלך ישׂראל (melek yisrael). If the account of King Aram’s defeat of the “house of David” in the Tel Dan Inscription is to be believed, then on the surface level, this would seem to prove that David was indeed King of Israel in the ninth century. On the contrary, I would argue that this is too simplistic of an explanation, and one that doesn’t take into account how the phrase “house of David” was not always used literally in Israel. The ruling family in northern Israel was referred to as the “house of David” for roughly four centuries, much longer than King David could have lived. The Davidic dynasty in Judah far outlived the man himself. For this reason, the Tel Dan Inscriptions do very little to solidify David’s place in history.
Similar to Saul’s kingship, there is more than one account in 1 Samuel of how David became king. 1 Sam 16:1-13 says that he is anointed by Samuel, though it is not immediately apparent as to why David is being chosen. Samuel explains his reasoning in v 16:7, “The Lord does not see as mortals see. They look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.” It is only a few verses later, in v 16:14-23, that a different account for David’s appointment to kingship is made. In these verses, it says that David is chosen because of his skill as a musician, and because of Saul’s inability to continue his reign as king due to an apparent affliction by “an evil spirit from the Lord”. The exact characteristics of this “evil spirit” are not elaborated on in the rest of the text. However, the change in Saul’s behavior is clear. On one hand, it says in v 16:21 that Saul loves David, and even views him as his own son (24:16). On the other hand, however, Saul is also obsessed with killing David (19:16; 24:16-22). It can be speculated that Saul’s increasingly agitated behavior and mood swings can be attributed to mental illness. The relationship between Saul and David is complicated further by David’s relationship with Jonathan, Saul’s son. I will further explore this relationship dynamic in the text criticism section of this paper.
Text Criticism and Queer Criticism
1 Samuel 20 most closely imitates the genre of apology, especially when in reference to the relationship between Saul and David. It serves as an apology for David, who may be accused of trying to unjustly usurp the throne from Saul. Throughout 1 Samuel 19-24, Saul tries to kill David multiple times out of jealousy, and members of Saul’s own family, like Jonathan and Michal, choose David’s side over Saul’s. In this pericope, Jonathan is the character who is shown as being sympathetic towards David, coming to his defense against his own father. The climax of the conflict between Saul and David eventually ends when Saul gives up the throne to David. He even tells David, in v 24:17, “You are more righteous than I, and declares that David is “the Lord’s anointed” and in v 24:10. As previously stated in the history section of this paper, Saul is depicted as being emotionally unstable, obsessed with killing David, and afflicted with an “evil spirit”, all of which make David look like a more suitable king by comparison. In later chapters of 1 Samuel, however, the apology of David gets more complicated. An example of this is in the story in 1 Samuel 25 which involves David, Abigail, and Nabal. Nabal, whose name is the Hebrew word for “fool”, is the husband of Abigail, and a “vicious, materialistic, egocentric misfit”. He is also depicted as a Calebite, kalibbi, in 1 Sam 25:3, which means either “Calebite” or “dog-like”. In contrast, his wife, Abigail, is depicted as “the ideal woman”, extremely beautiful and intelligent. The deliberate negative characterization of Nabal and the positive characterization for Abigail becomes relevant when David eventually takes Abigail as his own wife. The story shows that Nabal is not a good match for Abigail, and that David is the man who is truly worthy to be her husband. The assassination of Nabal’s character is not unlike the assignation of Saul’s character seen in other sections of 1 Samuel. The problem with viewing 1 Sam 25 as an apology, however, is that there are several instances in the story where David is seemingly depicted in a negative way, at least to the modern reader. David is seen taking a bribe (25:26-27), and most notably, wishes to kill Nabal over a grudge. It is only through Abigail’s intercession that he spares Nabal’s life. David sparing Nabal’s life is a narrative parallel to David sparing Saul’s life. In both instances, David is depicted as being powerful enough to kill, but choosing not to at the last minute. This restraint from murder seemingly always comes from God. 1 Sam 26:23 shows David’s reluctance to kill Saul because he is “the Lord’s anointed”, and in 25:30-31, Abigail says, “…when the Lord has anointed you ruler over Israel, it should not be a cause for you to stumble or to lose your courage that you shed blood without cause…”. It is implied throughout 1 Samuel that the Lord is with David, even in moments of questionable moral integrity which further serves to make it appear to be the genre apology.
The relationship between David and Jonathan in 1 Samuel is very similar to the relationship between Gilgamesh and Enkidu in the Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh. The Epic of Gilgamesh belongs to the Early Dynastic period (2900 to 2350 BCE). During this time in Mesopotamian history, people known as the Sumerians lived in the southern region of what we know today as Iraq. Later, the Semitic-speaking Akkadians would immigrate into the region, and influence the tradition of the Gilgamesh Epic. The Epic’s protagonists are Gilgamesh, the hero of the story as well as the king of the Mesopotamian city-state Uruk, and Enkidu, who was created by the gods to rival Gilgamesh, but quickly becomes his close friend instead. After Gilgamesh and Enkidu from Uruk to the Cedar Forest to kill Humbaba, the Bull of Heaven, the gods decide that Enkidu must die. It is Gilgamesh’s grief over Enkidu, whose face he covers “like a bride (kî kallati)” after his death, and the fear of his own death that drive him to find Utnapishtim, the hero of the Mesopotamian flood story. Utnapishtim was granted immortality by the gods after his survival of the flood, and Gilgamesh hopes, in vain, that the same will be granted to him. Although there is never an explicit sexual relationship between Gilgamesh and Enkidu, some scholars suspect that their relationship has homoerotic overtones. The ancient Mesopotamians, as well as the ancient Israelites, did not understand the concept of homosexuality the way it is understood today. However, this does not mean that there are not conversations to be had about the nature of same-gender relationships in sacred narratives in the modern era. Assyriologist Thorkild Jacobsen was the first scholar to suggest that the relationship between Gilgamesh and Enkidu’s relationship should be viewed as sexual in nature. He posited this mainly based upon the two dreams that Gilgamesh has early on in the epic. In the first dream, Gilgamesh dreams of a meteorite coming to Earth. His mother, the goddess Ninsun, interprets this to mean that a new companion will come to Gilgamesh and be “embraced” (edērum) by him, a man he will ”love like a wife”. In the second dream, Gilgamesh dreams of an axe, that he “loved (râmum) it and cohabited (ḫabābum) with it, as if it were a woman (kīma aššatim)”. The Standard version of the epic describes Gilgamesh loving the axe “like a wife (kî aššate)” It is clear in context that the meteorite and the axe metaphorically represent Enkidu. Jacobsen says that this “cannot mean anything but that homosexual intercourse is going to take place between Gilgamesh and the newcomer.” Additionally, it is worth noting that neither Gilgamesh or Enkidu are depicted as having sexual relationships with women once they become companions with each other. The feminizing language that is used throughout the Epic of Gilgamesh to describe the relationship between the two heroes is similar to the language in 1 and 2 Samuel to describe the relationship between David and Jonathan. For example, as David laments over Jonathan’s death, he remarks in 2 Sam 1:26, “Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.” This is similar to how Gilgamesh loves Enkidu “like a wife”. Both David and Gilgamesh suffer the loss of a male companion whom they loved in this way.
Grammar and Lexical Study
1 Sam 20:17 says, “And Jonathan had David reaffirm his oath out of love for him, because he loved him as he loved himself.” The root word that is used here for “loved” is אהב (‘āhaḇ or ʼâhêb). It occurs 210 times in the Old Testament and a general Hebrew word for love. In the Piel stem, it can be used to describe friends, lovers, and even adulterers. Because its meaning is rather broad, אהב is used to describe a wide variety of types of love throughout the OT. For example, אהב is used to describe humanity’s love for God (Deut 5:10, 6:5, 11:1), as well as God’s love for humanity (Deut 7:8, 13). It is used to describe the love between a father and a son (Gen 22:2, 37:3-4), a mother and a son (Gen 25:28), and a husband and a wife (Gen 29:18, 24:67). אהב is even used to describe love for good food (Gen 27:4, 9, 14). In Song of Songs, אהב is used within the context of a loving sexual relationship between a man and a woman. However, there are places in the OT where translating אהב as “to love” is problematic. One such example is in 2 Sam 13. In this chapter, a man named Amnon, son of David, is depicted as being obsessed with his sister, Tamar. He becomes so infatuated with her that, in v 14, he proceeds to rape her. The word used in the first verse of this passage, “…Amnon son of David fell in love with Tamar…” is אהב. Obviously, within the frame of the extreme sexual violence perpetrated by Amnon, his feelings towards Tamar can hardly be described as “love”. It can also be used to communicate political loyalty or the special favor of God or a royal figure. The ambiguous nature of אהב means that context is needed for the word to be properly understood.
The word חסד (chesed) is used in two verses, 14 and 15. In the context of the passage, it is typically translated as “kindness”. It can be used to denote kindness, goodness, faithfulness, or loyalty. Use of the word חסד in this way implies a close relationship between two (or more) people, such as loyalty between a son and his dying father, or loyalty between a man and his wife. חסד is also used to describe the “goodness of the Lord”. The same word is used in the same verse (v 14) to describe both David and Jonathan’s kindness towards each other and God’s kindness towards David. The verse reads, “But show me unfailing kindness like the Lord’s kindness as long as I live, so that I may not be killed”. In this context, the word can also be considered covenantal language that expresses a deep bond between two people. For example, the same word is used in Ruth 1:16-17 when describing the bond between Ruth and Naomi. The English translation of “kindness” belies the true depth of the word’s meaning in Hebrew.
The word כּרת (karath) is a word that means “to cut”. The word בּרית (berit) means agreement, alliance, or covenant. When used with כּרת it means “to make a pact” or “to cut a covenant”. As previously mentioned, the word בּרית is used in many other contexts in the OT to describe both divine and secular covenants. It is often used to reference covenants between Yahweh and Israel, and more broadly, God and human beings. There is some wordplay going on in this passage between the two consecutive verses, v 15 and v 16. The verb used to describe Jonathan’s covenant with David in v 16 (כּרת) is the same verb used (with a different conjugation) in v 15 when Jonathan asks David not to “cut off” his descendants after he gains power, which becomes relevant later in the story.
The literal meaning of the word נפשׁ (nephesh) is “soul”. In context, it is translated in different ways. For example, in v 17, “because he loved him as himself” could be translated more literally as “because he loved him as his own soul (נפשׁ)”. It is used 754 times in the OT to describe both animals and human beings. Several verses of Gen 1:20 have נפשׁ to describe animals (sea and land animals). In v 30, the word is used again to describe land animals. Gen 2:7 uses the word to describe human beings. In some Biblical contexts, נפשׁ is translated as “life”. For example, Judges 18:25 contains the phrase, “you and your family will lose your lives (נפשׁ).”
Biblical Context
David is a heroic figure that appears throughout the Old Testament and he’s often alluded to in the New Testament. For example, the apostle Matthew introduces Jesus by referring to him as the “son of David” (Matt 1:1). 1 and 2 Samuel contains the accounts of David as a court musician, and later, the account of him slaying the giant Goliath. However, Jonathan is a figure that is only ever referenced in 1 and 2 Samuel, and nowhere else in the OT or NT. He is the eldest son of King Saul, and the OT first mentions him in 1 Sam 13:2, where he defeats a group of Philistines at Geba alongside his father. David and Jonathan do not meet each other until 1 Sam 18:1, when David is brought before Saul after successfully killing Goliath. Jonathan eventually dies at the battle of Mount Gilboa (1 Sam 31) and the last reference to him is in 2 Sam 9, when David vows to show kindness to Jonathan’s son Mephiboseth in honor of his late father. While the story of David and Jonathan does not appear in other parts of the Bible, there are unusual Hebrew phrases used in this pericope that are similar to other phrases used in different parts of the Bible. 1 Sam 20:17 contains the phrase,“because he loved him as himself” (בְּאַהֲבָתֹ֖ו אֹתֹ֑ו כִּֽי־אַהֲבַ֥ת נַפְשֹׁ֖ו אֲהֵבֹֽו), which is a recall of the language used in 1 Sam 18:1, “Jonathan loved him as his own self” (וַיֶּאֱהָבֹו יְהֹונָתָ֖ן כְּנַפְשֹֽׁו). Song of Songs uses some similar phrasing, “the one my very self loves” (שֶׁ֤אָהֲבָה֙ נַפְשִׁ֔י). These two phrases may not seem related, but grammatically they are very alike. In both instances, “self” (נפשׁ) is the subject of the verb “to love” (אהב). Proverbs 19:8 has a similar idiom as well, as it says, “he who gets wisdom loves himself (אֹהֵ֣ב נַפְשֹׁ֑ו)”.
Both this pericope, and the broader books of Samuel, do well to show the power and cunning of David. David is able to win over the admiration of Jonathan, the son of King Saul, and successfully overthrows Saul and becomes king himself. This narrative displays the tension between the “relentless will of Yahweh and the diseased but powerful will of Saul”. Saul is shown as an unfit king, so unfit that his own children take David’s side over his. Within this pericope, Jonathan is shown promising to tell David any of Saul’s plans to kill him, betraying his own father out of loyalty for David. In this narrative, David is admired while Saul is despised. These events are the precursor for Saul’s death in 1 Sam 31 and David’s eventual rise to power as the rightful King of Israel in 2 Sam 5. In 1 Sam 19, it says that Saul is possessed by an evil spirit that causes him to seek to kill David. Jonathan’s love for David and Saul’s continued portrayal as the unstable, murderous villain in 1 Sam 20 contribute to the broader Biblical context of God’s choice of David as king over Saul. Samuel himself even claims that Saul’s kingship is no longer valid and that God will choose a new king (1 Sam 15:23, 26–29). In v 1 of this pericope, David asks Jonathan, “What have I done? What is my crime? How have I wronged your father, that he is trying to kill me?” and Jonathan proclaims David’s innocence and insists on the guilt of Saul. The narrative makes it very clear through David’s interactions with Jonathan that David is the one who is innocent and Saul is the one at fault. This is echoed later in the chapter, when Jonathan goes to his father and asks him in v 23, “Why should [David] be put to death? What has he done?” Chapter by chapter, the writer of 1 Sam is assassinating Saul’s character and diminishing his authority as king, while simultaneously building David up as the admirable hero and eventual successor of Saul.
Theology
1 Sam 20 shows that God favors the righteous and that the will of God always prevails. Scholar Walter Brueggeman said in reference to Jonathan’s loyalty to David that, “The rejecting and choosing of God, however, is not as awesome and as shameful as the choosing and rejecting now being done by Saul’s own son and heir. A father has a right to expect loyalty from his son, even if he can no longer have it from God.” Despite Saul’s desperate attempts to cling to the throne, he is powerless against God’s ultimate will. Saul is angry, jealous, controlling, and obsessed with power, while David is described as a young shepherd, humble and righteous. He is “a man after God’s own heart” (1 Sam 13:14). This is why David is continually able to succeed even in seemingly impossible circumstances, like in the battle between David and Goliath. The king’s daughter, Michal, marries him, and the king’s son gives up his own crown for him, because he is God’s chosen.
Homiletic Appropriation
The love that Jonathan had for David is a lot like God’s love for us. Jonathan did not have to love David, he loved him because he wanted to. He loved him for who he was and because he enjoyed his company, not because he was perfect or because he could gain anything from being his friend. God created us not because he needed to, but because he wanted to, because God loves us for who we are and enjoys our company. Like Jonathan with David, God’s love is freely given. Upon their meeting, Jonathan gave up his possessions for David. He gave up his bow, his belt, and his sword. He even gave him the clothes off his back, his robe and his tunic. He went against his own father’s wishes to be with David, even when it wasn’t in his best interest to do so. He gave up his crown so that David could be king. Like Jonathan with David, God’s love is sacrificial. Jonathan and David formed a covenant with each other, and their bond was sacred. They made a promise to each other that their kindness would extend to their families and carry on for generations to come. It was a bond that could not be broken by anything, because it was willed by God. Like Jonathan with David, God’s love is covenantal. God knows who we are. Even when others do not see our worth, when they seek to discredit or disvalue is like Saul did to David, God sees what is in our hearts, and shows us “unfailing kindness”. Like Jonathan with David, God’s love is unconditional. God’s love for us is so profound that he became a human being. He suffered alongside us, took on our sins and our burdens and made them his own. He died on the cross for us, both fully divine and fully human. Like Jonathan with David, God loves us as himself.
Bibliography
Ackerman, Susan. When Heroes Love: The Ambiguity of Eros in the Stories of Gilgamesh and David (Gender, Theory, and Religion), New York: Columbia University Press, 2005.
Ackroyd, Peter R. The Cambridge Bible Commentary: The First Book of Samuel, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971.
Alter, Robert. The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel, New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2000.
Brown, Francis, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs. Enhanced Brown-Driver- Brigs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977. Logos Bible Software.
“Browsing Manuscripts”, The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, accessed April 1, 2020. https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn-about-the-scrolls/discovery-and- publication.
Brueggeman, Walter. First and Second Samuel, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2012.
Collins, John J. Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014.
Fleming, Erin E. Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 135, No. 1, Political Favoritism in Saul’s Court: נעם, חפץ, and the Relationship between David and Jonathan, The Society of Biblical Literature, 2016.
Hackett, Jo Ann. “There Was No King in Israel,” in The Oxford History of the Biblical World, ed. Michael D. Coogan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 178.
Harding, James E. The Love of David and Jonathan: Ideology, Text, Reception, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Holladay, William L., Ludwig Koehler, and Walter Baumgartner. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971.
Levensen, Jon D. 1 Samuel 25 as Literature and as History, The Catholic Biblical Association, 1978.
McCarter, P. Kyle Jr., Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible, Old Testament Series, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.
— The Anchor Yale Bible,Vol. 8, I Samuel: A New Translation with Commentary, New Haven: Doubleday & Company, 1980.
Smith, Mark S. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 69, no. 2,“Your People Shall Be My People”: Family and Covenant in Ruth 1:16-17, Baltimore: Catholic Biblical Association, 2007.
Our Lady of Light 