I suppose a blog post a month is probably the best I can hope for at this point here at The SouthTown Pastor. I’m simply not disciplined enough to write a post every few days (or even one a week), though I do have enough study material to do so. That being said, similar to my most recent post, I had a lot of material for the sermon for the 5th Sunday after Pentecost and I’d like to share it here.
This material perfectly fits within the definition of “getting caught in the weeds.” I’m a gardener (at least a minor hobbyist at it) and weeds are the enemy of the gardener. They get in the way. They choke out the plants. They can keep the plant from maturing properly or from fruiting. The Lord Jesus had a lot to say about weeds in Matthew 13. Weeds are troubling … and to uproot weeds can sometimes do more damage than good. For example, most of my garden here in Tennessee is lying fallow this year, but I did plant some beans in order to add nutrients back into the soil. But they are surrounded by weeds … and I have to wait and deal with them until harvest time – and believe me, they will most assuredly be “tossed into the fire” (cf. Matt 13:40).
Anyway, my point being is that, sometimes we have to deal with weeds. Getting “caught in the weeds” of Scripture can be a rewarding venture or a frustrating one. Regardless, it is oftentimes necessary because we live in a very biblical illiterate age, especially among Christians (I challenge you to find a pastor who will not admit to this reality). Christians should learn how to actually read the Bible, really read their Bibles more, talk about the Bible more, and sit under good biblical teaching and preaching. Because of this, we oftentimes need to slow down, get our hands and knees dirty, and delicately “weed the garden.” Which is exactly what needs to be done in the case of David and Jonathan’s friendship, particularly in Western culture as it stands in 2024.
Allow me to begin with a bit of a disclosure statement: I make it a practice to not discuss politics from the pulpit … unless the text actually requires it. In America in 2024, most biblical texts do not require us to speak to an election or a political candidate. Our allegiance is to a kingdom that is not of this world and therefore it is to that kingdom that our concerns should focus upon, especially on the Lord’s Day when the body of Christ is gathered for worship. Certain political issues, however, we can clearly see in Scripture. Abortion is there. Gender issues are there. Marriage is there. Family is there. Homosexuality is there. All of these are handled in both the Old and the New Testaments. A clear care for human life, the family, marriage, and sexual ethics are taught not just in the Law, but are spoken about or referenced by Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc. Which brings us, again, to the friendship of David and Jonathan.
For the “Season after Pentecost” this year, I chose to focus my sermon preparation upon the Old Testament readings. We are currently in the work of 1 Samuel (the 5th Sunday after Pentecost being the final week in 1 Samuel), and our reading for this week was 18:1-5; 10-16. As I was studying I felt led to focus upon vv.6-16 more so than 1-5, especially as it related to our previous weeks texts, which means that I would not be preaching and teaching on Jonathan and David’s friendship (hence this post).
As it related to the study of that portion of the text, I was speaking on the phone the other day with my friend, co-laborer, and deacon about our lectionary text and he shared a good observation – close male relationships in Western culture are almost non-existent … without being automatically sexualized by an outside observer. (He has a brilliant mind. Go listen to our Sunday School audio on Revelation that he’s been teaching through and you’ll come to the same conclusion.) He’s absolutely right. We live in a hyper-sexualized culture. Sex, according to the current dogma, is the highest good of humanity. Sex permeates everything, not just movies and television and advertising, (like pastors and preachers of the past used to pound the pulpit and rage over). Sex has become the “first human right” of the cultural and political movement of the West. To deny someone the right to sexual congress, sexual transition, sexual limits due to age, gender, orientation, etc is anathema to the zeitgeist. And this sexual liberation worldview has sunk its claws (grotesquely and sinfully) into biblical interpretation, with David and Jonathan’s relationship being front and center.
A quick search engine return will result in a myriad of articles, commentaries, and “close” studies of how David and Jonathan’s relationship was a homosexual one. I will not list them here due to the desire to not give them any more attention than they deserve. But again, remember, we live in a hyper-sexualized culture, so a consideration of one of the closest friendships in the Bible must obviously be viewed through the lenses of a sexual relationship, right? I mean, who in their right mind would want a close, same gendered, friend and companion unless it included a sexual element? (If you read those previous two sentences with anything other than sarcasm, go read them again. I’ve italicized for your benefit. Let the reader understand.).
Instead, I want to propose that David and Jonathan’s close friendship is not merely a deep friendship, but is more importantly an example of the rejection of Saul and the acceptance of David by God. For my beloved CCC family reading this post, this thesis is how this post relates to why our sermon on the 5th Sunday after Pentecost was so closely focused upon Saul’s bitterness and his torment by an “evil/harmful” spirit. (For my non-CCC readers, you can listen to that recording here). David and Jonathan’s friendship serves as one of many examples that Saul had been rejected by God as king and the kingship had now moved to David. But how?
First, let’s deal with the elephant in the room – the supposed homosexual relationship of David and Jonathan. Here, we need to stress very clearly that this relationship was not sexual. It’s not a sinful relationship. It’s not a romantic relationship. But let’s look at the text and see if we can make this case. The ESV of 1 Samuel 18:1-4 reads this way:
“As soon as he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day and would not let him return to his father’s house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt.”
Regardless of which end of the political spectrum you might fall, it’s hard to ignore the strong language of love that is being used here. To say that someone’s soul is “knit” to your own and that you love someone as you love your own “soul” suggests a very deep longing and abiding love for another person. This is what we have come to call “soulmates” in our era – which most people typically relate to a romantic relationship (thanks to television and movies). Think about it – Romeo and Juliet, Westley and Buttercup from The Princess Bride, Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams from The Notebook, Monica and Chandler or Ross and Rachel from Friends. Our movies and television shows have sold us on the idea that sex and romance are the highest good, so therefore we look for “sparks,” or the calling down of heavenly grace, or love at first sight in order to judge whether a person is worthy of our romantic attempts. This is not to say that romantic partners cannot be soul mates, it just means that it is not a prerequisite. But I think we can just as easily make the argument that friends can be non-sexual friends and still also be “soulmates.” (I would argue that Chandler and Joey from Friends are probably better candidates for soul mates than Monica and Chandler ever were, but I digress.)
But what does the language of the text tell us? Let’s simply exegete the passage and make our way through it verse-by-verse and clause-by clause. Much of what I am about to share I was able to glean through multiple sources, including the ESV Expository Commentary, The NIV Application Commentary, New American Commentary, and the New International Biblical Commentary. I do not footnote these when I am working, so what you are getting is essentially my sermon preparation notes. Plagiarism is not intended, I’m simply sharing with you what I have learned through my personal study and sermon preparation and found beneficial.
The relationship between Jonathan and David that begins to unfold in 1 Samuel 18 is one of the classic stories of deep and abiding friendship, and we see this through the language that is used.
v.1 – “The soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David…” This is an idiom for an intense emotional bond. Similar language is used in Genesis 44:30 when speaking of Jacob and his youngest son, Benjamin, particularly after he believed that Jospeh had been killed (“his life is bound up in the boy’s life”). But even more than Jonathan and David’s souls being “knit together,” we read that “Jonathan loved him [David] as his own soul.” Meaning, as other translations word it: Jonathan loved David as he loved himself. Here is where those who would like to find a homosexual relationship begin to veer off into bad exegesis (well, they began to veer off in the assumption that there was a homosexual relationship to begin with, but that is a different post for a different time). So, let’s do a little exegesis of the language:
- Hebrew (like Greek and many other languages) has more than one word for the emotion we call “love”: aheb (אָהַב) and yada (יָדַע). English is an awful language and, at least conversationally, it has only gotten worse over the last few decades. “Love is Love” is a misnomer at best. Love is not simply “love,” especially without properly defining it. Greek has at least 7 words for love (agape, eros, philia, storge, mania, pragma, & philautia), none of which refer to the same type of love. “Love is Love” is a misnomer because “Agape” is not “Mania” and “Eros” is not “Philia.” We need to learn to be specific about our definitions so that when the zeitgeist proclaims that “Love is Love!” we can immediately recognize that what they mean is “Eros is Eros” in the most true sense of the word.
- Similarly, in the Hebrew, “aheb” is not “yada” and “yada” is not “aheb.” Here in v.1 when we read that Jonathan and David’s soul’s are “knit” together and that Jonathan loved David “as his own soul” the Hebrew text uses the word “aheb” which means “love” without a sexual component. It is the word “yada” in Hebrew that is used for sexual love. Yada is best translated as “to know” as in “to sexually know” or to be more direct: “to have sexual intercourse.” A great example of this, read Genesis 4:1 – “Adam knew (i.e. had sex with) Eve his wife, and she conceived…”.
- Jonathan’s love for David on the other hand, has no sexual overtones, but is rather a deep and abiding love for a friend and companion. It is a respectful love, one which is found between (for lack of a better term) soul mates.
- The principalities can only destroy and those who suggest that this relationship was sexual are actively taking part in the destruction of the great stories of Western Civilization. To suggest that Jonathan and David’s relationship was sexual is not only misleading, it is sinful and intentionally neglectful of the language, the text, and the moral code with which God had set up in his creative order and in his Law. But let me state it more boldly just in case I have not been clear enough: those who suggest that David and Jonathan’s relationship was sexual are intentionally lying and are walking lock-step with the worship of the pagan deities of sexual promiscuity (Ishtar, Venus, Aphrodite, and others).
- Therefore, it’s unsurprising to realize that those who suggest a sexual relationship between David and Jonathan also typically suggest similar relationships between the great characters of the enduring stories of humanity. We see these kinds of relationships in all kinds of stories both ancient and modern: Gilgamesh and Enkidu, Frodo and Sam, Harry and Ron, Han and Luke.
Furthermore, to suggest a sexual relationship here is to miss the purpose not only of the text, but of also the purpose of the long abiding stories of mankind. So then, with that context noted … it is important for us to understand that David and Jonathan’s friendship is only a small scene in a larger story that is taking place in 1 Samuel 18. As noted above, their friendship, and the love that Jonathan shows towards David, is ultimately meant to show just how deeply Saul had been rejected by Yahweh and how much David had been accepted by Yahweh as a king and man “after God’s own heart” (1 Samuel 13:14). We see this in two particular ways in 1 Samuel 18:1-4:
- Jonathan’s covenant with David
- Jonathan giving David his own armor.
Let’s look at both. (Disclaimer – This would be a good moment to pause and listen to the sermon from the Fifth Sunday after Pentecost, 2024 given on 6/23/2024. You can find the audio here).
v.3 – Jonathan’s covenant with David – “Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul.“
Unless you’re a fan of the Halo franchise like me, the word “covenant” is not a term that we are prone to use in everyday life in the 21st century. Covenants in the ancient world were agreements between two equal parties, usually for the mutual benefit of both. A king would covenant with another king for the purpose of peace or war. Individuals would covenant over a business agreement. A man and woman would covenant together for marriage. Our society still works on covenant principles even if we do not ascribe those terms to our agreements. So, when we look here at a covenant between Jonathan and David, what are we seeing? The relationship between Jonathan and David is not merely that one of “soul mates” but is furthermore a classic example of a covenant between individuals and the language used to characterize that relationship is typical of ancient kingship and mutual kinship obligation.
The Hebrew language regarding the making of a covenant is striking. In Hebrew the term used in order to affirm a covenant is the word “karat” (כָּרַת) which means “to cut.” This term is seen vividly in Genesis 15 when Yahweh “cuts” a covenant with Abraham by cutting multiple animals in half. We see the cutting of a covenant come to its complete and true meaning in the cross of Christ, who was cut by the whiplashes, nails, and crown of thorns.
So let’s consider what is going on in this scene between Jonathan and David. Jonathan is quite literally the “crown prince” of Israel. His father, Saul, is king. The throne is Jonathan’s. No one in this scene is ignorant of this reality. However, a major event occurred in 1 Samuel 16 – David was anointed by Samuel to be the new king to replace Saul. Just think of weight of what v.3 is presenting us with: the son of the sitting king has now made a covenant bond to the new king. This is nothing short of a coup. By Jonathan’s acceptance of David, his love of David, his very soul being “knit to the soul of David” this covenant shows us just how deeply the throne of Israel had been torn from Saul and given to someone better (15:28).
Now, we do not know exactly how this covenant was “cut” between these close friends, nor do we know the terms of the covenant, the text does not give us that. But we can make a few speculations based upon how their story plays out. In 1 Samuel 20, Jonathan will warn David of Saul’s plans to have him killed. In that same chapter, Jonathan will request that David look after his family, which David fulfills in his care for Jonathan’s son, Mephibosheth (cf. 2 Sam 9). Clearly this covenant of 18:3 is one made between, not only friends, but shows that David is accepted as an equal by Jonathan.
This is what makes Jesus’ covenant with his bride (the church) such a masterful work of divine mercy and grace. We are in no way equal to Jesus – who is God, perfect, and sinless. However, in the covenant between Christ and his church, we are bound to Jesus as a husband is to a wife. We all become one with Christ, hidden in Christ, and seated with Christ in the heavenlies. The Venerable Bede (673-735 AD) writes to this point stating: “Jonathan’s covenant with David is a covenant of love and peace. Christ and the church have made a covenant of mutual love and peace, for the church loves Christ so much that it has been ready to die for him.” And I would add that Christ has loved his bride so much that he did indeed die for her, and having been physically raised from the dead, he now lives for her.
Jonathan’s covenant with David was one of mutual love for the purpose of expressing peace between equals and shows just how deeply David had been accepted as the new and better king as much as how deeply Saul had been rejected.
v.4 – Jonathan’s Armor – “And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt.“
If the discussion of an “abstract” covenant displays David’s acceptance and Saul’s rejection, Jonathan clothing David with his own royal clothing, weapons, and armor expresses this in a very tangible way. In a single day, David had acquired the finest sword in the Philistine army as well as one of the finest swords in Israel’s armory (Goliath’s and Jonathan’s); he had been permitted to wear the kings’ clothing in the time of conflict and was given princely clothing in the time of peace.
In order to symbolize the bond and covenant between them, Jonathan removes his robe and gives it to David. To receive royal clothing was accounted a great honor in the ancient Near East (see Est. 6:8 as an example). Jonathan also gives David his armor and his weapons: sword, bow, and belt. Interestingly, David does not refuse this offer as he had earlier declined Saul’s (cf. 1 Sam. 17:39). Neither Saul’s nor Jonathan’s gesture involves abdication of royal status, but they do point to the larger motif happening within the narrative. The fact that Jonathan gave to David the clothing and armaments originally reserved for the heir to Saul’s throne gives us a clear example that David had been accepted by and Saul rejected David’s future royal status.
Again, I cannot recommend enough that you pair this reading with the sermon from the 5th Sunday after Pentecost. Not because I think my preaching is that good, but because of how 1 Samuel 18 gives us such a clear picture of the rejection of Saul (the remainder of the chapter continues this theme with David’s marriage to Michal, Saul’s daughter).
As always, I pray that these posts of extra material are not only helpful to my beloved CCC family, but to any other reader who might have found themselves here. For now, go in peace, be warmed and filled.
Peace of Christ,
Nick
The SouthTown Pastor 