The Friendship of David and Jonathan
By Jacob F. Love, Lecturer in Religious Studies, University of Tennessee, originally published by The Conversation.
For the idea of love, biblical Hebrew has precious few synonyms. Yet the Hebrew of the Bible can communicate a rich sensation of love: the love of a man for a woman, the love of any human being for their fellow human, the love of Israel for Israel’s God, and the love of God for all people.
As a religion scholar, however, I believe one of the greatest loves in the Bible is a story of friendship: the intense devotion between the warrior Jonathan and David, who later became king of Israel and Judah. For many readers, their relationship represents a platonic ideal, while others see something more.
‘With all your heart’
The main word for expressing love in the Hebrew Bible is “ahavah,” from the root “ahav.” It appears, for example, in the classic description of the relationship between God and Israel in the Book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 6: “You shall love (v’ahavta) the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.”
There are several places in the Hebrew Bible that demand that people care for one another, regardless of membership in any group, such as a tribe. Consider Leviticus 19:34, which invokes the Israelites’ suffering as slaves in Egypt: “you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.”
The word “ahav” is also used to express emotional, romantic and sexual love, as in Genesis 29, the story of Jacob and Rachel. The young man serves Laban, Rachel’s father, for seven years in exchange for her hand in marriage – which seem “but a few days because of his love for her.” But Laban tricks Jacob into marrying Rachel’s sister, Leah, first – then working another seven years for Rachel.
A steadfast love
Among the more passionate poems in the Hebrew Bible is one David is said to have pronounced for Jonathan and his father, Saul, the Israelite king.
The three first meet when David, portrayed as a young shepherd, volunteers to fight Goliath, who is portrayed as a towering giant of a soldier, a champion of the Philistines battling Israel. Shockingly, David slays him with a simple sling and stone, and Saul meets with the boy.
“After David finished speaking to Saul,” the author of 1 Samuel relates, “the body of Jonathan was bound to the body of David, and Jonathan loved him as he loved his own self.” The Hebrew word I translate as “body” here is a famously ambiguous one, “nefesh,” usually rendered as “soul,” “life” or “personality.”
Many translators read this passage to mean that Jonathan and David form a covenant, a pact. Jonathan immediately removes his clothing and weapons and gives them to the other young man.
Their loyalty is tested as Saul becomes jealous of David’s increasing success. Yet the young men’s bond is steadfast.
Jonathan eventually dies in battle, and Saul commits suicide. David composes a beautiful eulogy poem mourning both men, but his description of Jonathan is particularly striking:
Jonathan lies slain upon your high places. I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.
How the mighty have fallen, and the weapons of war perished!
The passage uses a rare synonym for “ahav” when it describes Jonathan as “greatly beloved”: “na’am,” suggesting “love,” “affection” or “pleasantness.”
Labeling love
What could David have meant by “your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women”? It is not surprising that many have wondered whether this suggests an intimate relationship.
That would appear to contradict prohibitions on homosexuality found in the Book of Leviticus. One thing to consider, however, is that Leviticus is devoted to priestly concerns. The prohibition is not found in the Book of Deuteronomy, which repeats so many of the prohibitions found in Leviticus. Another question is whether we really know what the Levitical language means: What exactly is being prohibited here?
One thing we can say with certainty is that LGBTQ+ love and identities have existed throughout human history, regardless of what they are called. Various cultures have been more or less sympathetic to sexual variation, but that variation has always been there.
David had many wives. Indeed, one of the most famous stories about him is his depravity in condemning a soldier, Uriah the Hittite, to a brutal death so that David could take Uriah’s wife, Bat-Sheva, as his own. But who’s to say whether David might have been open to an intimate relationship with a man he essentially called his lover?
David’s life was fraught with tragedy, and his family infamous for scandal – perhaps none greater than the tale of his son Amnon raping his half-sister Tamar. Nevertheless, tradition reveres him as the greatest king of Israel and Judah, the author of beautiful poetry and the father of King Solomon, who is credited with the ultimate biblical love poem, the Song of Songs.
I’d like to give the final word to the sages of the Mishnah, rabbinic literature written around the year 250 C.E.:
“All love that depends on something, when that something ceases, the love fails; but all love that does not depend on anything will never cease. What is an example of love that depended on something? Such was the love of Amnon for Tamar. And what is an example of love that did not depend on anything? Such was the love of David and Jonathan.”
This article was originally published by The Conversation and is partially reproduced here without the permission of the author, who is not affiliated with this website or its views.
Discover more from Harmonist
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Related Posts
Why AI Resembles a Charismatic Religious Leader →
The Gita, the Bomb, and the Dharma of Oppenheimer →
Vaishnava Philosophy and Poetic Aesthetics: Jayadeva’s Gitagovindam →
This article is a problematic mess, a great example of using modern Western categories to try to analyze a very different ancient culture. And its appearance here is even more troublesome when contextualized alongside Gaudiya Vaishnava theology and history. For instance, the article makes much of the incident in which “Jonathan immediately removes his clothing and weapons and gives them to the other young man” — as if this hints at a covenant the author equates with sexual closeness.
Well, then, what do we do with the story of Srila B.P. Kesava Maharaj exchanging his clothes with Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur? For that matter, in the early days at 26 Second Avenue, before anyone else lived there, Srila Prabhupada had a known gay roommate, Kirtanananda dasa, with whom he shared towels and dhotis. By the standard of this article, eyebrows should be raised.
There have been manipulative/exploitative men in the Western ranks of Krishna consciousness who have tried to groom sisyas with the idea that Subal and Krishna had a hidden parakiya bond that sadhakas can emulate. And many have misunderstood the relation between Gaura and Gadadhara. This article similarly risks “muddying the waters” by conflating phenomena that mean very different things in their ancient context than most of us would assume today. It is at best a minority opinion within the ranks of Hebraic scholarship, and at worst a worrisome hint at what Gaudiya Vaishnavas may rightly consider normative.
It seems to me that the article is making the case that it is possible that acceptance of homosexuality as part of the spectrum of human sexuality finds support in Hebraic culture. Such support can be found in Vedic culture. Not the promotion of homosexuality per se, but acceptance of the fact that some humans do have this sexual orientation and that the orientation is not something that is environmentally induced.
It seems quite a stretch to think that the exchange of clothes between B.P. Kesava Maharaja and BHaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura could be similarly misconstrued, given the context of that event. And the same holds true for Prabhupada living with Kirtanananda. It seems likely that hundreds of years from now we will have a much better understanding of events in our time than we do now of events that took place hundreds of years ago, as history as we know it now did not exist then. And people will not have to rely upon the events you reference to understand our culture’s perspective on the human homosexual orientation. But I guess your point is that devotes today may misconstrue these events to promote homosexuality in a spiritual light. I really doubt that. We do not promote any form of human sexuality in a spiritual light. Lila transcends gender, and that is 101 of Gaudiya Vedanta.
And I think the Guadiya rasa theology is quite clear on Subala’s love for Krsna in stating that the madhurya aspect of his love is anumodana in nature, supportive that is of Krsna’s love for Radha with no hint of romantic love for Krsna on Subala’s part. I am surprised to learn that some Western gurus have misunderstood or misrepresented this form of sakhya rasa and in doing so abused some of their followers. That is deplorable. Although I did learn recently of a so-called follower of Subala in Bangaladesh from a Gaudiya parivara that wore eye makeup and kept long hair, which sounded odd to say the least. And the sastra is clear about Gaura Gadadhara, although their intimacy could more easily be misconstrued along these lines and this has unfortunately occurred in academia.