A new Perspective on Jonathan – his covenant with David and his ultimate choice

Abstract

Two issues concerning the relationship between Jonathan and David are discussed, one found at the beginning and the other at the end of their joint adventures as described in 1 Samuel. First, we consider how we should interpret the covenant between Jonathan and David. It is shown that this need not be interpreted positively in all respects. It is not mentioned anywhere that David inquired of Yahweh before making this covenant. It also looks like Jonathan lacked crucial information about Yahweh’s rejection of Saul. In the end, their covenant is a pact between the rejected house of Saul and the elected house of David, which appears not to have been blessed by Yahweh. Second, it is investigated whether Jonathan has actually made a choice between his father, Saul, and his friend David. The narrative seems to hint that Jonathan has in fact chosen Saul’s side. In the end, Jonathan decided not to stay with David but to return to his father’s house. As a consequence, Jonathan fought Saul’s battle and, ultimately, died with him, resulting in David’s grief.

1. Introduction

In the book of 1 Samuel, Jonathan, Saul’s son, plays a significant role. Readers of all ages throughout the centuries have been touched by Jonathan’s unselfish love for David but also by the sad ending to his life. Generally, Jonathan’s actions and motives are evaluated positively. For example, Bakon: ¹

‘Jonathan, the oldest of Saul’s sons … is best known for his nobility of spirit and extraordinary bond of friendship with, and selfless love for, David.’

A few pages later he explains: ²

‘There are few biblical spiritual heroes whose faults are not mentioned in Scripture. Implicitly or explicitly, the patriarchs and matriarchs are chastised, so are Moses and Aaron David and Solomon. However, over the person of Jonathan there hovers an aura of silent and profound respect. He lived and died without blemish. It was noted before that David’s defeat of Goliath in some way emulated Jonathan’s daring exploit with the Philistines. We can discover no grain of jealousy in Jonathan. On the contrary, we encounter here for the first time the generosity of his character, which inspired him to see in David a kindred soul rather than a dangerous rival. This generosity takes on additional depth when David indeed has become a serious rival for succession, leading eventually to Jonathan’s admission that David, much to the chagrin of Saul, is better fitted to be king of Israel.

There is an additional outstanding characteristic of Jonathan: unquestioned loyalty … Jonathan, who most judiciously balanced loyalty for his father and for David. The Book of Samuel built for him an eternal and indestructible monument.’

Borgman says: ³

‘Jonathan, who is everything good that Saul isn’t.’

One also finds advice about how to preach about the theme ‘friendship’ from the positive example of Jonathan and David: ⁴

‘Jonathan’s loyalty to YHWH within the bounds of his friendship with David, contrary to the interests of self, family, and established power, is an instructive and challenging response.’

It seems like the moral evaluation of Jonathan’s behaviour is based on the prior assumption of his unselfish motives. It is hardly ever questioned whether Jonathan might possibly be mistaken at any point in the narrative. ⁵ In this paper, we attempt to fill this void by investigating a few basic assumptions about the David-Jonathan narratives and asking questions about answers which are generally taken for granted. These are as follows:

1. Jonathan’s covenant with David. A question hardly ever raised, is: How should the covenant between David and Jonathan be qualified? The basic assumption in most commentaries is that this covenant is to be qualified as ‘good’. This topic is discussed in section 2.

2. Jonathan’s choice. Jonathan is stuck between his father, Saul, and his friend David and seems to have to choose between the two. The question is, does he actually make a choice between the two and, if so, which choice does he make? This question is discussed in section 3.

2. Jonathan’s covenant with David

The question raised here is, how should one interpret the covenant Jonathan made with David (18.3)? Alter ⁶ notices the following about the grammatical structure used:

‘And Jonathan, and David with him, sealed a pact.’ This is one of the most significant instances of the expressive grammatical pattern in which there is a plural subject with a singular verb, making the first member of the plural subject the principal agent: the initiative for the pact of friendship is Jonathan’s, and David goes along with it.’

It could be argued there is no need to assume David is completely passive in the establishment of the covenant with Jonathan. Rather, the reader is offered the viewpoint of the internal focalizer ⁷ Jonathan and, thus, Jonathan’s line of action is highlighted.

Taggar-Cohen ⁸ discusses extensively the meaning of covenant (בְּרִית‎) in comparison to similar Hittite treaties in the ANE. Smith ⁹ draws the connection between the covenant and the love between David and Jonathan but argues that in this case the love between the two exceeds the standard covenantal love. ThWAT ¹⁰ gives an extensive overview of the meaning and use of covenants in the OT. In virtually all discussions, it is implicitly assumed that the covenant between Jonathan and David is to be qualified as ‘positive’ or ‘good’, often referring to Jonathan’s love as the foundation for the covenant. ¹¹ Fokkelman assumes divine sanctioning of this covenant, calling God ‘the patron saint of the covenant.’ ¹²

In this paper we challenge the purely positive qualification of the covenant between Jonathan and David, without diminishing the sincerity of Jonathan’s love for David or the value of such a pact between two who aspire to the throne. Although the narrator in 1 Samuel refrains from offering an explicit moral judgement on their covenant, either positive or negative, there are three indications that a less favourable assessment is invited here.

The first indication is as follows. In 1 Samuel, David inquires of Yahweh from time to time. For example, in 23.2: ‘He inquired of the Lord (וַיִּשְׁאַל דָּוִד בַּיהוָה‎) …’ Similarly, in 23.2–4,9–13, 30.7–8. When he does so, David makes the right decisions, based on the information he acquires. In other instances, when he refrains from doing so, he seems to make the wrong choice. Two of these instances are worth mentioning.

The first is when David is on the run from Saul and meets with Ahimelek in Nob. He seems to forget to inquire of Yahweh ¹³ but instead relies on human strength when he asks for a ‘spear or a sword’ (חֲנִית אוֹ־חָרֶב‎) (21.8). David then accepts Goliath’s sword, the very same about which he had said before, ‘You come against me with sword and spear (בְּחֶרֶב וּבַחֲנִית‎) and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the LORD Almighty’ (17.45). At this point, David seems to put more trust in the power of man than in the power of Yahweh. The consequence is humiliation and defeat. Bodner ¹⁴ observes that David’s first course of action with his newly acquired sword is to visit Gath (21.10-15), the very same town Goliath came from. But instead of the Philistines being in fear of David, it is David who becomes afraid of the Philistines. He pretends to be insane to save his life, much to his own dishonour and the dishonour of Yahweh.

The second instance is when David seeks refuge with the Philistines, not because this is God’s advice to him, but because he becomes afraid: ‘But David thought to himself, “One of these days I will be destroyed by the hand of Saul. The best thing I can do is to escape to the land of the Philistines”’ (27.1). He finds himself in a position in which he has to lie to Achish (28.8–12) and even contemplate going to battle against his own people, the army of Saul and Jonathan (29.1–11). Finally, he ends up in a situation in which his own men want to kill him (30.6). Only at that point does David turn to Yahweh for strength (30.6) and inquires of Yahweh (30.7–8), enabling him to make the right decisions, changing events for the better.

The basic observation here is that at the moment David and Jonathan make a covenant, it looks like David refrains from inquiring of Yahweh. ¹⁵ Or at least this is never mentioned. Three times they make a covenant (18:3; 20:16; 23:18), and three times it is not mentioned that David inquires of Yahweh before doing so. Obviously, the absence of proof is not proof of absence. Still, it is significant that the ‘inquiring of Yahweh’, which plays such a critical role in David’s life, is not mentioned in the David-Jonathan narratives in general and in the making of their covenant in particular. And it may also be worth noting that immediately after David closes the chapter with Jonathan (2 Sam. 1.19–27), his first line of action is not to accept the kingship but to inquire of Yahweh (2 Sam. 2.1). It is as if the narrator in this way highlights that Jonathan’s death has taught David a hard lesson: David will no longer ignore Yahweh on issues and decisions related to the kingship.

The second indication relates to the knowledge Jonathan seems to have. In 14.27, it is clear that Jonathan lacks crucial knowledge when he is unaware of Saul’s oath. It seems that Jonathan’s ignorance continues in certain matters related to David and the kingship. Thus Jonathan seems to have knowledge of the special position and destiny of David (‘You will be king over Israel …’) ¹⁶ but seems misinformed regarding his own destiny (‘… and I will be second to you’, 23.17). Was Jonathan actually aware of the fact that Yahweh had rejected Jonathan’s father, Saul?

On three separate occasions, Samuel tells Saul that Yahweh has rejected him. The first time, in Gilgal, 13.1–14, leaves room for the interpretive assumption that Jonathan was not present at all, as it is mentioned he is in Gibeah (13.2). This could explain why Jonathan later says that Saul has ‘made trouble for the country’ with his oath (14.29) but is silent about the much more severe fact of Saul’s disobedience and subsequent rejection by Yahweh. The second time, 15.26–30, Jonathan’s name is not mentioned at all. Moreover, this time the rejection seems to take place in a private conversation between Samuel and Saul. The third time Saul hears from Samuel that he had been rejected by Yahweh is in 28.16–19, when Saul visits the woman at Endor. On this occasion, it is explicitly mentioned that Jonathan is absent. This may invite the assumption that Jonathan in fact had never really heard about his father’s rejection by Yahweh or, at least, did not understand the full extent of it.

1 Samuel describes how Saul is rejected by Yahweh and David is anointed king. Jonathan seems ignorant of the full implications: not only has Saul been rejected but also his entire dynasty, including Jonathan as Saul’s son and heir. Jonathan’s seeming lack of knowledge is supported by the observation that it is never mentioned that Jonathan inquires of Yahweh. This could also explain why Jonathan mistakenly tells David, as we have seen, ‘You will be king over Israel, and I will be second to you’ (23.17).

The third indication is that the covenant seems not to be blessed by Yahweh. On the contrary, it seems as though the covenant is cursed based on 2 Sam. 21:1–14. In this chapter, another covenant plays a central role, the covenant between the Gibeonites and Israelites (Joshua 9). This latter covenant was entered into against the will of Yahweh and was only made because the Israelites did not first inquire of Yahweh (Joshua 9.14). This covenant did not bring any blessing, only curses, such as the famine in 2 Sam. 21. Remarkably, Yahweh is said to ‘answer the prayer on behalf of the land’ (21.14), after the covenant with the Gibeonites was repaired, but also, in fact, after the covenant to Jonathan was honoured (21.7,12–14). Is this indicative of the similarity between these covenants in the sense that they did not have the ability to bring blessing but only curse, as they were both established without first inquiring of Yahweh?

The fact that the covenant between Jonathan and David was made ‘before Yahweh’ (23.18) does not necessarily imply that it was approved by Yahweh. In Joshua 9.15–19, it is also mentioned that the covenant with the Gibeonites was ratified by swearing an oath by Yahweh, but this covenant was definitely not approved by Yahweh.

Darshan ¹⁷ raises the question as to how these two covenants play such an intertwined role in 2 Sam. 21, noting that, ‘the solutions proposed to date lack persuasive evidence’. Here we suggest that a clue may be found in the observation that the two covenants may have in common their lack of divine authorization–leading to a curse in case they are not kept.

1 Samuel describes how Saul and his house had been rejected by Yahweh (13.13–14, 15.23–26), with David anointed as Yahweh’s chosen (16.1,12). Hence, the covenant between Jonathan and David is nothing other than a covenant between Yahweh’s rejected one and his chosen one. How can this possibly be blessed by Yahweh? The answer 1 Samuel seems to give is this: it is not. Yahweh never instructed David to make a covenant with the son of Saul. David did not inquire of Yahweh before doing so. Jonathan did not know any better, as he seemed to lack crucial information about Saul’s rejection by Yahweh. Indeed, Yahweh did not give his approval of their covenant at any time. Moreover, the covenant did not bring David any closer to the throne. And in the end, it did not save Jonathan’s life. ¹⁸

The above analysis could also clarify 20.23 wherein Jonathan says, ‘As for the agreement of which you and I have spoken, behold, the LORD is between you and me (יְהוָה בֵּינִי וּבֵינְךָ‎) forever’, and 20.42: ‘The LORD will be between me and you (יְהוָה יִהְיֶה בֵּינִי וּבֵינֶךָ‎), and between my descendants and your descendants forever.’ These words of Jonathan may have been prophetic in the sense that they actually later became true: Yahweh intervened in the covenant between David and Jonathan and the plans they had made for the future. ¹⁹

3. Jonathan’s choice between David and Saul

The second question to be considered is whether Jonathan ultimately takes sides between his friend David and his father, Saul. We approach this from three angles. First, we examine Jonathan’s gift of his robe and weapons. Then we consider the conditions Jonathan imposes on his covenant with David. Finally, we scrutinize the side he chooses to stay with.

First of all, in 18.4, Jonathan gives David his robe (מְעִיל‎). This initial act of love by Jonathan is completely unselfish. Almost certainly this is symbolic of the transfer of the kingdom, ²⁰ for in 15.27, 28, the connection is made between the two: ‘As Samuel turned to leave, Saul caught hold of the hem of his robe, and it tore. Samuel said to him, “The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today and has given it to one of your neighbours—to one better than you.”’ This is also noted by Short: ²¹

‘At yet a higher level, Jonathan’s act of stripping himself of his prince’s robe (הַמְּעִיל‎) and giving it, together with his armor, sword, bow and belt, prefigures the transferal of the kingdom to the house of David from the house of Saul.’

On top of this, Jonathan gives David his weapons, his sword (חַרְבֹּו‎) and his bow (קַשְׁתֹּו‎). Previously, David had rejected Saul’s weapons, as they did not appear useful to him (17.39). To Goliath he had said that the victory is not by sword or spear but by Yahweh (17.45). This time, David accepts the weapons, as noticed by Bodner, ²² but could David ever make use of them?

After this initial act of love by Jonathan (18.3), it seems that later Jonathan slightly changes his mind when he retrieves his weapons: ‘Then Jonathan gave his weapons to the boy and said, “Go, carry them back to town”’ (20.40). This concerns at least Jonathan’s bow but possibly his sword as well. This may well be reflected in the fact that after their goodbye (20.41–43), David travels to Nob and has to ask for weapons, as he has none (21.8). What has happened to the weapons Jonathan gave him? This all seems to suggest that David does not possess Jonathan’s weapons anymore but that Jonathan has in fact reclaimed them.

Harding ²³ notes that there may be reasons to assume 18.1–4 is a later insertion in the text. These diachronic, text critical considerations are not dwelled on here, as in this paper a synchronic approach to the Masoretic Text at hand is adopted. If 18.1–4 is indeed a later insertion and should not be treated as part of the main text, this might mean that the gift of Jonathan’s weapons has not taken place. This could then also explain the oddity of David not having Jonathan’s weapons. Nevertheless, the question still stands as to why Jonathan would depart from David (20.41–43) without supplying him with some weapons.

Secondly, we observe that initially, Jonathan’s covenant with David was unconditional (18.3) – purely based on his love for David. However, in 20.14,15 he seems to add a condition: ‘But show me unfailing kindness like the LORD’s kindness as long as I live, so that I may not be killed, and do not ever cut off your kindness from my family.’ Undoubtedly, David would have honoured this request in any case, and Jonathan did not have to ask. Nevertheless, the condition Jonathan raises is additional to their previous covenant.

A further change in Jonathan’s attitude seems to be evidenced in 23.17, wherein he says, ‘You will be king over Israel, and I will be second to you (וְאָנֹכִי אֶהְיֶה־לְּךָ לְמִשְׁנֶה‎).’ Jonathan claims an important position in David’s kingdom. Sometimes, this is interpreted as Jonathan transferring his kingdom to David. ²⁴ Instead, we advocate the alternative interpretation that Jonathan is trying to establish a kingdom co-ruled by both men, as also argued by Keren: ²⁵

‘Jonathan relinquishes all his rights as the heir and tells David that he, Jonathan, will serve as his deputy. Here משנה‎ 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. 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.’

What began as an unconditional covenant between Jonathan and David ends as an attempt by Jonathan to secure his future position. Initially, Jonathan handed over his kingdom to David, symbolically in the gift of the robe. At the end, it looks like he wishes to share the kingdom with David.

Thirdly, Jonathan is forced to choose between his father, Saul, and his friend David (20.30, 31). Which choice does he actually make? In 20.42 we read, ‘Then David left, and Jonathan went back to the town.’ And later in 23.18, we read, ‘And David stayed at Horesh while Jonathan went to his house.’ Bodner points out that ‘his house’ (לְבֵיתֹו‎) implies ‘his family’. This supports the interpretation that Jonathan did not leave simply to go home but essentially decided to go back to his family, his own house, his own dynasty, the royal house of Saul. Jonathan decides to return home and stay at the side of his father, Saul. He does not choose to stay with David. ²⁶

Jonathan could have decided differently, making the same choice as ‘all those who were in distress or in debt or discontented’ (22.2) and gathered around David. De facto, Jonathan would have relinquished his claim to the throne by cutting all connections with his father. It could be argued that in the ANE, it is unacceptable for a king’s son to abandon his position as heir freely in favour of another claimant to the throne. However true this might be, the OT offers other examples where people make choices counterintuitive to human nature or the cultural customs of those days but are, nevertheless, blessed by Yahweh. There is the example of Rahab in Jericho (Joshua 6) who committed treason against her people. And Moses left his position as prince at Pharaoh’s court to dwell with the subjugated people of Israel.

If Jonathan had decided to stay with David, he would have been safe, as David had said to Abiathar, ‘You will be safe with me’ (22.23). The outcasts who gathered around David became ‘David’s heroes’ (2 Sam. 23.8–39, 1 Chron. 11.10–47). Jonathan began as a hero (13.23–14.52) but ended as a fallen hero, 2 Sam. 1.25: ‘How the mighty have fallen in battle! Jonathan lies slain on your heights.’ Or in Hannah’s words, 2.4, ‘The bows ²⁷ of the warriors are broken, but those who stumbled are armed with strength.’

At the decisive moment, Jonathan decides not to stay with David but at his father’s side. Consequently, Jonathan is in the same place when Saul dies and shares the same fate. Remarkably, it is only in 28.19 that, for the first time, Jonathan’s death is prophesied alongside his father’s death. This is after Jonathan’s final choice to stay at his father’s side instead of David’s side (23.18). Thus the story leaves the options open for Jonathan until the very end. This could also explain why Jonathan’s death is so briefly described (31.2), almost as a footnote or an anti-climax. This is because the real mental struggle and climax had happened earlier, when Jonathan decided to separate from David (20.42, 23.18). ²⁸

After Saul and Jonathan died, David laments, ‘Saul and Jonathan, beloved and pleasant in their life, and in their death they were not parted’ (2 Sam. 1.23). Fleming ²⁹ argues that this word ‘beloved (נעם‎)’ has a political connotation, comparable to אהב‎, implying that Saul and Jonathan were connected not just emotionally and socially but also politically. Jonathan chose to stay with his father, fight his battles and, hence, die with his father, Saul. In the words of Stansell: ³⁰

‘On the other hand, it is important to note that Jonathan never ultimately breaks with his father. True, he deceives Saul for his friend’s benefit and ultimate triumph. But in the end, father and son die together in battle.’

It is remarkable that we read of Saul and Jonathan joining in battle but never of an occurrence in which David and Jonathan take up arms together. Thus, while Smith ³¹ presents David and Jonathan as examples of ‘brothers-in-arms’, analogous to Gilgamesh-Enkidu and Achilles-Patroklos, the striking difference with these two other examples is that Jonathan and David are never truly ‘brothers-in-arms’. They fought their own battles, never together. The only one who could have changed this is Jonathan. David had to leave Saul and did so. Jonathan could have left Saul to join David but chose not to do so.

Jonathan did not want to choose between his father, Saul, and his friend David. Nevertheless, he did make a choice by returning to this father instead of staying with David. This is the choice Jonathan apparently made, with all its sad implications, ending with David expressing his deepest feelings: ‘I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women’ (2 Sam. 1.26).

4. Conclusion

Two issues related to the Jonathan-David narratives have been investigated. The first issue is the question of how we should interpret the covenant between Jonathan and David. It is shown that this need not necessarily be interpreted positively in all respects, contrary to common practice in most commentaries. It is observed that it is never mentioned that David inquired of Yahweh before making this covenant. It also seems that Jonathan lacked crucial information about Yahweh’s rejection of Saul. In the end, their covenant is a pact between the rejected house of Saul and the elected house of David, which appears not to have been blessed by Yahweh.

Second, we investigated whether Jonathan has actually made a choice between his father, Saul, and his friend David. The narrative seems to indicate that Jonathan has in fact chosen Saul’s side. Before Jonathan makes his final choice, a gradual change in Jonathan’s attitude and behaviour can be observed. It would appear he reclaims from David, the weapons he had previously gifted to him. Moreover, where his covenant with David started unconditionally, Jonathan later added demands and conditions to their covenant. In the end, Jonathan decided not to stay with David but to return to his father’s house. Consequently, he fought Saul’s battle and, finally, died with him, prompting David’s grief.