1 Samuel 18:1–30

Original Meaning

Jonathan’s Covenant with David (18:1–4)

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN Jonathan and David that begins to unfold here is one of the classic stories of deep and abiding friendship, and it plays an important role in subsequent chapters of this book. Their relationship was marked by unity (“one in spirit”) and exceptional commitment (“he loved him as himself”).

Some scholars cite this passage, with its word “love” (vv. 1, 3), as evidence for a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan.1 Others argue that Jonathan’s role in this text is that of a woman; that is, the original historian cast him in the image of David’s other women. Jonathan, so they claim, is ahead of Michal (and later Abigail) in his love for David and in his practical ways of saving and helping him. In order to be crown prince, he must be male. But in order to be motivated to abdicate the throne, he must be like the women in David’s life, who empty themselves for David’s sake. The answer is to portray a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan, in which Jonathan assumes a female role. This relationship, it is argued, was more transparent in the older form of the story. Interpreters who argue along these lines further contend that subsequently, the homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan was subverted by later editors because of cultural abhorrence of homosexuality.2

Today’s pro-homosexual interpreters claim the text has forced an injustice on gay readers because the true homosexual nature of the relationship has been suppressed both by ancient editors and modern scholars because of homophobia. Surely, however, it is just as much an injustice to today’s heterosexual readers to subvert the obvious face value of the canonical text and to deny that David and Jonathan sould have had a loving commitment to each other that was nonsexual. Are heterosexual men incapable of such deep and abiding friendships? Such readings rob heterosexual men and deny them the right to have a loving, yet nonsexual relationship with other men. In ancient patriarchal cultures such as Israel’s, a wife was a man’s partner for raising the family but not necessarily his best friend.

Today, we recognize the imperfections of such patriarchal assumptions, and I would even argue that the ancient patriarchal societies lost the original codependent and egalitarian ideals of creation (Gen. 1:27). Furthermore, we have ancient, extrabiblical parallels for the intimacy of David’s nonsexual relationship with Jonathan.3 But beyond this point, perhaps it is more important to note that such pro-homosexual readings miss the intended significance of “love” and other covenantal terms in the text, to which we now return.

We now know that the specific verb for “love” used here (ʾhb) has important political overtones. So, for example, Saul loved David in 1 Samuel 16:21 (NIV has “liked”), and Hiram king of Tyre loved David in 1 Kings 5:1 (cf. NIV, “had always been on friendly terms”). Indeed, the relationship between David and Jonathan is a classic example of a covenant between individuals, and the language used to characterize that relationship is typical of ancient kinship and mutual kinship obligation.4

J. A. Thompson has concluded that “love” is used here as an “ambiguous word” because it denotes more than natural affection, however deep and genuine.5 The political overtones of Jonathan’s love for David are thus marked by their “covenant” (b^erit, 18:3) and by Jonathan’s extravagant gifts (18:4). Thompson further suggests that this paragraph is part of a larger motif in the extended narrative in which the greater, more powerful person surprisingly passes his weapons on to David. So King Saul offered his arms to the young David about to face Goliath (17:38–39), and Goliath’s sword passed on to David (17:51; 21:9), as here Jonathan gave him his sword and bow.6

It is also possible that the specific idiom for “became one in spirit” has a similar kind of double meaning, inferring again the political nature of their relationship.7 David’s and Jonathan’s immediate bonding and personal friendship apparently leads the crown prince to renounce his throne, and the gifts of verse 4 are symbolic of his commitment to defer to David’s right to be king.8 The last time they see each other, Jonathan confirms his resolve that David will be king and that he will himself play a secondary role in the kingdom (23:16–18).

Saul First Becomes Jealous of David (18:5–9)

Bridging Contexts

YAHWEH RULES OVER Israel, though he has chosen to do so through human anointed ones. The perplexing problem that drives the rest of 1 Samuel is the presence of two anointed ones in Israel—Saul and, since chapter 16, David. How will this be resolved? Which of these two anointed ones will ultimately lead God’s people? Since the historian has already told us that David is God’s choice and that Saul has been rejected (chs. 13–15), it remains only to narrate the details of the fall of Saul and the rise of David.

The text takes us through many twists and turns in a way that beautifully demonstrates God’s sovereign work in the world among humans who are free to follow or resist. Furthermore, the ever-present contrast between Saul and David addresses one of the driving questions of 1-2 Samuel: Who may serve suitably as Israel’s king? Any future kings who become like Saul will be illegitimate; all of Israel’s kings should be like David.

Spirit of and from God. The central theological idea of this chapter is the coming of the “evil spirit from God” upon Saul, a theme originally introduced in 16:14 (see also 19:9).15 As in that earlier reference, the arrival of an injurious spirit from God is preceded by (and becomes a consequence of) the departure of the Spirit of God: “The LORD was with David but had left Saul” (18:12; see comments on 16:14–18). The Spirit of God comes to bestow success on David, while the pernicious spirit from God continues to torment Saul.

The withdrawal of God’s Spirit is reminiscent of another episode in this book, in which the glory of God departed Israel. Eli’s daughter-in-law went into labor and gave birth when she heard the ark of the covenant had been captured. Because she understood that the glory of God had departed Israel, she named her newborn son Ichabod, “no glory,” implying no hope for success or future (see comments on 4:19–22). Saul is certainly portrayed as an Ichabod figure, since the Spirit of God has departed and an injurious spirit from God has taken its place.

By contrast, the Lord is “with David” (18:12, 14, 28). He is the source of David’s success and the cause of Saul’s torment.16 Moreover, David is God’s choice as the next anointed one of Israel. God moves in and through these events in order to place David at the head of his people. As Saul is an Ichabod figure, so David is an Immanuel figure.17 The Spirit has departed from Saul and rests on David. God is at work in David and in the circumstances around him in order to accomplish his purposes for his people. History is marching forward in its inexorable way, and Saul is helpless to stop it. God and most everyone else in the text are with David, while Saul is firmly set against him.18 The more vigorously Saul opposes God’s actions, the more successful God’s servants become in accomplishing God’s call on their lives.

Reverse returns. In our desire to bring this text into our contemporary world, it is helpful to remember that the Bible contains many such parallels to demonstrate and confirm the pattern: The more God’s enemies resist his will, the more success God’s children experience. Perhaps we can call this the biblical principle of “reverse returns” for those who oppose God’s work. Those who oppose a servant of God, someone who has God “with” him or her, merely serve to propel the purposes of God further against their own wishes.

The brothers of Joseph, for example, intended to harm him, but instead they became instruments for accomplishing God’s will for him (Gen. 50:20).19 The pharaoh of the Hebrew oppression, because of fear and greed, enslaved the Israelites in order to control their population growth. But the result exacerbated his problem: “The more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and spread” (Ex. 1:12). Pharaoh then tried infanticide as a means of controlling the Israelites. But God responded to the civil disobedience of the Hebrew midwives, and “the people increased and became even more numerous” (1:20).

Similarly, the pharaoh of the Exodus hardened his heart against Moses and the Israelite request to let God’s people leave Egypt, and he thereby became a cause for the ten plagues, by which God delivered Israel (Ex. 3:19–20). Then there is Daniel and his three friends, who were captured and deported to Babylonia to serve in the king’s court (Dan. 1). But such aggression merely placed Daniel and his friends in a position to receive an education in Babylonia and put them into Nebuchadnezzar’s service, which prepared them further (esp. Daniel) to serve a significant role in God’s next phase of salvation history (Dan. 2–12).

The ultimate example of this principle of reverse returns is Jesus. He was opposed by many people for a variety of reasons, and this opposition led to his ignoble death on a cross (Luke 22:1–6). But it is through that very death that Israel, and through Israel the nations, experience divine redemption.20 The cross is the ultimate opposition to God’s work, but in this most dramatic of all reversals, it has become the instrument of God’s redemption and the eternal symbol of his love for the world. Far from preventing Jesus from accomplishing his mission, his adversaries provided the means through which Jesus fulfilled his mission.

Moreover, Jesus understood and taught his disciples that such persecution was cause for rejoicing (Matt. 5:11–12). Not that Christian faith should be masochistic or derive some sort of maniacal pleasure from suffering and persecution. Rather, Christians have the assurance that God’s will cannot be thwarted by opposition; in fact, he often reverses the expected returns by turning opposition into the means of victory. The early church demonstrates this truth when the early Jewish believers were scattered throughout the Roman world because of persecution (Acts 8:1–4). Rather than halting the spread of Christianity, such persecution served as a means of introducing the gospel to the entire world (11:19–21).

Contemporary Significance

THE CONTEMPORARY CHRISTIAN can take great comfort from the central ideas of this chapter. Even when an enemy of God, motivated by anger, jealousy, or hatred, attempts to intervene forcibly against the progress of what God is accomplishing, that very intervention itself can be used by God to further his purposes. This principle has been illustrated in American history in the second half of the twentieth century in the civil rights movement, thanks largely to the use of Christian principles in the civil disobedience of the movement’s leadership.

Victory through persecution in the civil rights movement. A vivid illustration of this comes from the remarkable life and ministry of Dr. John M. Perkins, founder and leader of Voice of Calvary Ministries in Jackson and Mendenhall, Mississippi. Dr. Perkins testifies that an episode in 1970 taught him that love is stronger than hate. One horrible night in February, he was beaten nearly to death by white police officers. He later stated that God used this experience to give him a real compassion for whites. His story sheds light on how vicious opposition can actually strengthen a righteous cause in its resolve and effects.21

During the evening of February 7, two vans were returning African American students to Tougaloo College near Jackson from Mendenhall, where they had participated in a civil rights march. In Plain, Mississippi, a few miles after the vans rolled over the line separating Simpson County from Rankin County, a highway patrol car from Mendenhall pulled over one of the vans. Perkins received a call that the students had been taken to the Brandon jail in Rankin County. He and two pastor friends headed for the jail to set bail for the group. On the way, Perkins admits it occurred to him that this could be a trap. Why else would they arrest only one of the vans? Was it possible they were setting a trap for the leadership of the march?

As they arrived at the county courthouse and jail, a highway patrolman showed them where to park. They were then met by a dozen highway patrolmen in the parking lot. The policemen searched and arrested the three clergymen and immediately began beating them. They were then taken inside the jail, where the nightmare only continued. The local sheriff, five deputy sheriffs, and nearly a dozen patrolmen began beating them. In the subsequent court trial, Perkins described the scene in the jail that evening:

“When I got to the jail and saw the people in jail, of course I was horrified as to why we were arrested and when I got in the jail Sheriff Jonathan Edwards came over to me right away and said, ‘This is the smart nigger, and this is a new ballgame. You’re not in Simpson County now; you are in Brandon.’ … He began to beat me, and from that time on they continued beating me.”22

Perkins explains how he attempted to defend himself without retaliating. At one point, he describes how one of the policemen stabbed him with a fork as he continued stomping on and hitting him. Falling in and out of consciousness, Perkins could recall the looks of his attackers’ faces, which he said were so twisted with hate they looked like white-faced demons. This was a turning point in his ministry, as he later reflected on the significance of the event:

For the first time I saw what hate had done to those people. These policemen were poor. They saw themselves as failures. The only way they knew how to find a sense of worth was by beating us. Their racism made them feel like “somebody.” When I saw that, I just couldn’t hate back. I could only pity them. I said to God that night, “God, if you will let me get out of this jail alive … I really want to preach a gospel that will heal these people, too.” Well, although the students who watched over me through the night in that jail cell were sure for a while that I was dead or about to die, I came out alive—and with a new call. My call to preach the gospel now extended to whites.23

Perkins explains further that for the first time in his life, while he was being battered in that Mississippi jail, he had seen how the white man was a victim of his own racism. For the first time he wanted to bring a gospel that could set him free as well. But he contends that this was only a start, because now he saw the deep-seated bitterness he harbored in his own heart against whites for what they had done to him and his family.

Persecution in this case only intensified and strengthened the very movement the attackers wanted to stop. As Perkins’s testimony illustrates, persecution served a purifying role in broadening his own ministry and made him more effective. For the leadership of the civil rights movement, where civil disobedience was practiced, opposition served only to propel the movement to new accomplishments. This is a story that could be repeated in other contexts, especially in cultures where the church is persecuted by imposing political forces at work.

Christians are called to refuse retaliation and to live in such a way as not only to overcome but transform the oppressors.24 Though Saul had set his course and would not allow himself to be deterred, David was faithful to what God placed before him, and God was “with” David. As Christians, we must bear testimony to God’s grace in our lives in good times and in bad, and we must remember that a loving response to opposition can transform our enemies, and as Dr. Perkins testifies, transform ourselves as well.

Original Meaning

Saul First Becomes Jealous of David (18:5–9)

THIS SECTION EMPHASIZES Saul’s anger and jealousy of David. Recent literary studies in the David narratives have made us more aware of the amazing artistry through which the historian has characterized David throughout 1-2 Samuel.9 The historian carefully sets up a screen around David’s intimate responses to other characters and to events as they unfold by withholding from the reader David’s thoughts or feelings. We learn what kind of person he is by his speeches, by his impressive military exploits, and by what other characters feel about him. But the narrator never makes statements about David’s feelings or reveals his inner thoughts.

By contrast, the narrator exposes in this chapter the feelings and emotions of everyone around David. Jonathan is entirely motivated by love and devotion for David. The general populace are motivated by admiration for David (the military officers are pleased when he is promoted, and the women celebrate his victories). Saul is motivated by fear, anger, and jealousy. Michal, like Jonathan, is motivated by her love for David (18:20). All of these emotions are stated flatly by the narrator. But David’s inner life is revealed more opaquely and is held in suspense throughout most of the narratives. This technique focuses our attention squarely on David as the central figure, as everyone around him seems likewise focused.10

Saul Attempts to Kill David (18:10–16)