Scripture: selections from 1Samuel
I need to beg your indulgence in a couple of minor ways today. First, I need to beg the indulgence of those whose biological rhythms are thrown off kilter by the fact that I’m starting to preach before it’s time to preach. It’s only…on the clock, the scripture hasn’t been read, we haven’t sung another hymn or had any special music, and so your bodies may not be ready to settle in to the sermon listening mode yet. Second I need to do some Biblical history this morning, so I need to beg the indulgence of those of you who may find this boring or difficult in some way. For a number of minutes this morning I am going to need to just tell a story.
I said last week that I’d be spending several weeks with the Biblical stories in which David figures prominently. Last week it was David and Goliath, this week David and Jonathan. Whereas at least the basics of the David and Goliath story are known to many, and in any case can be read fairly easily, the story of David and Jonathan is less well known and is spread around and interwoven with a lot of other stories. In order to even talk about them, I feel like I need to provide some background, background that I maybe should have given last week but at least need to get around to this week. And it does take more than a few sentences.
David makes his appearance in the scriptures in the books which in our English, Christian bibles are called first and second Samuel. These books are set in a time when the Hebrew people were living scattered across the land of Palestine as a bunch of clans or tribes. There was no nation, no capital, no constitution, no single leader, not much of a common culture, though there was probably a shared language, and a shared memory that they all owed their existence to the heroic deeds of the people who fled out of Egypt, journeyed across the desert for forty years, and finally landed, albeit forcibly, in the land that God had led them to.
All that had happened hundreds of years ago though, and they had by this time set up housekeeping in the land of Palestine and had either killed off, displaced, assimilated, or learned to co-exist with the Canaanites who had also been living in the land. For hundreds of years there seemed not to be a need to be highly organized. What leadership they had was provided by people who emerged because of skill and bravery to lead people into battle when necessary, and groups of tribal chieftains and elders, priests or shamans, and spiritual people who may have been acknowledged to possess great wisdom or be able to receive messages from God. It was, however, not a common or expected thing for people to receive messages from God. 1Samuel 3:1 says “The word of God was rare in those days; visions were not widespread.”
Then came the Philistines. The Philistines were not the indigenous people of Palestine. The Philistines were invaders, known as the sea people, because they seemed to come from the sea. They had tried unsuccessfully to invade Egypt and when that failed, they turned their sights on the land of Palestine where people were much less organized and much less prepared to fight a war.
They settled in what is now Gaza and began to attack. Though they were much stronger, it was hard, historians think, for them to maintain the supply lines, and they didn’t know the territory, so it was not an easy victory for them. Meanwhile the Hebrew people were beginning to feel like it was probably time for them to get better organized. 1Samuel 8:4 “The elders gathered together and came to Samuel (the man who the books are named after and who was looked to by many of the tribes as a spiritual leader, a man of God) and the elders said to Samuel, ‘You are old and your sons don’t follow in your ways. Appoint for us, then, a king to govern us like other nations.
Samuel wasn’t too happy about this. Neither by some accounts was God. And neither was another segment of the people who just didn’t believe in this kind of centralized authority. The pros and cons of being structured and having people making rules and giving orders continue to be debated throughout the books of Samuel, but at this point in the story fear wins out over idealism. The Philistines will certainly conquer us, people say, apparently the majority or the loudest voices, if we don’t stop being divided, get ourselves together, put someone in charge, establish a chain of command, and so on. And at this point God is even reported to have said something to the effect of, “OK, OK, go ahead and have a king. In fact, I’ll find you someone.”
The someone turns out to be a man named Saul. Saul deserves a bunch of sermons, well at least one or two, on his own. He is not exactly an admirable character, but I’ve always been attracted to him and even had some sympathy or empathy toward him. Saul did not want to be king. He didn’t ask to be king. He didn’t run for king. He didn’t even reluctantly step forward when the call went out for a king. Saul was just minding his own business, looking for some lost donkeys, when God decided he was the one. And everything went downhill from there.
Saul, who didn’t want the job in the first place, once he became king, couldn’t do anything right. He tried his best, but whatever he did, it wasn’t good enough for God and Samuel. He either kills too many people, or not enough. He is too strong a leader or too weak a leader. Once, a sacrifice was planned just before a battle. Samuel was supposed to be there, but he was late. The enemy was advancing, and Saul decided to go ahead without Samuel, which turned out to be a major sin. Was Samuel to blame, or even partly to blame, for being late? Nooooo. Saul was to blame for not having faith that Samuel would show up.
The net result of all this is that Saul goes crazy. That’s not a clinical diagnosis, but we don’t have enough information for a clinical diagnosis. What we do know is that Saul becomes jealous and paranoid, has bouts of severe moodiness, sometimes flips out and becomes violent, and in general becomes a tortured soul.
In fact, David first enters the picture not as the boy hero who slays Goliath but as a young musician who plays the harp so sweetly that it is able to soothe Saul’s soul. David is brought in as a music therapist for a suffering king. Then we see him going out and doing what Saul was supposed to do, namely save the Israelites from the Philistines. Saul calls David in to thank him, or size him up, try to figure out whether he is competition or not. The harpist was not competition, but Goliath puts a new light on things. So Saul and David have an audience. Also present at this audience is Saul’s son, whose name was Jonathan.
Martha reads:
“When David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. Saul took David 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. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and belt.”
(1Samuel 18:1-4)
Thus begins what will be revealed to be as the story progresses a remarkable relationship—remarkable no matter how you look at it. One way to look at this is to look at the political significance of the relationship. Jonathan is, after all, the son of the king. We are becoming aware by this time that Saul has been deposed in God’s mind and David has been chosen, in God’s mind, as Saul’s replacement. But the characters in the story don’t know that and Jonathan is still very much the heir apparent. So when he strips himself of his royal paraphernalia and gives it to David, it is not just some gesture of gratitude or friendship or congratulations for a job well done. It is a symbolic handing over of the mantle of leadership. Whether because of affection or admiration or intuition or divine revelation, Jonathan is in effect handing over the future to David, to his own detriment. I am not the next king; you are. Jonathan understands what’s going on and what the future holds and he accepts it completely and selflessly. That’s one take on the story.
Another way to look at this is to see it as a heartwarming story of human friendship that is so deep that it somehow survives through wars and political intrigues and human hardships. That has given all sorts of people the opportunity to wax eloquent about the meaning of friendship, and its value and importance and place in our lives and how this supreme example of friendship may inspire us.
Then there is a view of this story that I was not aware of and that was still pretty far from being able to be taught or mentioned in my liberal school of theology in the 1960’s, namely that David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship. There was a book that appeared in 1978 that argued strongly for this view, and since then there have been a number of people who have suggested either that it was or that it could have been and that it would be perfectly legitimate to ready the story this way. I’m not going to argue the case for David and Jonathan being gay or bi-sexual. Was this a profound and loving same sex relationship? Clearly it was. Was it a physical relationship? Yes, we’ll hear that it was. Was it what we would think of as a sexual relationship? Don’t know. Could it have been? Sure.
So I do invite us to listen to the words of scripture, which Martha will be reading several more times, to listen to those words with some openness on this question. I read someone who asked the question: if a writer had wanted to describe a homosexual relationship without being absolutely explicit about it, but giving lots of clues for those who are tuned in, could that person have done any better than the way the story is told in Samuel? We can at least listen with that question in mind.
But on with the story. After Jonathan declares his love for David and hands over to David all the signs of his power and position, David continues on his rise to stardom and kinghood. He wins battles. He’s telegenic. He says the right thing all the time. He does whatever Saul wants him to do, including continuing to play music for him, even marries the king’s daughter. It’s not just Jonathan. Everybody loves David. People compose songs about him, literally sing his praises. Everybody loves David except Saul, who can see the way things are heading, knows David is a sure thing to be king, knows it’s inevitable, but doesn’t have to like it, and doesn’t like it, and every so often does things that give you a clue he doesn’t like it, like right in the middle of one of David’s songs suddenly deciding to throw spears at him.
Martha reads:
“Saul spoke with his son Jonathan and with all his servants about killing David. But Saul’s son Jonathan took great delight in David. And Jonathan told David, ‘My father is trying to kill you…Be on your guard…I will speak to my father about you.’ Jonathan spoke well of David to his father, Saul, saying to him, ‘The king should not sin against his servant David, because David has not sinned against you, and because his deeds serve you well.’…Saul heeded the voice of Jonathan…Jonathan called David…and brought David to Saul, and David was in his presence as before.”
(1Samuel 19:1-7 excerpts)
Jonathan, you see, had a problem. Jonathan loved David. He also loved his father, who didn’t love David. Or at least Jonathan cared about his father. Or at least he wanted to be loyal to his father, who had been a good person and who never had wanted to be in this position in the first place, and whose troubles were partly his own doing but partly not, and who was not a well man, and…Well, maybe none of that mattered much. Saul was Jonathan’s father, and Jonathan was not ready to turn his back on him. So Jonathan kept on loving David and living with his father and trying to do his best by his father.
Still Saul doesn’t stop trying to kill David, and finally David has had enough. There’s a holiday meal coming up that David is expected to be at, but he has this feeling that this meal may end up being his last. He plans not to go and asks Jonathan to find out what Saul is up to. Jonathan has been in a bit of denial that his father is really serious about murder, but he agrees to a plan. David will stay away until Jonathan finds out what’s going on and Jonathan will let David know whether it’s safe or not.
Martha reads:
“Saul said to his son Jonathan, ‘Why has the son of Jesse not come to the feast, either yesterday or today?’ Jonathan answered, ‘David earnestly asked leave of me to go to Bethlehem (to be with his family). This is the reason he has not come to the king’s table.’ Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan. He said to him, ‘You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established. Now send and bring him to me, for he shall surely die. …Jonathan rose from the table in fierce anger and ate no food, for he was grieved for David, and because his father had disgraced him. In the morning Jonathan went out and (let David know of Saul’s plans)…David bowed three times and they kissed each other, and wept with each other; David wept the more. Then Jonathan said to David, ‘Go in peace…’”
(1Samuel 20:24-34, excerpts)
David leaves. Jonathan stays. They say good-bye and never see each other again. It’s a sad story. Two people who love each are kept from each other by a father and a whole bunch of forces out of their control. And the story gets even sadder. David ends up going over to his old enemies, the Philistines, the only way to be safe from Saul. Eventually there is a big battle in which Jonathan is killed by the Philistines and Saul is about to be killed when he falls on his own sword and kills himself. David, who was not in the battle because the Philistines didn’t trust him to fight against Saul and Jonathan, is brought word of their deaths and breaks down:
Martha reads:
David intoned this lamentation over Saul and his son Jonathan…
Your glory, O Israel, lies slain upon your high places.
Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely!
In life and in death they were not divided;
They were swifter than eagles and stronger than lions.
O daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, who clothed you with crimson in luxury, who put ornaments of gold on your apparel.
How the mighty have fallen in the midst of battle!
Jonathan lies slain upon your high places.
I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan;
Dear and delightful were you to me;
Your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.
The story of David and Jonathan ends with a lament, which seems somehow very appropriate. It has been a sad story throughout, beginning with Saul’s own story and with the sadness just continuing to multiply and deepen as the story goes on. Maybe you can pick up from the way I have told the story where I find myself most touched by it.
First there is the tension that Jonathan lives with throughout the story. His story is a story I have lived, listened to, witnessed, shared, heard about, and imagined many times over. It is that for all of us, I think, and although it is sometimes not such a big deal and easily dealable with, there are many times that it is filled with sadness.
Jonathan has deep feelings for his father—love, loyalty, inability to abandon someone who is such deep distress—whatever they are they are deep feelings, not just intense but deeply rooted and probably very complicated and not the kind of thing you just casually dispense with. On the other hand, Jonathan loves David, and David loves him. They love each other deeply, and with all their hearts. Saul will not have it. He sees David as a threat, and he refuses to accept the relationship. How does Jonathan be true to his relationship to his father and to David, who he loves maybe more than life itself? We may not agree with the choices Jonathan made, but I doubt we would find it hard to imagine or identify with the feelings he might have been dealing with.
Would it be hard for a same-sex couple in our time who had to deal with disapproving or condemning attitudes of parents or other people deeply part of their lives, would it be hard for them to see themselves in the story of David and Jonathan? I’ve never been in that position, but I rather imagine the connection would not be too hard at all. How do we continue to honor a relationship with someone who does not honor our relationships? How do we continue to love or maintain a relationship with someone who holds values on issues that are absolutely crucial to us that are offensive? How do we even deal with the feelings we may have when uncle so-and-so makes a bigoted remark at Thanksgiving dinner? How do we deal with the feelings of having a country we love do things that make us want to cry? We have all kinds of deeply rooted loves and loyalties and it’s not always so easy to keep them all going, at least not without a good deal of sadness along the way. For that reason a lament is a good way for the story of David and Jonathan to end.
And there’s another reason. Conflicting feelings and competing loyalties is a big theme in the story and I’m thinking a pretty large area of our lives. Slightly different, but certainly related in the story as it is in real life, is the theme of forbidden love. Again same-sex couples in our own time may find an easy tie-in because David and Jonathan after all had a same-sex relationship. But also how about people whose love relationships or friendships have been thought to be unacceptable and maybe put under attack because they were across racial, ethnic, class, or religious boundaries. We may well lament for the difficult positions people may find themselves in or the difficult choices they may need to make because their loves and loyalties pull them in different directions. We also need to lament for individuals and for our world, when loving relationships, instead of being nurtured and supported and honored and celebrated, are made difficult or impossible.
But maybe there’s more than lament in the story. Maybe at least the story of David and Jonathan can lead us to resolve to keep working at making room for loving relationships in our lives and in the life of the world around us, loving relationships of all kinds, including those that don’t fit neatly into categories, that do cross ethnic and family and religious and racial boundaries, that cross boundaries of sexual orientation and identity, that are same sex or different sex, that involve sex and that don’t involve sex, make way for loving relationships of all kinds, because there is too much in this world that is not loving, and there is too much in this world that chokes off loving relationships.
In the midst of our efforts to honor our various loves and loyalties, even when they compete and conflict with each other, in the midst of the conflicting feelings we may be left with inside, and in the midst of our efforts to make a place for loving relationships of all kinds and to give them the support they need to flourish and prosper, in all of this may God grant us strength and wisdom and hearts of compassion. Amen.
Jim Bundy
July 27, 2003