The Hate - Scholarly Article

There is no evidence in the biblical text that David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship.
Their bond is best understood as a covenantal friendship and political allegiance.
Modern readings might project categories onto a text where they do not belong.

The relationship between David and Jonathan is described using strong emotional language. However, this reflects covenant loyalty, not sexual or romantic involvement.

In 1 Samuel 18:3, Jonathan makes a “covenant” with David. In the ancient Near East, this typically referred to political alliances or loyalty agreements.

Jonathan’s actions support this interpretation. He gives David his robe and weapons, symbolically recognizing him as the future king. This is a political act of submission and allegiance, not a romantic gesture.

The Hebrew word for “love” (ahavah) has a broad meaning. It can describe friendship, loyalty, family bonds, or covenant commitment. Nothing in the immediate context suggests sexual behavior.

David’s lament in 2 Samuel 1:26 is often cited. But saying Jonathan’s love was “greater than that of women” reflects loyalty and trust. David’s relationships with Saul’s daughters were politically complicated and unreliable. By contrast, Jonathan’s support was consistent and sacrificial.

Ancient Israelite culture also strongly prohibited homosexual acts. This makes such a relationship highly unlikely within the narrative’s own framework.

Jewish and early Christian interpreters consistently understood this as deep friendship.

In summary, the text presents a covenantal, political, and personal bond.
 The idea of a homosexual relationship is a modern reinterpretation, not grounded in the text.

Jonathan gives his friendship and political allegiance to David as the next king.

Some contemporary readers misinterpret the biblical description of the relationship between David and King Saul’s son Jonathan as suggesting they had a homosexual relationship. Given the cultural context of the narrative, a homosexual relationship is clearly something that is read into the text by modern readers, rather than something found in the text itself. As theologian Kevin DeYoung observes: “The fact of the matter is that homosexual behavior was almost unheard of within Israel and even revisionist scholars have argued that in ancient Judaism . . . it would have been completely forbidden. . .”[408]

According to 1 Samuel 18:3, after he’d seen how David squared up to Goliath, “Jonathan made a covenant with David, for he loved him as much as he did his own life.” (NET.) However, this is not a reference to the “covenant” of marriage. As James Rochford point out:

The term “covenant” (bĕrit) refers to a “treaty, alliance, pledge, or an agreement.” Typically, it refers to a political agreement between parties. For instance, the author used the term to refer to a peace treaty between the Ammonites and the people of Jabesh (1 Sam. 11:1). . . . the context strongly implies that this was an oath from David to protect Jonathan’s family after the transfer of power. Later, David fulfils this promise: “[David] spared Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan the son of Saul, because of the oath of the LORD which was between them, between David and Saul’s son Jonathan” (2 Sam. 21:7).[409]

In context, the statement that Jonathan “loved” David as his own life, speaks of Jonathan giving his political allegiance to David.

Then, according to 1 Samuel 18:4, 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.” (ESV.) Again, there are no sexual overtones of any kind here. Rather, “The act was at once a ratification of their compact and a pubic mark of honour. . . . We may compare the exchange of armour between Glaucus and Diomede when they met before Troy, as a pledge of old family friendship (Hom. Il. VI. 230).”[410]

2 Samuel 1:26 records David’s lament after Jonathan’s death, in which David says: “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.” (NIV.) Some people read into this the suggestion of a homosexual relationship. However,

First, the Hebrew word for “love” used here covers a broad range of meanings and does not mean “romantic” or “sexual” love unless the context demands it. . . . Second, David’s comparison of his relationship with Jonathan with that of women is probably a reference to his experience with King Saul’s daughters. He was promised one of Saul’s daughters for killing Goliath. The first daughter was abruptly given to another man. The second daughter was promised, but Saul continued to add conditions to the deal, hoping to see David killed in battle (1 Samuel 18:17 & 25). The loyalty and camaraderie David had with Jonathan came with no conditions and was of greater value than the companionship of Saul’s daughter.[411]

As DeYoung comments:

when it says that Jonathan’s love was greater to him than that of women, it’s making a particular biblical, redemptive point that the house of Saul (and David has married one of Saul’s daughters) is falling and that she was less of a help to David than was Jonathan. So it’s showing in God’s providential care that Jonathan is actually going to be the means of David’s ascendency to the throne through his friendship, which was even more of a loyal friendship than he received from his wife. But that’s not at all to suggest, as no ancient Jew would have even thought to begin to think, that this was somehow marriage covenant or any kind of sexual relationship.[412]

No, Saul did not reign in Jerusalem.
His capital was Gibeah, north of Jerusalem.
Jerusalem was only conquered later by David.

King Saul ruled from Gibeah in the territory of Benjamin. This is explicitly stated in 1 Samuel and fits the tribal geography of the time. Jerusalem, however, was not yet an Israelite city during Saul’s reign. It was controlled by the Jebusites and referred to as Jebus.

Although the site of Jerusalem had been inhabited for thousands of years,
 it had not yet become Israel’s political or religious center. Ancient references such as the Amarna Letters call it “Ursalim.” This likely reflects an older Canaanite name connected to the deity Shalem.

In the Bible, “Salem” is mentioned in Genesis and Psalms. It is generally understood to refer to the same location as later Jerusalem. However, the Israelites did not control the city at that stage. It was only after Saul’s death that David took Jerusalem. According to 2 Samuel 5, David captured the city from the Jebusites. He then established it as his capital, calling it the “City of David.” This move was strategic. Jerusalem was centrally located and not tied to any single tribe. From that point on, it became the political and later religious center of Israel.

So historically and biblically, Saul ruled from Gibeah, not Jerusalem.

King Saul reigned from a city called Gibeah. The city now know as Jerusalem wasn’t conquered until after David had become king.

King Saul’s capital was Gibeah of Benjamin (1 Samuel 14:16 & 1 Samuel 15:34), three miles north of Jerusalem.[413] People have lived at the site of what came to be called Jerusalem since c. 5000 BCE, due to its hill-top location and spring-water supply. Around 1900 BCE some pottery discovered in Egypt “mentions a town named Ursalim, a version of Salem or Shelem, god of the evening star [or dusk] . . . ‘the name may mean ‘Salem has been founded.’”[414] Likewise, in the 14th century BCE the clay tablet Amarna Letters refer to the town as “Ursalim.” In the Old Testament, “Salem” is mentioned in both Genesis 14:18 (in the story of Abraham)[3] and in Psalm 76:2: “And His tabernacle is in Salem, And His habitation in Zion.” (YLT.) The paralleling of “Salem” with “Zion” (i.e. mount Zion in Jerusalem, where Solomon built the first temple) identifies Salem with what came to be called Jerusalem.

It is generally agreed that “Jerusalem” (which in Hebrew is “Yerushalayim”) means “City of peace.” Perhaps the word “Salem/Shelem” lost its Canaanite cultural connotation and came to mean “peace” (as reflected in the Hebrew root word שָׁלַם - shalam), due to its also meaning being whole or complete.[415] Dr. Yeshaya Gruber explains that: “In Hebrew the name ‘Salem’ is written שלם (Shalem) and seems related to שלום (shalom) ‘peace, wholeness.’ The Arabic names Sālim and Salām come from the same Semitic root.”[416] Indeed, “The god Shalim may have been associated with dusk and the evening star in the etymological senses of a ‘completion’ of the day, ‘sunset’ and ‘peace’.” [417] Alternatively, Uru is the Sumerian word for “city” and Salim for “peace,”[418] so that might explain why “Ursalim” means “city of peace.” Either way, the “peace” aspect of the city’s name, or a pun playing on this association, appears to be referenced in both Psalm 122 and Hebrews 7:2.

The tribe referred to in the Bible as “Jebusites” appear to have conquered Salem some time in the 12th century BCE.[419] The Bible refers to Jerusalem under the Jebusites as “Jebus” (in Hebrew Yəḇus literally means “trampled place.”). British Assyriologist Theophilus G. Pinches observes that:

the name of Yabusu, which would be the old form of Jebus, occurs in a contract tablet of the time of the first dynasty of Babylon (about 2200 B.C.), and, if really the name of the tribe, as it would seem to be, confirms its antiquity, as indicated by the references to it in Genesis.[420]

So perhaps “Yabusa” is actually the older name for the village/town that would later be called “Salem,” “Jebus” and “Jerusalem.” Some of these names may have been used concurrently, perhaps by different people-groups. And perhaps the biblical “Jebusites” are actually named after the site they conquered (i.e. “Jebus”), rather than vice-versa. In any case, as the ESV Global Study Bible explains:

After having ruled Judah for seven years from Hebron, David became King of all Israel and set his sights on Jebus as his new capital (2 Samuel 5:5). The Jebusites were so confident of their walls that they taunted David, saying even the blind and the lame would prevent him from capturing their city (2 Samuel 5:6). However, David sent a small force under the command of his commander-in-chief, Joab, to secretly enter Jebus through its water system and opened the gates (1 Chronicles 11:6). The city surrendered, and the Jebusite Citadel was destroyed and replaced by the “stronghold of Zion, that is, the city of David” (2 Samuel 5:7).[421]

In 2018 a stone column was unearthed in Jerusalem bearing a 1^st century AD Hebrew inscription which is the earliest-known “of the full name of the city that is spelled as it is today.”[422]

David played a lyre (Hebrew: kinnôr).
It was a small stringed instrument, not a modern harp.
It was likely used to soothe Saul.

The instrument David played is called a kinnôr in Hebrew. Although some Bible translations say “harp,” it was more likely a lyre.

A lyre is a smaller, portable stringed instrument. It typically had between four and eight strings. It was often played with a plectrum rather than plucked by fingers alone.

Archaeological finds support this identification. Lyres have been discovered in places like Ur (c. 2500 BCE).

Visual depictions also exist from Egypt, Canaan, and Philistine regions. These show instruments very similar to what David likely used.

The “Eastern” or “thin” lyre is the most probable type. This matches both the time period and geographic context.

The Bible describes David using this instrument to calm Saul. Music was commonly associated with emotional and even spiritual effects in the ancient world.

We also have ancient musical evidence from the same region. The Hurrian Hymn from Ugarit shows that structured music existed at the time.

Modern reconstructions of such instruments give a rough idea of the sound.

So historically and archaeologically, the lyre fits very well. It aligns with both the biblical description and the wider ancient Near Eastern context.

David played a stringed instrument called a “lyre” (probably the so-called “Eastern” or “thin” lyre).

Theologian V.P. Long notes that:

The word rendered “harp” [in some translations of 1 Samuel] (kinnôr) probably refers to a “lyre,” of which there were several types in antiquity. The type of lyre David played was presumably the “Eastern,” or “thin,” lyre, which was strung with four to eight strings and was played with a plectrum. Archaeological discovery has yielded many representations of lyres, such as the remains of nine lyres from the Sumerian royal cemetery at Ur (ca. 2500 B.C.), a depiction of “an Amorite/Canaanite lyre player entering Egypt with his clan” (ca. 1900 B.C. wall painting at Beni Hasan in Egypt), a depiction of a female lyre player on an ivory plaque from Megiddo (twelfth century B.C.), and a male lyre player on a Philistine bichrome jug (Megiddo, eleventh century B.C.).[424]

Composer and lyre player Michael Levey explains that:

The oldest surviving written melody so far discovered in History which can actually be reconstructed, was Hurrian Hymn Text H6. The musical notation for this amazing 3400 year old melody, was discovered in Ugarit, Northern Canaan (now forming the Southern part of modern Syria) in the early 1950s, and was preserved for 3400 years on a clay tablet, written in the Cuneiform text of the ancient Hurrian language . . . .[425]

Contemporary performances of this ancient tune on lyre’s patterned after those seen in the archaeological record (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpxN2VXPMLc) bring us as close as its possible to get to hearing today how David’s lyre playing would have sounded.

Fig. “Lyre player 1350-1150 BC performs before a Canaanite king; the instrument is possibly a kinnor; the artwork is a portion of a larger artwork on . . . an ivory plaque found at Megiddo. This ivory engraving shows one possibility for the ancient instrument, kinnor.”[426]