Passing the Love of Women - 2nd Samuel 1:17-27

It’s hard to understand why Jonathan had to die as well as his father Saul in order for David to be king, especially considering it appears that Saul’s 4th son survived, why couldn’t that had been Jonathan? I looked up what happened to that surviving son, and google says that he survived and was proclaimed king over the northern tribes of Israel by Abner and ruled for about 2 years and then was murdered in his bed by his own military captains. So ultimately that son had to die too in order for David to rule over the entirety of Israel. Even though Jonathan had already pledged loyalty to David as king, he was planning to be his second in command, maybe over time the temptation would have been for Jonathan to take back what rightly might have been considered his place as king, or it’s possible that even if Jonathan never did that, the people who didn’t want David as their king might not have given him their loyalty and/or plotted against him so reinstate Jonathan to where THEY thought he belonged, on the throne. Even though Jonathan might have been a great supporter of David and been very helpful, God decided that the best way for David to take and keep the throne was for Saul and all his family to die, and He was probably right.

This decision cost a lot of people, including David, a lot of pain and anguish and it’s hard to accept that God’s will is what’s best, especially when it’s incredibly painful. This is exactly the concept that I’ve been dealing with for the last 18 months. I don’t know what the plan is from here, but I have to accept that it’s what God wants and I have to accept that His plan is perfect, even though It’s painful and I don’t understand. I think it’s important to note that the split kingdoms of Judah and Israel were going to be difficult to unite and that I think Judah had to be won over by David first, especially because that was his tribe, it would be easier for win them over so God allowing the 4th son to live and be king in the north made sense because he was just holding it until the time was right for David to take it over (I assume that’s what happens, I don’t know yet), and then it’s important that David didn’t kill him to take over his throne, just like he didn’t kill Saul to take that throne either. This wasn’t a power grab by a greedy man, it was God directed. I’m trying to see how it feels to think about the rise of David as king as if I were an ancient Israelite at that time. Would I have attributed it to God? Would I have seen that pathway? Or would I just assume it was another violent thing done by greedy men? It will be interesting to see how the people perceive this rise of David.

Even though the IM called Saul David’s most violent enemy, David still mourned his loss. Maybe it was because he knew that it was his time to step into that role and he was reluctant about the responsibility that it would involve. There’s no evidence of that but that would definitely be my thought process. It’s possible that David was mourning the life that he thought he’d have with him just being in the court and living with his wife Michal and being friends with Jonathan forever. Maybe that’s the life he wanted and now that everyone was dead, not only was that life gone, but he now had an enormous responsibility that he had to undertake. David spends 10 verses lamenting the loss of Saul and Jonathan, talking about how great they were, such great warriors, and that they “were lovely and pleasant in their lives, and in their death they were not divided.” We know that this wasn’t true, that Saul was incredibly violent and terrible to David and that Jonathan didn’t always stand with his father in agreement. But it’s probably better to be gracious after their deaths then to start spreading the dirty laundry.

Here we come to verse 26 which says, “I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.” Like many others, I just assumed that this was another demonstration that David and Jonathan were lovers, TB vehemently disagrees and his logic is sound. TB says that this verse has never been interpreted that was through the 3,000 year history since it was written. Interestingly, TB’s take on this has two parts, the second of which is that “passing the love of women” meaning that because a king, which Jonathan was the next in line to be king, usually had many wives and concubines meaning that he had very little loyalty to any of them, so when David said that Jonathan was loved more than the women, it meant that Jonathan’s loyalty to David as a king to his servant was stronger than the love and loyalty that he had for his wives, which makes sense. Historically, even in Hebrew society where it wasn’t supposed to be that way, women were essentially property, so Jonathan would have been expected to have little love of his wives, beyond “that’s mine.”

The relationship between David and Jonathan was close, unusually close considering that the social standing was that Jonathan was the “royal” or higher status, and David was the “servant” or lower status. The love and loyalty that Jonathan had for David was much stronger than any servant/royal relationship was supposed to be. TB says, “so the degree of faithfulness and loyalty of a vassal to his king regularly outweighed the rather dispersed and watered-down loyalty a man would have with a number of women in his harem, and thus also what one of several wives and concubines might have their her husband.” So Jonathan valuing David as a servant more than he valued the relationship with his wives would have been expected, thus this verse makes more sense in that context. It appears that they were not lovers, from the context anyway.