Better Than Bromance?
As I continue reading through the Bible, I’m spending more time paying attention to the relationships between people than I expected. In 2 Samuel 1, David hears about the deaths of Saul and Jonathan. He grieves deeply, and the lament he offers is emotional and poetic. One line in particular caught my attention: "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."
More Than Just a Hug and a Handshake
That statement raises a lot of questions. What kind of relationship did David and Jonathan have? Why does David describe it in such intimate terms? And what did friendship mean in the ancient world?
It turns out that in many ancient societies, deep emotional bonds between friends weren’t unusual, especially between men. Marriages at the time were often arranged and came with social or political obligations. Friendship, on the other hand, could be chosen. It might have been one of the few relationships in a person’s life that allowed for voluntary loyalty and emotional honesty.
No Texts, Just Trust
When David speaks of Jonathan’s love surpassing that of women, he might not be making a romantic comparison, but rather a comment on the different kind of closeness they shared. In modern times, especially in many Western cultures, emotional intimacy between male friends can be downplayed or treated with discomfort. But the ancient world had different expectations.
Philosophers like Aristotle, writing a few centuries later, described friendship as a kind of ideal relationship—a meeting of equals, grounded in mutual respect and affection. The friendship between David and Jonathan seems to reflect that kind of ideal. Earlier in 1 Samuel, Jonathan had even given David his royal garments and weapons—symbols of his own status—as a sign of loyalty. That act seems to go beyond casual friendship.
Grief, Loyalty, and the Weight of Friendship
In David’s lament, there’s a real sense of loss—not just of an ally, but of a personal connection that meant something deep. It makes me wonder how often we overlook the importance of friendship in our own lives. In this case, friendship wasn’t secondary to family or romance. It had its own kind of weight.
Reading these chapters, I’m left thinking less about political transitions or military strategies, and more about the emotional world these people lived in. David’s grief feels personal and honest, and it offers a small window into what it meant to love someone as a friend in a time and culture very different from my own.
I don’t have a clear conclusion, but I’m interested in how different cultures have understood friendship, and how those understandings still show up—or don’t—in how we relate to others today.