David and Jonathan...

[lmnop9876]

I thought it might be interesting to discuss the Biblical friendship of David and Jonathan.

the reason i thought this would make for an interesting discussion is that some scholars have suggested on various websites that David and Jonathan were involved in a homosexual (or if you like, bisexual given that David had many wives) relationship. At first glance I thought this was a ridiculous notion, they were just friends. nevertheless, it will be an interesting discussion, given a lot of the language used to describe their friendship/relationship.

I understand that to some people this notion would be tantamount to blasphemy, and I am not personally suggesting that i believe david and jonathan were gay. however, given that it is something that has been discussed by secular biblical scholars [is that an oxymoron?] and historians, i believe it is something we should also be discussing from a Biblical Christian perspective.

some Bible verses that discuss David and Jonathan's relationship:

1 Samuel 18:1

And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. 2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father’s house. 3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul . 4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.

1 Samuel 19:2

But Jonathan Saul’s son delighted much in David: and Jonathan told David, saying,

1 Samuel 20:17

And Jonathan caused David to swear again, because he loved him: for he loved him as he loved his own soul.

1 Samuel 20:30

Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother’s nakedness?

1 Samuel 20:41

And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded. 42 And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, The LORD be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever. And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city.

2 Samuel 1:26

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.

of course, kissing and embracing between men, and highly emotional language such as this (including the common and highly generic use of the word love) was not and is not uncommon in eastern cultures.

it is also notable that David is never described as loving a woman (the Bible doesn't mention him loving Jonathan either, although from his mourning at Jonathan's death it appears evident). the closest mention is his desire for Bathsheba, otherwise, the Bible mentions women such as Michal loving him, but he is not described as loving any of them.

personally, i have come to the opinion that david and jonathan were just very good friends, and the apparent emotional and physical closeness of their relationship was common to friendships in that culture.

 

[Myriah]

I haven't studied this too much, but I think that David and Jonathan were kind of like "brothers", uniting to fight the Philistines. The giving away of one's garb in ancient war time was like a pledge to surrender or to show a sign of unity to fight with a king, which David was going to become.

Anyhow, there was a huge war going on at the time of David and Jonathan, and it was against the Philistines.

Sorry, I don't know much more than that, as I have not studied it in length. I might one of these days though.

 

[Smilebomb]

Even though the Bible says that David and Jonathan "loved" each other, this does not mean that they were homosexuals. For example, 1 Samuel 18:16 says, "But all Israel and Judah loved David, because he led them in their campaigns." Surely we shouldn't assume that all of the men in Israel and Judah were homosexuals just because they "loved" David.

n order to understand what was going on here, we need to look at the context. David believed that King Saul (Jonathan's father) wanted to kill David, but Jonathan did not realize that his father wanted David dead (1 Samuel 20:1-2). Jonathan said that if his father wanted to kill David, then Jonathan would warn David and send him away safely (1 Samuel 20:12-13), and then Jonathan discovered that King Saul did want to kill David. We have seen that Jonathan and David loved each other as brothers, and now they had to leave each other (perhaps forever) because David's life was in danger. They "kissed" each other (1 Samuel 20:41, above) and confirmed their oath of friendship, and then David left. That is the context for the above passage. Notice that when David and Jonathan "kissed" each other, the Hebrew word for "kiss" in this passage is nashaq. This Hebrew word is also used when other men "kissed" each other in non-homosexual ways, such as when Jacob kissed his father Isaac (Genesis 27:26-27), when Laban kissed his nephew Jacob (Genesis 29:13), when Esau kissed his brother Jacob (Genesis 33:4), when Samuel kissed Saul (1 Samuel 10:1), when the king kissed Barzillai (2 Samuel 19:39), when Joab kissed Amasa (2 Samuel 20:9), and so on. So even though Jonathan and David "kissed" each other (just as those other men "kissed" each other), this does not mean that Jonathan and David were homosexuals. In some cultures (especially in the Middle East) it is not uncommon for men to kiss on both cheeks when greeting each other or when departing from each other, as we can see occasionally in the news. For example, a CNN news article about the Middle East said that "Iranian President Mohammad Khatami kissed on both cheeks in a traditional greeting" (see Islamic leaders to discuss unity, emphasis added). Jonathan and David lived in the Middle East, and they were departing from each other (perhaps forever), so it is perfectly reasonable that they would kiss on both cheeks. There is no Scriptural proof of any homosexual activity between Jonathan and David.

All that came from somewhere else, but I can't post links yet... sorry.

Peace

 

[intricatic]

lol

As you pointed out, this was common in most ANE cultures as a display of affection between two men. It's only weird in our culture because we equate it with gayness, though that wasn't even a consideration in their time.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

As you pointed out, this was common in most ANE cultures as a display of affection between two men. It's only weird in our culture because we equate it with gayness, though that wasn't even a consideration in their time.

I suspect you are projecting

 

[intricatic]

I suspect you are projecting

Projecting what? My weird and highly unusual culture's concept of homosexuality onto a culture that didn't see it the same way?

That would be too easy. I'd rather study the culture itself to see what kind of disconnects our culture has when reading about this topic.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Projecting what? My weird and highly unusual culture's concept of homosexuality onto a culture that didn't see it the same way?

Pretty much... unless you care to explain how our culture's idea of homosexuality is different to the other in question?

 

[intricatic]

Pretty much... unless you care to explain how our culture's idea of homosexuality is different to the other in question?

Actually, I think you just clarified my point. I'm not projecting that, but it seems to be popular to do so.

ANE cultures commonly saw this as a display of affection between two men, nothing sexual, but our culture sees a sexual connotation on the terms involved simply because it's what we see as common in our society. I think we have a weird phobia of one another in our culture now that hasn't historically existed in other cultures due to this pseudo-acceptance of homosexuality - people are afraid of being seen as 'gay' for doing something commonly held to be within the realm of 'gayness'.

 

[Piedpiper123]

My read is that Jonathan and David were very good mates but that David was definitely a ladies man.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

ANE cultures commonly saw this as a display of affection between two men,

I disagree... otherwise why did they go to such lengths to hide it, and why was Jonathon's father so upset about their "friendship"?

 

[intricatic]

I disagree... otherwise why did they go to such lengths to hide it, and why was Jonathon's father so upset about their "friendship"?

Once again, this would be an example of projection.

Jonathan's father was upset because his authority was being displaced by David and Jonathan was even siding with David.

 

[Smilebomb]

My read is that Jonathan and David were very good mates but that David was definitely a ladies man.

lol...

 

[Polycarp1]

There's something scary for me in finding myself in agreement with Intricatic in an ethics thread. However, the points he makes are 100% sound.

From the Scriptures, we know that David and Jonathan loved each other, and that they expressed that love in physical ways. (Please note the term is "physical" and not "sexual.")

In that culture, this was not a marker of homosexuality. In ours, it is. There is, quite simply, not enough evidence to say whether or not this was a sexual relationship. It surely sounds like one to a 21st Century American. But that's more based in our cultural conceptions of what's proper behavior between two young men than it is in what the Bible says.

And it is the ultimate in eisegesis to say "If they were gay, the Bible would have condemned it" -- you're bringing your own conceptions of gayness=sinfulness to Scripture and judging IT by THEM, instead of what God says to do, which is the other way around.

 

[Polycarp1]

I disagree... otherwise why did they go to such lengths to hide it, and why was Jonathon's father so upset about their "friendship"?

Because Saul was King, and first king of his dynasty, and Samuel had anointed David as King. Saul expected that his son Jonathan would be his successor -- for Jonathan to team up with David, his father's and his own rival for the throne, was nothing short of treasonous.

 

[intricatic]

Because Saul was King, and first king of his dynasty, and Samuel had anointed David as King. Saul expected that his son Jonathan would be his successor -- for Jonathan to team up with David, his father's and his own rival for the throne, was nothing short of treasonous.

It was kind of a tricky situation, too, so Saul needed an excuse to kill David - this wasn't about a homosexual foray, but it was about Saul being put in a position where his lineage as king was being challenged - by his own lineage.

 

[lmnop9876]

My read is that Jonathan and David were very good mates but that David was definitely a ladies man.

david had a number of wives, but is never described as "loving" them. his relationship with them is certainly not discussed in as much detail (apart from the bathsheba afffair) as his relationship with Jonathan.

what does Saul mean by "you have chosen him to your own confusion and the confusion of your mother's nakedness?"

also, when Saul offers David to marry his daughter, he says "you will this day be my son in law in one of the two." the "one of" there is added by translators and we read it as being "you will be my son in law with one of my two daughters." certainly when David says later "what an honour to be the son in law of the king", it would imply that he is not so already.

 

[intricatic]

david had a number of wives, but is never described as "loving" them. his relationship with them is certainly not discussed in as much detail (apart from the bathsheba afffair) as his relationship with Jonathan.

what does Saul mean by "you have chosen him to your own confusion and the confusion of your mother's nakedness?"

As pointed out, Saul was upset that Jonathan had pledged allegiance to David. This was a spite against Jonathan's lineage; he would otherwise be king when Saul passed away.

also, when Saul offers David to marry his daughter, he says "you will this day be my son in law in one of the two." the "one of" there is added by translators and we read it as being "you will be my son in law with one of my two daughters." certainly when David says later "what an honour to be the son in law of the king", it would imply that he is not so already.

I assume you've answered your own question here.

 

[lmnop9876]

I assume you've answered your own question here.

well, what does Saul mean when he says "you will be my son in law in the two?"

we automatically read it as "in one of the two daughters" as David had been refused marriage to the first daughter, and this seems to be supported by David's statement "what an honour", implying that he didn't already consider himself Saul's son-in-law.

however, for those who believe David and Jonathan's relationship was something more than friendship, these words could imply that Saul considered David his son-in-law already because of his relationship with Jonathan, although David didn't consider himself Saul's son-in-law.

 

[intricatic]

well, what does Saul mean when he says "you will be my son in law in the two?"

we automatically read it as "in one of the two daughters" as David had been refused marriage to the first daughter, and this seems to be supported by David's statement "what an honour", implying that he didn't already consider himself Saul's son-in-law.

however, for those who believe David and Jonathan's relationship was something more than friendship, these words could imply that Saul considered David his son-in-law already because of his relationship with Jonathan, although David didn't consider himself Saul's son-in-law.

Well, as it pertains to David's reply when Saul sends his servants to ask David to marry his daughter, it would be right to look at that and wonder why he's not already considered son in law to Saul if this relationship with Jonathan was anything but a close friendship.

23 So Saul’s servants spoke those words in the hearing of David. And David said, “Does it seem to you a light thing to be a king’s son-in-law, seeing I am a poor and lightly esteemed man?” 24 And the servants of Saul told him, saying, “In this manner David spoke.”
(1 Samuel 18)

But to answer why Saul uses the wording he does, first the context is important. Saul had already offered David one daughter whom David had rejected - the daughter first offered was married off to another man.

19 But it happened at the time when Merab, Saul’s daughter, should have been given to David, that she was given to Adriel the Meholathite as a wife.
(1 Samuel 18)

And a second daughter was offered to David;

20 Now Michal, Saul’s daughter, loved David. And they told Saul, and the thing pleased him. 21 So Saul said, “I will give her to him, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him.” Therefore Saul said to David a second time, “You shall be my son-in-law today.”
(1 Samuel 18)

"You shall be my son in law by two" is a reference to the second time Saul has offered a daughter to David.

 

[lmnop9876]

Well, as it pertains to David's reply when Saul sends his servants to ask David to marry his daughter, it would be right to look at that and wonder why he's not already considered son in law to Saul if this relationship with Jonathan was anything but a close friendship.



But to answer why Saul uses the wording he does, first the context is important. Saul had already offered David one daughter whom David had rejected - the daughter first offered was married off to another man.


And a second daughter was offered to David;


"You shall be my son in law by two" is a reference to the second time Saul has offered a daughter to David.

i'm with you on that. i'm just saying why some people think it may have been more than a friendship.