David and Jonathan...

[intricatic]

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


I find this statement really intriguing.

I don't think it identifies David as gay or straight, but it says a lot about the strength of his love for Jonathan and also the way David feels about women. Their love is inferior. We are talking here about a man with a harem and a lot of family rivalries causing him political problems later in life.

It's a statement that he might feel more comfortable with Jonathan than he would with the women in his life at the moment. The political strife might actually have a lot to do with this. I know I've felt that way with friends in the past, myself. Probably not as profound as David and Jonathan, though.

 

[Joykins]

It's a statement that he might feel more comfortable with Jonathan than he would with the women in his life at the moment.

"More comfortable with" doesn't mean the same thing as "love." David and Jonathan loved each other extremely deeply--the only question is what kind of love it was. However, that love was *more valued to David* than erotic love with women.

i haven't studied ancient Hebrew culture, but in some ancient cultures women were basically considered brood mares for having children but you could only have true love with another real person i.e. another male. I have no idea whether David felt like taht in general or whether Jonathan was the exception or whether I'm barking up the wrong tree altogether.

 

[david_x]

No, by all available evidence, God does not support democracy either.

So democracy is right or not? Democracy can not replace a really good leader.

 

[Polycarp1]

Joy, don't forget that David was King of Israel for all practical purposes when he was told of Saul and Jonathan's death. (Bunch of details to stabilize his reign as against Ishbaal ("Ishbosheth"*), Saul's surviving son, and Jonathan's son Meribbaal ("Mephibosheth"*) but essentially he was "in" as of that moment.) And dynastic, alliance-based marriages were quite common at that time, as for the nearly 3000 years since. If he married for love, it was Bathsheba, and we all know how he sinned to get her. He ended up with his wives for reasons of policy, not for reasons of romance.

Beyond that, though, I think it's important what lessons we can derive from the story. Two young men can love each other, can show that love in physical ways, and it's not condemned by the writer, who was quick to report God's displeasure with various kings and their acts. The only honest answer to "was this a homosexual relationship?" is "inadequate evidence." The behavior in which D&J engaged would be deemed gay by the average person seeing them today -- but, as Intracatic has gone into detail to explain, such behavior had different significance in the ancient Near East than it does in Europe, America, or Australia in 2007 AD. And IMO there's a lesson in what is said and not said about that relationship for us today.

* Like Matthew preferring the euphemistic 'Kingdom of Heaven' when we know from Mark and Luke that Jesus said 'Kingdom of God,' the writer of Samuel and Kings disapproved of the use of -baal (which meant "lord," as a synonym of "adon-," and often referred to God) because it was the title-used-as-name of the pagan god we know of as Baal. So he referred to Saul's son and grandson with -baal names with the euphemistic "-bosheth" ('shame') ending substituted for -baal.

 

[intricatic]

"More comfortable with" doesn't mean the same thing as "love." David and Jonathan loved each other extremely deeply--the only question is what kind of love it was. However, that love was *more valued to David* than erotic love with women.

It would be essentially the same thing. By 'more comfortable', I would imply that there was more of a personal connection there than with any of the women in David's life. It's known that David loved Jonathan deeply, but the problem is that we consider love from more of an erotic point of view than a personable one.

i haven't studied ancient Hebrew culture, but in some ancient cultures women were basically considered brood mares for having children but you could only have true love with another real person i.e. another male. I have no idea whether David felt like taht in general or whether Jonathan was the exception or whether I'm barking up the wrong tree altogether.

Not so much in Hebraic culture, but that being from the clues I've seen and ideas I've heard from people who hold more of an understanding of the culture itself than I do. From what I understand, women and men were seen as different, that much is clear, but women were revered - they were considered more important in a lot of ways than men were, which is a reflection of why God created Eve. Our culture gets caught up with the idea of roles and oppression and etc, etc... But the Hebraic culture didn't see it in those terms. We also seem to see the order of creation - God making woman from man's rib to be his helper - in a different light. It's probably distasteful even to explore the idea in our culture because we have those rigid patterns we're used to in political thought, but it would be more of a testament to a very intimate relationship between the genders than some abstract embodiment of social oppression and bondage. The way God chose to make man and woman was profound in a lot of ways, namely in that man was confronted with a second half of himself, and one that was made from something very close to his heart - his rib. The heart, being where thought and emotion was considered to originate, in Hebraic culture.

So whether David felt that way about Jonathan is a good question, but I'd have to say they were more like two brothers who loved one another a great deal. The covenant Jonathan made to David was a pledge of loyalty to David, as his newly appointed king, in contravention to his own role as heir to his father's throne.

The reason I pointed out the political end of the situation with Jonathan and David was because David probably felt really pressured from all sides, as almost everyone had a political stake in mind and a lot of cloak and dagger agendas, while Jonathan came to David and pledged loyalty to him in front of his own father just to make the point that much more clear. David probably didn't have anyone else he could trust, other than God.

 

[intricatic]

So democracy is right or not? Democracy can not replace a really good leader.

Depends on what you mean by 'right'. If we put it to a majority vote, it probably would be.

 

[thereselittleflower]

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.

In the two . . . . Jonathan was his true son by birth, David would be his true son by marriage to his daughter.

Both would be his sons, but in (between) the two of them, for David it would be only through marriage.


.

 

[thereselittleflower]

It seems to me that our culture has so elevated sexual love that no other type of intense love between 2 adult is any longer conceivable, even among some Christians.

Yet Jesus said "No greater LOVE does a man have than this, that he lay down his life for a friend."

LOVE . .

This love surpasses a woman's sexual and emotional love for a man, does it not?

It is the GREATEST love . . .

In Greek there are 3 words for Love. Not one.

And the greatest of these is AGAPE love. There is absolutely no hint of sexual overtones at all in that love. It is PURE Love . . unadulterated pure love.

There is nothing sexual about it.


David's and Jonathan's love rose to this level of agape love.

And that love far surpasses the love expresed sexually between a man and a woman.


It is a sign of the times that Christians have trouble remembering there is such a thing as agape love we are enjoined to live by, and can't even imagine to impute such a high level and kind of love to David's words expressing the love they had for each other.


This is no different than those who tried to impute to Tolkien, a staunch Catholic, that the love between Frodo and Samwise was baser, sexual, homosexual love . . . . There was no possibility of their understanding, even remotely, that Tolkien was demonstrating in words (and the movie on screen), this no greater love . . this AGAPE PURE LOVE that has nothing sexual about it.


Christians should be ashamed of themselves for questioning that such a love is possible between 2 great men of God and for considering the possiblity that it is something baser, that 2 great men of God, who loved God with all their hearts, would trample God's law and engage in what God has told us in no uncertain terms is an abomination.

Honestly, I find that the existance of this thread itself, questioning such a pure love, to be abhorrent.


.

 

[david_x]

Honestly, I find that the existance of this thread itself, questioning such a pure love, to be abhorrent.

Agreed

 

[davedjy]

Honestly, I find that the existance of this thread itself, questioning such a pure love, to be abhorrent.

Not in the least. Christians argue that there is no greater love than that between a husband and wife.

If you say that his love "exceeded that of women", it implies your love and bond can be greater than a heterosexual couple's marriage.

I will never argue that their love was sexual, perhaps just plutonic, but you cannot dismiss the fact that Scripture shows that you can have a greater love and connection w/your same sex friend ("brother" also meaning lover back then)...than any of with women!

David and Jonathan were in a spiritual marriage (union), that God clearly recognized.
My first and middle names given to me at birth, btw.

 

[intricatic]

Agreed

Double-agreed. I actually always find this topic to be ironic for that very reason.

 

[BigMike835]

I've actually heard debate on that subject!

It's also really quite telling of the society we live in where it's so hard to comprehend two men being such close friends in a manner that transcends the common ideas of friendship.

How much of this do you think is out of attempts to justify homosexuality as being condoned by God?

How much of this do you think is out of the quasi-homophobic undertones our society has had for so long that would make it awkward for two men to hug each other?

How much of it is deconstruction of our heroes and cultural icons that has been happening simply for deconstruction's sake?

 

[davedjy]

I've actually heard debate on that subject!

It's also really quite telling of the society we live in where it's so hard to comprehend two men being such close friends in a manner that transcends the common ideas of friendship.

How much of this do you think is out of attempts to justify homosexuality as being condoned by God?

How much of this do you think is out of the quasi-homophobic undertones our society has had for so long that would make it awkward for two men to hug each other?

How much of it is deconstruction of our heroes and cultural icons that has been happening simply for deconstruction's sake?

You are refuting commentary with more commentary.

The fact is you cannot dimiss that the Bible says "that love which is greater than with women"). It was a very deep, spiritual bond, like a marriage in unity and union, even if it wasn't sexual.

 

[intricatic]

You are refuting commentary with more commentary.

The fact is you cannot dimiss that the Bible says "that love which is greater than with women"). It was a very deep, spiritual bond, like a marriage in unity and union, even if it wasn't sexual.

I believe that's precisely the point he was trying to make. Forgive me if I'm mistaken. That doesn't mean it was homoerotic in any manner, though, just that the two men loved one another as brothers and were united by the bond of Jonathan's submission to David as his king - a fact that deeply angered Saul.

 

[ReformedChapin]

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'.

I agree, not to mention I'm sick and tired of people reading so much into the text to stick their agenda down peoples throat.

 

[david_x]

You know whats sick, you can't even have a heterosexual relationship without being more than friends. I believe the common idea of frendship has been replaced with love. To make it okay to sleep with them of cource.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

I agree, not to mention I'm sick and tired of people reading so much into the text to stick their agenda down peoples throat.

Kettle Black

 

[intricatic]

Kettle Black

Last time I saw it, it was an off-white - almost a beige.

 

[gwdboi]

IN RESPONSE TO THE ORIGINAL POST:

Let us also investigate some pro-homosexual passages in the Bible. First we will look at the relationship between David and Jonathan. First Samuel 18:1-2 states: After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one with the soul of David, and he loved him as himself. From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house.” This verse brings up many, many questions. The first interesting point is that most translations translate the word in the verse above as “soul” rather than “spirit.” This specific Hebrew word for soul is the same used in Gen. 2:7 when it states that God blew spirit into the body of Adam to create a living soul. This combination of body and spirit would lead us to believe that the relationship between David and Jonathan comprised of both body and spirit; meaning that they loved each other physically and emotionally (Same online).
First Samuel 18:2 provides us with more interesting information. David left his fathers house to live with Saul (the father of Jonathan). This parallels Gen. 2:24 NIV: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”
First Samuel 18:3-4 states: “And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 4 Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt.” Since people in biblical times did not wear undergarments, Jonathan would have had to strip naked. This behavior is not only unusual in our time but would have been even more so unusual in biblical times unless David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship (Same online).
The next passage is even more risqué than the previous ones. First Samuel 20:41 NIV: “After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most.” Most translations agree on this wording for the verse except for the Living Bible which states that David and Jonathan shook hands while all other verses firmly translate the word as kissed one another. Two males kissing in ancient times are not very unlikely. Kissing was a form of greeting. What is not so unlikely is the mistranslation of the end of the verse. The original Hebrew states that David and Jonathan kissed until David became great (Hebrew: gadal). Some theologians interpret gadal as having an erection.
Second Samuel 1:26 NIV: “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.” This verse seems innocent enough, two men with such a strong bond towards one another, however; our perspective will probably change in light of historical information. A plutonic relationship between men and women in biblical times was considered improper. Since the only relationship David would have had with a women would be sexual, David must be referring to a sexual relationship with Jonathan being better than the “love” of a woman (Same online).

SOURCE: Same Sex Relationships in the Bible. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm#dav. 28 February 2007.

 

[sunlover1]

It seems to me that our culture has so elevated sexual love that no other type of intense love between 2 adult is any longer conceivable, even among some Christians.

Yet Jesus said "No greater LOVE does a man have than this, that he lay down his life for a friend."

LOVE . .

This love surpasses a woman's sexual and emotional love for a man, does it not?

It is the GREATEST love . . .

In Greek there are 3 words for Love. Not one.

And the greatest of these is AGAPE love. There is absolutely no hint of sexual overtones at all in that love. It is PURE Love . . unadulterated pure love.

There is nothing sexual about it.


David's and Jonathan's love rose to this level of agape love.

And that love far surpasses the love expresed sexually between a man and a woman.


It is a sign of the times that Christians have trouble remembering there is such a thing as agape love we are enjoined to live by, and can't even imagine to impute such a high level and kind of love to David's words expressing the love they had for each other.


This is no different than those who tried to impute to Tolkien, a staunch Catholic, that the love between Frodo and Samwise was baser, sexual, homosexual love . . . . There was no possibility of their understanding, even remotely, that Tolkien was demonstrating in words (and the movie on screen), this no greater love . . this AGAPE PURE LOVE that has nothing sexual about it.


Christians should be ashamed of themselves for questioning that such a love is possible between 2 great men of God and for considering the possiblity that it is something baser, that 2 great men of God, who loved God with all their hearts, would trample God's law and engage in what God has told us in no uncertain terms is an abomination.

Honestly, I find that the existance of this thread itself, questioning such a pure love, to be abhorrent.

Not only that, David went through a lot for Bathsheba.
I believe he loved her, she was there til the end.

Michal, she was sort of hard to get along with if you ask me. Can't blame David for not saying much good about her.
He was only human...

Yeah, he loved Jonathan a lot.
And knowing David, he probably even felt a bit guilty for how Saul felt.