David and Jonathan...

[intricatic]

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).

This is a misrepresentation of the terms. There is no semantic similarity to the wording in Genesis 2, regarding 'becoming one flesh' - which was the formal image of what marriage defined.

An ancient saying (Adam Clarke); thn filian isothta einai, kai mian yuchn, ton filon eteron auton; "Friendship produces an entire sameness; it is one soul in two bodies: a friend is another self."

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.”

N/A.

The covenant relationship of marriage expressly requires 'the two became one flesh' as a model behind it's function. Sexuality wasn't defined by the word "Spirit".

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).

N/A.

Jonathan removed his robe (outer garment signifying his position as son to the King) and gave it to David (to pledge loyalty to David's Lordship). Even if we falsely assume Jonathan was stripping naked here, why wasn't David doing likewise?

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.

Wow. Just wow. This implication would have been devastating to David politically - people were already trying to undermine his future kingship, and to discredit him as a righteous chosen leader. If this interpretation was correct, it would have been ample information to completely discredit him to the throne, given how homosexuality was seen in the culture. Saul would have been throwing a parade, and not fuming jealously over David's popularity if this interpretation was correct.

Also, the original Hebrew is not ambiguous about the use of "gadal" --

1) to grow, become great or important, promote, make powerful, praise, magnify, do great things
a) (Qal)
1) to grow up
2) to become great
3) to be magnified
b) (Piel)
1) to cause to grow
2) to make great, powerful
3) to magnify
c) (Pual) to be brought up
d) (Hiphil)
1) to make great
2) to magnify

3) to do great things
e) (Hithpael) to magnify oneself

There is little evidence that this was referring to anything but David and Jonathan weeping. It's actually deeply troubling that any theologian could see it otherwise, since this is such a profound passage about the love of two close friends - a thing we don't see anymore in our culture due to this blind fear of being perceived as gay.

EDIT: I say it's unambiguous because there is no reference to anything other than weeping in the text itself. One would have to imagine words being there that are not in order to render this interpretation to carry any kind of sexual connotation.

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).

Anachronism and stretching to find some meaning that isn't there. Plutonic relationships have nothing to do with it - David knew a good deal of women (through various means), and to boot, there was no such concept of 'plutonic' relationships in Hebrew culture. Love, as expressed in a marriage, was both erotic and emotional, but the concept spoken of in these passages are emotional - which was extremely common in the culture David and Jonathan lived in. The inference is one of this relationship being more emotionally fulfilling to David than his relationships with any woman in his life, which is not saying much considering that most of David's relationships with women were governed by political necessity. As to the formalism; Contrast: 2 Samuel 14:33, for example.

The problem inherent in this interpretation is that it flies in the face of both historic Christian scholastic tradition, and historic Judaic scholastic tradition. It's only in recent times that this has been considered an allusion to an erotic relationship.

 

[Joykins]

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.

The Old Testament Law and some of the historical books seem to indicate women regarded more or less as property (don't covet your neighbor's ox, ass, wife...); there are regulations for when you sell your daughter into slavery, sexual purity before marriage was only enforced on women, etc. Very much a traditional patriarchal society. That doesn't mean there was no respect or tenderness for women, but in general it wasn't as if women were considered people like men were.

 

[gwdboi]

This is a misrepresentation of the terms. There is no semantic similarity to the wording in Genesis 2, regarding 'becoming one flesh' - which was the formal image of what marriage defined.

Reread what I'm saying I'm not going to restate it but you must not have read it too closely because I'm not trying to make the "becoming one flesh" connection.

The covenant relationship of marriage expressly requires 'the two became one flesh' as a model behind it's function. Sexuality wasn't defined by the word "Spirit".

read above

Jonathan removed his robe (outer garment signifying his position as son to the King) and gave it to David (to pledge loyalty to David's Lordship). Even if we falsely assume Jonathan was stripping naked here, why wasn't David doing likewise?

Don't forget that Jonathan removed MORE than just his robe. Why wasn't David doing likewise? Well... gee... I don't know, maybe he wasn't in the mood?!

Wow. Just wow. This implication would have been devastating to David politically - people were already trying to undermine his future kingship, and to discredit him as a righteous chosen leader. If this interpretation was correct, it would have been ample information to completely discredit him to the throne, given how homosexuality was seen in the culture. Saul would have been throwing a parade, and not fuming jealously over David's popularity if this interpretation was correct.

Samuel wanted David to become king... do you think he would report something that might stop that from happening??

Also, the original Hebrew is not ambiguous about the use of "gadal" --

Unfortunately those other words do not make any sense in the passage.

There is little evidence that this was referring to anything but David and Jonathan weeping. It's actually deeply troubling that any theologian could see it otherwise, since this is such a profound passage about the love of two close friends - a thing we don't see anymore in our culture due to this blind fear of being perceived as gay.

And why is it so hard to believe that David and Jonathan may have in fact been gay. Come on, there are so many people in the Bible, so many Biblical heros that STATISTICALLY AT LEAST one of them has to be gay.

EDIT: I say it's unambiguous because there is no reference to anything other than weeping in the text itself. One would have to imagine words being there that are not in order to render this interpretation to carry any kind of sexual connotation.

You'll have to discuss that with the source.

Anachronism and stretching to find some meaning that isn't there. Plutonic relationships have nothing to do with it - David knew a good deal of women (through various means), and to boot, there was no such concept of 'plutonic' relationships in Hebrew culture. Love, as expressed in a marriage, was both erotic and emotional, but the concept spoken of in these passages are emotional - which was extremely common in the culture David and Jonathan lived in. The inference is one of this relationship being more emotionally fulfilling to David than his relationships with any woman in his life, which is not saying much considering that most of David's relationships with women were governed by political necessity. As to the formalism; Contrast: 2 Samuel 14:33, for example.

The problem inherent in this interpretation is that it flies in the face of both historic Christian scholastic tradition, and historic Judaic scholastic tradition. It's only in recent times that this has been considered an allusion to an erotic relationship.

Interesting that you say David "knew" many women... lol. At any rate, while he may have been acquainted with them, it would not have been in such a way to produce a strong friendship since that was in fact considered taboo and still is in some middle eastern philosophies. This is speaking from fact, not opinion. Women were treated as something to be hidden away from the eyes of the public so as to not tempt men. This fact has been proven through anthropology. Therefore my previous statement is logically sound.

 

[intricatic]

The Old Testament Law and some of the historical books seem to indicate women regarded more or less as property (don't covet your neighbor's ox, ass, wife...); there are regulations for when you sell your daughter into slavery, sexual purity before marriage was only enforced on women, etc. Very much a traditional patriarchal society. That doesn't mean there was no respect or tenderness for women, but in general it wasn't as if women were considered people like men were.

They were considered people, but in a different sense than we would presume when considering the word "people". I would imagine you're referring to the sense of political freedom, as we see in much of the developed world? Were they any less created in God's image than men were?

The idea of slavery is also a misunderstood concept in our society, but that's mostly to do with how the most recent image of slavery has been historically perceived in our culture. In Hebraic culture, slavery was almost a necessity for the survival of an entire segment of the society. As such, it was more of a protective measure than a condition of injurious bondage, with a few exceptions - and even then, there were laws to dictate the ethical treatment of slaves for similar reasons. It was more like indentured servitude than anything else, as people were known to sell themselves into slavery to keep themselves and their families from dying in the desert. But when discussing slavery, it's also important to remember that God constantly points out to the Hebrew people in the books of the Law that they were once slaves in Egypt, and that slavery is a huge theme in the Bible - from Genesis to Revelation. The implications that the laws regarding slavery held are widespread and difficult to address in a limited space.

In a lot of ways, women were held under similar conditions for the same form of reasoning. Women were more susceptible to the rigors of ancient Israel than men were, and men were seen as the protectors and providers of a family - which was a rigid expectation, exceptions existed for Levites or priests / holy men / prophets. From past research, this form of hierarchical social structuring was a very common cultural condition that existed in ancient societies. Also, it's important to point out that Israel itself was considered bride to God - chastity and marital faithfulness, purity, etc... were all related back to God's relationship to Israel, and consequently, the Church.

But as to sexual purity, how do you figure it was only enforced against women? It was only taken as a physically observable cause and effect relationship with women, but it was equally enforced against men when that sexual purity was transgressed.

 

[intricatic]

Reread what I'm saying I'm not going to restate it but you must not have read it too closely because I'm not trying to make the "becoming one flesh" connection.

Perhaps you're not reading me correctly? The terminology of the commentary was aimed at the allusion that the relationship was formally tied to Gen. 2, regarding the marriage covenant - "the two become one flesh". I was pointing out that this is faulty reasoning as the marriage covenant (symbolically) was determinant on the physical, not the spiritual.

Don't forget that Jonathan removed MORE than just his robe. Why wasn't David doing likewise? Well... gee... I don't know, maybe he wasn't in the mood?!

Yes, you're right.

3 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.
(1 Samuel 18)

Does it say he stripped naked? No, he took off the formal symbolic garments of his kingship, military lordship, and royal lineage, and gave them to David. Belts aren't the same in the context of this passage as they would be today. They wouldn't remove their belt and have their pants fall down. Belts were used strictly for their utility - holding their swords, arrows, etc...

Samuel wanted David to become king... do you think he would report something that might stop that from happening??

There would have been plenty of opportunities for this to be known to Saul, let alone this simple incident. Saul was king, and he used a nearly pervasive method of subversion in his attacks against David. I doubt it would have been secret for long if it were the case.

Unfortunately those other words do not make any sense in the passage.

Actually, given the grammatic use, it makes perfect sense to say it meant "David wept more", but little sense to say it meant "Until David was sexually aroused" - the second translation requires imaginary words being present in the text that are not actually there.

And why is it so hard to believe that David and Jonathan may have in fact been gay. Come on, there are so many people in the Bible, so many Biblical heros that STATISTICALLY AT LEAST one of them has to be gay.

One shouldn't read beyond the text itself.

Interesting that you say David "knew" many women... lol. At any rate, while he may have been acquainted with them, it would not have been in such a way to produce a strong friendship since that was in fact considered taboo and still is in some middle eastern philosophies. This is speaking from fact, not opinion. Women were treated as something to be hidden away from the eyes of the public so as to not tempt men. This fact has been proven through anthropology. Therefore my previous statement is logically sound.

Yes it would, as I explained in my last post, marriages were considered through both the light of emotional attachment - the kind of bond that marriage produced in Hebraic culture relied on intimacy of both the body and the mind - and sexuality. He would have had previous experiences of loving women in a deeply emotional way. What I pointed out previously is that the concept of plutonic relationships was not a factor in Hebraic society. It simply didn't exist. Marriage was strictly held for sexuality, and all other relationships were not determined based on a sexual connotation of the term 'relationship'. The entire purity code was established to prevent that from happening. That in no way implies that David had no experience of a deep emotional attachment to a woman, though, as that would also imply that David was not married to anyone.

 

[joeblowcanadian]

Everyone has missed the main point of David and Jonathan's friendship. It was the preservation of their families. They were committed to taking care of each other's futures. This takes an incredible amount of godliness and maturity such as we rarely ever see these days even among evangelicals.
Homosexuals are socialists who deny the role of the family for each other. Homosexuals rarely take care of family members (or even themselves which is why gay AIDS patients turn to the government so rabidly) and turn to the government whenever they can. David and Jonathan's lifestyles were and are so opposite anything that homosexuals can come up with that there is no room even for comparison.
This is so obvious its not even funny. But it is overlooked by everyone.

 

[thereselittleflower]

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

And so what? All you are doing is showing that some Christians choose to argue against Christ Himself! How Christian is that?

If one is a Christian, one is a follower of Christ. If one is a follower of Christ, then one hold's Christ's words as supreme. If one holds Christ's words as supreme, then they are held to with full assurance of faith.

That means this words of Christ:

Jhn 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.​

Hath NO MAN than this . . No Greater Love . . .

NO MAN . . . this is the greatest love a man can have . not for his wife, but this pure agape love in its greatest expression . . laying down one's life for one's friends.

So a man who only has love for his wife has an INFERIOR love than this love above . . for NO MAN can have love greater than that total and complete sacrificial love.

So, since these are Christ's words, and a CHRISTIAN is not free to ARGUE with CHRIST, a CHRISTIAN is then not free to ARGUE with these words of scripture.

So. . . what are these "CHRISITANS" doing ARGUING AGAINST Christ?


I don't care if such are arguing against Christ . . . what do their arguments have to do with anything that concerns Christians who are truly following their Lord?

Not a thing . . . so what is the point of making such a meaningless argument?

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.

Does Christ's love for you exceed the love and bond you can have with your spouse?

See, there is a greater love. . why you are rejecting this I have no idea, but what you are promoting here is not a Christian position . . it is something else entirely . . .

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!

Of quite a different nature . . and this extends to heterosexual relationship that is sexless and plutonic and agapee . . . . it can be stronger and purer and greater than that of a married couple. For it is something different entirely.

David and Jonathan were in a spiritual marriage (union), that God clearly recognized.

I am sorry, but we have only one spiritual spouse, and that is Christ Himself. You just accused David and Johathan of committing spiritual adultery or polygamy!

My first and middle names given to me at birth, btw.

They are great names of great men.


.

 

[intricatic]

Everyone has missed the main point of David and Jonathan's friendship. It was the preservation of their families. They were committed to taking care of each other's futures. This takes an incredible amount of godliness and maturity such as we rarely ever see these days even among evangelicals.
Homosexuals are socialists who deny the role of the family for each other. Homosexuals rarely take care of family members (or even themselves which is why gay AIDS patients turn to the government so rabidly) and turn to the government whenever they can. David and Jonathan's lifestyles were and are so opposite anything that homosexuals can come up with that there is no room even for comparison.
This is so obvious its not even funny. But it is overlooked by everyone.

Good point. This was a dominantly collectivist culture (not socialist, mind ), and that does play a part in understanding it.

 

[davedjy]

Does Christ's love for you exceed the love and bond you can have with your spouse?

Bad example...Jesus is God, He wasn't just flesh and blood of a human. We are talking about humans loving humans.

 

[thereselittleflower]

I've actually heard debate on that subject!

Yes no doubt, by people who entertain impure thoughts.

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.

Yes, it is . . . and it is even more telling how many Christians have permitted this sensually addicted society which follows hell to form their moral conscience rather than God.

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

I think it has everything to do with it. Those engaged in in such behavior, which God has firmly made known in no uncertain terms in an abomination to Him, are simply trying to remake God in their own image rather than allow God to remake them in the image of Christ.

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?

I think it is sad that western culture has lost this ability, for the most part, that men had, and still have in middle eastern cultures, in biblical days. Even in the New Testament Christians greated one another witih the kiss of peace . . this tradition is still continued in many Eastern Christian societies, giving a kiss on one cheek then the other . . it is as common as shaking hands in the west. I saw it often.

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

All deconstruction has a purpose . . it is to deconstruct to remake into the image of something else.


.

 

[intricatic]

Don't get me started on deconstruction - I could rant for long hours on that topic.

 

[davedjy]

David and Jonathan's lifestyles were and are so opposite anything that homosexuals can come up with that there is no room even for comparison.

LOL...this is more commentary not based on clear, concise, iron-clad facts. Both examples SHARE a comparison...a male-male relationship that is stronger than that of what it would be w/women, period.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Bad example...Jesus is God, He wasn't just flesh and blood of a human. We are talking about humans loving humans.

Was Jesus fully human or not?

Did He or did He not become like us IN ALL WAYS except sin?

Did He or did He not learn obedience by the things He suffered?

When Jesus said

"Greater love hath no man than this. . . " ​

He was speaking of Himself and His coming sacrifice .. .



.

 

[davedjy]

Was Jesus fully human or not?

Did He or did He not become like us IN ALL WAYS except sin?

Did He or did He not learn obedience by the things He suffered?

When Jesus said

"Greater love hath no man than this. . . " ​

He was speaking of Himself and His coming sacrifice .. .



.

He was human, but He is Lord, He is God. You cannot compare that love...all relationships must be IN SUBMISSION to Jesus Christ, and that love is the greatest love of all!

 

[thereselittleflower]

LOL...this is more commentary not based on clear, concise, iron-clad facts. Both examples SHARE a comparison...a male-male relationship that is stronger than that of what it would be w/women, period.

No, this is where your fallacy comes into play . . .

A homosexual relationship is NOT stronger than a heterosexual relationship .. in fact it could be argued that the strongest homosexual relationship could never be stronger than the strongest heterosexual relationship .. .

Your fallacy is to equate a homosexual relationship with an agape relationship and thus making it stronger than a heterosexual relationship . ..

A sexual relationship of any kind can never be at the level of agape love.

Agape love has nothing to do with the sexes ..

IT TRANSCENDS THE SEXES.

So your harping on their sexes as if that means something is absolute nonsense. What sex they are means nothing when it comes to agape love, which is sexless .. .


.

 

[davedjy]

Your fallacy is to equate a homosexual relationship with an agape relationship and thus making it stronger than a heterosexual relationship . ..

agape relationship, where is your proof? some same sex marriages I know of have lasted WAY longer than most straight marriages, I know of. The last guy I talked to, his uncle is gay and has been "married" for 40 years, and happily to the SAME guy.

 

[thereselittleflower]

He was human, but He is Lord, He is God. You cannot compare that love...all relationships must be IN SUBMISSION to Jesus Christ, and that love is the greatest love of all!

So "GREATER LOVE HATH NO MAN THAN THIS" only applied to Christ?


.

 

[thereselittleflower]

agape relationship, where is your proof? some same sex marriages I know of have lasted WAY longer than most straight marriages, I know of. The last guy I talked to, his uncle is gay and has been "married" for 40 years, and happily to the SAME guy.

What does that have to do with AGAPE love?


.

 

[davedjy]

So "GREATER LOVE HATH NO MAN THAN THIS" only applied to Christ?


.

Yeah, we are supposed to love Jesus more than anyone or anything, period. If you love something as much as you love Jesus, that is idolatry!

 

[thereselittleflower]

Don't get me started on deconstruction - I could rant for long hours on that topic.

I believe I would prefer to hear what you would share on deconstruction.


.