David and Jonathan

First of all, everything DMagoh said should be considered before your mind goes off into a wild homosexual idea or causes another to, regarding this Scripture (take a look at mine as well for some additional common sense) David and Jonathan were as close as the closest brothers without being related. They were the best of friends, who each would lay their life down to save the other. I know in this society there are not many friendships like that as everyone is so transit. People don't even know their neighbors anymore or even dine with them, as they use to in a regular basis, so it isn't hard to realize that many people cannot comprehend a covenant friendship. I guarantee you though that men in the military that go to war together DO understand this to a "T". And I am not talking about effeminate males. I am talking about MEN, heterosexual to the core of their being.

Context is also, extremely important to consider when attempting to present wild ideas for speculation.
During the Scripture you cited, Jonathan was commanded to KILL his best friend by His father, the King.

There would be EVERY reason to cry! If Jonathan disobeyed, he risked being killed himself by orders of the King. And he knew he was going to disobey, not only the King, but his father and not going to kill his friend. But can you imagine how he felt?

David knew Jonathan was commanded to kill him by the King which in itself is horrible, I am sure David was crying and even more so than Jonathan, simply because he knew what could now happen to Jonathan for his (David's) sake, because he chose to disobey a command of the King!!

And David knew that Jonathan understood that, and so can you imagine how many emotions besides gratitude, unworthiness and overwhelming love for a brother that would put his life at risk like that for another brother?

That kind of wailing is the kind we should be doing, because Jesus did that very thing for us, and He
WAS brutally killed for our sakes!

calvins96 said:

You rationalized your thoughts and make logical sense out of it, so you certainly can't be told you are wrong for what you believe. Again, however, it would be up to how someone interprets it. Perhaps David and Jonathan didn't ACT upon their feelings. Who's to say? I'd have no idea as I didn't walk the earth back then. What I do know is :

1 Samuel 20:41

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.(NIV)​

Other translations have a different ending to the verse:

• …and they kissed one another and wept with one another, until David exceeded. (KJV)
• …and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David got control of himself. (Amplified Bible)
• and they sadly shook hands, tears running down their cheeks until David could weep no more. (Living Bible)
• They kissed each other and wept together until David got control of himself. (Modern Language)
• They kissed each other and wept aloud together. (New American Bible)
• Then David and Jonathan kissed each other. They cried together, but David cried the most. (New Century Version)
• Then they kissed one another and shed tears together, until David’s grief was even greater than Jonathan’s. (Revised English Bible)
• …and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David recovered himself. (Revised Standard Version)

How would a literalist interpret these scriptures? Certainly one could think there was some sort of homosexuality here, and perhaps just never acted on it. Again, I truly don't know. You may find it amusing..but whether it was the law or not..you think no one disobeyed the law in God's time...only now? That I think is amusing. No one is suggesting a passionate love affair between the two men..but certainly there was SOMETHING there rather than just two friends. If that were the case, it wouldn't have been any different than any relationships b/w two men, but these two were pointed out.

Click to expand...

GwynApNudd said:

Sounds like they were trying to hide their meetings.

Click to expand...

Yes they were. Jonathan was
commanded by the King to KILL David.
At that point the lad didn't know what Jonathan's orders from his father were. If he had allowed the lad to stay and overhear the conversation, the boy would then know and could have witnessed against Jonathan.

So, he didn't need a witness to say that he saw David and did not kill him. That is why he sent the lad away. By disobeying the King's command, Jonathan risked being killed by command of the King his own father.

It was NOT to hide a homosexual love affair....please read your Bibles. Try to read at least 20 verses before and 20 after as a rule of thumb to gain a true perspective of the goings on surrounding the verse in question.

In context, we know that David had a serious problem with lust for women, and we know to what extremes that lust drove him as in the case of Bathsheba, his lust for her drove him to devise a wicked scheme to get her husband killed so that he could have her.

No woman would have done for David what Jonathan did in sparing his life through loyalty when commanded by the King, his own father to kill him.

Women were David's weakness, but he knew that no woman he has ever known or would ever know, would have the loyalty to him that Jonathan did. That is all that is meant by that verse.

jojored said:

I thing that the strongest point suggesting the Jonathan and David were more than just "friends" would be found in Samuel II; Chapter I verse 26. Upon learning of Jonathan's dead David states " I am distressed for you my brother Jonathan: You have been very pleasant (underline added) to me; Your love to me was wonderful, Surpassing the love of women."

To me, it can't get much clearer than that...these were David's words.

Click to expand...

IamRedeemed said:

Yes they were. Jonathan was
commanded by the King to KILL David.
At that point the lad didn't know what Jonathan's orders from his father were. If he had allowed the lad to stay and overhear the conversation, the boy would then know and could have witnessed against Jonathan.

So, he didn't need a witness to say that he saw David and did not kill him. That is why he sent the lad away. By disobeying the King's command, Jonathan risked being killed by command of the King his own father.

It was NOT to hide a homosexual love affair....please read your Bibles. Try to read at least 20 verses before and 20 after as a rule of thumb to gain a true perspective of the goings on surrounding the verse in question.

Click to expand...

Already andwered

GwynApNudd said:

Yes, quite likely. But it was the OP who implied that hiding would be evidence of homosexuality. I was simply pointing out that they did hide.

Click to expand...

Der Alter said:

Was David punished for either incident? David did not murder Uriah, he ordered him to be put in the forefront of the battle. Being in the forefront of a battle does not guarantee death. Bintherdunthatgotthetshirtdontfit.

Click to expand...

You are the one who claimed that the absence of stoning meant the absence of sin. However, if you want to back track and change that to the absence of punishment, fine.

Just prove that the tragedy of Jonathan's death and the civil war with Jonathan's brother Ish-boseth did not include the same sort of punishment as the death of Bathsheba's child or the tragedies involving Absalom and Ammon

And spare me your HS debating team hoohah.

Click to expand...

So only you can engage in "HS debating team hoohah"? Or do I require a license or something?

GwynApNudd said:

...it was the OP who implied that hiding would be evidence of homosexuality. I was simply pointing out that they did hide...

Click to expand...

I did not say "hiding" would be evidence of homosexuality. I said IF they were engaging in homosexual acts, they would hide THAT. It's quite natural to "hide" for other reasons - such as, maybe, if the king was trying to kill you and the king's son was asked to do it?

brightmorningstar said:

GwynApNud,

This is true. However in order to discuss the accuracy of the text one has to consider that the relationship between them is at the start described as a spiritual one. Secondly it helps to know that they were in the society that recognised same-sex sex as a punishable offense by death. Therefore one can assume, and I mean 'assume' that there was no offense because they were not stoned. You said one couldnt do that, one can assume that.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but that has nothing to do with my objection.

Calvin96 made a post with several translations of 1 Samuel 20:41. Der Alter criticized the translations, but did not explain what was mis-translated. Instead he pasted one of his standard cut-and-paste boilerplates, which spoke, not about 1 Samuel 20:41, but about Leviticus 20:13. I objected that his boilerplate was non-responsive.

DMagoh said:

I did not say "hiding" would be evidence of homosexuality. I said IF they were engaging in homosexual acts, they would hide THAT. It's quite natural to "hide" for other reasons - such as, maybe, if the king was trying to kill you and the king's son was asked to do it?

Click to expand...

That may have been what you meant, but you did not make it all that clear.

In any case, you are quite right. There are other reasons to hide a relationship, and D&J had a very good one. That is why when I first mentioned it I said: "Take [it] however you will."

GwynApNudd said:

Perhaps, but that has nothing to do with my objection.

Calvin96 made a post with several translations of 1 Samuel 20:41. Der Alter criticized the translations, but did not explain what was mis-translated. Instead he pasted one of his standard cut-and-paste boilerplates, which spoke, not about 1 Samuel 20:41, but about Leviticus 20:13. I objected that his boilerplate was non-responsive.

Click to expand...

This is why there are denominations and so many sects of Christianity. EVERYTHING and I do mean EVERYTHING is dependent upon translation of the bible. Hence the thousands of denominations we have today. For thousands of years, when people didn't like something that was being translated, they left, and started there own. Our MAJOR denominations (outside of Catholicism) are because of this very reason. PROTESTants. They PROTESTED what was being done, and started their own. The Luterens, the Baptists, etc.. etc..etc... There is no right or wrong here...Anyone that forces that doesn't look at how their own denomination was formed. As for the "non-denominational"..that IS a denomination. They are fundamentalist with fundamentalist/bible beliefs. It is a very misrepresented word today, as there are many christians that believe in the FUNDAMENTALS of Christianity, but are NOT what we know today as "fundamentalists". For those that want to pull politics into faith...seems here people always equate those that are not fundies as "liberals". I'm not sure why as the two are like comparing apples and oranges. You can be very concervative, as my family is, but they, myself included, practice their faith with God as the God of social justice. This can be VERY different than those that use God as the person to be feared, and vengful, casting people into firey pits of hell, etc.. If you think about it, they are all very different aspects of God. Does one see God as the authoriatarian that causes fear in his children? Does one see God as the God the preacher of the poor, weak, suffering, and bringing his Father's word to them? Does one see God as the God of social justice where those that are unfairly imprisoned, and are being discriminated against for whom or what they are? These are all aspects of God. If you look at one of the most comprehensive religious studies to date, you will see how these views break down throughout the US. Our bible belt is the bulkof the country that believe in an authoritative God, where nearly 52% believe in a God of fury, and to be fearful of. But if you look at the NorthEast..you will find that approx 47% believe God to be a God of compassion love, and accpetance. If you go to the Pacific North West...that is where most will not even believe in a God. All of this is clearly represented here. So, again..no right or wrong. It's all about what you were taught, how your family raised you, and given that, the interpretation you received. It really is as easy as that.

calvins96 said:

Our bible belt is the bulkof the country that believe in an authoritative God, where nearly 52% believe in a God of fury, and to be fearful of. But if you look at the NorthEast..you will find that approx 47% believe God to be a God of compassion love, and accpetance...

Click to expand...

Does that mean that 53% of the Northeast DONT believe He is a God of love?

Der Alter said:

Read the second sentence in my post.

From the time of Moses, ca. 1200 BC, the Talmudic scholars interpreted the scriptures as condemning ALL homosexuals acts; by ALL persons, male and female; in ALL places, under ALL circumstance, at ALL times, NO exceptions.​

The relationship between David and Jonathan was being interpreted as openly homosexual. If anyone, king or commoner had, had an openly homosexual relationship they would have been stoned<period> end of story.

Lev 20:13 And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.​

Click to expand...

But they had no issues with him being a murderer and adulterer ?

Der Alter said:

Was David punished for either incident? David did not murder Uriah, he ordered him to be put in the forefront of the battle. Being in the forefront of a battle does not guarantee death. Bintherdunthatgotthetshirtdontfit.

And spare me your HS debating team hoohah.

Click to expand...

Ok we are volunteering you to go to Iraq and walk point. LOL where you ever in the service ?

IamRedeemed said:

First of all, everything DMagoh said should be considered before your mind goes off into a wild homosexual idea or causes another to, regarding this Scripture (take a look at mine as well for some additional common sense) David and Jonathan were as close as the closest brothers without being related. They were the best of friends, who each would lay their life down to save the other. I know in this society there are not many friendships like that as everyone is so transit. People don't even know their neighbors anymore or even dine with them, as they use to in a regular basis, so it isn't hard to realize that many people cannot comprehend a covenant friendship. I guarantee you though that men in the military that go to war together DO understand this to a "T". And I am not talking about effeminate males. I am talking about MEN, heterosexual to the core of their being.

Context is also, extremely important to consider when attempting to present wild ideas for speculation.
During the Scripture you cited, Jonathan was commanded to KILL his best friend by His father, the King.

There would be EVERY reason to cry! If Jonathan disobeyed, he risked being killed himself by orders of the King. And he knew he was going to disobey, not only the King, but his father and not going to kill his friend. But can you imagine how he felt?

David knew Jonathan was commanded to kill him by the King which in itself is horrible, I am sure David was crying and even more so than Jonathan, simply because he knew what could now happen to Jonathan for his (David's) sake, because he chose to disobey a command of the King!!

And David knew that Jonathan understood that, and so can you imagine how many emotions besides gratitude, unworthiness and overwhelming love for a brother that would put his life at risk like that for another brother?

That kind of wailing is the kind we should be doing, because Jesus did that very thing for us, and He
WAS brutally killed for our sakes!

Click to expand...

It is the disrobing part that sorta clinches it for me. I wonder how many guys here that are straight, disrobe for their male friends.

eastcoast_bsc said:

It is the disrobing part that sorta clinches it for me. I wonder how many guys here that are straight, disrobe for their male friends.

Click to expand...

All of them in the locker room or barracks?

eastcoast_bsc said:

[SIZE=-1]But they had no issues with him being a murderer and adulterer ?[/SIZE]

Click to expand...

Have you ever read the entire history of David? Evidently not. See e.g. 2 Sam 12:7-18.

eastcoast_bsc said:

[SIZE=-1]Ok we are volunteering you to go to Iraq and walk point. LOL where you ever in the service ?[/SIZE]

Click to expand...

I said Bintheredunthatgotthetshirtdontfit. Now it is your turn. The highest classification for military service is 1-A. Mentally/physically disqualified is 4-F. My classification is 9-I. I can only be called to active duty when any potential enemy reaches the Marine Barracks at 9th and "I" in DC.

DMagoh said:

Does that mean that 53% of the Northeast DONT believe He is a God of love?

Click to expand...

No..not at all. There are other categories..I was just stating what his the obvious. I'm not sure where you live, but the results were not eye opening at all. Pretty much know our southern states are much influenced with Baptist learnings, where as the northern states are much more influences with catholics, methodists, episcopalians etc...perhaps from way back in the day with being the original colonies and heavy influences from England or whatever.

TheFathersDaughter said:

I don't believe that. Be careful to assume all homosexual Christian believe that.

Click to expand...

Jonathan and David kissing would not have made them gay, even if they did it on the lips.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=lPg8OHBUBl8
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3bSXyqkPM9I

DMagoh said:

Does that mean that 53% of the Northeast DONT believe He is a God of love?

Click to expand...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2006-09-11-religion-survey_x.htm

DMagoh said:

I always find it amusing when people try to say that David and Jonathan were gay lovers. For one thing, they were in the Old Testament and were still under the laws in Leviticus. David would not have been caught dead "lying with a man as one lies with a woman".

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. Leviticus 20:13

And even if you stretch so far out to even think it might have been possible, it sure wouldnt have been public so that others knew about it and wrote about it in the Bible. And if he had, he would have been called on it and would have suffered consequences just like he did when he committed adultery with Bathsheba.

So give us a break. D & J were not gay lovers. In fact, there are NO homosexual role models in the Bible. There are NO homosexual heros in the Bible. There are NO examples of homosexual marriage in the Bible. There are NO instructions for homosexual marriage in the Bible. The only homosexuals mentioned in the Bible are either destroyed or condemned. So tell me again how God thinks homosexual behavior is awesome and blessed?

Click to expand...

1 Samuel 20:14
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 became great.

So you have two men, suspected of being in a consensual, homosexual relationship, weaping, kissing, and getting erections over each other.

Sounds pretty gay to me.