• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Did David and Johnathan Have a Gay Relationship?

paladin_carvin

Regular Member
Apr 30, 2006
436
13
Stewartsville, NJ
✟23,147.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
gwdboi:

First, the text cannot support both interpretations. One of us is wrong. This has nothing to do with being or not being "open minded".

Second, the Bible teaches that the Word of God is directly inspired by the Spirit of God Himself. It is not an option for Christians to believe that man is the official judge or final arbiter of the Scriptures. Because the Bible is God-breathed, it is necessarily inerrant, infallible, divinely inspired, self-validating, self-attesting, and self-sufficient. It can mean only one thing, and not what we want it to mean.

Third, it is clear that you and God do not agree on the meaning of "love". God defines true love, and in the Bible, true love precludes "unnatural affection" (cf. Romans 1) -- i.e., homosexual relationships.
Because if a verse in the Bible says the Bible is inerrant, that means it is all inerrant, including that verse. This is bad circular thinking always bugs me...

Edit: Oh, and how exactly do you know what is 'unnatural'. Many studies, especially ones of animals, find that same sex attraction IS natural. Ooops, science again. I'm sorry, I'll be quiet.
 
Upvote 0

artybloke

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2004
5,222
456
66
North of England
✟8,017.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Politics
UK-Labour
I am familiar with the argument, and it has no contextual, grammatical, exegetical or etymological support. It is an argument contrived by modern theological liberals who construct arguments based on what they want to be true, even though it is textually groundless.

I am familiar with the argument that says that Johnathen and David can't have had a gay relationship, and it has no contextual, grammatical, exegentical or etymological support. It is an argument contrived by modern theological conservatives who construct arguments based on what they want to be true, even though it is textually groundless.

What's wrong with that statement?
 
Upvote 0

gwdboi

Regular Member
Oct 30, 2006
170
27
Greenwood, SC
Visit site
✟23,224.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
Unnatural affection??? You just prove my point. We think that because we develop this huristic about the Bible that everything must fit into otherwise we deem it invalid. Yes the Bible is the only and absolute word of God, but it's only as good as how we interpret it. I know an entire denomination that would argue with you on the interpretation of "unnatural affection". Basically what I was trying to say is that people are not OPEN MINDED twards ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATIONS. Just like you! ;)

gwdboi:

First, the text cannot support both interpretations. One of us is wrong. This has nothing to do with being or not being "open minded".

Second, the Bible teaches that the Word of God is directly inspired by the Spirit of God Himself. It is not an option for Christians to believe that man is the official judge or final arbiter of the Scriptures. Because the Bible is God-breathed, it is necessarily inerrant, infallible, divinely inspired, self-validating, self-attesting, and self-sufficient. It can mean only one thing, and not what we want it to mean.

Third, it is clear that you and God do not agree on the meaning of "love". God defines true love, and in the Bible, true love precludes "unnatural affection" (cf. Romans 1) -- i.e., homosexual relationships.
 
Upvote 0

gwdboi

Regular Member
Oct 30, 2006
170
27
Greenwood, SC
Visit site
✟23,224.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
[FONT=&quot]The Bible and Homosexuality[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]By Rev. Mona West, Ph.D.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Lesbians and gay men face discrimination because of societal attitudes. Unfortunately, these attitudes are often taught by churches and, sadly, the Bible is frequently used as a weapon to “bash” lesbians and gays. It is important to remember that such hurtful things are not a reflection of Christ, or the way God wants the church to be, or even what the Bible really says.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Only a small number of passages in the entire Bible reference same-sex sexual activity (six out of sixty-six books of the entire Bible). Obviously this topic was not of great concern to the biblical writers. Yet these verses have been used to justify hatred, condemnation and exclusion of God’s lesbian and gay children.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The word ‘homosexuality’ is a modern term and did not exist during biblical times. Biblical writers had no concept of sexual orientation or sexual development as we understand those today. Therefore, passages that reference same-sex sexual activity should not been seen as comprehensive statements concerning homosexuality, but instead should be viewed in the context of what the ancient world that produced the Bible understood about sexual activity.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sexuality in the Mediterranean World[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Biblical scholars have employed the social sciences to study the relational and gender patterns of the ancient Mediterranean world—the world that produced the Bible. Professor Mary Tolbert summarizes that research with the following words:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The single most important concept that defines sexuality in the ancient Mediterranean world, whether we are talking about the kingdoms of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Egypt[/FONT][FONT=&quot] or of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Assyria[/FONT][FONT=&quot] or whether we are talking about the later kingdoms of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Greece[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Rome[/FONT][FONT=&quot], is that approved sexual acts never occurred between social equals. Sexuality, by definition, in ancient Mediterranean societies required the combination of dominance and submission. This crucial social and political root metaphor of dominance and submission as the definition of sexuality rested upon a physical basis that assumed every sex act required a penetrator and someone who was penetrated. Needless to say, this definition of sexuality was entirely male—not surprising in the heavily patriarchal societies of the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Mediterranean[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In these societies sexual acts between men did happen, but they happened in order to show dominance of one group of men or a man over another, especially during times of war. It was not uncommon for men who had conquered a foreign army to rape them in order to show they were dominant and of a higher status.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Story of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Sodom[/FONT][FONT=&quot] in Genesis 19[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This understanding is helpful when we read the story of the city of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Sodom[/FONT][FONT=&quot], [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Lot[/FONT][FONT=&quot], and the visitors (or angels). The men of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Sodom[/FONT][FONT=&quot] want to ‘know’ (yadah - a Hebrew word that can mean sexual intercourse) the foreigners who have come to [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Lot[/FONT][FONT=&quot]’s house. In essence they want to rape them in order to show their social and cultural dominance over them.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This story is not a condemnation of homosexuality, but is a story about rape and inhospitality. In other biblical texts (Ezekiel [/FONT][FONT=&quot]16:49[/FONT][FONT=&quot], Luke [/FONT][FONT=&quot]17:28[/FONT][FONT=&quot]-29) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Sodom[/FONT][FONT=&quot]’s ‘sin’ is not identified as homosexuality, rather, their sins were pride, failure to help the poor, and lack of hospitality to foreigners.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Leviticus[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]18:22[/FONT][FONT=&quot])[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.” ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]20:13[/FONT][FONT=&quot]) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]These verses are part of the Holiness Code in the Old Testament book of Leviticus (chapters 17-26) that attempted to spell out ways the people of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Israel[/FONT][FONT=&quot] would act differently than their Mediterranean neighbors. In light of the previously mentioned sexual practices of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Israel[/FONT][FONT=&quot]’s neighbors, it becomes clear that this prohibition in Leviticus was an attempt to preserve the internal harmony of Jewish male society by not allowing them to participate in anal intercourse as a form of expressing or gaining social and political dominance. These verses in no way prohibit, nor do they even speak, to loving, caring sexual relationships between people of the same gender.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Writings of the Apostle Paul[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“So do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]kingdom[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]God[/FONT][FONT=&quot]? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]kingdom[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]God[/FONT][FONT=&quot]” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“The law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God” (1 Timothy 1:9-11).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]There are two major issues to consider when one approaches these passages: translation and sexual practices of Greek culture. A comparison of these verses in several translations of the Bible indicates that there is some confusion about how to translate two Greek words in these lists of vices Paul has enumerated. The two words are arsenokoitai which is rendered in various translations as “homosexuals,” “sodomites,” “child molesters,” or “perverts” and malakoi which is rendered in various translations as “catamites,” “the effeminate,” or “boy prostitutes.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]These Greek words are difficult to translate in the context of these passages. Malakoi is a common term and means “soft.” It can refer to clothing (Matthew 11:8) or moral matters, meaning “undisciplined.” Arsenokoitai is a rare word and is made up of arseno meaning “man,” and koitai meaning “bed, lying, or having sex with.” When put together the word may mean “male prostitutes.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]When these words are placed in the context of Greek culture in which Paul was writing, the passages have very specific meanings. As we have seen earlier, the Mediterranean world had a definition of sexuality that was based on dominance/submission and unequal status. Greek culture fine tuned that definition with regard to status. Proper sexual relations occurred between people whose status was unequal. In addition there was a practice in ancient Greek culture known as pederasty in which younger men were socialized and educated through a close relationship with an older man. These older men were the boys’ (age 12 or 13) patrons and, often, their lovers. These relationships were seen as the key to raising up the next generation of city leaders and there were strict rules about how long the relationship should last and the roles of families within these relationships. Evidently there was some abuse happening in these relationships and young boys were being exploited and kept by the patron well after the boy had grown into adulthood (which would have made him an equal, hence violating the code of sex only among unequals).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]These abusive relationships are what the apostle Paul is referencing, not mutually loving and caring relationships between people of the same sex.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Romans 1:26-27[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]By now it should be clear that these verses must be read in the cultural context of the Mediterranean world that understood socially acceptable sexual behavior to happen only one way: among unequals with the dominant partner always an adult male.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It is also important to read these verses in Romans within their larger context. At the beginning of his letter to the church in Rome (where he had not yet visited) Paul was attempting to lay out for the Roman church his theology of grace (all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; but are justified by the gift of grace in Christ Jesus, 3:23). He is writing to a Jewish and Gentile audience. In chapter one he tries to demonstrate the Gentiles’ need for God by pointing out behaviors that keep them alienated from God. In chapter two he does the same thing for his Jewish audience.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Paul’s reference to natural and unnatural sexual acts must be taken in light of Mediterranean sexuality. He is not attempting to give an ethical teaching concerning homosexuality. He is trying to meet his Gentile audience on their own terms; using the example of some people who are not upholding the dominant/submissive model as an opportunity to talk about all persons’ need for the saving grace of Jesus Christ.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Issues of Biblical Authority[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]When dealing with matters of biblical interpretation one always needs to keep in mind the role of the authority of the Bible in matters of faith and practice. While the Bible is an important witness to the relationship between God and humanity, it is not the ultimate revelation of God—Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, is. We must guard against what some scholars have called bibliolatry—making an idol out of scripture.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]One way to guard against bibliolatry is to realize that while the Bible may be at the center of matters of faith, it must also be in ‘conversation’ with tradition, experience and reason. These four sources of faith have become known as the Wesleyan quadrilateral, so named after their originator John Wesley, founder of the Methodist heritage.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]We must read and interpret scripture with the aid of the history and tradition of the Christian church. We must also bring reason—philosophical and rational thought--to bear on applications of scripture to real life situations. And last and most importantly, scripture must be weighed alongside human experience—especially the experience of God’s grace.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It is time we stopped making an idol out of the Bible. It is time we bring philosophical and rational thought—especially what the sciences have told us about sexual orientation and identity development—into conversation with the Bible. It is time we listen to the experiences of God’s gay and lesbian children who know with all their hearts that God has created them just as they are.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Resources[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Brooten, Bernadette (1996). Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Chicago[/FONT][FONT=&quot]: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]University[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Chicago[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Press.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Helminiak, Daniel (1994). What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]San Francisco[/FONT][FONT=&quot]: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Alamo Square[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Press.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Scroggs, Robin (1983). The New Testament and Homosexuality. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Philadelphia[/FONT][FONT=&quot]: Fortress Press.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Tolbert, Mary (2002). “Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: Biblical Texts in Historical Contexts.” Paper delivered at Lancaster School of Theology, published on the web at www.clgs.org. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Wink, Walter (1999). Homosexuality and the Christian Faith: Questions of Conscience for the Churches. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Minneapolis[/FONT][FONT=&quot]: Fortress Press.[/FONT]
 
Upvote 0

Proeliator

broken is a good state
Jul 21, 2005
1,109
28
New York City
✟23,942.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
I doubt it very much. Leviticus hadn't yet been written.

Now that is a truly amazing statement. Davids lifetime is said to be about 1040 to 970 BC. Leviticus is said to be written around 1440 BC. Around 400 years BEFORE Davids time. And David wouldn't have known Levitical law?
 
Upvote 0

paleodoxy

Catechumen
Sep 27, 2005
1,704
100
45
Depends on the time of day...
✟24,861.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Because if a verse in the Bible says the Bible is inerrant, that means it is all inerrant, including that verse. This is bad circular thinking always bugs me...

paladin, you're cracking me up.

I never set out to prove or defend the divine infallible inspiration of the Bible. (Make for a great debate, though.) The post I responded to simply assumed that it wasn't or could not be, without any argumentation or attempt to explain, justify or philosophically defend this position.

My post was simply meant to demonstrate that mere assertion does not work with Christians who believe otherwise.

If anyone wants to debate the point, though, I would be more than happy to accomodate.
 
Upvote 0

paleodoxy

Catechumen
Sep 27, 2005
1,704
100
45
Depends on the time of day...
✟24,861.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Yes the Bible is the only and absolute word of God, but it's only as good as how we interpret it.

You're equivocating.

Either it is the Word of God, a perfect reflection of the mind, intent and will of God, expressing only one meaning; or, "it's only as good as how one interprets it" -- meaning we can make it mean whatever we want it to mean.

Basically what I was trying to say is that people are not OPEN MINDED twards ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATIONS.
You're equivocating again. We can't have two competing, mutually contradictory opinions co-exist together in irreconcilable tension. And you know it. You're not interested in whether "alternative interpretations" "might" exist. You've made up your mind beforehand that the Christian interpretation must be defeated, and the Bible deconstructed to fit your preconceived ideas.

The issue is really one of inspiration, infallibility, inerrancy and authority. Either God is God, or man is God. This is what the debate is ultimately all about.
 
Upvote 0

lilymarie

The love of heaven makes one heavenly -Shakespeare
Jun 15, 2006
3,670
239
In the here and now
✟27,370.00
Faith
Non-Denom
1 Samuel 18
Saul's Jealousy of David
1 After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. 2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house. 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 20
David and Jonathan
1 Then David fled from Naioth at Ramah and went to Jonathan and asked, "What have I done? What is my crime? How have I wronged your father, that he is trying to take my life?"
2 "Never!" Jonathan replied. "You are not going to die! Look, my father doesn't do anything, great or small, without confiding in me. Why would he hide this from me? It's not so!"
3 But David took an oath and said, "Your father knows very well that I have found favor in your eyes, and he has said to himself, 'Jonathan must not know this or he will be grieved.' Yet as surely as the LORD lives and as you live, there is only a step between me and death."
4 Jonathan said to David, "Whatever you want me to do, I'll do for you."
5 So David said, "Look, tomorrow is the New Moon festival, and I am supposed to dine with the king; but let me go and hide in the field until the evening of the day after tomorrow. 6 If your father misses me at all, tell him, 'David earnestly asked my permission to hurry to Bethlehem, his hometown, because an annual sacrifice is being made there for his whole clan.' 7 If he says, 'Very well,' then your servant is safe. But if he loses his temper, you can be sure that he is determined to harm me. 8 As for you, show kindness to your servant, for you have brought him into a covenant with you before the LORD. If I am guilty, then kill me yourself! Why hand me over to your father?"
9 "Never!" Jonathan said. "If I had the least inkling that my father was determined to harm you, wouldn't I tell you?"
10 David asked, "Who will tell me if your father answers you harshly?"
11 "Come," Jonathan said, "let's go out into the field." So they went there together.
12 Then Jonathan said to David: "By the LORD, the God of Israel, I will surely sound out my father by this time the day after tomorrow! If he is favorably disposed toward you, will I not send you word and let you know? 13 But if my father is inclined to harm you, may the LORD deal with me, be it ever so severely, if I do not let you know and send you away safely. May the LORD be with you as he has been with my father. 14 But show me unfailing kindness like that of the LORD as long as I live, so that I may not be killed, 15 and do not ever cut off your kindness from my family—not even when the LORD has cut off every one of David's enemies from the face of the earth."
16 So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, "May the LORD call David's enemies to account." 17 And Jonathan had David reaffirm his oath out of love for him, because he loved him as he loved himself.
18 Then Jonathan said to David: "Tomorrow is the New Moon festival. You will be missed, because your seat will be empty. 19 The day after tomorrow, toward evening, go to the place where you hid when this trouble began, and wait by the stone Ezel. 20 I will shoot three arrows to the side of it, as though I were shooting at a target. 21 Then I will send a boy and say, 'Go, find the arrows.' If I say to him, 'Look, the arrows are on this side of you; bring them here,' then come, because, as surely as the LORD lives, you are safe; there is no danger. 22 But if I say to the boy, 'Look, the arrows are beyond you,' then you must go, because the LORD has sent you away. 23 And about the matter you and I discussed—remember, the LORD is witness between you and me forever."




It's interesting... I read a book the other day called Jonathan Loved David ... An Investigation of Homosexuality in The Bible. I cannot but the concepts in the words of the author, so it might sound a little confusting. At any rate, these are some of the ideas the author puts forth: 1. Reading the passages in historical context is the only way to get the true meaning.
A) During Bible times it was typical for military men to enter into a homosexual relationship (and not just in Greece)
B) Throughout these passages there is more reference to Jonathan than to David's wife.
C) The oath taken by Johathan and David when read in hebrew mimics typical marrage oaths.
D) 1 Sam. 18:1 states that Jonathan became one with the spirit of David. This resembles this passage: Gen 2:24 "This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one."
[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]David and Jonathan: There have been several attempts to point to alleged homosexual couples in the Bible, primarily Ruth and Naomi, Daniel and Ashpenaz, and David and Jonathan. More recently, there have been a proposal that there was a gay relationship between the Centurion and his servant who requested to be healed by Jesus. The arguments regarding Ruth/Naomi and Daniel/Ashpenaz are far from compelling for me. The arguments regarding David and Jonathan, however, while not quite compelling, leave open the strong possibility that they were involved in an homosexual marriage. Starting from the crux of the argument at 1 Samuel 18:21, Saul tells David, that by marrying Saul's daughter Michal, David will be his son-in-law for the second time (Hebrew: "bstym ttctn by hynm"). The actual translation of this phrase is somewhat controversial, being literally translated "You will become my son-in-law through two." In this instance, the correct interpretation of this verse is crucial, because it radically shapes our view of David and Jonathan's relationship, since Scripture only indicates that David had any kind of relationship with two of Saul's children: Jonathan and Michal. Some translations interpret this verse as meaning that Saul "said for the second time," or that David has a "second opportunity" to become Saul's son-in-law. These interpretations, however, are strained, and the Hebrew does not easily lend itself to mean either of these. Most standard translations clearly interpret the verse to mean that David will become Saul's son-in-law for the second time (NIV being the primary exception, and the RSV is ambiguous):
ASV: Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law a second time.
RSV: Therefore Saul said to David a second time, "You shall now be my son-in-law."
BBE: So Saul said to David, Today you are to become my son-in-law for the second time.
DBY: And Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law a second time.
YLT: Saul saith unto David, `By the second -- thou dost become my son-in-law to-day.'
NAS: Therefore Saul said to David, "For a second time you may be my son-in-law today." The question then becomes what Saul actually meant if he is telling David that he will become his son-in-law for the second time. The first offer Saul made to David for a wife was Merab, but she married Adriel of Meholah instead (18:19). The only other covenant made between Saul's family and David was between David and Jonathan in 18:3, which is not a covenant of business or politics, but of friendship/love ("ahbh"). Moreover, this relationship is described in very strong emotive language, starting in 18:1. Prior to looking at this more closely, an understanding of the story up to this point is helpful. In chapter 17, we find David's older brothers going to war against the Philistines while David stays at home. David is then sent to take food to his brothers, following which is the classic David and Goliath story. As David goes back to Saul after killing Goliath, we see that David is totally unknown to King Saul (17:58). However, as David talks to King Saul, Jonathan falls in love with David, after having never met him, or talked to him (which has a vague sound of "love at first sight" in our culture).
1 Samuel 18:1-4 (NIV)
1 After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself.
2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house.
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.
While there is no similarity between the Hebrew phrases in 1 Samuel 18:1-2 above and in Genesis 2:24, there is a striking similarity in concepts between the son leaving the parents to join to a spouse, and the two becoming one:
Genesis 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.
When we put together chapter 18, from the beginning, with Jonathan's strong emotional affection towards David and their subsequent covenant, to the end, where we see Saul referring to David being his son-in-law a second time with his marriage to Michal, we see the very strong possibility that David and Jonathan were joined in a covenant that Saul recognized as a marriage. This line of reasoning, while persuasive to me, it is not conclusive. First, I don't know that we have any other extant Hebrew literature of that era that refers to a gay marriage, which would lead one to question whether or not Saul would have seen David and Jonathan's covenant as one of legal marriage. If not, then the only possibility for Saul's language in 18:21 is that he was referring to David's second son-in-law status as coming from the original promise by Saul to give Merab to him (18:17), even though Merab married another man. A second possible criticism is that this argument is made from conjecture, that no specific reference is made to marriage (ynh, yqch) or sexual activity. This, however, is not a valid criticism. The words referring to marriage in the Old Testament are typically in the context of being "taken" or "given" (yqch) as property (byvlh) or protector/provider (ybm), since women had no rights in Hebrew culture, and were considered property to be given/sold. This aspect of marriage would not have been applicable to David and Jonathan's relationship. The other primary word translated as marry is actually the exact same word as "woman" (ishh), which obviously isn't applicable in this case. As for the lack of specific reference to sexual activity which would definitively signify marriage, very few Old Testament relationships which are clearly marriage relationships have subsequent descriptions of sexual activity, therefore it is improbable that such a characterization would be applied here either. However, 2 Samuel 1:26 may even be a reference to sexual activity between David and Jonathan. After Jonathan has been killed, David mourns his death, and says the following (NIV):
26 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.
In Hebrew culture, similar to many mid-eastern cultures today, men and women did not engage in platonic relationships. They were either married, or they had no relationship. In this case, David compares his relationship with Jonathan to the relationship with a woman, strongly indicating a marriage/sexual relationship. Further, the word used for love here (ahbh; used also in 1 Samuel 18:3 and 1 Samuel 20:17 referring for Jonathan's love for David) is the same word used in Genesis 29:20 for Jacob's love for Rachel, and is used repeatedly in Song of Songs. It is typically translated as love in the context of a marriage or sexual desire (Proverbs 5:19, etc.; see Strong's concordance #0160).
After this analysis we are left with two questions. First, could Saul have legally seen David and Jonathan's covenant as marriage, to the extent that he would call David a son-in-law. Second, is the intensity of the language referring to Jonathan's love and covenant with David, and David's reference to his love for Jonathan, enough to sustain the belief that they were engaged in a marriage covenant? Neither of these questions can be answered definitively. Whether or not Saul would have legally condoned this relationship can only be answered with further research into the marriage documents from that time. However, the conceptual parallel of marriage between 1 Samuel 18:1-2 and Genesis 2:24, the intensity and type of language used in 1 Samuel 18:1-4 and subsequent covenant between Jonathan and David, and David's comparison of his love to that of women certainly leads me to the conclusion that their relationship could have been one of marriage.
[/FONT]​
Source: http://www.jeramyt.org/gay.html#Add4


No. This was the beginning of brotherly love, as the OT shows "man" evolving into better men.

Jonathan's act of disrobing is common all throughout ancient histories and is a symbol of submission.

This was the beginning of submission, and a evolution of mankind into submission and also that of brotherly love.

This is a story of submission and honor given unto David.

As one can see in the OT, even people rebelled against Moses.

This was the first act of real submission and yielding.

And David loved Jonathan for that. Why wouldn't he?

I had a link on how this all ties into the war that was being fought with the Philistines at the time -- but I'd need time to search for it as I have like 300 bookmarks, and I'm serious! I have a lot of bookmarked pages -- hundreds!

And no Genesis says: A man shall leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife and the two shall become one flesh.

And no, 1 Samuel 18 shows that two daughters were offered, but only Michal became David's wife. That's what 1 Samuel 18 means.

1 Samuel 18

12 Saul was afraid of David, because the LORD was with David but had left Saul. 13 So he sent David away from him and gave him command over a thousand men, and David led the troops in their campaigns. 14 In everything he did he had great success, [c] because the LORD was with him. 15 When Saul saw how successful [d] he was, he was afraid of him. 16 But all Israel and Judah loved David, because he led them in their campaigns. 17 Saul said to David, "Here is my older daughter Merab. I will give her to you in marriage; only serve me bravely and fight the battles of the LORD." For Saul said to himself, "I will not raise a hand against him. Let the Philistines do that!"
18 But David said to Saul, "Who am I, and what is my family or my father's clan in Israel, that I should become the king's son-in-law?" 19 So [e] when the time came for Merab, Saul's daughter, to be given to David, she was given in marriage to Adriel of Meholah.
20 Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. 21 "I will give her to him," he thought, "so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him." So Saul said to David, "Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law."
 
Upvote 0

artybloke

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2004
5,222
456
66
North of England
✟8,017.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Politics
UK-Labour
what the.... :scratch:

:doh:how do you even begin to figure that?
That's plain ignorance.
I suggest you begin to investigate the Documentary Hypothesis, eirene. The Torah is a collection of writings not finally completed until after the Exilic period. What it isn't is "written by Moses."

This is, I would say, pretty much taken as read by OT scholars.
 
Upvote 0

lilymarie

The love of heaven makes one heavenly -Shakespeare
Jun 15, 2006
3,670
239
In the here and now
✟27,370.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Because if a verse in the Bible says the Bible is inerrant, that means it is all inerrant, including that verse. This is bad circular thinking always bugs me...

Edit: Oh, and how exactly do you know what is 'unnatural'. Many studies, especially ones of animals, find that same sex attraction IS natural. Ooops, science again. I'm sorry, I'll be quiet.

Yes, but that is the point. God has called us to be higher than the animals, and not to act like mere animals who go my mere instinct. That's God's word.

We are not called to be anything like the animals period.

So let's leave the weird things animals do out of this. I can watch Animal Planet on TV for that!

There's a lot of things animals do that people don't. I've even seen dogs eat barf! ewwwwwwwww!
 
Upvote 0

lilymarie

The love of heaven makes one heavenly -Shakespeare
Jun 15, 2006
3,670
239
In the here and now
✟27,370.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I suggest you begin to investigate the Documentary Hypothesis, eirene. The Torah is a collection of writings not finally completed until after the Exilic period. What it isn't is "written by Moses."

This is, I would say, pretty much taken as read by OT scholars.

Disagree. It's a collection of writings of Moses and his scribes.

Moses was pretty busy ya know... of course he had scribes. All great tribal leaders of ancients past have had scribes.
 
Upvote 0

artybloke

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2004
5,222
456
66
North of England
✟8,017.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Politics
UK-Labour
Either it is the Word of God, a perfect reflection of the mind, intent and will of God, expressing only one meaning; or, "it's only as good as how one interprets it" -- meaning we can make it mean whatever we want it to mean.

It's a book written by a lot of different writers over a considerably long period of time (at least 1,000 years) in languages we no longer speak, to situations and people that have long since passed into history. It doesn't - and can't - mean for us what it meant to the people who first heard it. Everytime you pick up an English translation of the Bible, you're picking up an interpretation by someone else of what the Bible says (all translation is at least 50% interpretation.)

So yes, it can be both.
 
Upvote 0
1

127Rockledge

Guest
Either it is the Word of God, a perfect reflection of the mind, intent and will of God, expressing only one meaning; or, "it's only as good as how one interprets it" -- meaning we can make it mean whatever we want it to mean.

Or it could be that the word of God has been misunderstood.

You've made up your mind beforehand that the Christian interpretation must be defeated, and the Bible deconstructed to fit your preconceived ideas.

Likewise you've made up your mind that the anti-homosexuality argument is the "Christian" one.

The issue is really one of inspiration, infallibility, inerrancy and authority. Either God is God, or man is God. This is what the debate is ultimately all about.

Or maybe it is that man does not truly understand God.
 
Upvote 0

artybloke

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2004
5,222
456
66
North of England
✟8,017.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Politics
UK-Labour
Disagree. It's a collection of writings of Moses and his scribes.

And you're entitled to your opinion. But I still don't think there's anything in the Davidic legends that show any awareness of the Levitical law, and evidently it kept getting lost and refound again.
 
Upvote 0

Mandrake

Brother Cattle Prod of Reasoned Discussion
Mar 5, 2006
1,297
95
✟24,578.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
One of the major streams in Leviticus (the Priestly Torah) is difficult to date, but likely predates the exile, at least in an incomplete form, and was edited during the early exile into its more or less final form (say around 580 BCE). The other major stream, the Holiness School, comes from the late exilic period (530ish), and comprises mostly the material from chapters 17-26, though they also supplemented the other material as well. So no, David certainly didn't have access to Leviticus as we know it today.
 
Upvote 0