Did David and Johnathan Have a Gay Relationship?

[JacobHall86]

It saddens me to see that people will not even open their minds a little to possability. ANYTHING is possable, but we puny humans think that we have it all figured out and ergo we think that God fits into this nice little form that we've extrapolated from the Bible. What if we've gotten some parts wrong? Hmm?? We use the Bible so much to descriminate against others, isn't God about LOVE??? All I'm saying and asking is for people to consider possabilities and open their hearts.

No, you are asking us to accept sin because you dont see a problem with it.

Saying that Homosexuality is ok and using Scripture that has been twisted to try and prove that is Heresy.

 

[lilymarie]

Wait... so you are argueing that we are not part Neanderthal... but we had the same ancenstry, hundreds of thousands of years ago? I'm confused... weren't you fundemental? **is confused**

What is a fundy? I'm a Christian who believes in the word of God.

However, I study archaeology, biblical archaeology and I've studied anthropology.

There are only two types of beings who walked upright -- Homo Erectus (Neanderthals -- who disappeared) and modern "man" Homo Sapiens, us (who are still here). The other bones are nothing but apes. No connection between apes, Neanderthals and modern mankind period. Common ancestory doesn't prove anything. God is still the only one all knowing.

Case in point... is pluto still a planet? Science is based upon faith upon theories that do not actually exist.

As far as when the Bible was actually first written -- we go by carbon datings of papers, and the oldest book seems to be the book of Job (going by carbon dating of paper alone). The oldest copy of Job may be approximately 4000 years older than some of the Torah.

Also, "in the beginning" is never specified as to an actual date God created everything.

Also, I have said I disagree that God created the Heavens and the Earth in seven literal 24-hour periods, as the Sun and the Moon were NOT created until the fourth day. Therefore, God days are different than what our miniscule little minds determine as a "day". If the Sun and Moon were not created until the fourth day -- how could the preceeding days be 24-hour periods?

Next, there is no timeline in the Bible as to when God sent the first rain and when the Garden of Eden was created. It could have been a long time between the first rain and the Garden of Eden. There also is no timeline as to the finish of creation and the sending of the first rain.

There are no timelines in the Bible period.

As far as common ancestory -- well, I'm a painter. My creating style is my own. It usually shows some type of "creating style" unique to me alone.

Therefore, creations having uniqueness is quite logical.

Anyhow, this is what anthropology has in a sentence --

Ape bones with no connection to Neanderthals bones, and now Neanderthal bones that have no connection of modern people. I don't see any evolution there? All these bones are different species.

Anyhow, back on topic....

We are really veering off here.

But what I find so miraculous about the Bible is that in all it's wonderous wisdom, God is still the only one all knowing. And that is the beauty of God right there.

Why would he let us know everything?

We'd never learn that way, or we'd boast we are "God".

God still expects us to love and obey him by faith.

(Anyhow, my fiance' just had surgery today, so I don't know how much time I'll have to debate in the next couple of weeks....

So, if I don't reply, that's why).

 

[kobuk]

Just because they each strongly loved another man should not automatically imply that they would engage in homosexual acts. We don't ever need to describe the details of what is involved with m/m homosexual acts. Just recognize what a bizarre EXTREME leap it is for two men to engage with each other physically like that. Especially David, who was in the direct bloodline of Yahshua. David was a man very deeply devoted to YHWH. His life was blessed and he was built up into an excellent wise man. With some falts true. But on the matter of honoring the created order i have no doubt he was infinitely straight. No question here.

 

[Romanseight2005]

Okay, first of all the word love is in no way interchangeable with lust, desire, sex, sexual attraction, etc. Love clearly means love in scripture, and we are all to love one another.

Secondly, even if David were to have engaged himself sexually with a man, it still would not make it any less sinful. Let's not forget that David also committed adultery and murder. God's forgiveness and grace doesn't excuse our sinful actions which are many. What it shows is that God has mercy, and can show us love that we can not perceive until it takes us over.

 

[KTatis]

Okay, first of all the word love is in no way interchangeable with lust, desire, sex, sexual attraction, etc. Love clearly means love in scripture, and we are all to love one another.

Secondly, even if David were to have engaged himself sexually with a man, it still would not make it any less sinful. Let's not forget that David also committed adultery and murder. God's forgiveness and grace doesn't excuse our sinful actions which are many. What it shows is that God has mercy, and can show us love that we can not perceive until it takes us over.

But at the time such a punishment was followed by death. Shouldn't they have been put to death just as the other people who were stoned because of this?

 

[Romanseight2005]

I don't think he had a homosexual relationship with him. Think about the circumstances. Johnathan gave up his right to the throne for David. I believe that is what David was referring to when he said his love was better than that of a woman. Women in that time were to give up themselves, submit, and sacrifice. For a man to give up his right to the throne for another man, not even his brother, was completely unheard of, and more along the lines of what a woman would do.

Now, if he did have that kind of relationship, there would have been consequences from God, but, then again there were. David lost 4 sons because of his sins. Also, when he committed adultery, he was not put to death, as the law then demanded.

 

[JDIBe]

It is sad that some people cannot separate a close relationship with another human being with sex. It makes me wonder if they really ever had a true friend....

Of course David didn't have a sexual relationship with Johnathan.
1. They would have been stoned on sight.
2. David later had wives. And of course we know that if you have one homosexual relationship, you are a homosexual for life. You can't change who you are.. (sarcasm)

 

[RMDY]

Did anyone ever see Borat? He kissed other men, but not in a sexual way.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]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.
. . ., f 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.

. . . 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.

. . . 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.
Source: http://www.jeramyt.org/gay.html#Add4[/SIZE]

Note in ALL the posts speculating that David and Jonathan, and many other noted same sex relationships, were homosexual, are ALWAYS, from a gay website, which NEVER quotes or cites any Jewish sources.

Here is the Jewish interpretation of this passage. But of course all pro-homosexuals assume that the Jews have been wrong for 3000 years +/- and that some dood who knows absolutely nothing about the Hebrew language is right.

John Gill Commentary - thou shalt this day be my son in law in the one of the twain; by marrying one of his two daughters; signifying, that he would not defer the marriage, or put it off to a longer time, as he had done before, but that he should be married immediately to one or other of his daughters; and seeing he could not have the eldest, she being disposed of, he should have the youngest, and so be equally his son-in-law. If we read the words without the supplement, "shalt be my son-in-law in the two", or in both, the sense is, that he should have them both; and so the Jews say (w), that he married them both, first Merab, and after her death Michal; or that he should be his son-in-law on two accounts, one by betrothing Merab, though he was not married to her, and the other by being married to Michal, so that he would be doubly his son in law; but the sense, according to the supplement, is best.

(w) T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 19. 2.​

 

[jeffweeder]

Hey, isnt it obvious that his desire is in Bethsheba, to the point of murder.

God makes a point with Sodom and Gommorah, how much more with his choice of king and the royal line of Jesus himself?

God addresses Davids downfalls and Homosexuality wasnt one of them.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Proof of how the common usage in hebrew culture did not imply homosexuality. Yes, proof please![/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]I don't believe that authorial intent exhausts meaning. I speak as a poet: people are always finding things in my writing that I didn't intend. Are they wrong? No, I don't think they are. But neither are they completely and solely right.

Are the laws of logic transcendent and always true? No, I don't think so. Western logic especially, with its belief in binary oppositions (right/wrong, left/right, true/false, relative/absolute) is not universal (for instance, it isn't part of Eastern thought - and the Bible is a profoundly non-Western book). I've always suspected that trying to find a single theological viewpoint in the Bible is profoundly unhelpful, because the whole point is to lay down different viewpoints, different stories, different approaches to the truth, side by side. In philosophical/lingusitic terms, the Bible is a paratactic text, not a hypotactic text.

I haven't fully worked out my philosophy of language, and perhaps I never will. But I still maintain that what seems common sense to us now, doesn't neccessarily do so to a previous age or a future age. It was once common sense - so logical, nobody but a few "nutters" would bother to question it - that slavery was divinely ordained, that the earth was the centre of the solar system, that disease was caused by God's anger.

No scientists will have much truck with common sense. Why do you think that is? Because it is their job to question the obvious. The same is true of the Bible as it is of the world: the "obvious" meaning, the surface meaning, may be the least true meaning.[/SIZE]

Our theological, philosophical, etc, POV is totally irrelevant to what the meaning of scripture is. The writers were not writing poetry or prose trying to evoke an emotional response or feeling, but were attempting to pass along to us specific guidelines and commandments. Our uninspired scribblings, however exalted we may imagine they may be are absolutely irrelevant to the interpretation of scripture.

The question is how did the Jewish scholars interpret the scriptures from the time of Moses until the present day, ca. 3200 years +/-?

[Note: All upper case in this citation appears in the original]
Talmud -- Sanhedrin 54a

MISHNAH. HE WHO COMMITS SODOMY WITH A MALE OR A BEAST, AND A WOMAN THAT COMMITS BESTIALITY ARE STONED. . . . Our Rabbis taught: If a man lieth also with mankind, as the lyings of a woman,29 both of them have committed on abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them,]. . .

Sanhedrin 54b

This teaches the punishment: whence do we derive the formal prohibition? — From the verse, Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.1 . . . whence do we know a formal prohibition for the person who permits himself thus to be abused? — Scripture saith: There shall be no sodomite of the sons of Israel:2 and it is further said, . . .

Now, he who [actively] commits pederasty, and also [passively] permits himself to be thus abused — R. Abbahu said: On R. Ishmael's view, he is liable to two penalties, one [for the injunction] derived from thou shalt not lie with mankind, and the other for [violating the prohibition,] There shall not be a Sodomite of the sons of Israel. . . .

for there shall be no Sodomite applies to sodomy with mankind. [sup]13[/sup] . . .

<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Jewish Encyclopedia - Dog

The shamelessness of the dog in regard to sexual life gave rise to the name ("dog") for the class of priests in the service of Astarte who practised sodomy ("kedeshim," called also by the Greeks &#954;&#965;&#957;&#945;&#943;&#948;&#959;&#953;, Deut. xxiii. 19 [A. V. 18]; compare ib. 18 [17] and Rev. xxii. 15; see Driver ad loc.), . . .(see "C. I. S." i., No. 86).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=415&letter=D

Jewish Encyclopedia - Chastity

(e) The unnatural crimes against chastity, sodomy and pederasty, prevalent in heathendom, were strictly prohibited (Lev. xviii. 22, 23; xx. 13, 15, 16; Deut. xxvii. 21).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=386&letter=C

Jewish Encyclopedia - DIDACHE -

Dependence upon Jewish Custom.

2: "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Ex. xx. 14). (This includes: "Thou shalt not commit sodomy nor fornication.") "Thou shalt not steal" (Ex. xx. 15). . . .

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=341&letter=D

Jewish Encyclopedia - Crime

In three cases the person on the point of committing a crime may be killed: where he pursues a neighbor in order to kill him; where he pursues a male to commit sodomy;

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=301&letter=L

Jewish Encyclopedia - The 613 Commandments,: 3347-53.

Adultery, sodomy, etc. Lev. Xviii. 7, 14, 20, 22, 23.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=689&letter=C​

"We Can't Legitimate Homosexuality Halkhically" (USCJ Review, Spring 2004): Joel Roth

The two verses in the book of (Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) which deal with homosexuality are really quite clear, despite the efforts of some to call their clarity into question. (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 absolutely forbid homosexual intercourse between males. The Rabbis, in the Sifra (Aharei Mot 9:8), also understand the Torah to forbid lesbianism. The Torah’s prohibitions, let it be clear, are against actions, like male homosexual intercourse, not against fantasies or attractions.

The Torah and the Rabbis do not distinguish between types of homosexuals in any way... The Rabbis were well able to conceive of monogamous and loving relationships between members of the same sex, and I quote in my paper the texts that prove this beyond reasonable question. But their words cannot possibly be read to imply that such monogamous or loving gay relationships are in a different halakhic [Jewish legal] category than any other relationships between members of the same sex. The prohibition is clear and total.”​

http://www.uscj.org/POINTRoth6331.html

Naomi Grossman, freelance journalist, states in her April 2001 article in Moment Magazine, "The Gay Orthodox Undergound":

"The Torah strictly forbids homosexual sex, and rabbis have consistently upheld that prohibition through the ages... The prohibition against homosexual sex comes from Leviticus: 'Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence' (18:22). In biblical times, the punishment for violating that code was clear. 'If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death -— their bloodguilt is upon them' (Leviticus 20:13). The Talmud extends the prohibition to lesbian sex [Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 21:8]."

Official Orthodoxy makes no distinction between the sex act, which the Torah flatly prohibits, and homosexuality as a sexual identity. "Homosexuality is not a state of being in traditional Judaism; it's an act," Freundel says. "Desires are … not relevant."​

http://members.aol.com/gayjews/moment.html​

 

[angelgabrielle1973]

David and Jonathan were not homosexuals.

David was a warrior, shed so much blood but yet he was a man after God's own heart. He also had a sensitive side and demonstrated that with his friendship with Jonathan. They did make a promise to be kept between each other and their descendants forever. 1 Samuel 20:42. This promise included their descendants meaning they would have to have wives first in order to have offspring.

 

[UberLutheran]

Yes, definitely.

An intimate relationship which included sex is between David and Jonathan is the only possible legitimate interpretation of the text, even going back to the Hebrew and translating the story phrase by phrase.

Any other interpretation is deliberate eisegesis and trying to get the story to "fit" a conservative, fundamentalist agenda.

 

[savedandhappy1]

Lets see first we hear that the reason their is no mention of homosexual couples in the Bible is because they didn't realize that you could have a committed relationship like that back then.

Then we hear that David and Johnathan were homosexual, and had a loving relationship.

I guess we just have to use whichever one someone buys, and if the first one doesn't work we fall back on the other one.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Yes, definitely.

An intimate relationship which included sex is between David and Jonathan is the only possible legitimate interpretation of the text, even going back to the Hebrew and translating the story phrase by phrase.

Any other interpretation is deliberate eisegesis and trying to get the story to "fit" a conservative, fundamentalist agenda.[/SIZE]

Then I guess the Jewish scholars from the time of Moses were conservative, fundamentalist. Evidence posted on previous page but ignored while homosexuals post their phony, self serving, unsupported assumptions and presuppositions.

The eisegesis are the false accusations that David and Jonathan were homosexual.

I agree with the post above, the homosexual argument is that the ancient Jews and early Christians could not conceive of a so-called loving, monogamous same sex relationship, while out of the other side of their mouths, claiming that the entire story of Jonathan and David supposedly describes just such a relationship.

So which is guys, does the story of David and Jonathan describe a a so-called loving, monogamous same sex relationship or did the ancient Jews not know anything about such a relationship?

Der Über Älter (Ich bin der grösste)

 

[brightmorningstar]

Well they had a bond, but from the outset it was spiritual; I cant see the point of the writer saying it was spiritual and then us looking at the subsequent passgaes in terms of physical.
One thing is for sure, it couldn't have been marriage as there is no record of that being understood in thse times for the Hebrews.
But of course we do know that David was kind of more a rampant heterosexual.

 

[Ave Maria]

It is very much possible that David and Johnathon had a gay relationship.

 

[artybloke]

Our theological, philosophical, etc, POV is totally irrelevant to what the meaning of scripture is. The writers were not writing poetry or prose trying to evoke an emotional response or feeling, but were attempting to pass along to us specific guidelines and commandments.

Well, some of them were certainly. Paul was trying to guide the early church, but the authors of the historical books were - well, trying to tell us the stories of the history of Isreal. Which, of course, includes the story of David and Johnathons' gay relationship.

And the prophets were - through poetry and highly colourful language - attempting to warn the kings of Isreal of the consequences of their actions. The wisdom writers were trying to pass on recieved wisdom - again to the people of Isreal - again using very symbolic language. The psalmists were - well - trying to evoke feeling and emotion - particularly those of praise, hope and devotion, but also expressing rage, anger, despair. They were certainly not trying to pass on commandments.

The only books that could unequivocally be said to be passing on commandments would be the books of the law. Which we, as Christians, are no longer under, being now freely under the love of Christ.

Actually, one could say that none of the Bible was specifically written for 21st century people. They were written for the people to whom they were addressed: either the churches or the nation of Isreal. Only by analogy and by extension can they be said to be "for us."

The Bible is not a users' manual or a book of instructions.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Well, some of them were certainly. Paul was trying to guide the early church, but the authors of the historical books were - well, trying to tell us the stories of the history of Isreal. Which, of course, includes the story of David and Johnathons' gay relationship.[/SIZE] . .

There was NO gay relationship between Jonathan and David. I have already posted the evidence from the Talmud. This is a big LIE concocted by anti-Bible homosexuals trying to legitimize what is clearly condemned by the Word of God, and so interpreted by the Jews from the time of Moses to the present.

If you think any passage indicates David was a homosexual cite the passage and I will give you the Jewish interpretation. When you are proven wrong I wonder if you will have the integrity to admit you don't know what you are talking about?

So here is your chance, back it up or pack it up.

 

[artybloke]

I have already posted the evidence from the Talmud.

Of what relevance is a book of writings compiled many centuries after the story of David & Johnathan was written down, by people who had no access to modern historiography and had their own axes to grind?