Lessons from the Bible

[giblets]

You've been a huge ******* in this thread. Don't lecture me.

[giblets]

[12] Saul was afraid of David, because the LORD was with him but had departed from Saul.
[13] So Saul removed him from his presence, and made him a commander of a thousand; and he went out and came in before the people.

1 Samuel 18:12-13

"I'm afraid of you... here, have an army!"

[giblets]

[1]Then David fled from Nai'oth in Ramah, and came and said before Jonathan, "What have I done? What is my guilt? And what is my sin before your father, that he seeks my life?"
[2] And he said to him, "Far from it! You shall not die. Behold, my father does nothing either great or small without disclosing it to me; and why should my father hide this from me? It is not so."
[3] But David replied, "Your father knows well that I have found favor in your eyes; and he thinks, `Let not Jonathan know this, lest he be grieved.' But truly, as the LORD lives and as your soul lives, there is but a step between me and death."
[4] Then said Jonathan to David, "Whatever you say, I will do for you."
[5] David said to Jonathan, "Behold, tomorrow is the new moon, and I should not fail to sit at table with the king; but let me go, that I may hide myself in the field till the third day at evening.
[6] If your father misses me at all, then say, `David earnestly asked leave of me to run to Bethlehem his city; for there is a yearly sacrifice there for all the family.'
[7] If he says, `Good!' it will be well with your servant; but if he is angry, then know that evil is determined by him.
[8] Therefore deal kindly with your servant, for you have brought your servant into a sacred covenant with you. But if there is guilt in me, slay me yourself; for why should you bring me to your father?"
[9] And Jonathan said, "Far be it from you! If I knew that it was determined by my father that evil should come upon you, would I not tell you?"
[10] Then said David to Jonathan, "Who will tell me if your father answers you roughly?"
[11] And Jonathan said to David, "Come, let us go out into the field." So they both went out into the field.
[12]And Jonathan said to David, "The LORD, the God of Israel, be witness! When I have sounded my father, about this time tomorrow, or the third day, behold, if he is well disposed toward David, shall I not then send and disclose it to you?
[13] But should it please my father to do you harm, the LORD do so to Jonathan, and more also, if I do not disclose it to you, and send you away, that you may go in safety. May the LORD be with you, as he has been with my father.
[14] If I am still alive, show me the loyal love of the LORD, that I may not die;
[15] and do not cut off your loyalty from my house for ever. When the LORD cuts off every one of the enemies of David from the face of the earth,
[16] let not the name of Jonathan be cut off from the house of David. And may the LORD take vengeance on David's enemies."
[17] And Jonathan made David swear again by his love for him; for he loved him as he loved his own soul.
[18]Then Jonathan said to him, "Tomorrow is the new moon; and you will be missed, because your seat will be empty.
[19] And on the third day you will be greatly missed; then go to the place where you hid yourself when the matter was in hand, and remain beside yonder stone heap.
[20] And I will shoot three arrows to the side of it, as though I shot at a mark.
[21] And behold, I will send the lad, saying, `Go, find the arrows.' If I say to the lad, `Look, the arrows are on this side of you, take them,' then you are to come, for, as the LORD lives, it is safe for you and there is no danger.
[22] But if I say to the youth, `Look, the arrows are beyond you,' then go; for the LORD has sent you away.
[23] And as for the matter of which you and I have spoken, behold, the LORD is between you and me for ever."
[24]So David hid himself in the field; and when the new moon came, the king sat down to eat food.
[25] The king sat upon his seat, as at other times, upon the seat by the wall; Jonathan sat opposite, and Abner sat by Saul's side, but David's place was empty.
[26]Yet Saul did not say anything that day; for he thought, "Something has befallen him; he is not clean, surely he is not clean."
[27] But on the second day, the morrow after the new moon, David's place was empty. And Saul said to Jonathan his son, "Why has not the son of Jesse come to the meal, either yesterday or today?"
[28] Jonathan answered Saul, "David earnestly asked leave of me to go to Bethlehem;
[29] he said, `Let me go; for our family holds a sacrifice in the city, and my brother has commanded me to be there. So now, if I have found favor in your eyes, let me get away, and see my brothers.' For this reason he has not come to the king's table."
[30]Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said to him, "You son of a perverse, rebellious woman, do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother's nakedness?
[31] For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established. Therefore send and fetch him to me, for he shall surely die."
[32] Then Jonathan answered Saul his father, "Why should he be put to death? What has he done?"
[33] But Saul cast his spear at him to smite him; so Jonathan knew that his father was determined to put David to death.
[34] And Jonathan rose from the table in fierce anger and ate no food the second day of the month, for he was grieved for David, because his father had disgraced him.
[35]In the morning Jonathan went out into the field to the appointment with David, and with him a little lad.
[36] And he said to his lad, "Run and find the arrows which I shoot." As the lad ran, he shot an arrow beyond him.
[37] And when the lad came to the place of the arrow which Jonathan had shot, Jonathan called after the lad and said, "Is not the arrow beyond you?"
[38] And Jonathan called after the lad, "Hurry, make haste, stay not." So Jonathan's lad gathered up the arrows, and came to his master.
[39] But the lad knew nothing; only Jonathan and David knew the matter.
[40] And Jonathan gave his weapons to his lad, and said to him, "Go and carry them to the city."
[41] And as soon as the lad had gone, David rose from beside the stone heap and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed three times; and they kissed one another, and wept with one another, until David recovered himself.
[42] Then Jonathan said to David, "Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, `The LORD shall be between me and you, and between my descendants and your descendants, for ever.'" And he rose and departed; and Jonathan went into the city.

1 Samuel 20

I've said this before, but David and Jonathan are clearly gay.

[giblets]

[4] And the priest answered David, "I have no common bread at hand, but there is holy bread; if only the young men have kept themselves from women."
[5] And David answered the priest, "Of a truth women have been kept from us as always when I go on an expedition; the vessels of the young men are holy, even when it is a common journey; how much more today will their vessels be holy?"

1 Samuel 21:4-5

He probably didn't have much difficulty keeping away from women.

[Al B. Sure!]

What is this? gribbler's first reading of the bible?


This is already a topic explored to death:

http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Were_David_and_Jonathan_Homosexual_Lovers

A Variety Of Opinions Today
It’s important to remember that throughout the centuries, both Jews and Christians have interpreted the relationship between David and Jonathan as a heterosexual friendship, although obviously a deep and sincere one. You won’t have a hard time finding early scholarship on this issue. It abounds in the collections of theologians and scholars throughout history. And while recent cultural developments have certainly begun to influence the way that people read the text, the vast majority of believers, scholars and theologians still interpret the text in the traditional way. In addition to the literally thousands of teachers, professors and church leaders, here are just a few examples from published scholarly works:

Robert Pfeiffer (1948)
Wrote that the relationship between David and Jonathan was “intense and sincere, but nonetheless virile [i.e. manly, and not homosexual],”

David Payne (1970)
Wrote that Jonathan’s feelings are (simply) an “admiration and respect for David.”

J.A. Thompson (The Significance of the Verb Love in the David-Jonathan Narratives in 1 Samuel, 1974)
Wrote that the connection between David and Jonathan was “the kind of attachment people had to a king who could fight their battles for them.”

Stan Rummel (Clothes Make the Man – An Insight from Ancient Ugarit, 1976)
Wrote that Jonathan’s giving of his robe and weapons to David in the covenant was simply a political symbol for handing the throne over to him. There was no sexual meaning.

Rabbi Israel Weisfeld (1983)
Wrote that David and Jonathan’s relationship is simply “classic description of genuine unselfish love”

Jerry Landay (David: Power, Lust and Betrayal in Biblical Times, 1998)
Wrote “The friendship of Jonathan and David was the embodiment of the sheer love of man for man, an intimacy based on shared experiences and dangers, … a kind of intuitive trust that transcends the taint of ambition, jealousy or the claim of sex.”

But after Alfred Kinsey published his famous book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male in 1948, a few writers began to take a second look at the relationship between David and Jonathan. While still much in the minority, these writers have been able to influence the way that some people read and interpret the text:

David Mace (Hebrew Marriage, 1953)
Wrote that the relationship was an example of “the comparatively harmless homosexual attachments of adolescence”

George Henry (1955)
Wrote that David and Jonathan were homosexual lovers, although he apparently realized that te Biblical evidence of later wives and children speaks against this possibility, so he maintained that their homosexuality was only a passing phase

Raphael Patai (Family, Love and the Bible, 1960)
Wrote that “The love story between Jonathan the son of King Saul, and David the beautiful young hero, must have been duplicated many times in royal courts in all parts of the Middle East and in all periods”

Tom Horner (Jonathan Loved David, 1978)
Wrote that the story of David and Jonathan was simply a retelling of the homosexual relationship between Gilgamesh, king of Uruk, and Enkidu, his close companion.

Gary Comstock (Gay Theology Without Apology, 1993)
Wrote that anti-homosexual social pressures caused Samuel to write the text in a way that concealed the homosexual truth of the relationship.

David Jobling (1 Samuel, 1998)
Wrote that “Nothing in the text rules out, and much encourages the view that David and Jonathan had a consummated gay relationship. The text does not force this conclusion on us; there are obvious cultural reasons why it would not. But it is at least as valid as any other.”

Jonathan Kirsch (King David: The Real Life of the Man Who Ruled Israel, 2000)
Wrote that “something more heartfelt and more carnal may have characterized the love of David and Jonathan, even if the Bible dares not speak its name. … Much effort has been expended in explaining away David’s declaration of love for Jonathan, a declaration that suggests an undeniable homoerotic subtext.”

It’s important to see here that no serious or expansive effort to describe David and Jonathan as homosexuals was made prior to Kinsey’s impact on our culture. As our culture changed, we simply changed the way we looked at the ancient text, even though the traditional interpretation of the text taught no such truth. Think about that for a minute. From the time that the text was originally written, when its readers were far closer to the action than we are today, the text was seen as a description of a deep heterosexual relationship between two men. Only recently has this been seen in a different way. There are only two possibilities here. One, that there was a biased which suppressed the truth for thousands of years, or two, that there is a new bias which is reinterpreting the truth. Now to be fair, there have even been a few recent writers who have tried to stay neutral on this topic:

J.P. Fokkelman (Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, Volume 2, 1986)
Wrote that “The love of Jonathan does not have to be nailed to the mast of a late capitalist liberation front whose members, after centuries of sinister suppression of homosexuals, wish to designate homosexual love the highest form of humanity. It would be even less sound to assure us in suspiciously strong tones that Jonathan and David were most definitely not gay.”

So How Did David Really “Love” Jonathan?
Is it possible that David and Jonathan could express love toward each other, even swear an oath and enter into a covenant, without being homosexuals? Well, let’s begin by looking at the issue of the love they felt for each other. The David’s love for Jonathan is displayed in the Biblical text the very first time that Jonathan meets David (immediately following David’s defeat of Goliath and as he is presented to King Saul)

1 Samuel 18:1-3
Now it came about when he had finished speaking to Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as himself. And Saul took him that day and did not let him return to his father's house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself.

Jonathan also makes a covenant with David:

1 Samuel 20:16-17
So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, "May the LORD require it at the hands of David's enemies." And Jonathan made David vow again because of his love for him, because he loved him as he loved his own life.

And later, when Jonathan is killed, David laments his loss with these words:

2 Samuel 1:25-26
“How have the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! Jonathan is slain on your high places. I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful than the love of women.”

Two Hebrew words are used here to describe the emotion of LOVE in these passages. The first is 'ahab (aw-hab') or 'aheb (aw-habe'), and it can definitely be used to describe a sexual relationship between a man and a wife. The second word is 'ahabah (a-hab-aw), and this two can be used to describe a similar marital love. But in the 247 times that these words are used to describe love in the Old Testament, far less than 20% of the time are they actually used to describe the love between two sexual partners. Far more often, (over 4 to 1) the words are used to describe the love between friends or between God and his creation. Here are just a few examples:

Genesis 27:8-9
Now therefore, my son, listen to me as I command you. Go now to the flock and bring me two choice kids from there, that I may prepare them as a savory dish for your father, such as he loves.

Genesis 37:3
Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons, because he was the son of his old age; and he made him a varicolored tunic.

Deuteronomy 11:1
You shall therefore love the LORD your God, and always keep His charge, His statutes, His ordinances, and His commandments.

1 Samuel 18:16
But all Israel and Judah loved David, and he went out and came in before them.

1 Kings 10:9
Blessed be the LORD your God who delighted in you to set you on the throne of Israel; because the LORD loved Israel forever, therefore He made you king, to do justice and righteousness."

Jeremiah 31:3
The LORD appeared to him from afar, saying, “I have loved you with an everlasting love; Therefore I have drawn you with lovingkindness.”

Micah 6:8
He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

In these passages, it is obvious that the word used for love is NOT meant to connote a sexual relationship. Now it is clear with David and Jonathan that there is NO Biblical account of a sexual relationship. That is interesting in itself. If they were homosexual lovers, why is there no open description of this fact? Some (as we’ve seen above) would argue that the social pressures forced the writer to hide the truth. But there are open discussions of homosexual activity in other places in the Bible, why not here. Part of the problem is that in those other areas of the Bible where homosexual behavior is openly discusses, it is ALWAYS in a negative sense (as something we SHOULDN’T do). If Samuel is cleverly hiding the homosexual behavior between David and Jonathan here, he is doing so as a prophet of God, knowing full well that such behavior is offensive to God! Does that seems consistent with the canon of Old Testament scripture? So how is it then, that David and Jonathan’s love was deeper than that of a man and woman? Well, these two men were certainly connected as brothers, in fact, they were brothers-in-arms during war. If any of you ever had the chance to talk to two friends who fought side by side in World War 2 (just watch “Band of Brothers”) you know that the love between men in a situation like that is deeper in some ways than the love between a man and a woman. Is this not also a possible reading of the text here? And is this reading not more compatible with the other clear teaching of the Bible and the historic accepted traditional understanding to the relationship between David and Jonathan?

So Why Did They Kiss?
Now there is more for us to consider. Some have pointed to the kiss between David and Jonathan to argue that they were homosexual lovers:

1 Samuel 20:41
When the lad was gone, David rose from the south side and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed three times. And they kissed each other and wept together, but David more.

In this passage, Jonathan is sending David away because he knows that his father (King Saul) is trying to kill David. Jonathan knows that he may never see his dear friend again. So he kisses David. The Hebrew word used for this kiss is nashaq (naw-shak') and it is used 35 times in the Old Testament and in only 4 of these uses is the word used to describe a sexual or romantic kiss. Over and over again, the word is used to describe the cultural greeting of the time:

Genesis 29:13
So it came about, when Laban heard the news of Jacob his sister's son, that he ran to meet him, and embraced him and kissed him, and brought him to his house.

Genesis 33:4
Then Esau ran to meet him (Jacob) and embraced him, and fell on his neck and kissed him, and they wept.

1 Samuel 10:1
Then Samuel took the flask of oil, poured it on his (Saul’s) head, kissed him and said, "Has not the LORD anointed you a ruler over His inheritance?

2 Samuel 19:38-39
All the people crossed over the Jordan and the king crossed too. The king then kissed Barzillai and blessed him, and he returned to his place.

The kiss between David and Jonathan, when seen accurately in the majority context and used of the Hebrew word, does nothing to advance the notion that they were homosexuals. Even today, we see that men in the middles east continue to greet and interact with each other, utilizing a kiss to express their friendship or commitment to one another without a homosexual relationship.

So Why Did He Take His Clothes Off?
Another claim on the part of revisionists is that Jonathan disrobed in front of David in some sort of sexual way or as some sort of sexual display or commitment:

1 Samuel 18:2-5
Then Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, with his armor, including his sword and his bow and his belt. So David went out wherever Saul sent him, and prospered; and Saul set him over the men of war. And it was pleasing in the sight of all the people and also in the sight of Saul's servants.

Sometimes we are careful to note what is SAID in a passage without thinking much about what is NOT SAID. You’ll notice here that the passage does NOT say that Jonathan stripped completely in front of David. In addition, the passage says NOTHING about any sexual activity or even a kiss or an embrace or ANYTHING that would lead us to believe that there is a sexual component in the passage! Now many homosexuals would like us to believe that when Jonathan gave his weaponry to David, he was actually surrendering the symbols of his manhood, but let’s be honest with the passage. Here is how historical and tradition commentators have discussed the passage:

Adam Clarke's Commentary
Presents of clothes or rich robes, in token of respect and friendship, are frequent in the East. And how frequently arms and clothing were presented by warriors to each other in token of friendship, may be seen in Homer and other ancient writers.

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary
To receive any part of the dress which had been worn by a sovereign, or Iris oldest son and heir, is deemed in the East the highest honour which can be conferred on a subject. The girdle, being connected with the sword and the bow, may be considered as being part of the military dress, and great value is attached to it in the East.

Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
As a sign and pledge of his friendship, Jonathan gave David his clothes and his armour. Meil, the upper coat or cloak. Maddim is probably the armour coat.. This is implied in the word wª`ad (OT:5704), which is repeated three times, and by which the different arms were attached more closely to madaayw (OT:4055). For the act itself, compare the exchange of armour made by Glaucus and Diomedes (Hom. Il. vi. 230). This seems to have been a common custom in very ancient times, as we meet with it also among the early Celts (see Macpherson's Ossian).

Reading from the context of the culture, 1 Samuel 18:3-5 actually describes a covenant of brotherhood between Jonathan and David, as Jonathan pays high tribute to the man who just killed Goliath and had earned the right to wear the armor. This hardly proves that the two men were homosexual lovers.

But Does It Look Like a Marriage?
Those who would interpret David and Jonathan’s relationship in a homoerotic sense also point to scripture to make the case that Jonathan and David considered themselves to be married in some way. Look at this passage describing Saul’s reaction when he discovered that Jonathan was ultimately siding with David:

1 Samuel 20:30-31
Then Saul's anger burned against Jonathan and he said to him, "You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you are choosing the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother's nakedness? "For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be established. Therefore now, send and bring him to me, for he must surely die."

Advocates of a homosexual reading of this passage will sometimes point to the description of "nakedness" in this verse and claim that it is referring to a sexual relationship. The inference here is that the context implies that Jonathan somehow chose David sexually (as a homosexual partner). This interpretation then goes on to claim that Saul is upset because Jonathan could not be established as king unless and until he had a female partner with which to bear children who could become heirs to the throne.

But let’s be honest about the passage. Who is described as naked? It’s Jonathan’s mother! There is nothing in the passage that describes a sexual relationship between the two men. In fact, this passage says nothing about ANY type of marriage. Saul is upset about one thing: Jonathan took David’s side against Saul! Jonathan and David were sworn to each other as brothers, and Saul was simply MAD that Jonathan would treat David more like family than his own father.

So Why Does He Say David Is A Son-In-Law Twice?
But there is another passage of Scripture that is sometimes used to make the case for a homosexual union between Jonathan and David. It is a curious passage that seems to indicate that David had TWO opportunities to become Saul’s son-in-law. Let’s begin with a peak at the passage in question, presented in a partial way, as it is often presented by homosexual advocates:

1 Samuel 18:17,21
Then Saul said to David, "Here is my older daughter Merab; I will give her to you as a wife, only be a valiant man for me and fight the Lord's battles."… And Saul thought, "I will give her to him that she may become a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him." Therefore Saul said to David, "For a second time you may be my son-in-law today."

Those who hope to interpret a homosexual relationship here maintain that Saul has offered David a second opportunity to be his son-in-law because the first opportunity for David was realized through Jonathan! They would argue that David’s union with Jonathan makes him Saul’s son-in-law, even before David’s marriage to Merab, Saul’s daughter. But let’s take a deeper look at the situation. Before we can truly assess what would make David Saul’s son-in-law in the first place, we had better look at the issue of ‘betrothal’ in the ancient world. In Biblical times, the moment a woman was ‘betrothed’ to a man (pledged or promised to be married to him), she was considered married to him, even though she was not yet formally united to the man in a ceremony. For this reason, a woman who was betrothed to someone and slept with another man was considered to be an adulteress! That’s right, you could commit adultery even BEFORE you were officially married! If a woman wanted to break a betrothal, something similar to a divorce would have to occur.

Once we understand this historic truth, many other passages of scripture start to make sense. Take a look at this passage from Deuteronomy:

Deuteronomy 22:23-24
If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor's wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.

Clearly in this law written for Israel, an engaged girl is described as a wife, even before she is officially married! In addition to this, we are all familiar with this part of the nativity story:

Matthew 1:19-20
Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.”

Joseph thinks about DIVORCING Mary for what he thinks she has done. How can he do this when they aren’t even married yet? Because, (once again) this engaged woman was considered married to her betrothed, even before the official ceremony. OK, now let’s take a look at the situation with David and Merab one more time. As it turns out, David had already been betrothed to Merab! This occurred the moment he defeated Goliath. Read it in the scripture:

1 Samuel 17:22-25
Then David left his baggage in the care of the baggage keeper, and ran to the battle line and entered in order to greet his brothers. As he was talking with them, behold, the champion, the Philistine from Gath named Goliath, was coming up from the army of the Philistines, and he spoke these same words; and David heard them. When all the men of Israel saw the man, they fled from him and were greatly afraid. And the men of Israel said, "Have you seen this man who is coming up? Surely he is coming up to defy Israel. And it will be that the king will enrich the man who kills him with great riches and will give him his daughter and make his father's house free in Israel."

Since David was the man who killed Goliath, he is the man to whom Merab was pledged. At this moment, David became Saul’s son-in-law; at the very moment that David defeated Goliath. This is the FIRST time that David became Saul’s son-in-law. So why does Saul say that marrying Merab will then be David’s second opportunity to be Saul’s son-in-law in 1 Samuel 18:21? TO understand this, we are now going to need to read the entire passage from Samuel:

1 Samuel 18:17-21
Then Saul said to David, "Here is my older daughter Merab; I will give her to you as a wife, only be a valiant man for me and fight the Lord's battles." For Saul thought, "My hand shall not be against him, but let the hand of the Philistines be against him." But David said to Saul, "Who am I, and what is my life or my father's family in Israel, that I should be the king's son-in-law?" So it came about at the time when Merab, Saul's daughter, should have been given to David, that she was given to Adriel the Meholathite for a wife. Now Michal, Saul's daughter, loved David. When they told Saul, the thing was agreeable to him. And Saul thought, "I will give her to him that she may become a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him." Therefore Saul said to David, "For a second time you may be my son-in-law today."

This is the key to the comment that Saul makes in verse 21. Although Saul had already betrothed his daughter to David as a result of his killing of Goliath, Saul conveniently ignored this betrothal when he instead promised Merab to Adriel the Meholathite! Look at what traditional commentaries have to say about this:

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary
Saul said to David, Behold my elder daughter Merab, her will I give thee to wife --Though bound to this already [1 Samuel 17:25], he had found it convenient to forget his former promise. He now holds it out as a new offer, which would tempt David to give additional proofs of his valor. But the fickle and perfidious monarch broke his pledge at the time when the marriage was on the eve of being celebrated, and bestowed Merab on another man; an indignity as well as a wrong, which was calculated deeply to wound the feelings and provoke the resentment of David. Perhaps it was intended to do so, that advantage might be taken of his indiscretion. But David was preserved from this snare.

Now Saul’s comment in verse 21 makes sense. Saul had betrothed Merab to David TWICE! Once when he defeated Goliath and once here in the passages that precede verse 21.

So Were They Homosexuals?
In order to believe that David and Jonathan were homosexual lovers, you are going to have to ignore the plain reading of the scripture and the historic and traditional understanding of the text. In addition, you are going to have to believe that Samuel, one of God’s prophets in the tradition of the Mosiac cultural law that condemns homosexuality in Leviticus, would then approve of this homosexual relationship enough to carefully cloak it in the text. Would not this prophet of God, in the strong tradition of Judaism and the law of Moses have an opinion on this?

Hopefully this very brief review of the texts under consideration will help you to understand the orthodox Christian perspective of David and Jonathan’s relationship. David and Jonathan were the deepest of friends. True brothers in both Cause and Faith. But they were nothing more

[giblets]

How the heck did Saul die? Did he fall on his sword (1 Samuel 31:4-6) or did an Amalekite kill him? (2 Samuel 1:8-10)

[giblets]

The more older brothers a man has, the more likely it is that he will be gay. David had seven older brothers.

[Al B. Sure!]

How the heck did Saul die? Did he fall on his sword (1 Samuel 31:4-6) or did an Amalekite kill him? (2 Samuel 1:8-10)

Read 2 Samuel 1 again. The Amalekite is telling David a story...

5And David said unto the young man that told him, How knowest thou that Saul and Jonathan his son be dead?

6And the young man that told him said, As I happened by chance upon mount Gilboa, behold, Saul leaned upon his spear; and, lo, the chariots and horsemen followed hard after him.

7And when he looked behind him, he saw me, and called unto me. And I answered, Here am I.

8And he said unto me, Who art thou? And I answered him, I am an Amalekite.

9He said unto me again, Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me: for anguish is come upon me, because my life is yet whole in me.

10So I stood upon him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen: and I took the crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them hither unto my lord.

One, it's just his account of events and its veracity might not be confirmed. Secondly, it says that he slew him "because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen" and Saul asked him to finish the job. Falling on your sword (or spear; it says spear here) wouldn't be an instantaneous death.

I imagine something more like Japanese seppuku happened here... stabbing yourself in the gut but then followed by a swift beheading. The Amalekite walked in to a dying Saul and finished him off.

Absolutely no inconsistency here.

[giblets]

What is this? gribbler's first reading of the bible?


This is already a topic explored to death:

http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/inde...osexual_Lovers

Yeah, you're too lazy to do anything but cut and paste.

[DinoDoc]

In his defense, this was a boring thread to begin with.

[Al B. Sure!]

Yeah, you're too lazy to do anything but cut and paste.

Huh? You're cutting and pasting Bible quotes. What the ****?

I felt no need to do anything but copy and paste because what I quoted said it ****ing all. Yo that lengthy quote just shows how much the Jonathon/David gay thing has been done to death and how it's already in the public consciousness. It's also from some Christian source so it responds to the idea that he was gay by saying that it was a very strong relationship but there's no indication they had sexual relations.


I'm thinking you're really a Christian and are doing some retarded reverse troll.

[Al B. Sure!]

Here, you want some more, *******?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_Jonathan

Homoeroticism
Some modern scholars and writers have interpreted the love between David and Jonathan as more intimate than platonic friendship. This was first pioneered by Horner, then rehearsed by Boswell and Halperin.[24][25] This interpretation views the bonds the men shared as romantic love, regardless of whether or not the relationship was physically consummated. Jonathan and David cared deeply about each other in a way that was arguably more tender and intimate than a platonic friendship.
David's praise in 2 Samuel 1:26 for Jonathan's 'love' (for him) over the 'love' of women is considered evidence for same-sex attraction, along with Saul's exclamation to his son at the dinner table, "I know you have chosen the son of Jesse - which is a disgrace to yourself and the nakedness of your mother!" The "choosing" (bahar) may indicate a permanent choice and firm relationship, and the mention of "nakedness" (erwa) could be interpreted to convey a negative sexual nuance, giving the impression that Saul saw something indecent in Jonathan's and David's relationship.[26]
Some also point out that the relationship between the two men is addressed with the same words and emphasis as other love relationships in the Hebrew Testament, whether heterosexual or between God and people: e.g. 'ahava' or אהבה.[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]
When they are alone together, David confides that he has "found grace in Jonathan's eyes", a phrase proponents say normally refers to romantic or physical attraction. Throughout the passages, David and Jonathan consistently affirm and reaffirm their love and devotion to each other, and Jonathan is willing to betray his father, family, wealth, and traditions for David.
That there is more than mere homosociality in the dealings of David and Jonathan is asserted by two recent studies: the Biblical scholar Susan Ackerman,[35] and the Orientalist Jean-Fabrice Nardelli.[36] Ackerman and Nardelli argue that the narrators of the books of Samuel encrypted same-sex allusions in the texts where David and Jonathan interact so as to insinuate that the two heroes were lovers. Ackerman explains this as a case of liminal, viz. transitory, homosexuality, deployed by the redactors as a textual means to assert David's rights against Jonathan's: the latter willingly alienated his princely status by bowing down, sexually speaking, to the former. Nardelli disagrees and argues that the various covenants Jonathan engaged David into as the superior partner gradually elevated David's status and may be seen as marriage-like.
Susan Ackerman also believes that there is highly eroticized language present in six different sections in the Hebrew Bible in regards to the relationship of David and Jonathan.[37] The six sections she mentions are 1) David and Jonathan's first meeting in 1 Sam. 18:1-18:4 2) the most important description of David and Jonathan's first few meetings in 1 Sam 19:1-19:7. 3) the incident of Saul berating Jonathan for his friendship with David in 1 Sam 20:30-20:34 4) David fleeing from the court of King Saul in 1 Sam. 20:1-20:42 5) the description of David and Jonathan's final meeting in 1 Sam. 23:15-23:18 and 6) David's lament (the Song of the Bow) for Saul and Jonathan. Of these six examples, Ackerman identifies the most important example being the last one (the Song of the Bow) due to David's assertion that Jonathan's love to David "was more wonderful than the love of women".[38]
Although David was married, David himself articulates a distinction between his relationship with Jonathan and the bonds he shares with women. David is married to many women, one of whom is Jonathan's sister Michal, but the Bible does not mention David loving Michal (though it is stated that Michal loves David).

Counter-arguments
Traditional religious apologists point out that neither the books of Samuel nor Jewish tradition documents sanctioned romantic or erotic physical intimacy between the two characters, which the Bible elsewhere makes evident when between heterosexuals, most supremely in the Song of Solomon. It is also known that covenants were common, and that the word is never used to denote marriage between man and women,[39] and that marriage was a public event and included customs not seen in this story.[40][41]
The platonic interpretation of David and Jonathan's relationship is seen as being advocated by some Christian writers particularly for theological and methodological reasons. Two modern advocates named are Robert A. J. Gagnon,[42] and the Assyriologist Markus Zehnder,[43] and as such is consistent with commonly held theological views condemning same sex relations.[44]
Those who hold to this position on David and Jonathan may work from the theological foundation of Biblical infallibility and a more literalistic approach to exegesis, so that while interpretations are understood within the context of their particular literary genres, a wide range of metaphorical meanings of the historical narratives, in particular, are disallowed.[45][46][47][48] The disrobing aspect is seen as partial (especially in the Hebrew), that of his robe and outer garments, his sword, bow and “girdle," which denotes part of a soldiers armor in 2Samuel 20:8 and 2Kings 3:21. In addition, this action is evidenced as having a clear ceremonial precedent under Moses, in which God commanded, "And strip Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son",[49] in transference of the office of the former upon the latter. In like manner, Jonathan would be symbolically and prophetically transferring the kingship of himself (as the normal heir) to David, which would come to pass.[50][51][52]
Even if the mention of "nakedness" in 1 Samuel 20:30 could be interpreted to convey a negative sexual nuance, this could be referring to Ahinoam rather than Jonathan. Jon Levenson and Baruch Halpern suggest that the phrase suggests "David's theft of Saul's wife", and that the verse supports the construction that Ahinoam, the wife of Saul is the same Ahinoam who became David's wife.[53]
In platonic respects, such as in sacrificial loyalty and zeal for the kingdom, Jonathan's love is seen as surpassing that of romantic or erotic affection,[54] especially that of the women David had known up until that time. The grammatical and social difficulties are pointed out in respect to 1 Samuel 18:21,[55] as well as the marked difference in the Bible between sensual kissing (as in Song of Songs) and the cultural kiss of Near Eastern culture whether in greeting or as expression of deep affection between friends and family (as found throughout the Old and New Testaments).[56] The strong emotive language expressed by David towards Jonathan is also argued to be akin to that of platonic expressions in more expressive or pre-urban cultures.[57]

There! Instead of you ****ing taking quotes, bolding lines, and being like "yeah. Seems pretty gay, right?" to what end I have no idea... there, there's a bunch of stuff people have said about it being gay and a bunch of stuff in response to that.


David and Jonathan in embrace, "La Somme le Roy", 1290 AD; French illuminated ms (detail); British Museum

[giblets]

I'm thinking you're really a Christian. I mean, you rush to defend the Bible just because someone thinks some of the characters are gay.

[Al B. Sure!]

You were the ******* who responded to me posting about Sino-German relations and Chiang Kai-Shek's son being a Wehrmacht officer with...

It's also well known. If you're going to act like a know-it-all you could at least take the effort to know something.

On the scale of well-known facts, Jonathon and David loving each other greatly and controversially in comparison to Chiang Kai-Shek's son being in the Wehrmacht is like the sky is blue to did you know that Brazil is the world leader in orange production?

EVERYBODY ****ing knows Jonathon and David at least seemed gay. This is a well-known thing that has been discussed and argued a lot for a long time.

[giblets]

Why are you bringing some old grudge of yours into this thread? Why can't you let anything go?