David, Jonathan, & "Homosexuality" in Samuel

[ahumbleservant]

A “gay” activist told me:

“Yahweh did look upon the covenant between David and Jonathan with approval. This is clearly a covenant of deep and committed love between two men, and it seems quite obvious that it had an erotic dimension to it.”

He was referring to 1 Samuel, chapters 18-20. I know there was no “homosexual” or “homo-erotic” relationship between the two of them. However, I would like to hear your thoughts on how to answer this claim.

How would you respond?

 

[123rock]

Slap the guy to awake the common sense portion of his brain.

 

[LilyM]

The same God who said in Leviticus 18:22 ‘you shall not lie with man as with womankind - it is an abomination’??? Is this person even reading the same Bible we are??

 

[ahumbleservant]

Hi LilyM:

With respect to Leviticus, this “gay Catholic” activist said,

“As for Leviticus (the second prohibition around 20 or so) - it says that the penalty for a man lying with a man id death by stoning - so if you truly believe this to be the immutable word of God, please come and stone us to death - or admit to your selective hypocrisy [that might be a bit harsh, but it is truly what I believe it to be].”

Now, I understand his prospective to be skewed by a number of biblical misunderstandings, ignorance, and lies. However, I am still looking for an exegesis and explanation of 1 Samuel to show why this is bad history, theology, biblical scholarship, and literary interpretation.

Do you know of any articles on the topic?

But for charity, I would take 123rock’s advice. Well, perhaps some cold water would do the trick.

 

[LilyM]

Hi LilyM:

With respect to Leviticus, this “gay Catholic” activist said,

“As for Leviticus (the second prohibition around 20 or so) - it says that the penalty for a man lying with a man id death by stoning - so if you truly believe this to be the immutable word of God, please come and stone us to death - or admit to your selective hypocrisy [that might be a bit harsh, but it is truly what I believe it to be].”

Now, I understand his prospective to be skewed by a number of biblical misunderstandings, ignorance, and lies. However, I am still looking for an exegesis and explanation of 1 Samuel to show why this is bad history, theology, biblical scholarship, and literary interpretation.

Do you know of any articles on the topic?

But for charity, I would take 123rock’s advice. Well, perhaps some cold water would do the trick.

OK, so your friend is hypocritical to believe murder should be against the criminal law - because in my country there’s no death penalty, not is there is in some countries, and indeed some states of the US. Whereas in other countries and other states of the US it DOES exist.

No crime (not murder, theft, or anything else) has had the same penalty invariably imposed for it - doesn’t mean the things beign punished aren’t crimes! Same goes for violations of God’s law.

 

[thistle]

A “gay” activist told me:

“Yahweh did look upon the covenant between David and Jonathan with approval. This is clearly a covenant of deep and committed love between two men, and it seems quite obvious that it had an erotic dimension to it.”

He was referring to 1 Samuel, chapters 18-20. I know there was no “homosexual” or “homo-erotic” relationship between the two of them. However, I would like to hear your thoughts on how to answer this claim.

How would you respond?

1 Cor: 9-10

Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; **neither **fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites
nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

 

[Benadam]

A “gay” activist told me:

“Yahweh did look upon the covenant between David and Jonathan with approval. This is clearly a covenant of deep and committed love between two men, and it seems quite obvious that it had an erotic dimension to it.”

He was referring to 1 Samuel, chapters 18-20. I know there was no “homosexual” or “homo-erotic” relationship between the two of them. However, I would like to hear your thoughts on how to answer this claim.

How would you respond?

I would ask him to provide the evidence that determined for him that the bond David and Jonathan experienced was sexual or even erotic. Note: Eros is not exclusively a sexual expression of love.

 

[porthos11]

I would ask him to provide the evidence that determined for him that the bond David and Jonathan experienced was sexual or even erotic. Note: Eros is not exclusively a sexual expression of love.

Well, if we consult the Greek Septuagint, the word “love” used there is “agape”, not “eros”. I don’t have my Hebrew reference on hand right now.

But it would seem that the love shared between these two men is the same love to which all Christians are called for each other.

So sorry, but there’s no scriptural support for these two warriors being gay.

Looks like there’s no contradition with Leviticus.

 

[Zenas]

It seems counterintuitive that David, who had many wives and the infamous tryst with Bathsheba, could have been homosexual.

 

[Cari]

I’ve heard this song before. It goes along with the “Sodom was demolished not for homosexuality, but for violations of hospitality” and the ever-popular “Jesus was gay, because it talks about the Beloved Disciple, since he put his head on Jesus’ breast at the Last Supper” songs and dances.

That said, I would respond with the quote (I forget who to attribute this to), “The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed”.

In other words, the repeated refrain of “he loved him as he loved himself” (repeated twice in 1 samuel 18 1-3) is an archtype of the sort of love that:

1. Jesus has for His Church
   and
2. We are called to have for one another.

Seriously, if this person is going to claim that loving another as you love yourself is code for “they were gay”, then he’s got less credibility than if he were going around claiming the Beloved Disciple were a homosexual.

edit- does he also claim that Saul was gay, as he “stripped himself of his garments and…remained in the prophetic state in the presence of Samuel; all that day and night he lay naked” (1 Samuel 19: 24)?
And as for erotic elements in the David and Jonathan story, I see one mention of anything vaguely sexual, and it was when they parted. If he’s going to read “sex” into every instance of kissing, then he needs to add Judas to his list of Biblical gay folk.

 

[Digger71]

He was referring to 1 Samuel, chapters 18-20. I know there was no “homosexual” or “homo-erotic” relationship between the two of them. ?

You were there?

 

[Digger71]

The same God who said in Leviticus 18:22 ‘you shall not lie with man as with womankind - it is an abomination’???

Surely that just means if you do A with women you must not do A with men.

It doesnt exclude all sexual activity, just what you do with women (if it did the ‘as with woman kind’ is both redundant and confusing).

For a man who hasnt ever had sex with a woman, surely it offers carte blanche for that man with men?

 

[Digger71]

1 Cor: 9-10

Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; **neither **fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites
nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Sodomites come from Sodom. I come from london…

Of course, all other uses of sodomite in the bible are translations of the word Quadesh, which means ‘holy one’, refering to pagan priests to Astarte and Mammon…

Hmmm, still no injunction against gay men who DONT worship mommon, or Astarte…

Still no injunction against David and Jonothan.

 

[Randy_Carson]

A “gay” activist told me:

“Yahweh did look upon the covenant between David and Jonathan with approval. This is clearly a covenant of deep and committed love between two men, and it seems quite obvious that it had an erotic dimension to it.”

He was referring to 1 Samuel, chapters 18-20. I know there was no “homosexual” or “homo-erotic” relationship between the two of them. However, I would like to hear your thoughts on how to answer this claim.

How would you respond?

Only someone whose view of “love” is completely warped can distort an example of filial love that is obviously pure this badly.

And John was the disciple that Jesus loved, right?

So, which is it? Was Jesus a homsexual who “loved” John or did he marry Mary Magdalene? Or was the latter just a cover for the former?

This is pathetic. :nope:

 

[Digger71]

Well, if we consult the Greek Septuagint, the word “love” used there is “agape”, not “eros”. I don’t have my Hebrew reference on hand right now.

But it would seem that the love shared between these two men is the same love to which all Christians are called for each other.

So sorry, but there’s no scriptural support for these two warriors being gay.

Looks like there’s no contradition with Leviticus.

Which is why Jonothan kissed him on the mouth, stripped in front of David (including his loin cloth, usually mistranslated as ‘girdle’), gave him his sword (the symbol of virility) and ‘bowed three times before him’ until david ‘exceeded’ (which is a translation of ‘gadel’ which means ‘to be large/to become great/to grow in length’

Hmmmm, that’s some church you go to.

Talking of leviticus…

. Jonothans Dad has an over-the-top reaction against david (described as ‘handsome and ruddy cheeked’) saying ‘Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse [David] to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother’s nakedness’" … hmmm, lots of leviticus in there.

very hmmmm, ‘confusion’ (sounds familiar) mother nakedness (sounds familair), etc, etc, etc,…

The homoerotic content in the story of david and jonathan is overwhelming, so over whelming, infact, that special arguments have to be made as to why it cant possible have been homoerotic.

 

[Digger71]

Only someone whose view of “love” is completely warped can distort an example of filial love that is obviously pure this badly.

I think the distortion is the other way around. J & D are so clerly homosexual lovers, even down to the fathers anger (and threats) and the references to the mothers nakedness (so leviticus), and the nakedness between the men, and the kissing, the ‘becoming large’, that one has to be positively perverse to interpret the story as ‘filial’ love.

In western countries at least, that sort of filial love would get you arrested.

And John was the disciple that Jesus loved, right?

Well…the argument is made, but it is a lot less convincing as the text is much less homoerotic.

If you are going to do comparisons try to make them straight comparisons.

So, which is it? Was Jesus a homsexual who “loved” John or did he marry Mary Magdalene? Or was the latter just a cover for the former?:

and gay men have never married to cover their sexuality? And bisexuals never exist? And bisexuals have never married a woman and had sex with other men…

Your final argument, while heartfelt, isnt an argument.

You do know that dont you?

 

[Cari]

Which is why Jonothan kissed him on the mouth, stripped in front of David (including his loin cloth, usually mistranslated as ‘girdle’), gave him his sword (the symbol of virility) and ‘bowed three times before him’ until david ‘exceeded’ (which is a translation of ‘gadel’ which means ‘to be large/to become great/to grow in length’

Wow- that’s some Bible you’re reading. Here’s what mine (NAB) says:

1* Samuel 18:3-4: And Jonathan entered into a bond with David, because he loved him as himself. Jonathan divested himself of the mantle he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his military dress, and his sword, his bow and his belt.*

Hmmmm…no kissing or bowing there…unless you’re referring to

1 Samuel 20:41: When the boy had left, David rose from beside the mound and prostrated himself on the ground three times before Jonathan in homage. They kissed each other and wept alound together.

No where do I see what you claim is in the Bible. I also see no attempt in the footnotes to explain away this “obvious” homoerotica.

 

[chrisb]

I think the distortion is the other way around. J & D are so clerly homosexual lovers, even down to the fathers anger (and threats) and the references to the mothers nakedness (so leviticus), and the nakedness between the men, and the kissing, the ‘becoming large’, that one has to be positively perverse to interpret the story as ‘filial’ love.

Grace and Peace,

I’d personally like to focus on these assertions and see how they stand up to scrutiny of the passages by Old Testament Scholars.

We each should know that Hebrew was and continues to be a primitive language and it’s fairly easy to offer alternative translations that say very disturbing things. I heard one modern Biblical Student offer a translation of Hebrew describing God as Mother Goddess with an aching Womb. To suggest that ‘gadel’ is meant to describe the enlargement of one’s member is a bit of a stretch, in my humble opinion. Could you show me where it refers to any more specific usage in the context other than to suggest that David loomed over Jonathan in a figurative sense?

The reason I ask is because you are not only suggesting an alternative translation but you are asserting that ‘every’ translation since the Septuagint has erred in translating this passage. Not only that but you are also suggesting that Jewish Scholar have also done so and failed to interpret the text correct for thousands of years. Without being too bold, I find that a bit hard to believe.

Be Well.

 

[Digger71]

Wow- that’s some Bible you’re reading. Here’s what mine (NAB) says:

1* Samuel 18:3-4: And Jonathan entered into a bond with David, because he loved him as himself. Jonathan divested himself of the mantle he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his military dress, and his sword, his bow and his belt.*

Hmmmm…no kissing or bowing there…unless you’re referring to

1 Samuel 20:41: When the boy had left, David rose from beside the mound and prostrated himself on the ground three times before Jonathan in homage. They kissed each other and wept alound together.

No where do I see what you claim is in the Bible. I also see no attempt in the footnotes to explain away this “obvious” homoerotica.

so nakedness, sword given away, loin cloth given away, kissing…

 

[Digger71]

Grace and Peace,.

I recall gadel is used to refer to hair growing, and a boy growing up, and in particular, is used to refer to the egyptians (in a sexual context) being great of flesh (a bugbear that is referred a few times). So certainly it refers to physical growth, and occaisionally sexually.

Which by the way is better than the use of yadah in the sodom and gomorrah story, which is the only ever use of ‘to know’ in a homosexual sexual context.