David, Jonathan, & "Homosexuality" in Samuel

[Cari]

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

You can’t equate accounts of men kissing in the Bible as sexual. It is, most often, a sign of bestowing a blessing. Or, more famously, of betrayal. Particularly in light of the prohibitions against homosexual behavior, viewing same-sex kissing in any other way is simply seeing zebras where there are only horses.

As for the nakedness, I see nothing written of it. I see nothing written of loin cloths. I see nothing of David “growing” in any way at all. What I see instead is the son of the king (Jonathan) symoblically adopting another man (David) as his brother, the way his father (Saul) adopted the same man as his son.

 

[chrisb]

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.

Grace and Peace,

Yes, Gadel is going to be used as a term to describe something as ‘large’ or to suggest that something ‘grew’ but what I am interested in seeing is where and why you are assert that it’s meaning ‘grew’ is proper in 1 Samuel Chapters 18 or 20? I might suggest that you are exercising eisegesis (reading into the text a desired interpretation)… and not exegesis (reading what is the proper intent of the author). Could we look at the Hebrew text and do a little amateur translating?

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.

Are you familiar with the traditions (both Jewish and Christian) concerning these texts? You appear to be exercising not only your own translation of the text but also your own interpretation of their meaning completely ignorant of historic commentary or at opposition there of. What evidence do you offer that would overturn 2000+ years of commentary and tradition of these texts?

I’m not trying to come across overly antagonistic to your claim but only to bring to bear the opposition that your assertions need to deal with to even have the appearance of validity.

Have you given this any thought?

Peace and God Bless.

 

[MHalsey]

what else does the Bible say about homosexuality.

Romans 1: 22-32
22 While claiming to be wise, they became fools
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes.
24 Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies.
25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
27 and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.
29 They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips
30 and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents.
31 They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32 Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

Conclusion: The David and Jonathan controversy is a red herring put forward by those with an agenda.

 

[Digger71]

what else does the Bible say about homosexuality.

Conclusion: The David and Jonathan controversy is a red herring put forward by those with an agenda.

The quoted passage makes no mention of homosexuality as one of the sins that was being punished. Rather it was inflicted for the sin of idolitry.

Conclusion, homosexuality comes from paganism.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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 don’t think that such an idea is necessarily completely without something to be said for it.​

I’m not sure that it helps to think of homosexuality though - that’s a problem for us, now; which is no guarantee that our ideas about homosexuality are relevant to that society then. Ancient Israel was not a variant of the USA or Europe.

David & Jonathan were not Catholics; let alone Christians: any more that Socrates or Nebuchadnezzar were. That D & J belong to the Church’s past in a way that Socrates & Nebuchadnezzar do not, still does not make them anything but ancient Israelites. Geprge Washington was as truly President of the US as (say) LBJ - it doesn’t follow that because LBJ had the atom bomb, Washington also did. Yet the back-to-front reasoning that treats ancient Israel as a variant of (say) Catholicism or Presbyterianism crops up all the time.

IMO the passage is describing a close emotional attachment for a military purpose - the association between D & J may be attended as a counterpart & corrective to the arrogant bluster of Goliath in chapter 17; Goliath would then represent a form of false heroism, while they would represent a correction of this, a social sort of heroism, which is authenticated by their pact. Maybe D & J represent an Israelite corrective to the love between Achilles & Patroklos in the Iliad.

To understand these chapters, one would have to know something of the theology of the books of Samuel (which are in origin one book); which includes knowing something of their date of composition: if Leviticus 18 is later than 1 Samuel, Lev. 18 can’t be used to interpret 1 Sam.

One modern problem is that a lot of people can’t imagine a close emotional bond which is not also (or primarily ?) a sexual one - friendship has very largely been eclipsed, to be replaced by what is called love, but is actually lust. Or so ISTM.

 

[MHalsey]

The quoted passage makes no mention of homosexuality as one of the sins that was being punished. Rather it was inflicted for the sin of idolitry.

Conclusion, homosexuality comes from paganism.

really?

27 and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.

Sin that is the result of another sin is still a sin. And the penalty mentioned is for the sin mentioned in the verse, not idolatry.

But this is all a side discussion.

The real issue here is how modern people judge historical figures by today’s standards. Our society is so sexualized, that any close relationship mentioned in the Bible must be a sexual one. This is truly sad because it blinds one the real love God has for us which is reflected in the relationship between David and Jonathan. Jonathan sees in David the one who will be king after Saul. Interesting because this is Jonathan’s inheritance. But rather than resent David for it, he offers everything he has to him.

 

[Benadam]

really?

The real issue here is how modern people judge historical figures by today’s standards. Our society is so sexualized, that any close relationship mentioned in the Bible must be a sexual one. This is truly sad because it blinds one the real love God has for us which is reflected in the relationship between David and Jonathan.

Wonderfull insight, and a glimpse into the unique love Christ had for John the Beloved. Just as David became a son to King Saul, John became a son to Mary, inheritance included.