David and Jonathan

 

The story goes that King Saul began to hate David and wanted him killed, because he saw him as a threat to his throne. Eventually, David did succeed Saul as King - but the rest of the story is not as well discussed. I am sure many people will read this and cry out "Two men in the Bible loving each other - that's absurd"!  But, how can pure love be blasphemy when God is in it? Paul addressed it this way

"To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure." {Titus 1:15}

First, both David and Jonathan had wives (as was customary then - and is now). David was described as being ruddy, with a fine appearance and handsome features (1 Sam 16:12 and 1 Sam 17:42) so apparently he was quite good-looking. When Jonathan first saw David he was immediately drawn to him. "When he [David] had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him away that day, and would not let him return to his father's house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. Then Jonathan stripped himself of his robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his sword, and even his armor and bow and girdle. {Sam 18:1-4}

In this passage it speaks of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit". In Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, it describes how God blew the breath of life into the body of Adam whom God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. The description in the book Genesis of "soul" represents a combination of the body and the spirit. Using the same verbiage in the book of Genesis as in the above passage from 1 Samuel suggests that the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and spiritually.

Clothes were such at that time that people did not wear underwear. In removing his robe Jonathan would have stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior then (and quite possibly now), which may be another indication that their relationship was more than friendship and quite possibly physical.

It also seems as though it was love at first sight between David and Jonathan. They professed their love several places in the scriptures. 1 Sam 20:3 " David replied (to Jonathan) Your father knows full well that I have found favor in your eyes." and Jonathan continued "Whatever you say, I will do for you"

David was right; Saul (Jonathan's dad) did not let this go unnoticed. He confronted Jonathan about his love for David "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. For as long as the son of Jesse lives on this earth neither you nor your kingdom shall be established." {1 Samuel 20:30-31}

It is interesting that Saul blamed David's mother for his love of Jonathan. So many times today when men acknowledge their sexuality, their fathers blame their mothers for making them a "mama's boy", it seems that Saul is using the same tactic.

At this point, Saul began to plot the death of David, and Jonathan discovered his father's evil plan and went to warn David and convince David to escape. They met to say good-bye to one another {Sam 20:41} "David rose from behind 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. "

Other translations have a different ending to the verse: "...and they kissed one another and wept with one another, until David exceeded." (KJV) "...And they kissed one another and wept with one another until David got control of himself." (Amplified Bible) "Sadly they shook hands, tears running down their cheeks until David could weep no more." (Living Bible)

As can be seen, the translators of the Living Bible apparently could not handle the thought of two adult men kissing, so they simply said the two shook hands! This is less than honest. The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until David became large; i.e. had an erection. Again, the thoughts of David becoming sexually aroused after kissing Jonathan is too threatening for Bible translators, so they either ignored the ending entirely or created one of their own.

When Jonathan died, David wrote a lamentation {2 Sam 25-26} Jonathan lies slain upon thy high places, I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me, your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women".

In the society of ancient Israel, it was not considered proper for a man and woman to have a platonic relationship. Men and women rarely spoke to each other in public. A woman's role was to provide for the needs of her husband - sexually and for bearing children. Men and women did not sit around and chat about the day's politics as we may today. Thus, David's only relationship with women would have been sexual in nature, and then he must be referring to sexual love here as he speaks of Jonathan. It would not make sense in this verse to compare platonic love for a man with sexual love for a woman; they are two completely different phenomenon.

Marriage

I have had many men from " Promise Keepers" write to tell me that it is possible to have a deep love for another man without being homosexual.

I fully agree.

It just does not seem to be the issue in this story. It appears as though Saul acted exactly as most fathers do upon finding their son has an attraction for another male - he ranted and raved and then blamed his mother. If this were purely a platonic relationship Saul should not have been so inflamed. Now there is the possibility he was only concerned about the potential threat posed by David to his position king. If that were his only concern the rest of his statement does not make sense. The reference to nakedness within Biblical phrases tends to represent a topic of sex. For example: Genesis 9:22-23, Leviticus 18:6-19, and Ezekial 23:18 all cite nakedness in the context of sex. By discussing Jonathan's actions relative to his mother's nakedness implies a more intense sexual attraction between the two and implies that it is Jonathan's mother's fault.

Many people state that same-sex marriages are not of the Bible and therefore forbidden by God. In looking at Jonathan and David's relationship further we find a possible inclusion of same-sex marriages within God's Holy Word.

In 1 Samuel 18:20-21 "Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. '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 .Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the one of the twain."

Saul's belief was that David would be so distracted by a wife that he would not be an effective fighter and would be killed by the Philistines. He offered first his daughter Merab, but was rejected, presumably by her. Then he offered Michal.

The KJV preserves the original text in its clearest form; it implies that David would become Saul's son-in-law through "one of the twain." "Twain" means "two", so the verse seems to refer to one of Saul's two daughters. Unfortunately, this is a mistranslation. The phrase "the one of" does not exist in Hebrew originally. The words are shown in italics in the King James Version; which is an admission by the translators that they made the words up. Thus, if the KJV translators had been truly honest, they would have written: "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain." In modern English, this might be written: "Today, you are son-in-law with two of my children" That would refer to both his son Jonathan and his daughter Michal since his daughter Merab did not have a relationship with David. The Hebrew original text would appear to recognize David and Jonathan's homosexual relationship as equivalent to David and Michal's heterosexual marriage. So it is possible that there is Biblical approval of same-sex marriage.

Eunuchs

At first glance, it does not seem to make an enormous amount of sense to discuss eunuchs in relation to homosexuality. In our current usage of the word, eunuchs are those people who are physically unable to father children due to castration. However, a more generic definition would be one who is physically unable to father children. In that context, homosexuals would qualify as eunuchs since their sexual activities cannot produce children. Thus, many Biblical scholars believe that eunuchs serve as prototype for homosexuals in scripture.

In Matthew 19:12, Christ says "For there are eunuchs who have been born incapable of marriage, and there are eunuchs who have been made by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves incapable of marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let him who is able to accept this, accept it" (Amplified Bible).

Jesus acknowledges that there are some who are born incapable of marriage. This could mean that there are people who have such low sex drives that they simply are not interested in sexual relationships or marriage - we tend to think of them as the 'confirmed old bachelor'. It also could include, homosexuals who have no desire for a physical relationship with a member of the opposite sex and thus would be incapable of such a relationship.

To the people living during the time of the writing of the Bible it was simply assumed that all people would marry and have children. If one did not do so, it would be assumed that there was something wrong with him, i.e. he may be classified as a eunuch. Thus, it is possible that many people who were gay would have been seen as eunuchs. We do not know this for fact, but we do know that many men were made to be eunuchs by men in order to guard their harems and Paul spoke about those who chose celibacy in an effort to more fully serve God. These two cover the last two categories spoken of by Christ, so we are still left with the first category.

During Old Testament times (see Leviticus), eunuchs were not allowed entry into the house of the Lord and were generally despised. Which is not too dissimilar from homosexuals today. Does the prohibition of eunuchs in Leviticus indicate the God never intended to bring eunuchs into his fold? No of course not, let's read from Isaiah 56 3-5

"let not the eunuch say 'Behold, I am a dry tree' for thus says the Lord, 'To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who chose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters, I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.'".

Today there are many believing GLBT people who have been forbidden or at least discouraged from partaking in church services, but who still hold His Word sacred.

Also, Paul speaks of one eunuch in Acts 8: 26-39. The eunuch was a high- ranking official of the queen of Ethiopia and he had come to Jerusalem to worship. He was on the road from Jerusalem to Gaza, returning home and reading the book of Isaiah. Philip had been commanded by an angel of the Lord to be on that road that day. Philip caught up with the man and preached the Word of God (despite the prohibition of allowing a eunuch to worship). As they neared the water Philip baptizes the eunuch (again quite a taboo) and is then whisked away by the Spirit of the Lord. Tradition has it that this eunuch introduced Christianity to Ethiopia.

We don't know if this eunuch was or was not homosexual. However, we do know that some of the eunuchs mentioned in scripture were undoubtedly those whose sexuality precluded a heterosexual relationship ("those born incapable of marriage") and Philip a messenger of God would have known this. He was not at all hesitant about sharing God's Word despite the church's rules against such behavior and he did not attempt to convert him from being a eunuch (i.e. ex-eunuch ministry like the ex-gay ministry). He simply shared the Word of God and His saving grace. It is there for all people, heterosexual, eunuch, or gay.