A Biblical same-gender love story..

[Aaron Lindahl]

The following is the love story of David and Jonathan, which thousands of Christian congregations and many denominations now use as a model of same-sex love and commitment for two men.

(Since this particular translation had to be as detailed and comprehensive as possible to withstand the disbelief of those who will attempt to deny its truth... it's fairly long... so it's intended only for those who have the comprehension level, interest, or patience, to read it) ('Strong' refers to Strong's lexicon which is used by theologians around the world for accurate Hebrew translations.. 'OT' of course refers to Old Testament, 'NKJV' stands for New King James Version and 'NRSV' refers to New Revised Standard Version')

In the early material on David (1 Sam 16-17), three times the narrator calls attention to David’s beauty – more times in the Bible than in any other case. First, the prophet Samuel notes that David “was ruddy [admoni, Strong #132], and had beautiful eyes [yapheh ‘ayinim, #3303, #5869], and was handsome [to behold, tob ro’i, #2896, #7210].� (16:12, NRSV) Then, when a young court servant recommends David to Saul, he describes him (among other things) as “a handsome [to’ar, #8389] person� (16:18, NKJV). Finally, the giant notes that David, his opponent, was “a youth, ruddy [admoni] and good-looking [yapheh mar’eh, #3303, #4758]� (17:42, NKJV).

Here, the common language used throughout the OT to describe beauty is found again, including yapheh and tob (“beautiful, handsome� in both cases), along with to’ar and mar’eh (“[in] figure or shape�). However, new words in the David descriptions include ro’i (#7210, “a … sight [to behold]) and admoni and ‘ayinim, translated as “ruddy� and “eyes� respectively in the NRSV.

Jonathan’s intense love and attraction to David: Not surprisingly, after making such an emphasis about David’s good looks, the reader begins to find responses to this in the text. For example, in 1 Sam 18:1 we read, “Now when he [David] had finished speaking to Saul, the soul [nephesh] of Jonathan was knit to the soul [nephesh] of David, and Jonathan loved [aheb, #157] him as his own soul [nephesh].� Then (v. 3), “Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he [Jonathan] loved [ahaba, #160] him as his own soul.� Later, when the two make a second covenant, we are told (20:17) that “Jonathan again caused David to vow, because he [Jonathan] loved [ahaba, #160] him; for he loved [ahaba, #160] him as he loved [aheb, #157] his own soul.� (NKJV, underlining added) In addition to this, we are told in 19:1 that Jonathan “delighted [kaphes, #2654] greatly� in David� (NKJV).

So, in response to three references to David’s beauty, there appear three references describing Jonathan’s love for him – two of them twice using the verb “love� and the third using the related verb “delights [in].� Strong’s lexicon notes that the aheb (#157) means “to have affection for (sexually or otherwise),� along with the related terms oheb (#159) and ahaba (#160), the last a feminine form. The male and female forms of “love� (verb and noun) appear to be used interchangeably in Scripture, e.g. in Song of Songs 2:4-5, the beloved [girl] says, “He [King Solomon] brought me to the banqueting house, and his intention toward me was love [#160]. Sustain me with raisins, refresh me with apples; for I am faint with love [#160].� (NRSV)

The Bible records three spiritual unions that Jonathan and David made together. The first covenant was made very shortly after they met. In 1 Sam 18:3-4 (NRSV), we read: “Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul [NIV: ‘as himself,’ nephesh]. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor [NIV, REB: ‘tunic’], and even his sword and his bow and his belt.� The preceding verses relate how after David had finished speaking with Saul, “the soul [nephesh] of Jonathan was bound [qashar] to the soul [nephesh] of David, and Jonathan loved [aheb] him as his own soul� (v. 1); and after this, Saul would not let David return home (v. 2). The emphasis here clearly is on the intense love Jonathan felt for David, expressed through the combined and repeated use of “loved,� “bound [to]� (this used only once), and nephesh, which indicates the extent of Jonathan’s love (as compelling as the love and interest one has toward oneself).

Jonathan’s intense attraction to David appears in the narrative like a bolt out of the blue: spontaneous, intense, and earth-shattering for him. He expresses this love then by the giving to David all of the clothes he was wearing and all of the weapons he was carrying, the significance of which represented the entire “giving away [of] one’s own self,�.. i.e. the giving of his whole heart and self to David.

The second covenant was made near the end of their time together in Gibeah and is recorded in 1 Sam 20:16-17 (NRSV): “Thus Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, ‘May the Lord seek out the enemies of David.’ Jonathan made David swear again, by his love for him; for he loved him as he loved his own life.� (1 Sam 20:16-17, NRSV)

20:42 (NRSV) records, “Then Jonathan said to David, ‘Go in peace, since both of us have sworn in the name of the Lord, saying, ‘The Lord will be between me and you, and between my descendents and your descendents, forever.’� The repetition of aheb/ahaba (“love/loved�) and of nephesh (“as [much as] his own life�) in 20:17 is a very clear emphasis on this pact having strongly homoeroticized elements as well as political elements.

The third covenant was probably made several years later and is noted in 1 Sam 23:18 (NRSV): “Then the two of them made a covenant before the Lord…� the pact made in 23:18 is not merely “a simple extension or re-confirmation of the [earlier] pact� described in 1 Sam 20, for the later pact looks deeper into the future and “lays down the work distribution and relationship which is the center of everything.� The third pact is understood as a “fresh, bilateral covenant defining their new relationship.� In fact, each of the three pacts, while containing a common core of expressed love and commitment, seems to differ from what was pledged before, and so advances in content and adds detail to their relationship.

Just as three times our attention is directed to David’s beauty (16:12,18; 17:42), so also three times we are told that Jonathan “loved� David (18:1,3; 20:17). Even though there are different forms of the word 'love' in Hebrew, the exact same Hebrew word aheb (“loved/fallen in love�), used in 18:1 referring to Jonathan, appears also in 18:20 referring to the princess Michal, where it has been rendered as “Michal had fallen in love with David�, or “…fell in love with David� Such a reading is bolstered by 19:1 which relates how Jonathan continued to take “great delight [kaphes] in David� (NRSV), since kaphes almost always appears in OT passages concerned with sexual desire and erotic love.

This interpretation is further bolstered by comparing the Jonathan and David relationship to that of Shechem and Dinah in Gen 34, where the Hevite prince falls madly in love with Jacob’s daughter (underexpressed in the Hebrew, as usual, with “was drawn to,� v. 3, NRSV). Here we have exactly the same language as appears in 1 Sam 18:1,3 and 19:1, used in Hebrew to describe erotic passion which has led to sexual union – including “loved� (aheb), “heart� (nephesh) and “delighted [in]� (kephes) (34:3,8,19, NRSV), as well as the idea of “longs [for]� (kasaph, v. 8; J. Green: “bound [to]�), although 1 Sam 18:1 uses a different verb for this (qashar).

In 1 Sam 18, Jonathan and David lived together in the capital city a number of months, perhaps up to a year, as David masters the arts of sword and bow (Jonathan at his side), gains real-life experience on the battlefield, and leads Israel’s army to many glorious victories (18:16,27,30; 9:8). However, in chs. 19-20 time rapidly speeds up. As Saul’s jealousy and rage toward David intensify, he hides his murderous attempts from Jonathan, while David’s life becomes one of terror, trying to keep one step ahead of Saul and his henchmen.

Then, at a New Moon festival celebrated at court, Saul asked Jonathan why David was absent; and the prince explained that David had asked leave to join his family for an annual sacrifice in Bethlehem (20:6,27-29). “Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan. He said to him, ‘You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen [bachar] the son of Jesse to your own shame [bosheth], and to the shame [bosheth] of your mother’s nakedness [‘erwa]? For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established. Now send and bring him to me, for he shall surely die.’� (1 Sam 20:30-31, NRSV). Then the enraged king hurled his spear straight at Jonathan, who jumped and fled in anger from the king’s table, realizing, at last, what a dangerous and deadly position David was in related to his father.

Although the first part of Saul’s insult has usually been translated like “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman!� (18:30a, NRSV, cf. NIV, NRSV), the Hebrew is quite vulgar and would be more accurately rendered as, “You son of a slu.!� or “You son of a bi...!� Interestingly, Lucian’s version of the Greek Septuagint adds gunaikotraphe (“effeminate man�) here (Driver), an idea which Chrysostom reiterates (ca. 400); so the original Hebrew conveyed something of this element as well.

Then, the second part of this insult reads, “Do I not know that you have chosen [bachar] the son of Jesse to your own shame [bosheth]…� (18:30b, NRSV). Instead of the verb bachar (Strong, #977) in the Hebrew, meaning “to choose.�

Even more telling, the ancient Greek text uses the noun metochos (Strong, #3353), meaning “to partner with, or companion with as a man would with a woman�.

The importance of the third part of this insult, which reads “…and to the shame [bosheth] of your mother’s nakedness [‘erwa]� (18:30c, NRSV), cannot be denied. This final phrase is loaded, in fact, with sexual terminology, including ‘erwa (“nakedness�), most often used in the OT to refer to the genitals and the repeated bosheth (“shame�), which is almost always used in a sexual context.

One really has to ask, what was Jonathan doing – nakedly, sexually and shamefully (to his father at least) – to receive such an insult as this? In fact, the language throughout 20:30 is so extremely sexually-charged it goes well beyond rationality to believe that we are not meant to interpret it in sexual ways.

For those who will bend over backwards in an attempt to say it was only a 'friendship', I'd like them to share how many well-known examples they can provide of heterosexual male 'friends' who upon meeting each other for the first time, has one making a declaration of love for the other one, making 3 sacred covenants of 'love', devotion and spiritual union with each other over the course of time... disrobing completely and giving their clothes, weapons, and heart to their friend in the form of a covenant... having the father of one friend insult his son in an explicitly sexual manner over their relationship, and while also having one friend state that his love for him "surpasses the love he has for any woman."

By that reasoning... there should be hundreds of similar detailed, explicit, and well-known heterosexual examples readily available for someone to contribute... except, there aren't any.

For a deeper analysis, and the name of the translator, please go to this site: http://epistle.us/hbarticles/davebeautyjonlove.html

[Wootah]

For those who will bend over backwards in an attempt to say it was only a 'friendship', I'd like them to share how many well-known examples they can provide of heterosexual male 'friends' who upon meeting each other for the first time, has one making a declaration of love for the other one, making 3 sacred covenants of 'love', devotion and spiritual union with each other over the course of time... disrobing completely and giving their clothes, weapons, and heart to their friend in the form of a covenant... having the father of one friend insult his son in an explicitly sexual manner over their relationship, and while also having one friend state that his love for him "surpasses the love he has for any woman."

Man love is not homosexual love. If you can't see that then perhaps it reveals far more about the depth of your relationships with other men and that you cannot conceive that love and lust might be different?

I would not be surprised of what we would learn about the Old Testament prophets if we knew all the details of their life because we are all sinners and I know my own shames. So even if it is a homosexual relationship, the Old Testament heroes are complex and nearly all sinful and the main message to get from the Old Testament is the failure of Israel and of saving ourselves and the need for Jesus as our saviour.

[Overcomer]

What you have given us here, Aaron, is a perfect example of eisegesis as opposed to exegesis. Eisegesis involves going to the Bible and interpreting it to fit a specific pre-determined mindset. Exegesis is going to the Bible and letting it speak to you. Eisegesis is a bogus approach to interpreting Scripture.

You wrote this:

"Strong’s lexicon notes that the aheb (#157) means “to have affection for (sexually or otherwise)".

This is correct, but you have chosen to interpret the word as having a sexual meaning with regard to David and Jonathan when Strong's notes that the meaning does not always refer to sexual love, but to other kinds of love. In fact, most of the time it is used without any sexual connotation. Here are a few examples:

In Gen. 22:2 God told Abraham to offer his son Isaac, whom he loved, as a sacrifice. Do you honestly think that Abraham's love for his son was sexual?

In Gen. 27:1-4, Isaac says he loves savoury meat. Do you think he loves it sexually?

In Gen. 37:3-4), we read that Joseph's brothers saw that their father loved Joseph best. Are you going to say that the father and son were in a homosexual relationship?

Then there are the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:4-6; Deut. 5:8-10) in which God speaks of showing love to those who love him. Are you suggesting he is talking about sexual relationships here?

Then, in Lev. 19:18, we read God's commandment that the Israelites are to love their neighbours as themselves. Are you suggesting that they are to have sexual relations with their neighbours? This commandment is, of course, repeated in Matt. 5:43 where the word for love in Greek is agape which, according to Strong's, refers to loving someone in a benevolent sense. It has nothing to do with sex.

You mentioned the Song of Songs, but failed to note that the word used six times for sexual love in that book is dod. Strong's concordance tells us it comes from the word meaning "to boil" and carries the connotation of heated passion. This word is used elsewhere in the Old Testament to refer to sexual ardor. If Jonathan and David's love were sexual, it would be more likely that this word would be used to describe it. And there are other Hebrew words with a sexual connotation used in a variety of Old Testament books. Why wasn't one of those words used to describe the two men if their love for each other was sexual in nature?

You remark on their "spiritual union". But a spiritual union is not a sexual union. And yes, they had a covenantal relationship, but that isn't a sexual relationship. Nowhere does the Bible describe them as such.

Ans yes, they were physically demonstrative with each other. But have you studied MIddle Eastern culture? Are you aware that all men were physically demonstrative with each other in that culture and would greet each other with a kiss? Sex had nothing to do with it.

As for describing David's appearance, so what? Bear in mind that the books of Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings and 1 and 2 Chronicles are historical narratives. That means that recounting events and describing the people involved in them. David is one of the most important people in the Old Testament so it makes sense that he was described in detail. Suggesting that he was described that way so we would understand that Jonathan "fell in love with him" is reading something into it that just isn't there.

As for Saul's anger re: Jonathan and David, he's upset because his son has chosen to take David's side, not his. David was his enemy. He pursued David for 10 years to kill him because he was afraid David would take his kingship. Jonathan protected David -- as a good friend would even against his father, especially when that father was not thinking clearly as Saul was. But there's nothing sexual in that.

I could say more, but I have run out of time. So I end with this:

You have committed what scholars called the fallacy of accommodation. You are interpreting Scripture through 21st-century eyes and reading modern cultural beliefs and values into ancient texts. It's a bogus way of interpreting the Bible and always leads to misunderstanding of Scripture.

And, given that the Bible condemns homosexuality in both the Old Testament and the New Testament (and, yes, I have read the creative misinterpretations of those passages by homosexuals desperate to make the bible support their lifestyle as well), it's ridiculous to interpret the relationship between these two men as a homosexual one. Theirs is a beautiful example of commitment, deep affection, sacrifice and loyalty -- the ideal friendship between anybody, male or female. But to interpret it as homosexual is completely off-base.

If you're interested in reading a good article that deals with many of your concerns, try this one:

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2012/we ... al-lovers/

The good news is that no one has to remain homosexual. Jesus can and will gladly deliver anybody, male or female, from that sin stronghold. There are many ex-gays who will witness to that truth. Here's a testimony from one:

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=den ... 04A0CB75C3

[OnceConvinced]

It's just two really good friends who were close like brothers.

[bluethread]

This is one of the reasons I think that HaTorah does not approvwe of a man loving another as he loves a woman. In the middle east today, men are free to be affectionate toward one another without fear of misunderstanding. However, in the west there is the tension that often exists between a man and a woman who are not in a comitted relationship. There is the possibility of sending mixed messages.

[Aaron Lindahl]

[Replying to post 3 by Overcomer]

I lived for one year in Cairo, Egypt, and for two years in Istanbul, Turkey... I'm well aware of how men interact there. However, they don't declare they're in love with the other friend at the moment of first meeting each other, or join in spiritual union 3 times. That said, I believe that it is 'you' and others like you who are engaging in eisegesis, not I, and this is why:

Attempts to distort the Bible into a message of hate are badly misguided. The passages in Leviticus and Paul’s three letters specifically apply to people engaging in ritual activity in pagan temples. The references to ‘sodomites’ in Deuteronomy, etc., are a clear error in translation that refer to the same thing. The Sodom and Gomorrah references clearly refer to inhospitality and not to homosexuality at all.

Summed up – albeit very densely – what has happened is that latent bisexuals have fostered knowingly inaccurate translations and then indulged in selective hypocrisy, all to reinforce their insecure sexuality. (Better read that again; it’s pretty thick.) In the Real World, rabid fundamentalists are doing nothing more than citing Biblical passages to support their pre-existing anti-gay prejudice – precisely doing what Southerners once did to justify slavery (which the Bible condones with considerably more clarity).

Here’s the most fundamental weakness in their thinking: the Bible does not condemn lesbians. There is a proscription against women wearing men’s clothing, and a letter from Paul mentions “women [who] did change the natural use into that which is against nature� – whatever that means – but nothing else. Any translations that apply to ‘homosexuals’ (i.e., including females as well as males) are mis-translations, possibly intentional, certainly political.

Have you looked at the context of the verses in Leviticus? Three verses before Leviticus 18:22, there is the stricture that any child who curses its parents shall be put to death. Five verses after is the requirement that any couple having sex when the woman is menstruating shall be killed or put out of the community. There are also prohibitions against shaving and against eating certain creatures, including pork, any water creatures that lack fins or scales, and creeping/crawling things. People are forbidden from planting fields with two kinds of seed or wearing clothes woven of two different kinds of material. Not to mention that Leviticus requires priests to be physically perfect and to marry virgins.

These are of two types, rules that are concerned with moral sin and rules related to ritual cleanliness. Moral sin involves rebellion against God and is the more serious of the two. Uncleanliness for Hebrews was caused by touching something forbidden or doing something forbidden (such as eating pork); though generally less important, some of these were also major enough to involve the death penalty.

Here is one verse that many Christians use to persecute gay people with, but don't realize that their Bible has it translated wrong.

Leviticus 18:22 - The translations of this verse found in most English Bibles are not supported by the Hebrew text:

Purposely false translation:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."(KJV)

The honest and correct translation:

"And with a male, thou shalt not lie down in a woman's bed; it is an abomination."

Below, is a word by word translation of this verse:

ו�ת זכר ל� תשכב משכבי �שה תועבה הִו�

V’et-zachar lo tishkav mishk’vei ishah to’evah hu.

(Transliterated using modern Israeli Sephardic pronunciation.)

V’et - This is two words. First, V’, which means and. This word cannot exist by itself, and therefore is attached to the word that comes after it, that is, et. This word means with. So the first two words of this verse are And with.

zachar - This word means male. Hebrew has no indefinite article (a, an), so when the definite article (the) is not used, as in this case, an indefinite article is understood. Therefore, this word translates as a male. The verse so far reads And with a male.

lo - This word is the Hebrew equivalent of our words noand not. It is used in this case to negate the verb that follows it. Because English has a more complicated verb structure than Hebrew, it will take more than one English word to translate the next Hebrew word, and the not will need to go in the middle of those words, so we won't add this word to our translation yet.

tishkav - This is a verb. Unlike English verbs, everything we need to know about tense and person is contained in this one word. No additional pronouns or tense markers are needed.

The root of the verb is the last three letters: sh-k-v, and it meanslie down. The first letter of the word, t, is not part of the root, but indicates person and tense and even gender. To translate tishkav into English will require four words, as well as a parenthetical note to indicate the gender of the pronoun.

The word translates as Thou (male) shalt lie down. The previous Hebrew word, lo, negated the verb, so we have And with a male thou (male) shalt not lie down. mishk’vei - This is a noun. The base form of the noun is mishkav, and it can be seen that the last three letters of the base, sh-k-v, are also the three letters of the verb root above, meaning lie down. This noun means bed. Hebrew nouns have more than one form. In addition to having singular and plural forms, many nouns also have absolute and construct forms. An absolute noun stands alone, with its own meaning.

A construct noun is grammatically tied to the noun that follows it. In English it often translates by placing the English word “of� between the two nouns. A good example is the Hebrew Beit Lechem (Bethlehem), which in English translates as House of Bread. This is because the first word, Beit, is in the construct state.Mishk’vei is in the plural construct state, meaning beds of. It would be a good idea here to explain a bit about Hebrew prepositions:

Hebrew has prepositions that correspond to ours, but doesn't always use them the same way. For example, when people leave us, in English we say that we miss them. But in Hebrew, the verb to miss is used with a preposition, and we say that we miss to them. The same works in reverse, that is, sometimes English requires a preposition when Hebrew doesn't. If a preposition can be derived from context, Hebrew will sometimes leave it out. In English, we need it. Therefore, we need to insert the English word in before the words beds of, in order for the sentence to make sense in English.

The verse so far reads And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of.

ishah - This is the Hebrew word for woman. Since there is no definite article (the), it is understood to mean a woman.And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman.Since this is awkward, we will rephrase it to "in a woman's bed."And with a male thou shalt not lie down in a woman's bed.

(Note: The word mishk'vei only appears three times in scripture: Gen. 49:7; Lev. 18:22; Lev. 20:13. In Genesis, it is paired with the word avicha, which means "thy father," and the phrase is correctly translated in most versions as "to thy father's bed." As in Lev. 18:22, the preposition is derived from context.)

Punctuation as we know it was not part of the original text. Even modern Hebrew Bibles contain only one punctuation mark, which looks like a colon ‘:’, and serves only to point out the end of a verse (but not necessarily the end of a sentence). English is very difficult to read without punctuation marks, so we insert them as we translate. After the word woman, we may insert either a semicolon, or a period, to indicate that the following words are not part of the first phrase, but simply offer further information about it. And with a male thou shalt not lie down in a woman's bed;

to’evah - This is a noun. It translates as abomination. Without a definite article, it translates as an abomination. Hebrew word order often varies from ours, and this is one case where this is true. In English, this will be the last word in the sentence, so we will hold off on adding it to the translation until we have finished with the next word.

hu - This little word serves so many purposes, not only for readers of the Hebrew text, but also for those today who wonder about the accuracy of the Hebrew text. You see, this word is a grammatical error made by Moses. Moses was well schooled in the arts and sciences of ancient Egypt, but not in the tongue of his own people. Although he evidently spoke Hebrew well enough to be understood, like so many today, he did not always use proper grammar. His meaning remained the same, but the grammar was wrong.

I want to repeat that: His meaning remained the same, only the grammar was wrong.The word הו� hu means both he and it. It means it when applied to masculine nouns. But to’evah is a feminine noun, so Moses should have used the word הי� hi, which means she and it. It means it when applied to feminine nouns. (All Hebrew nouns are either masculine or feminine; there is no neuter gender. This gender concept is grammatical in nature only, and has nothing to do with men or women, per se. For example, in Hebrew a table is masculine, whereas in the Romance languages, it is feminine. It has nothing to do with the nature of the table; it's simply grammatical.)

The next point of grammar involves the present tense forms of the verb to be. In English these forms are am, art, is and are. Hebrew has such forms, but almost never uses them, except in reference to God, or when absolutely necessary for context.

The reason for this may be that the forms are too close to God's name in Hebrew. While this may seem awkward to us, there are many other languages that don't use the present tense of the verb to be. For example, Russian has become so used to ignoring the forms, that some of them are completely obsolete. The Russian equivalent of am can't even be found in a dictionary or grammar book any more. They get along fine without it, and so does Hebrew. But English can't, so we have to insert the appropriate forms when translating: And with a male thou shalt not lie down in a woman's bed; it is

Finally, we put in the words an abomination: And with a male thou shalt not lie down in a woman's bed; it is an abomination.

This is the correct translation of Leviticus 18:22. It can be seen that, rather than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply forbids two males to lie down in a woman’s bed, for whatever reason.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the term ‘abomination’ was an intentionally bad translation, given how far it differs from the meaning of the original Hebrew.

The Living Bible and its revision, the New Living Translation, by using the word ‘homosexuality’ (for which there was no linguistic or cultural equivalent in Hebrew times) add two further errors. In addition, they add lesbians to the condemned group with utterly no justification for doing so.

The probability that ritual prostitution is the context of these two verses is underlined by a later mistranslation of the Hebrew word qadesh, which appears in Deuteronomy (23:17), 1 Kings (14:24, 15:12 & 22:46), and 2 Kings (23:7). Literally the word means ’holy one’; it is clearly used in these verses to refer to a man that engages in ritual (pagan) temple prostitution in order to encourage the god(s) to make the earth and its creatures more fertile. By analogy many scholars interpret the verses in Leviticus as specifically referring only to sexual activities in a pagan temple ritual.

In the King James Version the word qadesh was translated for the first time as ‘sodomite,’ a word that at the time generically referred to any person who engaged in ‘unnatural’ sexual acts of any type. The New King James and 21st Century King James translations inaccurately retain the word ‘sodomite’ even though today it refers specifically only to males who engage in anal sex; most honest scholars more accurately translate it as cult, shrine, or temple prostitute.

Be aware that post-King James translations fixate on the first two. This has had a self-perpetuating effect; a Bible that strays significantly from this hate message won’t sell, which means it won’t get published.

Is the death penalty supposedly assigned to practicing homosexual males – though not among the Ten Commandments – somehow more important than the proscription in the Commandments against working on the Sabbath? Or perhaps more important than the death penalty assigned to someone who curses his/her parent (Leviticus 20:9) or who commits adultery (Leviticus 20:10)?

This passage could fairly well be translated ‘If a man has sexual intercourse with another man in the bed of a woman (or as part of a cult-like ritual), the two shall be cast out of society.’ You can see how this would not appeal to rabid fundamentalists.

Literalist fundamentalists also overlook the fact that, though there are many laws in Leviticus that limit female sexual behavior, female same-sex behavior is ignored here and everywhere else in Hebrew scripture (unless the text is mis-translated, as the LB and NLT do – possibly having concluded that God just forgot to put his objections in the infallible Bible; infallibility does not preclude mistranslation).

In spite of the fact that the mistranslation of to’evah into English obscures the fact that these verses do not apply to a moral sin, at first glance (especially given the general unanimity of translations in basic meaning), the passages really seem to condemn gay behavior in the strongest possible terms. That a similar condemnation to death applies to disrespectful children is beside the point; the target audience is the people of Israel, and the subject is pagan shrine rituals, and the passages are simply irrelevant either to homosexual orientation or homosexual behavior in an age of grace under Christ.

-source http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/Leviticus.php

[JehovahsWitness]

#QUESTION: Did David and Jonathan have a homosexual relationship? No, there is nothing in the accout to suggest sexual attraction. Rather like other close relationships mentioned in the bible, the love between David and Jonathan was non-sexual in nature.

#QUESTION: Does the hebrew word used for their love imply sexual love between the two? Not necessarily, similarly to english, the hebrews only had one word for love (âhab) that covered love both of a sexual romantic nature and non sexual love between friends and family. Thus just as in english, if one was to hear a father 'loves' his daughter or a man loves his male friend, sexuality is not necessarily being implied.

#QUESTION: Did David and Jonathan get naked together? 1 Samuel 18:3-4 speaks says "...Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt." (NIV)

The word 'robe' here refers is translated from the hebrew word "meil", a sleeveless coat often open at the front, was worn on top of the kutto'neth or inner garment. It was a common item of apparel. (1Sa 2:19; 15:27; 18:4; 24:4; 1Ch 15:27; Job 1:20; 2:12) Miel thus refers to an upper or secondary garment worn over another one. The wearer of an outer garment was not naked underneath. In Giving David his coat and tunic and especially his sword Jonathan was pledging alligence to the younger man.

#QUESTION: Doesn't the fact that when David and Jonathan kissed each other (1Sa 20:41) imply sexual contact? No, even today in many lands men kiss as an acceptable and non sexual greeting. (see Ge 29:13; 45:15; Ac 20:37) A kiss was a normal greeting in that day, such as when Judas kissed Jesus.

#QUESTION: Do David's words in 2 Samuel 26 indicate his love for Jonathan was sexual in nature since he said it was "...more wonderful was [...] the love from women."? No, David did not say his love was the same as romantic love he said it was better than such love. How so? That it was stronger, less complicated, and based on a mutual heartfelt covenant. The observation that some friendships last longer than most marriages is still legitimate one, since they are both RELATIONSHIPS even though one is platonic and the other not. The friendship between lovers and the friendship between platonic friends need not be identical to be compared.

#QUESTION: Does Sauls insult implie he had discovered David and Jonathan in a compromising position? In 1 Samuel 20: 30 Saul (Jonathan's father) insults him saying “You son of a rebellious maid, do I not well know that you are choosing the son of Jes´se to your own shame and to the shame of the secret parts of your mother?"

The reference to his “mother’s nakedness� is a middle eastern idiom meaning that the son would bring shame and confusion to his mother. Nakedness is not a sexual term here. Nakedness does not always mean to literally be naked but also to be exposed. (For example, “The bare-naked truth�. Does not mean that someone is telling the truth when they are naked; it simply means the exposed truth! Jonathan, according to Saul, brought his mother to an exposed confusion because he, her son, was supposed to occupy the thrown. Notice verse 31, Saul tells him why he made the previous statements, “As long as the son of Jesse lives you will not be established nor will you occupy the thrown.� In short Saul is saying, "you stupid idiot, you're compromising your birthright, openly shaming your mother"


#QUESTION: Does Saul at one time offer his son Jonathan to David as a possible marriage mate? No, the choice Saul offered David was between his two DAUGHTERS (Merab or Michal) not Michal or Jonathan.
(see 1 Sam 18: 17- 21)

#QUESTION: Does the description of the love between David and Jonathan in 1 Sam 18: 1 depict a homosexual sexual relationship?
The word soul (nephesh) in the bible refers to the person. "Jon´a·than’s very soul became bound up with the soul of David" would therefore would mean the two individuals (souls/people) where deeply attached. As the God's Word Translation concludes the verse "He loved David as much as [he loved] himself". There is nothing that implies sexual contact or homosexual inclinations in the use of the word soul.

Further
http://www.biblestudy.org/question/was- ... d-gay.html

[Aaron Lindahl]

[Replying to post 7 by JehovahsWitness]

For those who will bend over backwards in an attempt to say it was only a 'friendship', I'd like them to share how many well-known examples they can provide of heterosexual male 'friends' who upon meeting each other for the first time, has one making a declaration of love for the other one, making 3 sacred covenants of 'love', devotion and spiritual union with each other over the course of time... disrobing completely and giving their clothes, weapons, and heart to their friend in the form of a covenant... having the father of one friend insult his son in an explicitly sexual manner over their relationship, and while also having one friend state that his love for him "surpasses the love he has for any woman."

By that reasoning... there should be hundreds of similar detailed, explicit, and well-known heterosexual examples readily available for someone to contribute... except, there aren't any.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 7 by JehovahsWitness]

For those who will bend over backwards in an attempt to say it was only a 'friendship', I'd like them to share how many well-known examples they can provide of heterosexual male 'friends' who upon meeting each other for the first time, has one making a declaration of love for the other one, making 3 sacred covenants of 'love', devotion and spiritual union with each other over the course of time... disrobing completely and giving their clothes, weapons, and heart to their friend in the form of a covenant... having the father of one friend insult his son in an explicitly sexual manner over their relationship, and while also having one friend state that his love for him "surpasses the love he has for any woman."

By that reasoning... there should be hundreds of similar detailed, explicit, and well-known heterosexual examples readily available for someone to contribute... except, there aren't any.

If I am not mistaken this forum is BIBLE STUDY discussion forum which aims at a systematic and scholarly approach to the text at hand. Please provide the bible text [reference] you are refering to as the basis for any points you are making.


Thanking you kindly,

JW

[Aaron Lindahl]

[Replying to post 9 by JehovahsWitness]

It already was listed in great detail for you at the beginning of this thread, but here it is again for your edification:

In the early material on David (1 Sam 16-17), three times the narrator calls attention to David’s beauty – more times in the Bible than in any other case. First, the prophet Samuel notes that David “was ruddy [admoni, Strong #132], and had beautiful eyes [yapheh ‘ayinim, #3303, #5869], and was handsome [to behold, tob ro’i, #2896, #7210].� (16:12, NRSV) Then, when a young court servant recommends David to Saul, he describes him (among other things) as “a handsome [to’ar, #8389] person� (16:18, NKJV). Finally, the giant notes that David, his opponent, was “a youth, ruddy [admoni] and good-looking [yapheh mar’eh, #3303, #4758]� (17:42, NKJV).

Here, the common language used throughout the OT to describe beauty is found again, including yapheh and tob (“beautiful, handsome� in both cases), along with to’ar and mar’eh (“[in] figure or shape�). However, new words in the David descriptions include ro’i (#7210, “a … sight [to behold]) and admoni and ‘ayinim, translated as “ruddy� and “eyes� respectively in the NRSV.

Jonathan’s intense love and attraction to David: Not surprisingly, after making such an emphasis about David’s good looks, the reader begins to find responses to this in the text. For example, in 1 Sam 18:1 we read, “Now when he [David] had finished speaking to Saul, the soul [nephesh] of Jonathan was knit to the soul [nephesh] of David, and Jonathan loved [aheb, #157] him as his own soul [nephesh].� Then (v. 3), “Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he [Jonathan] loved [ahaba, #160] him as his own soul.� Later, when the two make a second covenant, we are told (20:17) that “Jonathan again caused David to vow, because he [Jonathan] loved [ahaba, #160] him; for he loved [ahaba, #160] him as he loved [aheb, #157] his own soul.� (NKJV, underlining added) In addition to this, we are told in 19:1 that Jonathan “delighted [kaphes, #2654] greatly� in David� (NKJV).

So, in response to three references to David’s beauty, there appear three references describing Jonathan’s love for him – two of them twice using the verb “love� and the third using the related verb “delights [in].� Strong’s lexicon notes that the aheb (#157) means “to have affection for (sexually or otherwise),� along with the related terms oheb (#159) and ahaba (#160), the last a feminine form. The male and female forms of “love� (verb and noun) appear to be used interchangeably in Scripture, e.g. in Song of Songs 2:4-5, the beloved [girl] says, “He [King Solomon] brought me to the banqueting house, and his intention toward me was love [#160]. Sustain me with raisins, refresh me with apples; for I am faint with love [#160].� (NRSV)

The Bible records three spiritual unions that Jonathan and David made together. The first covenant was made very shortly after they met. In 1 Sam 18:3-4 (NRSV), we read: “Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul [NIV: ‘as himself,’ nephesh]. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor [NIV, REB: ‘tunic’], and even his sword and his bow and his belt.� The preceding verses relate how after David had finished speaking with Saul, “the soul [nephesh] of Jonathan was bound [qashar] to the soul [nephesh] of David, and Jonathan loved [aheb] him as his own soul� (v. 1); and after this, Saul would not let David return home (v. 2). The emphasis here clearly is on the intense love Jonathan felt for David, expressed through the combined and repeated use of “loved,� “bound [to]� (this used only once), and nephesh, which indicates the extent of Jonathan’s love (as compelling as the love and interest one has toward oneself).

Jonathan’s intense attraction to David appears in the narrative like a bolt out of the blue: spontaneous, intense, and earth-shattering for him. He expresses this love then by the giving to David all of the clothes he was wearing and all of the weapons he was carrying, the significance of which represented the entire “giving away [of] one’s own self,�.. i.e. the giving of his whole heart and self to David.

The second covenant was made near the end of their time together in Gibeah and is recorded in 1 Sam 20:16-17 (NRSV): “Thus Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, ‘May the Lord seek out the enemies of David.’ Jonathan made David swear again, by his love for him; for he loved him as he loved his own life.� (1 Sam 20:16-17, NRSV)

20:42 (NRSV) records, “Then Jonathan said to David, ‘Go in peace, since both of us have sworn in the name of the Lord, saying, ‘The Lord will be between me and you, and between my descendents and your descendents, forever.’� The repetition of aheb/ahaba (“love/loved�) and of nephesh (“as [much as] his own life�) in 20:17 is a very clear emphasis on this pact having strongly homoeroticized elements as well as political elements.

The third covenant was probably made several years later and is noted in 1 Sam 23:18 (NRSV): “Then the two of them made a covenant before the Lord…� the pact made in 23:18 is not merely “a simple extension or re-confirmation of the [earlier] pact� described in 1 Sam 20, for the later pact looks deeper into the future and “lays down the work distribution and relationship which is the center of everything.� The third pact is understood as a “fresh, bilateral covenant defining their new relationship.� In fact, each of the three pacts, while containing a common core of expressed love and commitment, seems to differ from what was pledged before, and so advances in content and adds detail to their relationship.

Just as three times our attention is directed to David’s beauty (16:12,18; 17:42), so also three times we are told that Jonathan “loved� David (18:1,3; 20:17). Even though there are different forms of the word 'love' in Hebrew, the exact same Hebrew word aheb (“loved/fallen in love�), used in 18:1 referring to Jonathan, appears also in 18:20 referring to the princess Michal, where it has been rendered as “Michal had fallen in love with David�, or “…fell in love with David� Such a reading is bolstered by 19:1 which relates how Jonathan continued to take “great delight [kaphes] in David� (NRSV), since kaphes almost always appears in OT passages concerned with sexual desire and erotic love.

This interpretation is further bolstered by comparing the Jonathan and David relationship to that of Shechem and Dinah in Gen 34, where the Hevite prince falls madly in love with Jacob’s daughter (underexpressed in the Hebrew, as usual, with “was drawn to,� v. 3, NRSV). Here we have exactly the same language as appears in 1 Sam 18:1,3 and 19:1, used in Hebrew to describe erotic passion which has led to sexual union – including “loved� (aheb), “heart� (nephesh) and “delighted [in]� (kephes) (34:3,8,19, NRSV), as well as the idea of “longs [for]� (kasaph, v. 8; J. Green: “bound [to]�), although 1 Sam 18:1 uses a different verb for this (qashar).

In 1 Sam 18, Jonathan and David lived together in the capital city a number of months, perhaps up to a year, as David masters the arts of sword and bow (Jonathan at his side), gains real-life experience on the battlefield, and leads Israel’s army to many glorious victories (18:16,27,30; 9:8). However, in chs. 19-20 time rapidly speeds up. As Saul’s jealousy and rage toward David intensify, he hides his murderous attempts from Jonathan, while David’s life becomes one of terror, trying to keep one step ahead of Saul and his henchmen.

Then, at a New Moon festival celebrated at court, Saul asked Jonathan why David was absent; and the prince explained that David had asked leave to join his family for an annual sacrifice in Bethlehem (20:6,27-29). “Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan. He said to him, ‘You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen [bachar] the son of Jesse to your own shame [bosheth], and to the shame [bosheth] of your mother’s nakedness [‘erwa]? For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established. Now send and bring him to me, for he shall surely die.’� (1 Sam 20:30-31, NRSV). Then the enraged king hurled his spear straight at Jonathan, who jumped and fled in anger from the king’s table, realizing, at last, what a dangerous and deadly position David was in related to his father.

Although the first part of Saul’s insult has usually been translated like “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman!� (18:30a, NRSV, cf. NIV, NRSV), the Hebrew is quite vulgar and would be more accurately rendered as, “You son of a slu.!� or “You son of a bi...!� Interestingly, Lucian’s version of the Greek Septuagint adds gunaikotraphe (“effeminate man�) here (Driver), an idea which Chrysostom reiterates (ca. 400); so the original Hebrew conveyed something of this element as well.

Then, the second part of this insult reads, “Do I not know that you have chosen [bachar] the son of Jesse to your own shame [bosheth]…� (18:30b, NRSV). Instead of the verb bachar (Strong, #977) in the Hebrew, meaning “to choose.�

Even more telling, the ancient Greek text uses the noun metochos (Strong, #3353), meaning “to partner with, or companion with as a man would with a woman�.

The importance of the third part of this insult, which reads “…and to the shame [bosheth] of your mother’s nakedness [‘erwa]� (18:30c, NRSV), cannot be denied. This final phrase is loaded, in fact, with sexual terminology, including ‘erwa (“nakedness�), most often used in the OT to refer to the genitals and the repeated bosheth (“shame�), which is almost always used in a sexual context.

One really has to ask, what was Jonathan doing – nakedly, sexually and shamefully (to his father at least) – to receive such an insult as this? In fact, the language throughout 20:30 is so extremely sexually-charged it goes well beyond rationality to believe that we are not meant to interpret it in sexual ways.

So, we ask, was this merely deep friendship or a romantic relationship? In Exhibit A, upon their first meeting, Jonathan is said to have loved David as his own soul and to have given him his most precious possessions. Jonathan’s father uses language of sex and shame when he decries Jonathan and David’s relationship in a fit of rage. We see Jonathan and David’s passionate, tearful goodbye, and Jonathan reminding David of the eternal covenant they have made to each other — a covenant David still honors years later, even though honoring it is politically incorrect. But if you are still not convinced this was a romantic relationship, there is one more piece of biblical evidence — the smoking gun, so to speak. The story has one more passionate chapter.

In the first chapter of 2 Samuel, the author tells us that after Saul and Jonathan were killed in battle, David tore his clothes and fasted, a sign of deep mourning. He wept and wrote a song, which he ordered all the people of Judah to sing. In that song, he included these words:

“Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely!
In life and in death they were not divided;
they were swifter than eagles,
they were stronger than lions.
How the mighty have fallen in the midst of battle!
Jonathan lies slain upon your high places.
I am distressed for you my brother Jonathan;
Greatly beloved were you to me;
your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.�
(2 Samuel 1:23, 26-27, emphasis added)

Here it is in black and white. David states the love he shared with Jonathan was greater than what he had experienced with women. Have you ever heard a heterosexual man say he loved his male friend more than his wife? This goes well beyond deep friendship between two heterosexual men.

In this story, we have a direct biblical answer to our question: Can two people of the same sex live in a loving, committed relationship with God’s favor? The answer is “yes,� because Jonathan and David did, and the Bible celebrates their relationship.