[Vision2020] Homosexuality and the Bible

Thu Apr 27 12:41:32 PDT 2006

Greetings:

The best book I've read on this topic is "Is the Homosexual My Neighbor?" by Letha Dawson Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott.  I have loaned my copy to a friend, otherwise I could quote directly from it.

The authors' conclusion about David and Jonathan is that the relationship was definitely homoerotic or homosocial, as the website for the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canda concludes (excerpts below).  There is no way that anyone can determine whether they had sex together.

Previous posts have not quoted from David's funeral oration which contains this: "thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."  Dick and Ed: Do you still think that this is old fashion herterosexual mateship?  And Ed: they not only embraced but they kissed one another.  Sharing Ed's aversion to males showing affection to one another, the translators of the Living Bible in stating that they "shook hands"!!!

What follows is what I found on the web in just a few minutes.  J. Richards' comments come after the biblical passages.  He supports the homosexual interpretation, while the Canadian Evangelical Lutherans and their scholars support only the homosocial view.  Don't bother to tell me that the highly literate and civilized Canadians can't possibly be true Christians!

David & Jonathan

1 Samuel 18:1,3

"And it came to pass, when he [David] had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul . . . And Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul."

And immediately afterward, Jonathan disrobed before David:

1 Samuel 18:4  

"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.

Jonathan was not only disrobing, but was turning the symbols of his manhood over to David.  This draws a very clear picture of what is happening here.

1 Samuel 20:30

"Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of 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?"

Reference to the nakedness of one's parents is one of the methods used in the Bible to refer to a sexual relationship.  Jonathan had chosen David as his lover.  And in the same conversations Saul says:

1 Samuel 20:31
Why, as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth you cannot make good your claim to the kingship!

This clarifies Saul's problem.  One of the most important duties of being a king was producing an heir.  Obviously, Jonathan had no intention of producing an heir, and therefore could not provide the final step needed to make good his claim to the kingship.  He loved David and *only* David.

1 Samuel 20:41
" . . . they [David and Jonathan] kissed one another, and wept one with another . . . "

Here they are displaying a deep affection for one another, and showing an emotional attachment well beyond what would be shown by two heterosexuals in a similar situation.  They actually weep together because of their upcoming forced separation. 

2 Samuel 1:26
[After Jonathan's death, David said,] "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."

As you can see, they were very much in love.  The Bible shows them kissing one another -- not a normal activity for heterosexual men. To make sure you don't miss the sexual aspect, the love is compared (favorably, by the way) with the love of a woman.  Their souls were knit together in love, and they made a covenant because of their love. Just think about how many covenants are made because of love.  The covenant of marriage sort of sticks out.  The actions immediately following that declaration of love are also unmistakable.  Not many covenants made because of love result in the participants disrobing in each other's presence, but one such covenant -- the covenant of marriage -- does.  

The comment about the nakedness of Jonathan's mother in the discussion of his relationship with David strongly implies a  sexual element to the relationship.  This just reiterates what is already obvious.

To emphasize the point, Saul offers his oldest daughter Meroh to David, but David turns down the offer.  He then offers his younger daughter Michel to David, who loves David, but David also turns this down. Something very interesting here is that, even though the Bible says that Michel loved David, there is no reciprical "David loved Michel" statement.  David finally agrees to marry Michel, but not for love, but rather for the benefit of having the king as his father-in-law.

1 Samuel 18:26
"When the servants reported this offer to David, he was pleased with the prospect of becoming the king's son-in-law."

Note that there is no mention of being pleased at the prospect of marrying Michel, bit only with becoming the king's son-in-law.

David was obviously bisexual.  But with a preference for men, since he found his love for Jonathan to be wonderful, passing the love of women.  As a King he *had* to have a harem and produce heirs, no matter his sexual orientation, but his one true love was Jonathan.

You know, I have thought about how *I* would have phrased things to clearly show a homosexual relationship in the Bible.  Other than describing the physical act itself, which I would not do, I would have done it by saying that they loved each other.  To make absolutely clear that this was a gay relationship that was the equivalent of marriage, I would have said that they made a covenant between each other because of their love.  I doubt that I sould have gone as far as to show them disrobing as the Bible does, but I might add in the symbolism of giving up the sword.  Just in case that got missed, though I would have found it hard to believe that this could be misconstrued, I would have shown an example of physical affection, perhaps going as far as to say they kissed.  Surely that would be enough for *anyone* to know that this was a gay relationship.  

But just in case anyone managed to deny that, I would have added something like having one of the characters compare their relationship to a relationship with a woman, and find this one better.  No one could possibly misinterpret *that* one.  But just to make *absolutely* sure that it could not be mistaken for anything but a homosexual relationship that included a sexual element, I would use one of the code phrases used to point out a sexual relationship, such as a reference to "the confusion of thy mother's nakedness".  

Actually, I probably would never have gone that far, because I would not have believed that anyone could *possibly* miss the obvious.  But I cannot think of *anything* that I could have written that would have made the point beyond what is actually shown here.  

>From the website of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada http://www.elcic.ca/docs/buck/01buck11.html

Note: Westminster Press, the publisher of Tom Horner's book "David Loved Jonathan" is a very respectable Presbyterian press with a much better reputation than Wilson's Calvinist Canon Press.

The Message From the Old Testament: David and Jonathan

The Old Testament devotes considerable space to the friendship between David and Jonathan (1 Samuel 18–20; 2 Samuel 1). A perusal of the relevant chapters will help the reader appreciate the depth of the relationship between these two men. Nevertheless, until very recently no one seems to have suspected anything unusual behind this cycle of stories involving David and Jonathan. Even today many, if not most, readers see nothing more in these stories than reflections of a very close friendship between the two men.

However Tom Horner champions a very ingenious theory. In "Jonathan Loved David" (Westminster Press, 1978) he insists that David and Jonathan were homosexual partners. Horner finds the strongest supporting evidence for his theory in the words of David's lament over the death of Jonathan, "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." (2 Samuel 1:26)

Add to that the observation that David took his farewell from Jonathan with the sort of tenderness which he did not display toward his wife—kissing and shedding tears—and one begins to appreciate why some might wonder about the nature of the relationship between these two males.

As far as Horner is concerned, an unbiased reading of the story suggests that David and Jonathan were homosexual lovers. Moreover, Horner feels certain that the nature of such a relationship would have been generally known and understood. The important point is that no one at that time seems to have raised an eyebrow or shaken an accusing finger against the pair, says Horner. From this Horner concludes that there is evidence in the Bible itself which indicates that at least at a certain period in history homosexual behaviour was tolerated in Israel.

In "David the King," Gladys Schmitt adds that the story of David's seduction of Bathsheba implies that David was actually heterosexual or at least bisexual in orientation. According to these theories the sexual mores of the Davidic era were rather free, at least as far as the affairs of the king were concerned.

Other scholars tend to be skeptical. They feel that Horner is reading too much into the text. Peter Coleman is convinced that "no implication of a homosexual relationship in modern terms is made in the biblical narrative of the friendship between these men." In Christian Attitudes to Homosexuality, he says that David's words should be understood metaphorically. They should not be taken to imply that David preferred homosexual sex with Jonathan over heterosexual relations with women. One should rather conclude that David had a strong emotional attachment to Jonathan and that he valued Jonathan's friendship even more highly than he did sexual relations with women. Coming from a man like David, who found Bathsheba irresistible, this would be no small compliment to Jonathan.

There is no hint anywhere that either David or Jonathan had any sort of problem in their heterosexual sex life. David had a large number of wives and concubines (2 Samuel 5:13). Only toward the end of his life is he said to have suffered impotence (1 Kings 1:1–4). Seen from today's perspective, if the two males can be shown to have carried on a homosexual relationship, they would have done so either as persons of heterosexual or at best bi-sexual orientation.

Is there enough evidence to substantiate anything of the sort? Nissinen thinks not. He finds nothing to indicate that David and Jonathan slept together. Their relationship should not be regarded as homosexual but as homosocial in nature. What we see here is "an example of ancient oriental homosociability, which permits even intimate feelings to be expressed," he says.

Nevertheless, people in the gay community are often loathe to relinquish the David–Jonathan texts in a discussion of homosexuality. While they acknowledge that actual sexual intercourse is only a remote possibility in the David–Jonathan cycle, they value these stories as an indication that physical sex is only one and often only a minor part of the homosexual relationships. These stories honour the display of intense affection between two males. The role of genital sex is of lesser consideration in a love relationship. Gay relationships like heterosexual relationships find their true basis in emotional support and affection rather than in the sex act as such.

David and Jonathan

Passages in 1 Samuel & 2 Samuel describe, among other events, a extremely close bond between David and Jonathan. Jonathan was the son of King Saul, and next in line for the throne. But Samuel anointed David to be the next king. This produced a strong conflict in the mind of Saul. 

Interpretation: 

Religious conservatives generally view the friendship of David and Jonathan as totally non-sexual. They find it inconceivable that God would allow a famous king of Israel to be a homosexual.

Some religious liberals believe that David and Jonathan had a consensual homosexual relationship - in many ways, a prototype of many of today's gay partnerships. 7 Some important verses which describe their relationship are: 

1 Samuel 18:1
"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)
"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV)

Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit", etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally. 

1 Samuel 18:2
"From that day, Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house." (NIV)

David left his parent's home and moved to Saul's where he would be with Jonathan. This is a strong indication that the relationship was extremely close. It echoes the passage marriage passage in Genesis 2:24: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

1 Samuel 18:3-4
"And 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)

Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was physical. 

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'. Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law" (NIV)

In the King James Version, the end of Verse 21 reads: 
"Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the one of the twain." (KJV)
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 that was rejected, presumably by her. Then he offered Michal. There is an interesting phrase used at the end of verse 21.

In both the NIV and KJV, it would seem that David's first opportunity to be a son-in-law was with the older daughter Merab, and his second was with the younger daughter 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 underlined phrase "the one of" does not exist in the Hebrew original. The words are shown in italics in the King James Version; this 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. The Hebrew original would appear to recognize David and Jonathan's homosexual relationship as equivalent to David and Michal's heterosexual marriage. Saul may have approved or disapproved of the same-sex relationship; but at least he appears to have recognized it. The KJV highlight their re-writing of the Hebrew original by placing the three words in italics; the NIV translation is clearly deceptive. 

1 Samuel 20:41
"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most." (NIV)
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)

"and they sadly shook hands, tears running down their cheeks until David could weep no more." (Living Bible)

"They kissed each other and wept together until David got control of himself." (Modern Language)

"They kissed each other and wept aloud together." (New American Bible)

"Then David and Jonathan kissed each other. They cried together, but David cried the most." (New Century Version)

"Then they kissed one another and shed tears together, until David's grief was even greater than Jonathan's." (Revised English Bible)

"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David recovered himself." (Revised Standard Version)

The translators of the Living Bible apparently could not handle the thought of two adult men kissing, so they mistranslated the passage by saying that the two men shook hands! This is somewhat less than honest. The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until David became great. The word which means "great" in this passage is "gadal" in the original Hebrew. The same word is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to King Solomon being greater than all other kings. Some theologians interpret "gadal" in this verse as indicating that David had an erection. However, the thoughts of David becoming sexually aroused after kissing Jonathan may have been too threatening for Bible translators. They either deleted the ending entirely or created one of their own. 

2 Samuel 1:26
"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that 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. Since David's only relationships with women would have been sexual in nature, then he must be referring to sexual love here. 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. It would appear that David is referring to his sexual love for Jonathan. 

Daniel and Ashpenaz
Daniel 1:9 refers to Ashpenaz, the chief of the court officials of Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon. 

Various English translations differ greatly: 

"Now God had caused the official to show favor and sympathy to Daniel" (NIV)

"Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs" (KJV)

"Now God made Daniel to find favor, compassion and loving-kindness with the chief of the eunuchs" (Amplified Bible) 

"Now, as it happens, God had given the superintendent a special appreciation for Daniel and sympathy for his predicament" (Living Bible)

"Then God granted Daniel favor and sympathy from the chief of the eunuchs" (Modern Language)

"Though God had given Daniel the favor and sympathy of the chief chamberlain..." (New American Bible)

"God made Ashpenaz want to be kind and merciful to Daniel" (New Century Version)

"And God gave Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the chief of the eunuchs" (Revised Standard Version)

"God caused the master to look on Daniel with kindness and goodwill" (Revised English Version)
Interpretation: 

Religious conservatives generally view the friendship of Daniel and Ashpenaz as totally non-sexual. It is inconceivable that God would allow a famous prophet of Israel to be a homosexual.

Some religious liberals detect the possibility of a homosexual relationship here. The Hebrew words which describe the relationship between Daniel and Ashpenaz are chesed v'rachamim The most common translation of chesed is "mercy". V'rachamim is in a plural form which is used to emphasize its relative importance. It has multiple meanings: "mercy" and "physical love". It is unreasonable that the original Hebrew would read that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and mercy." A more reasonable translation would thus be that Ashpenaz showed mercy and engaged in physical love" with Daniel. Of course, this would be unacceptable to later translators, so they substitute more innocuous terms. The KJV reference to "tender love" would appear to be the closest to the truth. One might question whether Daniel and Ashpenaz could sexually consummate their relationship. They were both eunuchs. Apparently, when males are castrated after puberty, they still retain sexual drive. It is interesting to note that no other romantic interest or sexual partner of Daniel was mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.

Ruth and Naomi
Ruth 1:16-17 and 2:10-11 describe their close friendship Perhaps the best known passage from this book is Ruth 1:16-17 which is often read out during opposite-sex and same-sex marriage and union ceremonies:

"Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me." (NIV)

Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24: " Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (KJV)  

This book was probably included in the Hebrew Scriptures because King David was one of the descendents of Ruth. Although this same-sex friendship appears to have been very close, there is no proof that it was a sexually active relationship. 