David and Jonathan: Homosexuality in the Bible

[Zostrianos]

An interesting Biblical story is that of the revered king David and his friend Jonathan, a relationship with obvious romantic overtones:

Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. (1 Samuel 18)

Thus Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, ‘May the Lord seek out the enemies of David.’ 17Jonathan made David swear again by his love for him; for he loved him as he loved his own life. (1 Samuel 20)

King Saul didn't approve of their relationship:

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 the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? (1 Samuel 20:30)

As soon as the boy had gone, David rose from beside the stone heap* and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. He bowed three times, and they kissed each other, and wept with each other; David wept the more.* 42Then Jonathan said to David, ‘Go in peace, since both of us have sworn in the name of the Lord, saying, “The Lord shall be between me and you, and between my descendants and your descendants, for ever.” ’ He got up and left; and Jonathan went into the city. (1 Samuel 20:41)

Next time you hear fundies attacking gays, you can point out these verses :D

[Book O'Dead]

An interesting Biblical story is that of the revered king David and his friend Jonathan, a relationship with obvious romantic overtones:

Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. (1 Samuel 18)

Thus Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, ‘May the Lord seek out the enemies of David.’ 17Jonathan made David swear again by his love for him; for he loved him as he loved his own life. (1 Samuel 20)

King Saul didn't approve of their relationship:

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 the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? (1 Samuel 20:30)

As soon as the boy had gone, David rose from beside the stone heap* and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. He bowed three times, and they kissed each other, and wept with each other; David wept the more.* 42Then Jonathan said to David, ‘Go in peace, since both of us have sworn in the name of the Lord, saying, “The Lord shall be between me and you, and between my descendants and your descendants, for ever.” ’ He got up and left; and Jonathan went into the city. (1 Samuel 20:41)

Next time you hear fundies attacking gays, you can point out these verses :D

David was not king until he overthrew Saul.

[eric922]

I'm not sure how accurate this blog is, but it was posted on another forum, it talks about gay marriages being performed in the early Church.

http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Marriage.html

[MuscularTophFan]

Someone should tell the Westboro Baptist Church this breaking news!

/sarcasm

[Yuppie Grinder]

An interesting Biblical story is that of the revered king David and his friend Jonathan, a relationship with obvious romantic overtones:

Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. (1 Samuel 18)

Thus Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, ‘May the Lord seek out the enemies of David.’ 17Jonathan made David swear again by his love for him; for he loved him as he loved his own life. (1 Samuel 20)

King Saul didn't approve of their relationship:

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 the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? (1 Samuel 20:30)

As soon as the boy had gone, David rose from beside the stone heap* and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. He bowed three times, and they kissed each other, and wept with each other; David wept the more.* 42Then Jonathan said to David, ‘Go in peace, since both of us have sworn in the name of the Lord, saying, “The Lord shall be between me and you, and between my descendants and your descendants, for ever.” ’ He got up and left; and Jonathan went into the city. (1 Samuel 20:41)

Next time you hear fundies attacking gays, you can point out these verses :D
This story appears to have homosexual overtones, but maybe that wasn't the intention. It seems gay to us because of our culture's understanding of how grown men relate to each other, our culture's gender sensibilities. Maybe the culture that originated this tale didn't see the way men relate to each other the same way. I'm not the least bit certain here, just speculating.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm not sure how accurate this blog is, but it was posted on another forum, it talks about gay marriages being performed in the early Church.

http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Marriage.html

It seems plausible after reading the blog. Growing up catholic I've always heard that there were homosexual relationships by church figures which were open and not an issue in the early church - never heard that there were marriages, but why not there's a lot that's not known about the early church and a lot that's been purposefully downplayed or swept under the rug. Later homosexual relationships may have actually been encouraged as the church began to try and prevent priests from marrying (women) and producing offspring who may have grown up to demand an inheritance.

It could be bunk, but this is something I've heard for a long time, though I've never read anything really solid about it - I have some historical curiosity about Catholicism, but beyond their role in the feudal system, I haven't bothered to look into church-life further.

[hatzel]

This story appears to have homosexual overtones, but maybe that wasn't the intention. It seems gay to us because of our culture's understanding of how grown men relate to each other, our culture's gender sensibilities. Maybe the culture that originated this tale didn't see the way men relate to each other the same way. I'm not the least bit certain here, just speculating.

It would of course depend who we believe. Daniel Boyarin, for example, has written rather convincingly on the 'effeminate' nature of Jewish masculinity (if viewed from a modern European perspective, of course) dating back to the Biblical era, and the historical intersections of homophobia and antisemitism tied up with this. This may suggest that David and Jonathan were in fact behaving like 'archetypal' heterosexual (for want of a better word, as it is obviously inappropriate here) Jewish men, with any suggestions of homosexuality being a later projection. Though in fact I think here we may be speaking more of femininity than homosexuality; in our modern societies, such expressions of same-sex intimacy would often be considered 'proper' to women (and 'improper' to men), and it is only the men's adoption of typically 'feminine' behaviour leaving the impression of homosexuality, given the obvious crossover between supposedly 'feminine' and 'homosexual' stereotypes.

[scarletghoul]

Did not Jesus himself say "love thy fellow man" ?

[eric922]

It seems plausible after reading the blog. Growing up catholic I've always heard that there were homosexual relationships by church figures which were open and not an issue in the early church - never heard that there were marriages, but why not there's a lot that's not known about the early church and a lot that's been purposefully downplayed or swept under the rug. Later homosexual relationships may have actually been encouraged as the church began to try and prevent priests from marrying (women) and producing offspring who may have grown up to demand an inheritance.

It could be bunk, but this is something I've heard for a long time, though I've never read anything really solid about it - I have some historical curiosity about Catholicism, but beyond their role in the feudal system, I haven't bothered to look into church-life further.
There really isn't much know about early Church history. I know we have some writings by Early Church Fathers, but I'm sure a lot has been lost or deliberately hidden by the Catholic Church. We probably only have the writings that support Catholic doctrine.

[Zostrianos]

There really isn't much know about early Church history. I know we have some writings by Early Church Fathers, but I'm sure a lot has been lost or deliberately hidden by the Catholic Church. We probably only have the writings that support Catholic doctrine.

The church was notorious for destroying literature that it perceived as heretical, and soon even turned against pagan texts. This is one of the reasons we have so little classical literature today, compared to the mountains of writings by the church fathers.

[Zostrianos]

"at the very point of origin, back then in late antiquity, both secular and ecclesiastical authorities repeatedly destroyed unedifying texts, in well advertised ceremonies, most obviously in sectarian disputes where rival claims for orthodoxy were pitted against each other; whereupon one of them along with its creeds and treatises would be declared heterodox by the other, and measures would be taken to insure that no trace of its existence remained except, perhaps, what might be embedded in victorious disproofs and rejoinders. Non-Christian writings came in for this same treatment, that is, destruction in great bonfires at the center of the town square. Copyists were discouraged from replacing them by the threat of having their hands cut off."

(R. Macmullen, Christianity and Paganism in the 4th to 8th centuries)

[mew]

I know you like her. Well, I like her too. I know she likes you.

[eric922]

The church was notorious for destroying literature that it perceived as heretical, and soon even turned against pagan texts. This is one of the reasons we have so little classical literature today, compared to the mountains of writings by the church fathers.
What I really hate is the fact that we have no information on the Mystery Religions. Which I guess is kind of the point, but still it annoys me.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Did not Jesus himself say "love thy fellow man" ?

I want to write a book about how the historical Christ was homosexual, not because I believe that, but because it would be a good time.

[Zostrianos]

What I really hate is the fact that we have no information on the Mystery Religions. Which I guess is kind of the point, but still it annoys me.

That was also because of how secretive they were, and apparently even the cultic and ritual texts themselves were seldom copied for fear of unwittingly divulging them to outsiders. But the most famous cultic site of the mysteries (Eleusis) was indeed viciously destroyed by Christians in 395 AD during Alaric's invasion - reportedly the monks massacred the priests, stole everything they could get their hands on, and then torched and demolished the site.

[MuscularTophFan]

As someone who was raised Lutheran the topic of homosexuality was never once brought up in church. I have studied many different Christian denominations and beliefs. In fact it's one of the reason I'm an atheist. I have still yet to find a single church that follows the bible 100%. That includes the Westboro Baptist Church which hold un-biblical views not supported by the bible. Fred Phelps is a "lying hell bond false prophet" like the rest of us.

There is a lot of confusion when it comes to the bible and homosexuality. First term homosexual wasn't created until the 19th century. The concept of sexual orientation didn't come about until the 20th century. No where is homosexual or sexual orientation talked about in the bible. Let's take a look at what the bible says if you took it literally:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." - Leviticus 20:13 KJV

So this passage clearly condemns man who also "lie with makind, as he lieth with a women." This passage only applies to the male gender and not the female gender. This passage has many terms we have to take into account:

1.) What is mankind mean?
2.) What does lieth mean?
3.) What does man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a women mean?
4.) Should the death penalty be applied to these acts?

Let me answer:

1.) Other men
2.) Sexual intercourse
3.) Homosexual sexual intercourse between two men (does not apply to women)
4.) Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17, Matthew 5:21, Romans 13:9 clearly state"Thou shalt not kill."It is one of the Ten Commandments. Does the Ten Commandments make the death penalty in Leviticus null and void? There are many other things in Leviticus that require the death penalty:

• Touching the mount.
• Smiting a man.
• Smiting your father or mother.
• Stealing and selling a man.
• Cursing your father or mother.
• Lying with a beast.
• Failing to keep the Sabbath holy; working on the Sabbath.
• Turning your children over to the false god Molech.
• Committing adultery with another man’s wife; both the man and woman were put to death.
• Lying with your father’s wife.
• Lying with your daughter-in-law.
• Lying with mankind as with womankind.
• Having a familiar spirit or being a wizard.
• Blaspheming the name of God.
• Doing the job of the Levites/coming into the tabernacle or sanctuary, or into the veil, where the Levites were to be, when you were not a Levite.
• Being a lying false prophet, a dreamer of dreams, who tries to turn you away from the Lord your God, to serve false gods.
• Being a stubborn and rebellious child who will not obey his parents.
• Being a mother, brother, son, daughter, wife or friend who tries to get you to go serve other gods.

So if you support the death penalty for male homosexual intercourse under Leviticus you also have to apply the death penalty for all of the other 17 things I listed above.

Here's some other things the bible says about homosexuality:

Mathew 19:5 clearly states marriage is a union between one man one women. In Psalm 5:5 God hates homosexuals as God hates all workers of iniquity .USA and other nations are under the wrath of God for its tolerance of this "abomination" according to Leviticus 18:22-30. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says "men who has sex with men" will never inherit the kingdom of God.

But thankfully the bible is a science fiction novel and should not be taken seriously.

[Yuppie Grinder]

• Having a familiar spirit or being a wizard.


God damn, looks like I better go repent if I don't wanna get smitten.

[Zostrianos]

1.) What is mankind mean?
....
4.) Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17, Matthew 5:21, Romans 13:9 clearly state"Thou shalt not kill."It is one of the Ten Commandments. Does the Ten Commandments make the death penalty in Leviticus null and void?


The KJV isn't very reliable. You should use the NRSV, it's the most accurate Bible translation you'll ever find. But anyway, the Hebrew term used is zâkâr, which means literally "male".

Also, there is no commandment that says "thou shalt not kill". It's "thou shalt not murder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_shall_not_murder)", which leaves more room for interpretation and can be used to justify the death penalty and killing of infidels, because it's not considered "murder" per se.



There are many other things in Leviticus that require the death penalty:..


Yeah, Christians like to pick and choose what they think should be followed or not. They make a big fuss about how the Old Testament says homosexuality is an abomination, but at the same time claim OT laws were nullified by Jesus. Find the logic in that :rolleyes:

[MuscularTophFan]

God damn, looks like I better go repent if I don't wanna get smitten.
Don't worry you can join me and my gay boyfriend and party it up in hell for an eternity.



The KJV isn't very reliable. You should use the NRSV, it's the most accurate Bible translation you'll ever find. But anyway, the Hebrew term used is zâkâr, which means literally "male".

Also, there is no commandment that says "thou shalt not kill". It's "thou shalt not murder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_shall_not_murder)", which leaves more room for interpretation and can be used to justify the death penalty and killing of infidels, because it's not considered "murder" per se.
So that means homosexuals are to be put to death according to Leviticus. I believe the penalty is death by stoning.




Yeah, Christians like to pick and choose what they think should be followed or not. They make a big fuss about how the Old Testament says homosexuality is an abomination, but at the same time claim OT laws were nullified by Jesus. Find the logic in that :rolleyes:
Actually this is a lie.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."(Matthew 5:17-18)

So that means even Jesus wants us to kill homosexuals.

I find it ironic when Christians don't follow the bible literally word for word because nowhere in the bible does it say "this part should be followed word for word and this part should be ignored." It's very hypocritical. Either follow the bible word for word and execute homosexuals and wizards of don't follow it at all.

[Zostrianos]

Actually this is a lie.
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."(Matthew 5:17-18)


Despite that quote, the main justification I've seen for Christians not following OT laws is that they were only meant for the Hebrews before Jesus, and Jesus' coming nullified them. Many say that Jesus 'fulfilled' the Law by his death, and since it's been fulfilled it's no longer necessary.

[bcbm]

i think you're reading too much into this. historically this sort of male affection has actually been pretty common, especially in societies where women and their sexuality are heavily repressed. people build strong bonds with each other and like to communicate that physically. if anything the fact that this comes off as 'gay' to modern readers suggests more about our own fucked up views of human sexuality and behavior than whatever was going on between jonathan and david (who had a man killed so he could steal his wife... sounds pretty straight to me)

[Zostrianos]

It has indeed, but it has also led to sex and relationships, e.g. in ancient Greece, where women and girls were heavily sheltered, so men sought affection from other men.

[bcbm]

i mean people have always been fucking whomever they can, i just don't think that the quotes you provide really illustrate that that was the case here.

[cynicles]

Ancient Greeks didn't even have a concept of straight or gay sexuality was seen within a different dichotomy of eitherdinant or submissive.

[l'Enfermé]

Yeah but homosexuality in Ancient Greece was confined mostly to the aristocracy and the army, and was mostly limited to pederasty(i.e older aristocrats having sex with submissive boys).