Lessons from David

[Member 30929]

We should not let later Judeo-Christian notions of "morality", not a tendency to idealize David, lead us to overlook the perhaps startling fact that he was a homosexual.

The text of the Old Testament provides some very interesting clues. First, 1 Samuel 20:17 says that Jonathan "loved David as he loved his own soul". Now one might be tempted to write this off as describing an unusually close male bond, but 2 Samuel 1:26 goes beyond that when David says, "Thy love was wonderful, surpassing the love of women". It's hard to imagine any truly heterosexual man even thinking in such terms. Finally, there's the incident in 1 Samuel 20:41, where Jonathan and David embrace, and "they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded." Some exegetes interpret the last word to refer to ejaculation, but even if it doesn't, does embracing, kissing, and crying with a "buddy" characterize the typical male friendship?

The idea that David was gay may seem too outrageous for the traditionally-minded. That it seems to contravene Biblical morality might be sufficient for some to reject it out of hand. But it's important to realize that at the time David and Jonathan lived, there was no prohibition of homosexuality!

Scholars are rather consistent in establishing that the earliest Hebrew law code is the Covenant Code (contained in Exodus 20:22-23:19). It's referred to in 24:7. They are also consistent in concluding that it was not written down until sometime in the 9th century BCE, nearly two centuries after David's time, eventually being incorporated into Exodus. And even if you buy the traditional non-scholarly attribution of the Covenant Code to Moses, it does not mention homosexuality at all!

Prohibition of homosexuality came in the Deuteronomic Code, which was not written until the 7th century BCE. And the reason it was banned was not for any inherent sinfulness. It came from the fact that Israel was small and surrounded by enemies, which put a big emphasis on procreation. Homosexuality simply wasted seed. The fact that the OT nowhere condemns lesbianism confirms this explanation. A female lover on the side did not keep a woman, then dependent on a man for support, out of the breeding population.

So what lesson can be learned from the realization that David was homosexual? Most relevantly for this site, that the proprietor of Tektonics, who urges people to post here, need not hate himself for being what God made him to be, and with personal acceptance, he need not project his self-hatred onto others. A kinder and gentler Tektonics? Miracles can happen.

[jpholding]

We should not let later Judeo-Christian notions of "morality", not a tendency to idealize David, lead us to overlook the perhaps startling fact that he was a homosexual.

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/gaydavid.html

Our subject here is a Web writer named Jeramy Townsley, but the arguments he offers on this subject are not unique to him, so while we will use his material as a basis, his name and identity is not of the highest relevance. The subject here is the question, "Were David and Jonathan gay lovers, according to the Bible?"

Townsley says of arguments in this regard, "while not quite compelling, [they] leave open the strong possibility that they were involved in an homosexual marriage."

How is the case made? The first point is from 1 Samuel 18:21:

And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the one of the twain.
This verse, coming as it does after the following:

And Saul said to David, Behold my elder daughter Merab, her will I give thee to wife: only be thou valiant for me, and fight the LORD'S battles. For Saul said, Let not mine hand be upon him, but let the hand of the Philistines be upon him. And David said unto Saul, Who am I? and what is my life, or my father's family in Israel, that I should be son in law to the king? But it came to pass at the time when Merab Saul's daughter should have been given to David, that she was given unto Adriel the Meholathite to wife. And Michal Saul's daughter loved David: and they told Saul, and the thing pleased him.
...one would immediately suppose that the "twain" or two are Merab and Michal. The words "the one" are admittedly a KJV addition for clarity, but this is apparently all Townsley needs to let his case in:

The actual translation of this phrase is somewhat controversial, being literally translated "You will become my son-in-law through two." In this instance, the correct interpretation of this verse is crucial, because it radically shapes our view of David and Jonathan's relationship, since Scripture only indicates that David had any kind of relationship with two of Saul's children: Jonathan and Michal. Some translations interpret this verse as meaning that Saul "said for the second time," or that David has a "second opportunity" to become Saul's son-in-law. These interpretations, however, are strained, and the Hebrew does not easily lend itself to mean either of these. Most standard translations clearly interpret the verse to mean that David will become Saul's son-in-law for the second time...
Townsley hereafter quotes English versions in the service of suggesting that it means that David "will become his son-in-law for the second time" (where Jonathan was the first). But there are a few social issues Townsley needs to consider before he gets too excited.

To begin, had such a marriage indeed taken place between Jonathan and David, that means that Jonathan would have either become a member of David's house, or David would have become a member of Jonathan's house. Since Saul does not want David in power, as is quite clear, and would also presumably want Jonathan to have the throne after him, there is no way Saul would have permitted either scenario. There would be no threat if a daughter became part of David's house. So a marriage between these two is politically impossible to begin with.

Second, the passages after this tell a differing story: "And Saul commanded his servants, saying, Commune with David secretly, and say, Behold, the king hath delight in thee, and all his servants love thee: now therefore be the king's son in law. And Saul's servants spake those words in the ears of David. And David said, Seemeth it to you a light thing to be a king's son in law, seeing that I am a poor man, and lightly esteemed?"

Would Saul need to send his servants to persuade David of this, or would David ask if it was a light thing to be the king's son-in-law, if he already was?

Finally, 18:21 itself, and the word "twain," can mean "in both" but can mean in a "second". It is in fact the Hebrew word for the numeral two. What Saul is saying here is that David will be his son-in-law in the second daughter offered. There is no call for an idea of a "first marriage" here, other than a wish to see something in the text that is not there.

Next in service, it is noted:

The first offer Saul made to David for a wife was Merab, but she married Adriel of Meholah instead (18:19). The only other covenant made between Saul's family and David was between David and Jonathan in 18:3, which is not a covenant of business or politics, but of friendship/love ("ahbh"). Moreover, this relationship is described in very strong emotive language, starting in 18:1.

We can stop right here and give Townsley a failing grade in Ancient Near Eastern society, because "strong emotive language" is just par for the course for these people in all of their relationships. Townsley knows correctly that platonic relationships as such did not exist in this time, but he's either uninformed of, or ignoring, more relevant data.

We present here material previously used in our item on the alleged homosexuality of Jesus:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To put it bluntly, such arguments view intimate relationships through jaundiced Western eyes. Put your head on the breast of another man today here in America, and the jokes will fly. But in the ancient East, not so; and even today, such affectionate displays are typical on that side of the world, and well-publicized (remember all the news clips of Arab and Middle Eastern leaders kissing each other on the side of the face?), which is probably why we don't hear these sorts of verses brought up in service of homosexual Bible characters, except by the incredibly underinformed.

Abraham Rihbany (The Syrian Christ, 65), a native of the East early last century, bore with some patience the misinterpretations of modern Westerners (he named Robert Ingersoll particularly) who read the Bible through their eyes and tastes and missed certain points about what was being said and done. The particular instance of John 21:20 represents a custom "in perfect harmony with Syrian customs. How often have I seen men friends in such an attitude. There is not the slightest infringement of the rules of propriety; the act was as natural to us all as shaking hands. The practice is especially indulged in when intimate friends are about to part from one another, as on the eve of a journey, or when about the face a dangerous undertaking. Then they sit with their heads leaning against each other, or the one's head resting upon the other's shoulder or breast."

By the same token, Easterners will use "terms of unbounded intimacy and unrestrained affection" to one another: "my soul," "my eyes," "my heart." Paul's holy kiss (Rom. 16:16, etc) is no more of a homosexual exchange.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Townsley is therefore underinformed any time he cites non-sexual, affectionate behavior as meaningful for his case. Yet this he does, going back to 1 Samuel 18:1-4 and finding a "love at first sight" citation:

And it came to pass, when he 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 Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
Townsley admits that there is no linguistic similarity between this and language in Gen. 2 which refers to "becoming one flesh," but he insists that "there is a striking similarity in concepts between the son leaving the parents to join to a spouse, and the two becoming one."

Is there? As noted above, such a linkup would have been political suicide for Saul, David, and/or Jonathan, and this language is no different (indeed, far tamer) than that which Rihbany describes among close, non-homosexual friends.

We may note that commentators regard Jonathan here as passing over his royal insignia -- in effect, his right to the throne -- to David, and those who see a sexual encounter here may note that only one person seems to be getting undressed. And lest anyone make much of that "loved" bit, it is the same word used to say that the Lord loved Israel (Deut. 7:8, 1 Kings 10:9, 2 Chr. 2:11, 9:8, Hosea 3;1). The same word is often used, as Townsley notes, of relationships that would clearly have a sexual component (just look through Song of Songs) but it implies, as agape does, a more practical concern.

Townlsey notes these cites, but does not tell us that the word is used of the relationship between God and Israel.

To his credit, Townsley admits that the evidence here is "persuasive" to him, but "not conclusive," also admitting that he knows of no "other extant Hebrew literature of that era that refers to a gay marriage," and whether "Saul would have seen David and Jonathan's covenant as one of legal marriage." Not that all "covenants" were marriages anyway; it is the same word used to refer to God's promise not to destroy the world again after the Flood, and to God's agreement with Abraham.

On the lack of mention of sexual activity between the two, it is countered that "very few Old Testament relationships which are clearly marriage relationships have subsequent descriptions of sexual activity" (actually, they do, in the form of children; and Townsley only says this, with no accounting at all) and suggests that 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.") may be just such a reference, which means that all of Rihbany's people must be having sex with each other as well.

One might add that "love" is certainly not the same as sex, and one might suggest that a caring, non-sexual relationship can be immensely satisfying -- one wonders how much of our modern, sex-crazed mindset Townsley has absorbed and wrung out on the text.

Try something I HAVEN'T already answered, dumbass.

"Thy love was wonderful, surpassing the love of women". It's hard to imagine any truly heterosexual man even thinking in such terms.

Maybe that's because you have a perverse imagination that defines "love" outside its contextual meaning of interest in personal welfare.

Finally, there's the incident in 1 Samuel 20:41, where Jonathan and David embrace, and "they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded." Some exegetes interpret the last word to refer to ejaculation, but even if it doesn't, does embracing, kissing, and crying with a "buddy" characterize the typical male friendship?

As noted above, Sicko, in Eastern cultures, YES.

As for your perverted little idea that gadal refers to ejaculation, well, gee, then, if that's so:

1 Samuel 3;19 And Samuel had an ejaculation , and the LORD was with him, and did let none of his words fall to the ground.

2 Samuel 12:3 But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up : and it ejaculated together with him, and with his children

Take a clue from Freud: Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar! Gadal in context clearly means David expressed emotion outside the bounds of what was normally expected in a collectivist society where artificial displays of appropriate emotion were the norm. Get your mind out of the gutter!

But it's important to realize that at the time David and Jonathan lived, there was no prohibition of homosexuality!

Scholars are rather consistent in establishing that the earliest Hebrew law code is the Covenant Code (contained in Exodus 20:22-23:19). It's referred to in 24:7. They are also consistent in concluding that it was not written down until sometime in the 9th century BCE,

Yawn.... http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/deut.html -- sorry, no, 14th century BC.

procreation. Homosexuality simply wasted seed. The fact that the OT nowhere condemns lesbianism confirms this explanation.

Wrong again, moron:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lev18.html

Ancient law codes, being didactic, do not need to be "consistent" with our modern, precision-oriented expectations; the condemnation of male homosexuality applies by exension to female homosexuality, just as laws that say "If a man..." do not mean a woman can get away with the same act with no punishment. (It's also questionable how widespread such behavior would have been anyway, given how closely guarded daughters would have been in the ancient household.)

So what lesson can be learned from the realization that David was homosexual? Most relevantly for this site, that the proprietor of Tektonics, who urges people to post here, need not hate himself for being what God made him to be, and with personal acceptance, he need not project his self-hatred onto others. A kinder and gentler Tektonics? Miracles can happen.

A greater miracle would be a smarter and more informed you. But that won't happen since you didn't even read my material on this subject.

Mods are welcome to move this to my section so we can get some entertainment out of this goofball. Yo lunch IS getting a little stale.

[Bill the Cat]

Moderated By: Bill the Cat

Moved.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Dee Dee Warren]

We should not let later Judeo-Christian notions of "morality", not a tendency to idealize David, lead us to overlook the perhaps startling fact that he was a homosexual.

The text of the Old Testament provides some very interesting clues. First, 1 Samuel 20:17 says that Jonathan "loved David as he loved his own soul". Now one might be tempted to write this off as describing an unusually close male bond, but 2 Samuel 1:26 goes beyond that when David says, "Thy love was wonderful, surpassing the love of women". It's hard to imagine any truly heterosexual man even thinking in such terms. Finally, there's the incident in 1 Samuel 20:41, where Jonathan and David embrace, and "they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded." Some exegetes interpret the last word to refer to ejaculation, but even if it doesn't, does embracing, kissing, and crying with a "buddy" characterize the typical male friendship?

The idea that David was gay may seem too outrageous for the traditionally-minded. That it seems to contravene Biblical morality might be sufficient for some to reject it out of hand. But it's important to realize that at the time David and Jonathan lived, there was no prohibition of homosexuality!

Scholars are rather consistent in establishing that the earliest Hebrew law code is the Covenant Code (contained in Exodus 20:22-23:19). It's referred to in 24:7. They are also consistent in concluding that it was not written down until sometime in the 9th century BCE, nearly two centuries after David's time, eventually being incorporated into Exodus. And even if you buy the traditional non-scholarly attribution of the Covenant Code to Moses, it does not mention homosexuality at all!

Prohibition of homosexuality came in the Deuteronomic Code, which was not written until the 7th century BCE. And the reason it was banned was not for any inherent sinfulness. It came from the fact that Israel was small and surrounded by enemies, which put a big emphasis on procreation. Homosexuality simply wasted seed. The fact that the OT nowhere condemns lesbianism confirms this explanation. A female lover on the side did not keep a woman, then dependent on a man for support, out of the breeding population.

So what lesson can be learned from the realization that David was homosexual? Most relevantly for this site, that the proprietor of Tektonics, who urges people to post here, need not hate himself for being what God made him to be, and with personal acceptance, he need not project his self-hatred onto others. A kinder and gentler Tektonics? Miracles can happen.

What name would you like to change to, or I get to choose. You will not like what I choose. I do not like stupid games played on my private property. I am inclined to simply show you the door.

I expect a PM within 24 hours in my inbox telling me what you would like to change your name to.

[The Curtmudgeon]

Chances are, Deeds, that he's a troll that won't be posting any more anyway, so you can make it whatever you want. I suggest "I'm a Troll", personally.

The (but be more creative if you like) Curtmudgeon

[RumTumTugger]

How about "I'm a stupid Troll" I'd use a stronger word but am feeling to much like a lady to day to put it in it begins with a D and has the synonim for donkey at the end of it.

[Teluog]

DDW: I suggest TheREAL_YO LUNCH, or TheREAL_[INSERT NAME OF TROLL HERE]

At least he didn't pick TheREAL_TURKEL. That would be platinum.

[Manwë Súlimo]

This thread is gay.

[Rayado]

[aikidoka]

We should not let later Judeo-Christian notions of "morality", not a tendency to idealize David, lead us to overlook the perhaps startling fact that he was a homosexual.

The words kettle black and pot come to mind.

Dork

[Andius]

Heh, how does merely saying, "You love me better than women" (Or in this case, look after my well being better than a woman for the contextually impaired") naturally follow that is an expression of homosexuality?

You can affirm such a thing, and still remain straight as far as I am concerned.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I think seeing DDW rename this guy will be the most exciting event in this thread.

[jpholding]

Likely right. The moron has even stopped emailing me now so I'm sure he won't come back here.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Well I am going to ban him. Would anyone in this thread object to it being deleted? I would rather just delete his account, but that would also delete the thread. Be aware JP, that he is also impersonating you via his email address.

[jpholding]

Well I am going to ban him. Would anyone in this thread object to it being deleted? I would rather just delete his account, but that would also delete the thread. Be aware JP, that he is also impersonating you via his email address.

I know, he sent me email...wouldn't be the first time.

I have no objection to the thread being deleted since it seems he's too chicken to come back.