ARG: Jonathan loved David- My name in the bible

This is extremely long, but it is well worth it, I promise. I owe this post to the labors of other scholars but have added my little bits. A few Sundays ago in Gospel Doctrine, we were reading in Samuel about Jonathan and David. If you aren't familiar with the story, I encourage you to reference it. Many scholars argue that the relationship between Jonathan and David was more than just a platonic relationship. "That's blasphemous!" you might think. Well, perhaps. I do not know what the correct answer is, but I thought I'd share reasons why many believe this was an intimate homosexual relationship. These scriptures go on and on about the love these two righteous men had for each other. You can decide for yourself of course.

Now, one reason I am so interested in this story is because of my name. Guess what my middle name is? David. Jonathan David Adamson (son of Adam). Don't worry... I'm not claiming that all this was written in the stars, I am just pointing out one reason it peaked my interest. Anyway, on to the scriptures:

"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul"

1 Sam. 18:1

In Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew,  it 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 the interpretation can be argued that the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.

"And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house."

 1 Sam. 18:2

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."

"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."

1 Sam. 18:3-4

Whoa there... so the made a covenant with each other because of their intense love for each other? And then Jonathan stripped?? 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 sexual in nature.

"And Michal Saul’s daughter loved David: and they told Saul, and the thing pleased him. 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."

1 Sam. 18:20-21

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. 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 (that's what words in italics means in the KJV). Thus, if the KJV translators had been truly honest, they would have written:

"Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain."

In modern English, this might be written: "Today, you are son-in-law with two of my children" That would refer to both his son Jonathan and his daughter Michal. Since the first daughter rejected the proposal, 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. Once again, the KJV (the translation the Mormon church believes is most correct) highlight their re-writing of the Hebrew original by placing the three words in italics.

"Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother’s nakedness? "

1 Sam 20:30

The "choosing" (bahar), in this case, may indicate a permanent choice and firm relationship, and the mention of "nakedness" (erwa) could be interpreted to convey a negative sexual nuance, giving the impression that Saul saw something indecent in Jonathan's and David's relationship. But if you know the story, Saul was the evil one and Jonathan and David were righteous.

"...David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded."

1 Sam 20:41

Some translators could not handle the thought of two adult men kissing, so in other versions of the bible 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. Now, I am not saying I agree, but some theologians even interpret "gadal" in this verse as indicating that David had an erection. I am not enough of a linguist to really try that one on for size.

"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."

2 Sam 1:26

Powerful stuff huh? Ask yourself, would a straight man ever think of his love for any man greater than that of a woman? No lets look at their society. 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 phenomena. It would appear that David is referring to his sexual love for Jonathan.

Some also point out that the relationship between the two men is addressed with the same words and emphasis as other love relationships in the Hebrew Testament, whether heterosexual or between God and people ('ahava').

Jonathan was willing to betray his father, family, wealth, and traditions for David. Is there any person you would be willing to do that for that is unrelated to you besides your romantic love interest?

This is one of three stories that scholars believe may reference homosexual relationships in the bible. The others are Daniel and Ashpenaz as well as Ruth and Naomi. Really quickly I want to just point out a couple things about this last relationship for my lesbian sisters:

Did you know that one vow commonly used at heterosexual marriages is one that was exchanged between these two women?

"And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the Lord do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me."

Ruth 1:16-17

Beautiful isn't it? I would love to meet Ruth. And ironic that this passage is used in so many heterosexual marriages of our day. Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24 referenced above.

Now, while it is obvious that this same-sex friendship was very deep, there is no language in the scriptures to suggest it may have been a sexually active relationship as there seems to be for the story of Jonathan and David, but nevertheless, I think the language is very strong indeed... especially in a volume that hardly references women.

Take from this post what you will. What do you feel/think when you read about these relationships? What does the language suggest to you? Perhaps all you can take from this is that there is just as much reason to believe that the bible speaks well of homosexual relationships as their is reason to believe it speaks against it. And I suppose that can only help us realize how ignorant we really are... and how little we understand. Thank the heavens that it is God's job to judge and not our own.