Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA
But it did not involve sex. Of David and Jonathan it said greater than love between a man and a woman, so no sexual attraction or acts. Genuine love not sexual love. Just as God and his son love us and no sex involved. When the verse was translated into Greek the word used was agape which has no relationship to sexual love. The Greek word for sexual love is Eros.
|
The language of the entire story supports a sexual relation. I think David may have been bi, but Jonathan was homosexual.
To interpret it any other way puts the story at odds with our own understanding of human nature.
First, Jonathan gives to David his own armor, sword, and shield, the symbols of his manhood and the power and prestige of a Prince.
"Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt.” I Sam. 18:1-4 Suppose the author had written that “Jonathan’s soul was bound to Mirriam, and Jonathan loved her as his own soul.” And suppose that upon meeting Mirriam for the first time, Jonathan immediately gave her all his most precious possessions. What story would theologians craft about the great love story of all time instead of making apologetics which you are echoing?
Suppose the pastor of your church (assuming he is a man), upon meeting another man for the first time, stripped himself of his suit and gave it to the other. Suppose in that same encounter he also offered his most precious possessions — perhaps a family Bible, a wristwatch with an inscription from his parents, and his beloved four-wheel drive pickup truck. Wouldn’t this strike you as more than just a little “q u e e r”?
The above more likely describes love at first sight.
Second, Saul tries to shame Jonathan over his relationship to David. With what words?
Quote:
|
“You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen [David] the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established.”
|
(1 Samuel 20:30)
The key term here is "to the shame of your mother's nakedness." This is a term in HEBREW, not Greek, that has sexual connotations. According to one Jewish writer of Karaite Judaism:
Quote:
|
We also saw that nakedness as commanded not to uncover was about the act of copulation.
|
http://www.karaitejudaism.org/talks/..._Nakedness.htm
Uncovering the nakedness of a family member was a euphemism for incest in the holiness codes of the Old Testament, and Saul would not have used this phrase lightly. It certainly implies that Jonathan is bringing sexual shame on his family.
Further, the experience of Jonathan with an angry father at the supper table has been experienced by countless gay men who either revealed for the first time, or made a slip of the tongue by mentioning their male lover. The scene has been reenacted thousands of times right up to the now.
Finally, David composes a song following Jonathan's death and commands all of Israel to sing it. It includes the statement that "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.” (II Sam 1:26-27)
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?
The Hebrew word ahab, used to describe Jonathan’s love for David. It is the exact same word used to describe Jacob's love for his wife Rachel (Gen. 29:20) and the love of the Shulamite girl for Solomon (Song of Solomon 3:1-4.)
Just saying, when faced with the truth, you might accept it or reject it, but the handwriting is on your wall.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
