• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • Christian Forums is looking to bring on new moderators to the CF Staff Team! If you have been an active member of CF for at least three months with 200 posts during that time, you're eligible to apply! This is a great way to give back to CF and keep the forums running smoothly! If you're interested, you can submit your application here!

Did David and Johnathan Have a Gay Relationship?

gwdboi

Regular Member
Oct 30, 2006
170
27
Greenwood, SC
Visit site
✟15,724.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
1 Samuel 18
Saul's Jealousy of David
1 After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. 2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house. 3 And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 4 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. 1 Samuel 20
David and Jonathan
1 Then David fled from Naioth at Ramah and went to Jonathan and asked, "What have I done? What is my crime? How have I wronged your father, that he is trying to take my life?"
2 "Never!" Jonathan replied. "You are not going to die! Look, my father doesn't do anything, great or small, without confiding in me. Why would he hide this from me? It's not so!"
3 But David took an oath and said, "Your father knows very well that I have found favor in your eyes, and he has said to himself, 'Jonathan must not know this or he will be grieved.' Yet as surely as the LORD lives and as you live, there is only a step between me and death."
4 Jonathan said to David, "Whatever you want me to do, I'll do for you."
5 So David said, "Look, tomorrow is the New Moon festival, and I am supposed to dine with the king; but let me go and hide in the field until the evening of the day after tomorrow. 6 If your father misses me at all, tell him, 'David earnestly asked my permission to hurry to Bethlehem, his hometown, because an annual sacrifice is being made there for his whole clan.' 7 If he says, 'Very well,' then your servant is safe. But if he loses his temper, you can be sure that he is determined to harm me. 8 As for you, show kindness to your servant, for you have brought him into a covenant with you before the LORD. If I am guilty, then kill me yourself! Why hand me over to your father?"
9 "Never!" Jonathan said. "If I had the least inkling that my father was determined to harm you, wouldn't I tell you?"
10 David asked, "Who will tell me if your father answers you harshly?"
11 "Come," Jonathan said, "let's go out into the field." So they went there together.
12 Then Jonathan said to David: "By the LORD, the God of Israel, I will surely sound out my father by this time the day after tomorrow! If he is favorably disposed toward you, will I not send you word and let you know? 13 But if my father is inclined to harm you, may the LORD deal with me, be it ever so severely, if I do not let you know and send you away safely. May the LORD be with you as he has been with my father. 14 But show me unfailing kindness like that of the LORD as long as I live, so that I may not be killed, 15 and do not ever cut off your kindness from my family—not even when the LORD has cut off every one of David's enemies from the face of the earth."
16 So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, "May the LORD call David's enemies to account." 17 And Jonathan had David reaffirm his oath out of love for him, because he loved him as he loved himself.
18 Then Jonathan said to David: "Tomorrow is the New Moon festival. You will be missed, because your seat will be empty. 19 The day after tomorrow, toward evening, go to the place where you hid when this trouble began, and wait by the stone Ezel. 20 I will shoot three arrows to the side of it, as though I were shooting at a target. 21 Then I will send a boy and say, 'Go, find the arrows.' If I say to him, 'Look, the arrows are on this side of you; bring them here,' then come, because, as surely as the LORD lives, you are safe; there is no danger. 22 But if I say to the boy, 'Look, the arrows are beyond you,' then you must go, because the LORD has sent you away. 23 And about the matter you and I discussed—remember, the LORD is witness between you and me forever."




It's interesting... I read a book the other day called Jonathan Loved David ... An Investigation of Homosexuality in The Bible. I cannot but the concepts in the words of the author, so it might sound a little confusting. At any rate, these are some of the ideas the author puts forth: 1. Reading the passages in historical context is the only way to get the true meaning.
A) During Bible times it was typical for military men to enter into a homosexual relationship (and not just in Greece)
B) Throughout these passages there is more reference to Jonathan than to David's wife.
C) The oath taken by Johathan and David when read in hebrew mimics typical marrage oaths.
D) 1 Sam. 18:1 states that Jonathan became one with the spirit of David. This resembles this passage: Gen 2:24 "This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one."




[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]David and Jonathan: There have been several attempts to point to alleged homosexual couples in the Bible, primarily Ruth and Naomi, Daniel and Ashpenaz, and David and Jonathan. More recently, there have been a proposal that there was a gay relationship between the Centurion and his servant who requested to be healed by Jesus. The arguments regarding Ruth/Naomi and Daniel/Ashpenaz are far from compelling for me. The arguments regarding David and Jonathan, however, while not quite compelling, leave open the strong possibility that they were involved in an homosexual marriage. Starting from the crux of the argument at 1 Samuel 18:21, Saul tells David, that by marrying Saul's daughter Michal, David will be his son-in-law for the second time (Hebrew: "bstym ttctn by hynm"). 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 (NIV being the primary exception, and the RSV is ambiguous):
ASV: Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law a second time.
RSV: Therefore Saul said to David a second time, "You shall now be my son-in-law."
BBE: So Saul said to David, Today you are to become my son-in-law for the second time.
DBY: And Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law a second time.
YLT: Saul saith unto David, `By the second -- thou dost become my son-in-law to-day.'
NAS: Therefore Saul said to David, "For a second time you may be my son-in-law today." The question then becomes what Saul actually meant if he is telling David that he will become his son-in-law for the second time. 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. Prior to looking at this more closely, an understanding of the story up to this point is helpful. In chapter 17, we find David's older brothers going to war against the Philistines while David stays at home. David is then sent to take food to his brothers, following which is the classic David and Goliath story. As David goes back to Saul after killing Goliath, we see that David is totally unknown to King Saul (17:58). However, as David talks to King Saul, Jonathan falls in love with David, after having never met him, or talked to him (which has a vague sound of "love at first sight" in our culture).
1 Samuel 18:1-4 (NIV)
1 After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself.
2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house.
3 And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself.
4 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.
While there is no similarity between the Hebrew phrases in 1 Samuel 18:1-2 above and in Genesis 2:24, there is a striking similarity in concepts between the son leaving the parents to join to a spouse, and the two becoming one:
Genesis 2:24 (NIV)
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
When we put together chapter 18, from the beginning, with Jonathan's strong emotional affection towards David and their subsequent covenant, to the end, where we see Saul referring to David being his son-in-law a second time with his marriage to Michal, we see the very strong possibility that David and Jonathan were joined in a covenant that Saul recognized as a marriage. This line of reasoning, while persuasive to me, it is not conclusive. First, I don't know that we have any other extant Hebrew literature of that era that refers to a gay marriage, which would lead one to question whether or not Saul would have seen David and Jonathan's covenant as one of legal marriage. If not, then the only possibility for Saul's language in 18:21 is that he was referring to David's second son-in-law status as coming from the original promise by Saul to give Merab to him (18:17), even though Merab married another man. A second possible criticism is that this argument is made from conjecture, that no specific reference is made to marriage (ynh, yqch) or sexual activity. This, however, is not a valid criticism. The words referring to marriage in the Old Testament are typically in the context of being "taken" or "given" (yqch) as property (byvlh) or protector/provider (ybm), since women had no rights in Hebrew culture, and were considered property to be given/sold. This aspect of marriage would not have been applicable to David and Jonathan's relationship. The other primary word translated as marry is actually the exact same word as "woman" (ishh), which obviously isn't applicable in this case. As for the lack of specific reference to sexual activity which would definitively signify marriage, very few Old Testament relationships which are clearly marriage relationships have subsequent descriptions of sexual activity, therefore it is improbable that such a characterization would be applied here either. However, 2 Samuel 1:26 may even be a reference to sexual activity between David and Jonathan. After Jonathan has been killed, David mourns his death, and says the following (NIV):
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 Hebrew culture, similar to many mid-eastern cultures today, men and women did not engage in platonic relationships. They were either married, or they had no relationship. In this case, David compares his relationship with Jonathan to the relationship with a woman, strongly indicating a marriage/sexual relationship. Further, the word used for love here (ahbh; used also in 1 Samuel 18:3 and 1 Samuel 20:17 referring for Jonathan's love for David) is the same word used in Genesis 29:20 for Jacob's love for Rachel, and is used repeatedly in Song of Songs. It is typically translated as love in the context of a marriage or sexual desire (Proverbs 5:19, etc.; see Strong's concordance #0160).
After this analysis we are left with two questions. First, could Saul have legally seen David and Jonathan's covenant as marriage, to the extent that he would call David a son-in-law. Second, is the intensity of the language referring to Jonathan's love and covenant with David, and David's reference to his love for Jonathan, enough to sustain the belief that they were engaged in a marriage covenant? Neither of these questions can be answered definitively. Whether or not Saul would have legally condoned this relationship can only be answered with further research into the marriage documents from that time. However, the conceptual parallel of marriage between 1 Samuel 18:1-2 and Genesis 2:24, the intensity and type of language used in 1 Samuel 18:1-4 and subsequent covenant between Jonathan and David, and David's comparison of his love to that of women certainly leads me to the conclusion that their relationship could have been one of marriage.
[/FONT]​
Source: http://www.jeramyt.org/gay.html#Add4
 

savedandhappy1

Senior Veteran
Oct 27, 2006
1,831
153
Kansas
✟26,444.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
1 Samuel 18:17
17And 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.

As we can see in verse 17 of 1 Samuel 18, Saul had given his eldest daughter Merab to David as his wife.

1 Samuel 18:19
19But 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.

But as we see in verse 19, when it was time for Merab to be given to David, she was given to Adriel instead. Which is why Saul said you will be my son in law in the one of the twain or two. Meaning with the second one, not that he was his son in law twice.

1 Samuel 18:21
21And 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/two. (i.e with the second one)

Loved him as himself-Are we not to love our neighbor as ourself? Most people love themselves more then anything in the world, so when God/Jesus told us to love our neighbors as ourselves, wouldn't that make us one in Gods love?

2 Samuel 1:26
26I 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.

I guess we see what we want to. When I was reading this verse the first thing I saw was that David called Jonathan my brother. Can you not love someone like your own flesh and blood (brother)?

Second, didn't it say how the women would sing and praise David when he came back from battle? The verse says women, plurial, not woman as in wife(sexual).

It's late and I am really having trouble telling if this is making sense or not, so I will post it and then check it after I wake up.

God Bless





 
Upvote 0
1

127Rockledge

Guest
savedandhappy - we must keep in mind context and language, which the article is trying to explain.

Yes, someone can love someone of the same sex like a brother (their own flesh) - but yet there are hebrew words for love (ahbh) which is used to describe only relationships as intimate as marriage (implying sexual relationships) which is also used to describe the relationship between David and Jonathan.
 
Upvote 0

Nanee5

Master of all I survey
Feb 2, 2005
3,292
127
55
Arkansas
Visit site
✟26,612.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
savedandhappy - we must keep in mind context and language, which the article is trying to explain.

Yes, someone can love someone of the same sex like a brother (their own flesh) - but yet there are hebrew words for love (ahbh) which is used to describe only relationships as intimate as marriage (implying sexual relationships) which is also used to describe the relationship between David and Jonathan.
These words are also used to describe the relationship God wants with us, but that doesn't mean that God has or wants sex with us. It is a term used for the closest intimacy that we can comprehend with our petty little minds.
 
Upvote 0

paladin_carvin

Regular Member
Apr 30, 2006
436
13
Stewartsville, NJ
✟23,147.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
It is an interesting argument... honestly, I'm kinda compelled by it, but it certainly isn't a proof of anything. Still- I know that some of the verses about Ruth/Naomi are used at some lesbian weddings. I wonder if David and Johnathan will become trendy, especially if the concept of homosexual sin is erroding, thus having more homosexuals looking for the Bible for influence.
 
Upvote 0

savedandhappy1

Senior Veteran
Oct 27, 2006
1,831
153
Kansas
✟26,444.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
savedandhappy - we must keep in mind context and language, which the article is trying to explain.

Yes, someone can love someone of the same sex like a brother (their own flesh) - but yet there are hebrew words for love (ahbh) which is used to describe only relationships as intimate as marriage (implying sexual relationships) which is also used to describe the relationship between David and Jonathan.
This is true and the wording I have seen most often in the OT is and Adam knew Eve or Abraham knew Sarah.

I realize that it wasn't the Church Age then, but since God doesn't change it makes sense to me that He still would have thought of His children as one body. Some of us the arms, body, legs, eyes, etc. Which could just as easily explain the language.
 
Upvote 0

savedandhappy1

Senior Veteran
Oct 27, 2006
1,831
153
Kansas
✟26,444.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
These words are also used to describe the relationship God wants with us, but that doesn't mean that God has or wants sex with us. It is a term used for the closest intimacy that we can comprehend with our petty little minds.

:thumbsup: :amen:
 
Upvote 0

savedandhappy1

Senior Veteran
Oct 27, 2006
1,831
153
Kansas
✟26,444.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Just as I pointed out on the part where the article was saying that David was his son in law twice. This had to do with the fact that Saul had given his older daughter to David first, but we don't see anything even mentioned about the older daughter in the article.

Could that be because the author of the article didn't want it explained anyway but David and Jonathan being homosexual?
Don't know because I don't know him, but at first glance, well....

If someone was really trying to discover the true meanings of scriptures without slanting them I would have thought that that would have been pointed out as a possible meaning also.
 
Upvote 0

savedandhappy1

Senior Veteran
Oct 27, 2006
1,831
153
Kansas
✟26,444.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Homosexuals in the Bible: Ruth and Naomi?
By Dr Patrick M Chapman


By placing the story in its historical and cultural context we see that the author of the book of Ruth was attempting to combat societal prejudice against foreigners. Despite the expressed love between the women the story is likely not about homosexuality, although an analogy can certainly be made between ancient prejudice against foreigners and modern prejudice against homosexuals.

http://www.rainbowcenteroly.org/rjo/rjo0509/ThePast.htm

Even in a article where the author states that same sex desires had to be going on, he still points out how Ruth and Naomi were more then likely combatting societal prejudice against foreigners not homosexuality.

Another article states:
Ruth and Naomi were in-laws. Ruth had married one of Naomi's sons, who had passed away. Her other daughter-in-law remained in her own country, returning to her father's house (Ruth 1:11-15), but Ruth clung (v 14) to her, and sought to stay with her mother-in-law (1:16-17). First, it is stated that this word "clung" is the same word used in Genesis regarding a husband's relationship to his wife. Indeed, it is. It is the Hebrew word dabaq. Does that establish that Ruth and Naomi shared a homosexual relationship? No, for the word is also used of a man "cleaving" to his inheritance (Numbers 36:7, 9), of a man "cleaving" to God in service (Deuteronomy 10:20; 11:22), of pestilence and disease "cleaving" to Israel if they did not serve the Lord (Deuteronomy 28:21, 60), of the men of Judah "cleaving" to their king (2 Samuel 20:2), of Eleazar "cleaving" to his sword (2 Samuel 23:9), and of Jehoram "cleaving" to the sins of Jeroboam (2 Kings 3:1-3). Perhaps that is enough examples to illustrate that the word does not necessitate a marital relationship, and in fact, in most instances is not used in that fashion. I might further mention, this Hebrew word appears three more times in the book of Ruth: in 2:8, where Boaz told Ruth to "cleave" to his maidens, in 2:21, where Ruth tells Naomi that Boaz told her to "cleave" to the young men until they ended the harvest, and in 2:23, where we're told that Ruth did as Boaz instructed, "cleaving" to the maidens who were gleaning in the fields

http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/20031116.htm

From the same article we see this explaination of David and Jonathans relationship.

Regarding David and Jonathan, these two were best friends. David was brought to the house of Saul in what appears to be his teenage years (1 Samuel 16:17-23; 17:13-15, 33, 42). In 1 Samuel 18:1-4, we are given a few words about the relationship these two shared. "Now when he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan took off the robe that was on him, and gave it to David, with his armor, even to his sword and his bow and his belt." The nature of their relationship is much like what when I was young friends would call "blood brothers". That is, two friends who cared deeply for the other, and would stand and defend the other at all cost. There is no inference of homosexuality in this text, simply a picture of devoted friends. Notice, as we continue through 1 Samuel 18, "...it pleased David to become the king's son-in-law." (v 26-28). Now, if David and Jonathan were in a homosexual relationship, and such was acceptable before the Lord, why did David marry Michal, Saul's daughter and not Jonathan? At this point, even if homosexuality were not sinful, it would be sexually immoral for him to share such a relationship with Jonathan, since he is a married man.
Finally, what shall we make of David's words, as expressed in the Song of the Bow (2 Samuel 1:18-27)? At verse 26, we read, "I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; you have been very pleasant to me; your love to me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women." These are words of sorrow and praise regarding Jonathan after it had been revealed to David that he was dead. At the time of writing this, David appears to have 7 wives (Michal, Ahinoam, Abigail, Maaccah, Haggith, Abital, and Eglah, 2 Samuel 2:2-5; 3:14-15). God's plan from the very beginning was that one man should have one woman. There are several instances recorded in the Bible where a man had more than one wife, and I confidently say, not one of those instances speaks of the situation favourably. Quite the contrary, when a man has a plurality of wives, we often see trouble accompanying it. The love that a husband is to have for his wife is compromised when it must be spread over more than one woman. In turn, the love which a wife is to have for her husband is also impaired, knowing that his love is divided. In view of this myriad of women, none of which expressed the whole love which a woman can give to a husband who is solely devoted to her, David saw that Jonathan's love for him excelled that of his wives. This is not evidence of a homosexual relationship, but rather strong evidence in support of monogamy.

Again we see meanings for the scriptures relating to David and Jonathan which are just as or, even more logical then the explainations in the OP.

No one should rely on just 1 article if one is truely trying to find understanding, wisdom and discernment of God's word. Most importantly we should read the Word in a prayerful attitude, seeking the understanding from the Holy Spirit.​
 
Upvote 0
1

127Rockledge

Guest
This is true and the wording I have seen most often in the OT is and Adam knew Eve or Abraham knew Sarah.​


I realize that it wasn't the Church Age then, but since God doesn't change it makes sense to me that He still would have thought of His children as one body. Some of us the arms, body, legs, eyes, etc. Which could just as easily explain the language.​

But God does change. It was discussed in the thread defining marriage as well as it's sister thread regarding polygamy that God does in fact allow temporary changes.
 
Upvote 0

paleodoxy

Catechumen
Sep 27, 2005
1,704
100
45
Depends on the time of day...
✟24,861.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I am familiar with the argument, and it has no contextual, grammatical, exegetical or etymological support. It is an argument contrived by modern theological liberals who construct arguments based on what they want to be true, even though it is textually groundless.
 
Upvote 0

gwdboi

Regular Member
Oct 30, 2006
170
27
Greenwood, SC
Visit site
✟15,724.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
It saddens me to see that people will not even open their minds a little to possability. ANYTHING is possable, but we puny humans think that we have it all figured out and ergo we think that God fits into this nice little form that we've extrapolated from the Bible. What if we've gotten some parts wrong? Hmm?? We use the Bible so much to descriminate against others, isn't God about LOVE??? All I'm saying and asking is for people to consider possabilities and open their hearts.
 
Upvote 0

paleodoxy

Catechumen
Sep 27, 2005
1,704
100
45
Depends on the time of day...
✟24,861.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
gwdboi:

First, the text cannot support both interpretations. One of us is wrong. This has nothing to do with being or not being "open minded".

Second, the Bible teaches that the Word of God is directly inspired by the Spirit of God Himself. It is not an option for Christians to believe that man is the official judge or final arbiter of the Scriptures. Because the Bible is God-breathed, it is necessarily inerrant, infallible, divinely inspired, self-validating, self-attesting, and self-sufficient. It can mean only one thing, and not what we want it to mean.

Third, it is clear that you and God do not agree on the meaning of "love". God defines true love, and in the Bible, true love precludes "unnatural affection" (cf. Romans 1) -- i.e., homosexual relationships.
 
Upvote 0

paleodoxy

Catechumen
Sep 27, 2005
1,704
100
45
Depends on the time of day...
✟24,861.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
savedandhappy - we must keep in mind context and language, which the article is trying to explain.

Yes, someone can love someone of the same sex like a brother (their own flesh) - but yet there are hebrew words for love (ahbh) which is used to describe only relationships as intimate as marriage (implying sexual relationships) which is also used to describe the relationship between David and Jonathan.

You do not know what you are talking about. First, there is no linguistic connection between Gen 2:24 and 1 Sam 18:1-4, nor is there any conceptual connection. They are two different matters. Second, the Hebrew word for love used here (there are others) does not imply sexuality in itself. In Gen 2, the "one flesh" does, but here there is a covenant made between two men. The Hebrew "love" is used as follows:
God's love for His people with no sexual connotation (Deut 7:8; 1 Kings 10:9; 2 Chron 2:11)

The covenant people's love for God (Isa 56:6)

The love of a man and woman (many times)

Of friends and individuals, of which the standard lexicon, used all over the world, lists these: 1 Sam 18:3; 20:17b; 2 Sam 1:26; Ps 109:4ff; Prov 10:12; 15:17; 17:9; 27:5, etc.

In other words, context will tell you the specifics of what "love" (ahav) means. Here is what one standard discussion says of the word:

"There is little variation in the basic meaning of this verb. The intensity of the meaning ranges from God's infinite affection for his people to the carnal appetites of a lazy glutton." This Theological Wordbook of the OT continues:

°¹h¢b frequently describes love between human beings. The love of father for son is exemplified by Abraham and Isaac (Gen 22:2) and Israel and Joseph (Gen 37:3). A slave might "love" his master and wish to identure himself to him for the rest of his Life (Exo 21:8). This is the word used in the rule "love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev 19:18). "Love" of the stranger is also incumbent on the faithful (Deut 10:19). Samson had apparently told Delilah that he "loved" her (Jud 14:16; Jud 16:15). Ruth "loved" Naomi her mother-in-law (Ruth 4:15), Elkanah "loved" his wife Hannah (1Sam 1:5), and Rebekah "loved" her son Jacob (Gen 25:28). Hiram's "love" for David illustrates international friendship or irenic polities between the two (1Kings 5:1). Notice that nowhere is the love of children toward parents mentioned. Rather, they are to honor, revere, and obey.

People may love things concrete or abstract. Isaac "loved" savory meat (Gen 27:4); others are said to "love" oil (Prov 21:17), silver (Eccl 5:9), and gifts (Isa 1:23). The Psalmist "loved" God's commandments (Psa 119:47), law (v. 97), testimonies (v. 119), and precepts (v. 159). Men can "love" evil (Psa 52:3 [H 51], or death (Prov 8:36), vanity (Psa 4:2 [H 3]), cursing (Psa 109:17), or a false oath (Zech 8:17). Or they can "love" good (Amos 5:15), truth and peace (Zech 8:19), salvation (Psa 40:16 [H 171), and wisdom (Prov 29:3).

God has commanded man to "love" him (Deut 6:5), and the Psalms contain testimonies of obedience to that commandment (Psa 116:1; Psa 145:20). Conversely, God "loves" men, especially his people Israel (Deut 4:37; Isa 43:4; Mal 1:2). The Lord also "loves" other things, such as the gates of Zion (Psa 87:2), righteousness and judgment (Psa 33:5), and the holy temple (Mal 2:11). In a few places the verb introduces an infinitive. Jeremiah (Jer 14:10) accused the people of loving to wander, while Isaiah charged them with loving to sleep (Isa 56:10). The verb itself is sometimes an infinitive, as in Josh 22:5 and Isa 56:6. At least once it is a gerund, "a time to love" (Eccl 3:8).


Thus context is king, and the context of 1 Sam 18 is not sexual love but brotherly affection of two men in God's covenant. It would seem you just have an agenda that you want to push.


 
Upvote 0

savedandhappy1

Senior Veteran
Oct 27, 2006
1,831
153
Kansas
✟26,444.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It saddens me to see that people will not even open their minds a little to possability. ANYTHING is possable, but we puny humans think that we have it all figured out and ergo we think that God fits into this nice little form that we've extrapolated from the Bible. What if we've gotten some parts wrong? Hmm?? We use the Bible so much to descriminate against others, isn't God about LOVE??? All I'm saying and asking is for people to consider possabilities and open their hearts.
If I don't agree my mind and heart are closed?

Open our minds and hearts to believe that God didn't mean it when in both the OT and the NT He says it is a sin? Or He changed His mind?

As said before, in one of these threads, I will not let the blood of someone be on my hands because I didn't show someone what the Bible says.

I guess I could say that someone who doesn't agree with me must already have a harden heart and reprobate mind, but that would really be showing the Love of God now woulded it? We speak and teach of His Love, but what about how He is jealious? What about His wrath? What about His judgements? Whole towns were destroyed because of sexual sins, and you want to just speak of His Love.

Romans 1:27
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

1. Leaving the natural use of a woman.
2. Burning in their lusts.
3. Men with men working that which is unseemly.

What part of this verse alone isn't speaking of homosexuality? If it isn't speaking of homosexuality, please tell me what it is speaking of.
 
Upvote 0

MercyBurst

Senior Veteran
Aug 20, 2006
2,570
41
South
Visit site
✟28,885.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
David is absolutely guilty of adultery with Bathsheba and murder for killing her husband Uriah the Hittite.

It is very unlikely Jonathan and David were gay for each other. Somebody just has a wild imagination,trying to justify gayness with any little thing they can find!!

As you may recall, Saul was out to kill David, hence the covenant between David and Jonathan. Jonathan did not believe this at first, but the bible tells us what Saul was really up to.

Recall, "Saul the slayer of thousands and David of tens of thousands." This saying made Saul jealous and he knew David was God's annointed. Hence he sought to kill David. David knew this and made the covenant with Jonathan because David feared for his own life. Reading more into this is ludicrous.

Also, Hear what David said when his rebellious son Absolam was killed:

2 Samuel 18:33 And the king was much moved, and went up to the chamber over the gate, and wept: and as he went, thus he said, O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! would God I had died for thee, O Absalom, my son, my son!

David would have died in the place of his son Absalom who was also out to kill David. This doesn't imply sexual realtions. A father's love for his son is not sexual, neither is love in friendship. I think someone is quite confused to read homosexuality into a perfectly innocent relationship. :blush:
 
Upvote 0

MercyBurst

Senior Veteran
Aug 20, 2006
2,570
41
South
Visit site
✟28,885.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Romans 1:27
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

1. Leaving the natural use of a woman.
2. Burning in their lusts.
3. Men with men working that which is unseemly.

What part of this verse alone isn't speaking of homosexuality? If it isn't speaking of homosexuality, please tell me what it is speaking of.

Er ummm... Men burning in lust for each other means humanity burning in sexual lust for aliens... leaving the natural use for alien sex.....ummm, not a literal man with a man for heaven's sake!!!!! -- that would be unspeakably sinful and so unbiblical!!!!!!!!! :blush: :blush: :blush:

unseemly -- that means er.. ummm.. trying to plumb a male fitting to a male fitting... you know, something that just doesn't work..
 
Upvote 0