The church teaches that David (who became king and ancestor of Jesus) and
Jonathan (the princely son of King Saul) were merely the best of platonic friends and godly spiritual brothers, and,
though it is true that they committed horrendous sins, including adultery, murder, adultery, genital mutilation of their
enemies, adultery, some more murder, and, uh, adultery, there is no way the two men could have been married lovers.
Yet, even if we stretch credulity for a moment and agree that
homosexuality is "a sin like all other sins and temptations", considering all the other horrendous sins he committed, why
then would it be so shocking and terrifying to discover that David lived a homosexual relationship with Jonathan? ("Gasp!
No! Say David was ANY other wicked thing but gay!"). Well goodness gracious, let's all go berzerk at the
very idea! And why does everyone go berzerk and vigilanty at this idea? Because they are thinking fleshly as man thinks, not
as God thinks. So, let's behave ourselves, give our brains a temporary stress relief by putting our biases on hold for five
minutes. David and Jonathan were married and it was not a sin. The Bible has something to say on this matter
and it's time we stop sweeping it under the rug for fear that our cathedral will come crashing down around us. (That
was harsh, sorry).
I believe that all parties are in agreement that David and Jonathan were
best friends and "godly brothers in the Lord". No one's arguing there. But contrary to what the church willingly closes
their eyes to, the Bible says quite a great deal more about their relationship that unequivically proves that
they were more than just good friends and brothers. And I present that proof here for your candid review.
But before we do so, I would like to mention a little tid bit that will
help you understand the forthcoming information. There are two terms mentioned in the Bible which specifically refer to sex:
"confusion" and "to uncover (a person's) nakedness". Some examples include, to lie with an animal is called "confusion" and
to lie with your mother is to "uncover your father's nakedness". These can be found throughout the Levitical laws, in
several combinations, pertaining to sex. Now, on to the topic at hand.
The relationship between David and Jonathan went far beyond that
of "dear and close friends", or even "close brothers in the Lord" as some claim. Their story begins in 1 Samuel 18:1-3 where
we are told that
"And it came to pass, when he [David] had made an
end of speaking with Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own
soul....Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul."
Now, this is the very definition of a marriage - two souls knit together
in love, and bound with a covenant. Had this same event taken place between a man and a woman, no one would contest that it
referred to nothing less than a marriage. There would be no question whatsoever that this was a marriage, had this verse said,
"And it came to pass, when Bob had made an end of
speaking with Saul, that the soul of Bob was knit with the soul of Betty, and Bob loved her as his own soul... Then
Bob and Betty made a covenant, because he loved her as his own soul."
Though both of them LATER took wives (mainly because there would have
been a need for an heir to the throne, of which BOTH of them were contenders), Jonathan and David were an "item" before other
women came into the picture. So this would not be an argument in favor of the Levitical laws and Romans 1, which outlaws a
heterosexual man who leaves the woman for a man. The women came later - so at the most, David and Jonathan both left the MALE
for the FEMALE. And to be precise, David and Jonathan's relationship only ended because Jonathan was killed in battle. As
you will see later on in chapter 18, David's marriage to his first wife, king Saul's daughter Michal , was a devious plot
concocted by Saul to destroy David. The whole ugly affair with Michal was hardly an issue for or against same/opposite sex
attraction and love; it was purely a political move, as we see the main issue was getting David to produce a royal heir with
Saul's daughter - which David absolutely refused at first (after all, he was already bound to Jonathan, but as we all know
David later had no problem with having multiple spouses).
In fact, when Saul presents the idea of a marriage between David and Michal,
Saul clearly states in 18:21, less than twenty verses after David and Jonathan make their covenant, that
"Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the twain."
In the twain means "in the two", or in modern English it means that David's
marriage to Michal would make him Saul's son-in-law "A SECOND TIME"/"ONCE AGAIN". Saul is acknowledging that he
is already David's father-in-law ( through Jonathan) and now he will be again through Michal. (Some people claim that
this statement was referring to Saul's earlier attempt to marry off his other daughter Merab to David, but
by the time of this remark from Saul, Merab was already married to someone else and out of the picture, so it simply could
not refer to Merab and Michal but only to Jonathan and Michal).
Later, in 1st Samuel 20, David runs (literally) to Jonathan and expresses
his fears over King Saul's recent change of attitude toward him, saying, "What have I done?! What is mine iniquity? And what
is my sin before thy father that he seeketh my life?!" Jonathan tries to console him by saying that there is nothing
to fear because his father would never make a move without first consulting with him. David responds by swearing and
then by saying to Jonathan, "Thy father certainly knoweth that I have found grace in thine eyes! ...Truly as the Lord liveth
and as thy soul liveth, there is but a step between me and death!" And Jonathan immediately consoles his lover with words
of tender sweetness that a prince does not say to mere subjects, even if they are friends: "Whatsoever thy soul desireth,
I will even do it for thee." Bear in mind that through all of this no one but the High Priest Samuel had the slightest idea
that David was ever going to be king. He was just a shepherd and a good warrior.
Immediately after this discussion about their covenant with each
other, David asks Jonathan what they should do depending on the king's response to their cover story. Ignoring David's
question - or maybe because of his question - Jonathan discusses an even deeper covenant with David: binding their
two houses together, something done only by marriage:
“And Jonathan said unto David, "Come, and
let us go out into the field." And they went out both of them into the field. And Jonathan said unto David, "O LORD God of
Israel! when I have sounded [told] my father about to morrow any time, or the third day, and, behold, if there be good toward
David and I then send not [this information] unto thee, and shew it thee; [then may] the LORD do so and much more to Jonathan:
but if it please my father to do thee evil, then I will shew it [make it known to] thee, and send thee away, that thou mayest
go in peace [safely]: and the LORD be with thee, as He hath been with my father. And thou shalt not only, while yet I live,
shew me the kindness of the LORD, that I die not: but also thou shalt not cut off thy kindness from my House for ever: no,
not when the LORD hath cut off the enemies of David, every one, from the face of the earth." So Jonathan made a covenant
with the House of David, saying, "Let the LORD even require it at the hand of David's enemies!" And Jonathan caused
David to SWEAR AGAIN, because he loved him: for he loved him as he loved his own soul” -1 Sam 20:11-17.
Then David tells Jonathan that he is too afraid to
attend Saul's upcoming banquet, and the two men plot a scheme so that David doesn't have to go. Then Jonathan, out of his
love for David, lies to his father the king about David's where-abouts to protect him. But Saul sees right through it all,
and, KNOWING that his son and David are involved in a ROMANTIC and SEXUAL covenant relationship, declares to him in verse
30,
"Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman! DO NOT
I KNOW THAT THOU HAST CHOSEN THE SON
OF JESSE (David) TO THINE OWN CONFUSION,
AND UNTO THE CONFUSION OF THY MOTHER'S NAKEDNESS?!"
(Please note that it was SAUL who referred to their
relationship as confusion - not God. Saul was no different in his personal bias than many Christians are today).
It is clear that King Saul knew EXACTLY what was going on between those
two young men - and anyone else with eyes could see it too. The very words used by King Saul make it absolutely clear that
David and Jonathan were indeed romantically/sexually involved with each other. This is confirmed by David's famous (and public)
love psalm to Jonathan upon his death in 2nd Samuel 1:26:
"Very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love
to me was wonderful, PASSING [surpassing] THE LOVE OF WOMEN."
Please don't deceive yourself, nor patronize others, by insisting that
this was merely a gesture of affection between two good friends. Heterosexual men - in ANY age - do not use such romantic
and sexually charged words with one another; and they certainly wouldn't write love poems to each other. Try walking up to
a straight man and saying those words to him.....then tell me how long it took for you to get up from off of the ground from
his punch. In fact, I would like to note here for the record that before I wrote this piece, I spoke with several heterosexual
men about it. Without telling them that I was quoting the Bible or explaining upfront what I was doing, I told them the words
of this verse and asked them what they would think if a man wrote them such a poem. Every single one of them said that I would
be implying that we had had a sexual or romantic relationship. In fact, so romantic is this statement of David that it bears
the same flavor of the love story in Song of Solomon.
After Jonathan bearly escapes the banquet with his life, he
runs to David and tells him to flee for his life from the king. The two men are so distraught over having to depart from each
other that "they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded," (1 Sam. 20:41). Again this is rather
unusual behavior between a high prince and one of his subjects. The meaning of the word "exceeded", from the
Hebrew "Higdal", has been debated for many years, but one definition is absolutely correct: "to make large/enlarge". A
Jewish doctor and friend of mine says that this word, in context, could also apply to a male who is sexually "erect", which
completely fits this passionate picture. Hey, I didn't write the Bible or invent Hebrew so don't get mad at me. It wouldn't
be the first time that the Bible was sexually graphic - and if God wrote it without condemnation, there is nothing to be ashamed
of in it.
Then, immediately following this, in the very next verse, Jonathan makes
reference to the covenant they had made. It is clear by the text that this was a very ROMANTICALLY intimate meeting between
the two men, who were unsure as to whether they would ever see one another again:
“Jonathan said to David, "Go in peace, forasmuch
as we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, 'The LORD be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy
seed for ever'." And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city."
Here we find that Jonathan repeated his pledge of love toward David for
the third time. Indeed, Jonathan loved David as his own soul! In this covenant, David and Jonathan’s love
toward one another was extended even to their future generations - they made a covenant to bless through each other their
yet unborn children, extending even to their descendants!
Say you are a court judge. The case is the People vs. David & Jonathan.
The prosecution must prove that David and Jonathan were a married couple, while the defense
attempts to protect an anti-gay belief. Their case is that David was Jonathan's biblically lawful lover and therefore homosexuality
is not forbidden. The defense says they were NOT lovers, therefore homosexuality is not supported by this story. (I am not
a lawyer, so please pardon any misapplied legal terms).
The prosecution hereby presents to the court the following
documented evidence (with pictures courtesy of BrickTestament.com), your Honor:
