This was the very first diary that I wrote (dated 10/24/12). I thought I would re-post it since most folks were not familiar with me or my diaries back then.
So, here it is:
This diary is about my interpretation of the major passages in the Bible involving the relationship of David and Jonathan. Was it a romantic and sexual relationship? I believe that it was. In our time, it probably would have been a marriage. Now, books have been written about this topic, so I'm not sure I can do it justice in a diary, but I will try to hit the main points of the story at the very least.
It's a controversial topic. If you disagree with me, that's fine. However, if you are going to comment on it, please tell me why you disagree and try to provide some support for your views. Thank you!
The story begins below the fold.
1 Samuel 18 (KJV)
1) 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.
Jonathan fell in love with David at first sight. David obviously did not refuse. It is interesting to note that the Hebrew word translated as loved above is the very same Hebrew word that is used to describe Michal’s love for David later in verse 20 of the same chapter (“ahab“).
I Samuel 18
3) Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
4) 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.
Jonathan got naked in front of David. Were you ever a soldier? If so, you know that a soldier is essentially married to their weapons. There is rarely (if ever) any incident in history where a soldier gave his weapons to a "friend." Weapons are too important to be given to just a friend. The relationship between Jonathan and David was more than friendship.
The Reverend Samuel Kader describes the above passage in this way:
“Jonathan, next in line for the thrown, stands next to the young, handsome, ruddy shepherd, takes off his royal robe and puts it upon David. In a marriage ceremony there is strong symbolism of coming under another’s covering. Jonathan is giving this shepherd all the access to his royalty. Jonathan not only removes his royal cloak, but the rest of his garments as well, and even his sword. He totally surrenders to David. There was no battle, except of the heart. Jonathan is giving himself totally to David as if he were a prisoner of war. He was. A prisoner of LOVE!”
(from his book, "Openly Gay Openly Christian")
1 Sam 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. KJV
"Notice that "the one of" is in italics in the KJV. That means they are not found in the Hebrew text. In fact, they are not even hinted at in the Hebrew text. Adding them completely changed the meaning of the verse. Verse 21 proves that Jonathan and David's covenant was a marriage covenant, and that Saul recognized the marriage, since, besides Michal, David had no marriage covenant with any of Saul's other children. Although he was supposed to marry Saul's daughter, Merab, that never happened. Therefore, the only two of Saul's children he had covenants with were Jonathan and Michal. Just as a point of information, Hebrew has no word for "son-in-law". The Hebrew word used in the verse is a verb which means "to be related by marriage". Since Saul used the verb in connection with David's impending marriage to Michal, it is clear that the relationship he referred to was indeed son-in-law."
I got the above explanation from one of the many websites discussing this issue (don't remember which right now). I hadn't given much thought to this, but felt it important to include in the discussion. [Addition: You can find more information about this passage here]
1 Samuel 20
30) 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?
31) For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he shall surely die.
The Hebrew word bosheth translated "confusion" is more often translated "shame." Every father wants his son to marry and carry on the family name. Saul knew that as long as David is alive, Jonathan would not marry and establish his own kingdom (although, he eventually did marry).
1 Samuel 20
41) And as soon as the lad was gone, 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.
42) And 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.
They kissed each other until David
"exceeded." The Hebrew word translated
"exceeded" means to grow. Do you think David got taller?
The Hebrew word is "higdil," which is the causative conjugation of the root gadal, meaning that David was caused to become big, in other words, he got a hard on from his passion for Jonathan.
The Bible does not tell us what David did with his erection, nor what Jonathan did with the erection. I think it is clear enough that something sexual happened. And, in the very next verse, they swear on their SEED.
II Samuel 1
26) 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
The love David had shared with Jonathan surpassed the love of women.
"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."
The above paragraph was gotten from the website, "Religious Tolerance" (I believe). However, I think it's a fairly well known fact about the society of ancient Israel.
II Samuel 21
7) But the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan the son of Saul, because of the LORD's oath that was between them, between David and Jonathan the son of Saul.
The covenant between Jonathan and David was known by many.
1 Kings 15:5
Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from anything that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.
Did David commit some sort of horrible sin with Jonathan? No.
Further Comments:
My position is not that it is certain that they were married, or that marriage had yet been defined, but that they fulfilled the requirements. Jonathan gave David a gift of monetary value, they were alone together and had sex, and they made a contract providing for the care of each other and their individual descendants.
Since there was no transfer of property and no change in tribal status, there would be no reason for Samuel to have recorded the marriage.
If you don't see the relationship as a marriage, or at least something very similar, you get left with a collection of unrelated details whose reason for inclusion is totally unclear.
From a Jewish friend who is a Rabbinic student and is well versed in ancient Hebrew:
"While the definition and laws of marriage are not spelled out in Torah the way they are in Mishna Kiddushin, there certainly was marriage before Sinai, and the details we do have seem consonant with our Mishna. Rebecca is given gifts of monetary value for her consent to marry Isaac, Jacob and Moses offer labor as the bride price for Rachel and Zipporah. David pays with Philistine foreskins. Shchem and Hamor bargain unsuccessfully for the hand of Dinah.
When a couple gets together and there is no mention of the wedding requirements, it seems to me that usually the couple is not referred to as being married, such as Samson and Delilah or Gideon and his many women.
The Author of I Samuel, whether human or Divine, is clearly a careful writer and has gone out of his/her way to show that all of the elements of a marriage were present in David and Jonathan's engagement and marriage.
The text is not shy about rebuking David for transgressions, yet none are mentioned. This would seem to tell me that the burden is on those who would argue that they were not married than on those who would argue, as I do, that they were."
The following video is an addition to the original publication of this diary: