Why don't people believe that Jonathan and David were lovers?

Question

I Samuel 18:3-4 tell us that Jonathan and David made a covenant, and that, to seal the covenant, Jonathan took off all the things he was wearing and gave them to David. The things he took off tell us a lot about the covenant itself. He took off his sword and bow and gave them to David, signifying that he intended to protect David. But it went further than that. By taking off all his clothes, he signified a much deeper and more intense relationship. Had this not been the start of a physical, sexual relationship, Jonathan's actions would have been considered bizarre indeed, by the standards of their day, or ours.  From that day, David moved in with Jonathan (verse 2) and did not live at home with his parents anymore, further indicative of the type of covenant they had made. (In biblical times, a man generally did not leave his parents’ home until he married, and sometimes not even then.)
 
   At this point, we need to clarify a few points before going on. First, we need to understand that today's concept of monogamy was not considered the norm in biblical days. Especially among royalty, polygamy was considered essential in order to produce a large number of heirs, which would ensure that the throne would remain in the same family. Jonathan was the eldest son of the king, and had a responsibility to produce at least one heir to the throne. He did so. The prophet Samuel had anointed David to be king. This placed the obligation of producing an heir upon him as well. King Saul was well aware that Samuel had anointed David, and he warned his son that as long as David lived, he (Jonathan) would never be king. This is why the relationship between the two young men bothered Saul so much. The very reason he had fathered Jonathan was so that his son would succeed him as king, and now Jonathan was thwarting that purpose by becoming involved with the only man who threatened that royal succession!
 
   Saul sought a way to kill David. Because David was anointed, and was also very popular, it would be inadvisable for Saul to attempt to kill him outright. He preferred that the Philistines do it for him. He reasoned that if he got David to marry his daughter Merab, she would cause him enough distraction that he would fall to his enemies. But when the time came for David and Merab to make a covenant, Saul married her off to someone else instead. (Although he expressed his lack of worthiness to marry Merab, David raised no actual objection to the marriage, so most likely Merab herself objected. Perhaps she did so because she cared about David and understood her father’s ulterior motives, or perhaps she was in love with the man she married instead.) Then Saul learned that another of his daughters, Michal, loved David. He decided to let her marry David, again for the sole purpose of causing him to fall to his enemies. (See I Sam. 18:17,21)
 
   When Saul told David that he would give him Michal, he went on to tell David that once he married her, he would be the king's son-in-law "in one of the twain." (Verse 21b - King James Version) That phrase is very important. Let's put it into modern English first: "through one of the two." This suggests that he would be Saul's son-in-law through Michal instead of Merab. But notice that the words ‘one of’ are in italics. 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. What Saul actually told David was this:
 
Vayomer Sha’ul el David bishtayim titchaten bi hayom
And Saul said to David, “Today you will be my son-in-law through two.”
 
That is, he would be the king's son-in-law twice, through two of Saul's children. With which of Saul's children did David have a covenant? Only three of Saul's children are mentioned in this chapter. David had no covenant with Merab, who married someone else. He was about to make a covenant with Michal. The only other child of Saul with whom David had a covenant was Jonathan. Verse 21 proves that the covenant was a marriage covenant and that Saul recognized (but didn't necessarily approve of) the marriage.

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

I like how people are avoiding your good question, lol.

Add to this 2 Samuel 1:26, where David laments that Jonathan's love for him was wonderful, passing the love of women.

I think since Leviticus 18 & 20 are placed earlier in the bible than 1 and 2 Samuel, people assume they were written first, when in fact the Levitical Code is likely quite late.

Plus instead of realizing Lev. 18 & 20 deal with Canaanite ritual same-sex temple prostitution, people assume it deals with all gay sex, and therefore don't consider the strong possibility that David and Jonathan were partners.

But look at the way they act toward each other.  Jonathan is willing to give up everything for David -- even his father's love and the throne.  That is intense!

I think there is a deep truth in David's lament.  Jonathan's love did exceed the love of women, and their covenant was all-inclusive.  I don't think that is "dirty" at all, nor would one who sees with the eyes of love.

Paul · Answer

I think it's amazing the intellectual lengths people will go to because they want to make the scriptures validate their own choices.  Your decision to translate bishtayim "by two" as a second child of saul as opposed to a second opportunity is, as with all translation, somewhat subjective.

Since God favoured David so much during this period, it should be fairly clear that David had not broken any of the laws of Moses.

We are all too familiar with Leviticus 18 or 20, I'm quoting from 20:13

NIB Leviticus 20:13 "`If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Now God rejected Saul as king merely for being a bit impatient and arrogant of heart, bad choices yes but not deserving of death under the mosaic covenant. If David had committed an act worthy of the death penalty, would God still have chosen David as king?

Since the bible is not ashamed to mention the sins and shortfalls of even it's greatest kings and David had his share of shortfalls, let's not forget the Bathsheba incident, would not the bible have made more prominent mention of it?

Since Saul was searching for a legitimate excuse to kill David by this point, could he not have used David's illicit relationship with Jonathan as a reason to have David publicly denounced? That alone would have ended David's royal ambitions and all Israel would stone him on sight. Ok, I know what father wouldn't want to protect his own son, well since Saul threw spears at Johnathan as well as David, I don't believe this man would have hesitated to sacrifice his son. (1 Sam 20:33) Saul had already shown that his own pride came before his son when he was ready to have his son Jonathan stoned to death for eating honey.

Now we know what that scripture is not saying let's look at what it is saying. First of all, David moved in to the royal palace before they made a covenant. The gift of Jonathan's personal clothes even down to his sword have nothing to do with a vow to protect David but a personal gift of deep friendship, the reason given (not implied or inferred) is that Jonathan loved David as himself. This phrase is reminiscent of the second greatest commandment love your neighbour as yourself.  It is fairly clear that this is what the author had intended it to mean. Clearly the great military successes David had demonstrates that the love David and Jonathan shared was the kind of Love God intended everyone should have for his neighbour. The kind that pleases the Lord not the kind that warranted a public execution.

Your theories make interesting reading from a GLTGBS theological view but they generate internal inconsistencies.  

Nice try though.

$hoeFly · Answer

Dear Denver..

One of the greatest gift we received from the Lord was our freedom of choice. 
The scriptures teaches that there are those who have ears, yet do not hear & eyes, yet do not see. Now what do you suppose that was?
Exactly. 
The old & new testaments were written by men, open to interpretation. Following that we were directed "if any of ye lack wisdom, let him ask of God" and then came "ask (pray) & ye shall receive..knock & the door will be open".  
Should you wish to belive that the love that existed 'tween David & Jonathan was more than brotherly affection as was the intention of the author, then by all means, exercise your agency.

edwah zephaniah · Answer

Because with most balance thinking people, their hypocrisy only goes so far. What Jonathon loved about David wasn't anything to do with sex, he loved the bravery the anointing of God upon him made David, and David saw the love Jonathon had for him joining his force with David in battle, prefering the alliance with David over his own father who sought to kill David for his jealousy. The woman made up a song that angered Saul, Jonathons father that slayed thousands in Battle and David slayed ten's of thousand's. I know you are prevey to same sex relations, but it is pathetic to assume David and Jonathons love for each others soul was sexual. God would never put is anointing on such an abomination, unsanctified reprobate mentality as that. I believe you have not yet so learnred Christ if si you have heard Him and been taught by Him as the truth is in Christ. If you knew what  the aninting represented and whatit is you can never believe the hogwash stuff. This is a perfect rendition of using truth to validate unrighteousness, which will not escape the wrath and judgment of God. please change your mind and position on this, sincerely edwah z j giwthg

Anonymous · Answer

I think it's a safe bet that they were.The Bible is not exactly explicit with the details, but there is enough to allude to an extremely "unbiblical" relationship. . For example, when they first met, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he "loved him as his own soul" Hardly chaste behaviour for a couple of chaps, is it? (Unless, of course, they were on a first date) And then Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his girdle. (1 Sam. 18:3-4) (And even his cherry, by the sound of it!) Jonathan's father, Saul, (Who'd been a bit of a rake in his day, and brooked no nonsense concerning the sin of Sodom) was angry at his son for "shaming his Mother's nakedness" (Which crops up a couple of times in the book of proverbs as a specific sin, too) Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said to him, "You son of a perverse, rebellious woman, do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother's nakedness? (1 Sam. 20:30) (Which may be where the English slang term for a gay type of sissyboy, "You big Jesse" originated) Next to a stone heap, they were laying on the ground Kissing. In Biblespeak, stone heaps are generally phallic symbols. (And kissing? Well, that's Biblespeak for tonguey snogging, let's not mince words here) And as soon as the lad had gone, David rose from beside the stone heap and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed [prostrate] three times; and they kissed one another, and wept with one another, until David recovered himself. (And no doubt, would have lit a cigarette, if he'd had one) (1 Sam. 20:41-42) David was devastated at Jonathan's death. He says, "His love was wonderful, better than the love of a woman" I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. (2 Sam. 1:26) Very pleasant indeed! Here David says, in no uncertain terms, that he prefers Boylove, with his favourite Catamite, than a good piece of more traditional puthie! So there you have it. The old Testament version of "Queer as Folk" Even the most hard headed Fundy has to admit it, all looks a little bit pink, to say the least. Obviously, the writers couldn't come out and say it in plain language, because buggering young lads, was still a crime against God, whether you were the King or not! So they left this whole heap of ambiguous allusions to denote their sinful frolicking. Or do I just have a filthy mind? BQ, You've obviously been spending a fair bit of time comparing your own, disproportionately off the scale ManSexiness quotient, with us "Other Guys". All seems a bit narcissistic, and not just a little bit Homoerotic if you ask me, (which you did) So take care, Boi-friend, or people might start to suspect you of overcompensating for something. In a Narnian fashion. All hidden away. Out of sight. In a "Magic Closet". Kinda thing. Maybe. **("Ooh, did I just see Mr Tumnus's horns hiding there?")** Fabulous. (Just sayin', is all!) @^^^^ Frenzy ^^^^^ I suspect Jim Morrison would be far too drunk to even notice. (Here's my quick 12 word biography of the Lizard King. I'm drunk, I'm nobody, I'm drunk, I'm famous, I'm drunk, I'm dead)

Love Branch · Answer

1. They were both married and had children.

2. Someone can love a friend without sexual involvement.

3. I wonder what King David's reaction or warrior Jonathan's would be if someone called them a homosexual to their face.

CindieC · Answer

Its obvious you don't really understand the word "Covenant" and how it was used by God.  Also, I wouldn't make too many assumptions about God's Word.  He said we are not to add to it, nor take away from it.  

Also, how is it we want to sexualize so many situations today?  Probably it's this fallen, sinful world we must exist in.  I for one become so weary of the sexual contamination from TV, music, games etc.  Even many kids cartoons have sexual innuendo!  I have to really be careful what I see and hear in the media.  Lord help us.

Anonymous · Answer

The friendship of David and Jonathan was the effect of Divine grace, which produces in true believers one heart and one soul, and causes them to love each other. This union of souls is from partaking in the Spirit of Christ. Where God unites hearts, carnal matters are too weak to separate them. Those who love Christ as their own souls, will be willing to join themselves to him in an everlasting covenant. 

this was pure brotherly love,not the way you are making it out to be.

light of truth · Answer

Because they weren't. Anybody who opposes God can twist whatever they need to say what they want to see verses what it really says. Anybody knowing God's word and understanding that God looked upon David with favor would then naturally understand that David and Jonathan were not lovers but as close as two brothers.

Anonymous · Answer

No your mind is in the gutter.
You like to further your homosexual agenda by making things up.
God would never have blessed David had he been a homosexual.

Trending News

Why don't people believe that Jonathan and David were lovers?

15 Answers