<body>
Hip and Thigh: Smiting Theological Philistines with a Great Slaughter. Judges 15:8

Saturday, June 07, 2008

Debunking Gay Christian Apologetics [pt. 3]




















Were David and Jonathan Gay?


I started interacting with an email I had received from gay "Christian" apologist, Rick Brentlinger, who had written to me challenging many of my conclusions regarding specific scriptures that condemn homosexuality.

The basics of his complaint against me can be read in my previous two posts on this subject:

Part 1 and Part 2

In a nutshell, Rick is of the opinion that the Bible no where condemns consensual and committed same-sex erotic relationships expressed between two adults. The normative interpretations of such passages like Genesis 19, Leviticus 18 and 20, and Romans 1, where homosexuality is clearly condemned and judged by God, are really false interpretations that have been read onto those texts by anti-gay evangelicals. I happen to be one of those "anti-gay" evangelicals, I reckon, who has fallen under the misinformation of the anti-gay evangelicals associated with Focus on the Family and other so-called pro-family ministries.

Rick has compiled a rather extensive website called Gay Christian 101 that contains many articles exposing why the typical anti-gay evangelical reading of the Bible is wrong. His email to me lays out some misconceptions and inaccuracies I apparently have against evangelical gay "Christians" and my anti-gay hermeneutic I bring to the text of scripture.

I am attempting to slowly answer his charges in his email, and debunk them for the benefit of all Christians who often encounter this gay revisionist apologetics offered by Rick and others of his ilk which I believe re-interprets the Bible according to their perspective of human, sexual relationships.

Now, I had intended to move on to Leviticus, but I wanted to make a brief aside on a specific claim raised by gay "Christians." The reason being is because I have had at least 3 individuals, each independent of the others, ask me about this particular story in the Bible with in the last couple of weeks, so it is fresh on my heart. Rick doesn't raise this subject in his email to me, but he has many articles available at his website that does address it. The question being,

Were David and Jonathan gay lovers?

Undoubtedly, the relationship between David and Jonathan as described in 1 Samuel is probably one of the first examples gay "Christians" throw up as proof of homosexual relations in the Bible. In fact, the story of David and Jonathan is perhaps ubiquitous throughout the gay community as an ancient Brokeback Mountain love story; and because it is recorded in the Bible, the very book that is suppose to condemn homosexual behavior, the story is even more compelling.

To illustrate how homosexuals capitalize on the story, when I was searching for images to post with this blog, just searching "David and Jonathan" brought up a good number of pro-gay websites appealing to the story as a God ordained homosexual relationship. There are books written about David and Jonathan, as well as a modern day gay film with the main characters named "David and Jonathan." The Metropolitan Church, for instance, which is a liberal oriented, pro-gay denomination, has a billboard campaign entitled "Would Jesus Discriminate?" and one of the popular billboards placed along the highways promoting their pro-gay agenda says "David loved Jonathan more than women" with the reference of 2 Samuel 1:26.

This use of the story by homosexuals, especially gay "Christians," needs to be refuted, and that is what I hope to do with this post.

As with many of the passages in the Bible condemning homosexuality as a lifestyle, gay apologists misuse the story of David and Jonathan by revising certain aspects of the story and reading back into the record of 1 Samuel modern-day views of human relationships. It is presupposed that when the text says in 1 Samuel 18:1-5 how Jonathan loved David, and later in 2 Samuel 1:26 where David says in a psalm lamenting the death of his friend that "Jonathan's love for David surpassed the love of women" this somehow implies there was a sexual love affair component between the two men. Nothing in the text suggests this at all. In point of fact, both David and Jonathan were married to women, David having multiple wives. Gay apologists generally claim they were married for convenience sake, or for the purpose of maintaining the family line, but their real, true love was not with their wives, but with each other. However, in order for both David and Jonathan to engage in a sexual love affair implies they both sinned in adultery, a strict violation of the 7th commandment. The question is then begged, "how could David, a man described by the Lord as having a heart after God, involve himself in such a grievous sin." Gay apologists tend to over look this detail in their view of the story.

In order to begin answering the gay "Christian" apologist's interpretation of David and Jonathan's relationship, it may be good to give a biblical survey of the events and situations leading to their relationship as described in 1 Samuel 18. Once the book of 1 Samuel is placed into context, pretty much the entire gay argument that David and Jonathan were homosexual lovers melts away.

The books of First and Second Samuel are transitional books that form a bridge between the book of Judges when Israel was 12 tribes ruled by theocratically appointed judges and the Nation of Israel united under a monarchy. The man Samuel was the last official judge who was used of the Lord to establish the monarchy.

When the book opens, Israel is in a deep depression. Eli, the high priest, was a pathetic, ineffective judge who did nothing to rebuke and control his wicked sons who ran the tabernacle, but corrupted it by offering ungodly sacrifices to the Lord (1 Sam 2). Their sinful behavior rubbed off on the people and they in turn were caused to sin against the Lord. God eventually brings judgment against Eli and his house (1 Sam. 4) and Samuel is elevated by God to be the national leader of the people as both a prophet and priest.

However, after a period of revival under Samuel's ministry (1 Samuel 7), the leaders of Israel ask him to appoint a king over them "like all the other nations" (1 Samuel 8). In spite of their rebellious request, God grants it and has Samuel anoint Saul to be the first king of Israel (1 Sam. 9, 10). Saul's reign started off slow, but through the act of a national emergency with Nahash and the Ammonites (1 Sam. 11), Saul is affirmed to be the official king of Israel. But, he was a man as it were "like all the other nations," because he began to rebel against God's commands, as well as make bad choices personally. His reign begins to unravel in 1 Samuel 13 when before meeting the Philistines in battle, he worries about not hearing from Samuel, takes matters into his own hands, and offers up a sacrifice that only Samuel was to offer.

Samuel rebukes his disobedience, and as a result of his rash decision, the situation with the Philistines grows more severe (1 Sam. 13:16-23) as they are able to take control of a large portion of central Israel. However, Jonathan, Saul's son, has a different perspective on the situation. He and his armor bearer seize upon the promises God had made to Israel centuries before that those Jews who are faithful to engage the enemy in the name of the Lord will have God drive them from the land. Jonathan and his armor bearer act upon this promise and defeat a garrison of Philistine soldiers by themselves (1 Sam. 14).

Fast forward to chapter 16 of 1 Samuel. After disobeying God's command to utterly destroy the Amalekites in chapter 15, Samuel pronounces final judgment upon Saul and his monarchy. Instead of the house of Saul being established as the royal line, God will chose for Himself a man after His own heart. Chapter 16 introduces us to that man, a teenager by the name of David. Samuel anoints him king, but it is a kingship that will have to wait another 12 years or more before being realized.

By the time we come to chapter 17, Saul had become a more ineffective king. The Philistines had once again entered the land and threatened to enslave Israel. As the Philistines and Israel faced-off for battle, a stalemate of sorts had developed as the Philistines sent out the giant Goliath to challenge any champion of the Jews who would be willing to face him in hand-to-hand combat. No one dared to fight him until David heard Goliath's challenge as he was visiting his older brothers on the battlefield. David, acting upon similar promises Jonathan had in chapter 14, agreed to fight Goliath. As all Sunday school children know, David prevailed over Goliath and cut his head off with his own sword. This act not only impressed Saul, but also the men of Israel who were looking for a leader they could rally behind.

When we come to 1 Samuel 18:1-5, we are introduced to David and Jonathan's relationship. One thing I believe needs to be kept in mind is that Jonathan was more than likely any where between 10-15 years older than David. The reason I say that is because he had been fighting in the army with his father for several years and the earliest a man was to serve was 2o. David had returned home to be with his father when his older brothers went out to fight with Saul, and if he had been older at the time, David would certainly have been fighting along side of them, yet he was at home tending sheep. So, more than likely, Jonathan's friendship with David was more along the lines of being a mentor.

After the defeat of Goliath, and with the content of David's words in defense of the God of Israel on his mind, Jonathan saw in him a person who was uniquely anointed by the Lord. Whether or not Jonathan recognized the theocratic anointing of the Spirit of David's life, or knew of Samuel's choosing of him to be the future king is uncertain (1 Sam. 16), but he certainly knew God's hand was upon David's life. Rather than seeing Jonathan's giving of his royal robe, armor, and sword to David as tokens of his homosexual love for him, what is at stake is Jonathan's act of treason against his father. Here we have the prince of Israel, the man who was the heir to the throne of Israel, hand to David those royal items that identifies his right to claim the throne for himself. Jonathan in a symbolic way was abrogating his claim to the throne and giving it to David and affirming his allegiance to him as the rightful king. Even Saul comes to realize the threat David was to him and his lineage on the throne when in 1 Samuel 20, after questioning Jonathan as to David's whereabouts, he angrily curses Jonathan and proclaims to him "For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth, you shall not be established, nor your kingdom" (1 Sam. 20:31).

Now, with this background in mind, gay "Christian" apologists like Rick re-read these passages with all sorts unnecessary homo-erotic imagery. A collection of articles at Rick's site explaining how David and Jonathan were engaged in a romantically involved, sexual partnership, demonstrates how extreme the gay agenda is in twisting this story to fit their homosexual worldview. One odd side note to this revisionist ideology displayed at Rick's website is how the painting, David och Saul, by Swedish painter Julius Kronberg, which depicts an effeminate looking David playing a harp for an effeminate looking king Saul, is deceptively described as David and Jonathan sharing a private moment. As "gayish" as Kronberg's painting looks, he meant it to depict David and Saul, not David and Jonathan engaging in foreplay as Rick's description suggests.

First, gay apologists utterly ignore the vast body of commentary on the David and Jonathan story that clearly explains the relationship between the two men as merely a strong, non-sexual friendship. Even Rick admits the gay view is an extreme minority position historically, and even writes that his take on the passage is "fresh" and "new." The words "fresh" and "new" in my mind are really code words for stretching the meaning of the story and re-interpreting words beyond the breaking point of their definition.

A good example of re-defining words is how gay apologists attempt to zero in on the word love and pour into the definition a form of homosexual eroticism. They specifically exaggerate the expression describing Jonathan loving David as "his own soul" thus turning it into homo-erotic imagery. However, Jonathan loving David as his own soul is not his gay oriented feelings, but one of identifying with David as God's truly anointed king. A sexual relationship is no more implied between David and Jonathan with the use of the word love, as it is with the people of Israel and Judah having the same love for David when they too saw God's hand upon him (1 Sam. 18:16). If we accept the gay revisionist understanding of the word love as implying sexual desire and sex in the instance of David and Jonathan's friendship, are we to conclude the people of the nation also had sexual desires for David as well?

But what about David's words in 2 Samuel 1:26 where he describes Jonathan's love for him surpassing the love of women? The first observation is how the eulogy speaks of Jonathan's devotion to David. David doesn't speak directly of his love to Jonathan. That is not to say David wasn't as devoted to Jonathan as he was to David, but his expression is one of gratitude for the loyalty Jonathan had shown toward him. Again, nothing in the wider context of David and Jonathan's relationship even remotely suggests they were engaged in a gay, sexual relationship, so a poetic lament that elevates the purity of these two men's friendship with each other should not be reinterpreted according to a specific agenda to normalize homosexual sin. One possible source for David's soliloquy on behalf of his friend Jonathan may be an allusion back to the little song the women made up about David as recorded in 1 Sam. 18:7 when they would greet David's return from battle by singing how he has slain his ten thousands. David is describing how Jonathan respected him and loved him much more than just a national hero, but as a loyal friend and mentor.

Then one sort of weird argument gay apologists put forth to claim David and Jonathan were homosexual lovers is found in the King James rendering of 1 Sam. 20:41 where the two friends are forced to go their separate ways because of Saul's hatred of David. When they met for the last time the KJV says, ...and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded. I recently had an individual email me who linked me to a convoluted article claiming that the phrase until David exceeded means the two men engaged in one final homosexual sex act in which David climaxed at the end.

The author of the article gives the appearance he has done his "scholarly homework" as it were by citing the LXX and the Latin Vulgate and all these supposed commentaries on 1 Samuel. The crux of his conclusion for the sex act is that the word translated in the KJV as exceeded is used in other OT contexts to speak of growing up, or being enlarged, and in one instance - at least according to this "researcher" - getting an erection and ejaculating. (I apologize for the frank discussion, by the way). At any rate, my emailer was troubled by the alleged "scholarly" argumentation in the article and said he has never seen a good refutation of it. I find that to be an amazing claim. If anyone were to check any other English translation of the passage, they will see that the text has been more clearly rendered than what is found in clumsy, old English translation of the KJV. The NKJV, for instance, translates the phrase, and they wept together, but David more so. The ESV has David weeping the most. And the NASB translates, and they kissed each other and wept together, but David the more. The reason there is no refutation to be found is because this gay apologist is hunting windmills. His arguments are utterly contrived, representing a person desperately grasping at any lexical "straw" to justify homosexual perversion. The context drives the understanding of the phrase. They both wept over the separation of their friendship, but David wept even more than Jonathan. This simply speaks to his emotionally sensitive heart, which revealed itself in other times, particularly when he wept for his son Absolam after he was slain during his civil war against his father (2 Sam. 18:33).

Our modern, secular society erroneously equate any affection expressed between two men as being sexually oriented. Much of that wrong thinking about healthy, non-sexual, but intimate friendships between men, is caused by the work of sin and the devil perverting human relationships. Because of such muddled ideas concerning any genuine closeness between men, there is a hesitancy in our day on the part of grown men to forge strong, inter-personal friendships with each other. They don't want to be scoffed at as being "gay." I have been blessed with experiencing a handful of strong, affectionate friendship with other men during my life. Though our relationship was close, never was there any homosexual feelings on the part of myself or my friend. That was something that never crossed our minds once. Yet gay apologists would suggest such a close friendship implies a homosexual eroticism. It doesn't, and it shouldn't, and it most certainly doesn't in the biblical record of David and Jonathan.

Labels:

7 Comments:

Blogger Threat Systems said...

Wow, people actually still believe in that pile of 2000 year old fairytales?

You just spent about 5 pages writing about gays, gay lovers, etc.

Get a life. Science is crushing you blithering fools, and will continue to do so until your pathetic, gay religion and its gay pathetic priests are all dead and gone, like all the other pathetic gay religions and gods of times past.

You, sir, are a dumb jackass.

5:24 PM, June 12, 2008  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

TS,
So are you saying the gay "Christian" apologists are jackasses? You seem to be contradictory in your comments.

Fred

6:37 PM, June 12, 2008  
Blogger Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Hi Fred,

Continue to stand firm and keep up the often thankless task of rebutting and refuting heretical error.

Pax.

1:12 PM, June 14, 2008  
Blogger UltraMar said...

Mistaken translations are the same as FALSE translations and false translations always result in FALSE interpretations. False translations and their consequent FALSE interpretations cannot be the TRUE WORD OF GOD.

The Bible didn't fall from heaven written in English. It was originally written in Hebrew with a few parts written in Aramaic.

The following is the expert opinion Rabbi Gershon Caudill who was educated from early boyhood to read, write and speak his ancestral language, ancient, biblical Hebrew on what the Bible, in its original Hebrew, REALLY says about homosexuality.
From http://home.earthlink.net/~ecorebbe/id18.html , the following:

"...A HETEROSEXUAL JEWISH RABBI LOOKS AT THE BIBLE'S VIEWPOINT ON HOMOSEXUALITY...

...As a result of his early teaching to continually wrestle with the Sacred texts and to seek to bring the texts into relevence in the modern world, since 1994, Rabbi Steinberg-Caudill has been seriously involved in a compassionate study of the so-called "anti-homosexual" verses found in the Book of Leviticus. He has searched extensively in the Hebrew Scriptures, in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds, and in other Jewish historical writings.

With the help of not only his own Jewish sources, but also those of Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Latin Rite linguists and scholars, plus an LDS (Mormon) Biblical Languages student at Emory University, Rabbi Gershon Steinberg-Caudill has also been able to study original translations of the Hebrew, Greek and Latin texts.

This serious study has also involved reviewing the various Biblical manuscripts and translations, Talmudic responsa texts and other materials of a collateral nature to the subject matter being studied; i. e. history, anthropology, archaeology, philology, etymology, etc. It has required, often times, an attempt to reconstruct the ancient mindset of the pre-Babylonian conquest (586 BCE) Israelite people.

As a result of this serious research, Rabbi Steinberg-Caudill is completely convinced that THE ORIGINAL HEBREW TEXTS OF THE TORAH (the Hebrew Chumash - the Five Books of Moses) HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO SAY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY AS WE UNDERSTAND THE TERM "HOMOSEXUALITY" TO MEAN IN TODAYS WORLD!

Sadly, the reality of our human history is that the texts of Leviticus (and Deuteronomy) which were utilized by the teachers and rabbis of the Jewish tradition to condemn homosexuality, were so employed under a direct and constant danger and THREAT from the dominant and controlling Christian governmental and ecclesiastical authorities who needed to have the "perceived" Jewish interpretation of the texts, as taught by the Jewish rabbinical authorities, to be in accordance with their own Christian commentaries and teachings on homosexuality and what they believed (falsely) to be sexual perversion. Thus, they kept a close watch on what the Jewish rabbis wrote about subjects sensitive to Church dogma.

This period of the condemnation of homosexuals, coincides with similar condemnation edicts against witches, healers, and heretics which began mostly in the 4th to 6th centuries of the common era (CE), which was at least 1500 years after the original texts of Leviticus and Deuteronomy was codified into the Hebrew Torah. This condemnation was largely misplaced and did not represent the actual views of the writers and compilers of either Leviticus or Deuteronomy..."

6:21 PM, February 08, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

UM,
I am certain YOU think this "Rabbi" is a scholar. I won't contend with you as to whether or not he can read Hebrew. I am sure he is well versed.

But believe me, I have had lots of homosexuals email me and insist that such-and-such a scholar says this, that, and the other with regards to what the Bible is suppose to really say about homosexuality in order to justify their sexual perversion.

The reality, however, is that your rabbi stands opposed to virtually the entire ancient Jewish and Christian community with regard to his claims. Additionally, he stands opposed to virtually every current day Hebrew scholar who also has spent 30 years studying the Bible. I could probably give you 8 off the top of my head who would say this guy is a wacko. They're just as scholarly as he is, so why are their conclusions so vastly different? Well. Just reading over that Rabbi's webpage, he has an agenda to buck against traditional, religious belief. Thus, he stands opposed to God's truth and does not come anywhere near defending it as a reliable testimony of divinely infallible, revealed truth. If one is driven by agenda, he uses what "scholarship" he claims to hold as a means to push his agenda, especially upon unwitting masses like your self who do not have any knowledge of what the original languages really say.

As for your other two posts, I truly wonder if you even read any of my argumentation against the "David and Jonathan were gay lovers" thesis. Did you consider any of what I wrote? Also, I wrote a specific post addressing the Sodom argument from Ezekiel. You can find it HERE

Now. I guess this subject must really animate you, because you are trolling here in the comments, cutting and pasting articles from favored authorities of yours. But if you would bother to read the rules, linked right above the box where you type your comments, I don't allow cut-and-paste trolling. If, however, you want to engage my argumentation, please feel free to publish something original to the point here. I would suggest reading my two posts on what the Bible says about human sexuality HERE and HERE and interacting with the argumentation I put forth in them.

Otherwise, you are wasting your time cutting-and-pasting from other websites.

7:30 AM, February 09, 2010  
Blogger javier said...

.... setting scripture aside, wouldn't you think everyone is entitled to LOVE? who is to say where this love is to be found? who can make his heart love the person one chooses?? we don't choose. we just fall in love. we can have some influence, but not decide. the heart decides. therefore, what right has an old book to condemn love? when it is the very will of God to express love.



parallax25@hotmail.com

3:35 PM, June 30, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Javier,
I am not sure what your commitment is to Scripture, but we can't just "lay aside" what the Bible says about these issues.

The Bible is a divine revelation from our creator who has made men and women to experience love and relationships. However, God has created our sexuality to function in a specific manner. Homosexual sex is not it.

I am not sure if you have read another article I wrote addressing the issue of biblical sexuality but I provide a survey of what scripture teaches on the subject.

As to your questions about who we love and falling into love and the like, the Bible does not view love in this fashion. Love is certainly an emotional experience, but it is grounded in a self-sacrificial selfless giving of one to another. People don't "fall into love" as if love is like accidentally falling into a big hole. This is purely selfish motivation, because such love seeks its own interests, and not the interest of the desired object. Additionally, your argument for love sounds exactly like the men of NAMBLA who claim their sexual love for young boys is something "they can't help" or "they don't choose to love like that, it just is." We obviously do not capitulate to their whims, now do we?

9:11 AM, July 03, 2010  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home