February, 1985 By Mel Barber

1 Samuel 18-2O One of the greatest love stories in the Bible continues to pass right by most biblical students and scholars, not because of its obscurity or because of language problems, but because they don't WANT to see it. Most people refuse to see the warm, romantic aspects of the relationship between the two righteous young warriors Jonathan, son of King Saul, and David, the mighty youth who slew Goliath and was personally hand-picked by the Lord to become Israel's greatest king. To acknowledge the true and obvious facts of this loving relationship would force theologians, scholars, students and Church leaders to either condemn the Bible's greatest hero or accept not only the possibility, but the probability that homosexuality is not, in and of itself, any more a sin than is heterosexuality in the sight of the Lord.

The "special" relationship between princely Jonathan and young David is first mentioned in 1 Samuel 18:1: "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." While this introduction certainly does not suggest anything more than sincere friendship and brotherly love, the closeness of the friendship is certainly established as extraordinary. For their souls to be "knit" certainly suggests an interweaving of personal feelings and emotions that is unusual for a first meeting of two young soldiers.

Verse 3 is a little more revealing, as the two young men make a covenant with each other. Covenants, in biblical times, were generally made only with the Lord or his servants. Latter-day Saints consider temple marriage a three-way covenant between spouses and the Lord. Most other covenants are between individuals and the Lord. Jonathan and David included the Lord in their covenant, as mentioned in 1 Sam 20:16-17, 23 and 42. While not suggesting that their covenant was a marriage covenant, we are told that the reason for the sacred pact between the two single young men was "...because he loved him as his own soul." (1 Sam 18:3) Again, in Chapter 20, verse 17, we read "And Jonathan caused David to sware again, because he loved him ..."

At the time of their meeting, Jonathan had been in Saul's army for some time, and was a little older than the new recruit, David. During this time (c. 1000 B.C,), Israel had been under the cultural and political influence of the Philistines for about 200 years. The Philistines were an uncircumcised people of Aegean origin who accepted homosexuality in theory and practice. They had migrated from either the coast of Asia Minor or from some of the eastern Mediterranean islands where homosexuality was an accepted phenomenon. Both areas were Greek or proto-Greek.

Up to this point, it may successfully be argued by some that the love shared between Jonathan and David was purely platonic. But in verse 4 of chapter 18 the possibility of a more intimate relationship cannot be overlooked as we read "...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." The giving of expensive gifts by the older to the younger man was done in all eastern Mediterranean heroic love affairs. It is true that there were sometimes gifts to cement friendships between men in other circumstances - gifts of gold or of livestock - but these were usually given in cases where one man was trying to impress another in order to obtain some favor in return, In cases where a man gave something as personal as his clothes, his armor or his weapons, the attraction was most likely sexual. Today, for example, it is common practice for a young man with successful accomplishments to offer personal articles of clothing, prizes or awards such as school jackets, rings, etc. to his girlfriend, who accepts the items as evidence of fidelity and commitment that represent more than mere friendship or "brotherly love." What do you suppose people would think today of two young men who exchanged sweaters and rings, not to mention their underwear? And with a pact expressing their love for one another!

Now what do you think the Lord must have thought about all this? After all, this was the young man he had personally chosen to eventually become Israel's king, and the true and faithful son of Saul who was chosen to be king because of his righteousness. Both young men came from good homes, royal heritage, and were both faithful and valiant in fighting for the Lord. Surprisingly to many modern readers whose prejudices are founded in ideas and opinions that reflect the world's views rather than the Lord's, God was pleased with the two young men and continued to bless them. David "behaved himself wisely" (1 Sam 18:5, 14, 15) and "the Lord was with David" (1 Sam 18:28). But King Saul was another story.' He had already become angered at David because the people seemed to love him more than the King. But now Saul was becoming suspicious of their relationship, suspecting more than just "friendship." David and Jonathan had apparently been very discreet about their relationship, but now even they were suspecting that Jonathan's father knew about them as David confesses to Jonathan "And David sware moreover, and said, Thy father certainly knoweth that I have found grace in thine eyes; and he saith, Let not Jonathan know this, lest he be grieved..." (1 Sam 20:3). Had King Saul been more in tune with the Lord, he would have known of Jonathan and David's honest, pure and devoted love for one another. But Saul had been growing away from the Lord and was now in a position of disfavor with the Lord. In his ignorance, Saul finally confronted Jonathan directly about the affair, telling him that he knew of his"confusion" Perhaps the greatest piece of evidence that we have that the affair was, in fact, sexual, is Saul's behavior and words to his son as he confronted him, screaming "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" (1 Sam 20:30).

The word "confusion" is used in the Old Testament to mean sexual sin (Leviticus 18:23), as is the term "nakedness" used to connote sexual sin throughout the Old Testament. It is interesting that Saul makes the reference to "sin" while the Lord was not only unconcerned about the behavior of the two young men, but continued to support and bless them. Saul continues his accusations by stating to Jonathan that "For as long as the eon of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom..." (1 Sam 20:31). In other words, with David as his mate, they could not have children and establish a kingdom.

Throughout the narration of Jonathan and David's affair, the pleasure of the Lord at David's behavior is expressed (1 Sam 18:5, 12, 14, 28; 19:5) leading many who hold worldly opinions that homosexuality is sinful to rationalize that perhaps it was Jonathan who was the wicked seducer of the clean and innocent young David. This possibility is dashed, as we read of their final tearful meeting before Jonathan is forced to flee for his life to avoid the wrath of the wicked father, Saul. As the secretly meet and are alone for the last time David falls to the ground, and "they kiss one another," not for just a few moments, but "until David exceeded" (1 Sam 20:41).' To exceed means to pass or surpass, or in this case, perhaps, to pass out with emotion.' Now if that's "friendship" or fellowship or brotherly love, I am certain that there are more than a few of us who could use a few more friends!

Perhaps the final proof is in David's own words, as he laments over the news of the death of both Saul and Jonathan in battle: " I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant hast thou been to me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women," (2 Sam 1:26). Here, David remembers the love Jonathan gave "to me," not merely the love he had "for me." It must also be remembered that by this time David had had three wives, yet in thinking of Jonathan, he says that their love surpassed the love of women. Isn't it the title "homosexual" that is placed upon those men whose love for other men surpasses their love for women? It may be argued that there could not have been a homosexual relationship because David was married. It is true that he eventually married Michal, Jonathan's sister. But the scripture says that it was she who loved him, not him that fell in love with her. For David, the scripture says that he was pleased to become the king's son-in-law and join the royal family. Later, he married more of his admirers and bore children. Is it, after all, uncommon for a homosexual person to marry out of a sense of duty or responsibility, or to fulfill the desire to have children, or to please the family, friends or church leaders ?

Those who refuse to entertain the possibility of sexual congress between David and Jonathan close out both textual evidence and the historical background of the story. Modern prejudice against homosexuality is a force that overcomes many of the most scholarly and sincere and causes them to refuse to see what they don't want to see in the scriptures when it can't be twisted to support their prejudice.

Greek Love, (1964), a scholarly work by J.Z. Eglinton, states that the love affair of Jonathan and David was "unequaled in sheer passion and tenderness by any other love passages in epic literature." "The language describing their relationship is that of love, not mere friendship," 'Ahabah, the Hebrew word for love used throughout these passages, always has a sensual connotation, he says. The word appears as well in heterosexual contexts when it is clearly physical love that is intended. In the ancient Mediterranean world, homosexuality was an accepted phase that men passed through, and to have a respectable older male lover was most flattering to the younger man. In some Eastern societies young males were ashamed if they d%d not have an older lover. In this case, Jonathan was certainly the older of the two. In all eastern Mediterranean heroic love affairs, the older man always pursued the younger. Furthermore, Jonathan was a prince while David was only the son of a land holder. One of lower social status could not pursue one of higher; he must be pursued.

Male homosexuality was not only in existence, but was common and accepted in biblical times, according to anthropologist Dr. Raphael Patai, who tells us that it has remained so in the Middle East down to the present day. He states that "It might not have been as general as it was in Greece, but the folk mores certainly did not regard it with any degree of disapproval." Dr. Patai says that "The love story between Jonathan, the son of King Saul, and David the beautiful hero, must have been duplicated many times in royal courts in all parts of the Middle East in all periods."

In noting that the Lord was not displeased with David concerning his love affair with Jonathan, while Saul made reference to it with a sinful connotation, we should point out that the only place in the Old Testament where homosexual acts per se are mentioned is in Leviticus: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as he lieth with womankind: it is abomination."(Lev 18:22) "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."(Lev 20:13). John Boswell, in Christianity. Social Tolerance. and Homosexuality (1980), says the Hebrew word "toevah," here translated "abomination," does not usually signify something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft, but something which is "ritually unclean" for Jews, like eating pork or engaging in intercourse during menstruation, both of which are prohibited in the same chapters. It is used throughout the Old Testament to designate those Jewish sins which involve ethnic contamination or idolatry and very frequently occurs as part of the stock phrase "toevah ha-goyim," "the uncleanliness of Gentiles."

Thus, while Saul confused ritual purity with moral purity, and would have had the two young men hang their heads in shame as most would do today, the Lord saw their moral purity and their honest and sincere love based in righteousness rather than lust, and continued to be with them.

If homosexuality were indeed such a great sin, surely it would have been mentioned by other prophets in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, only Paul mentions it, and his words have been mistranslated and misinterpreted so many times that his original point is usually lost by those who use his words merely to support their prejudiced beliefs about the sinfulness of homosexuality. Sexuality appears to have been largely a matter of indifference to Jesus. His comments on sexual mores are extremely few, especially in comparison with the frequency of his observations on such matters as wealth and demonic possession, which are largely ignored today. Even where sexuality is specifically mentioned, the aim is generally to make a larger point: e.g., using the example of committing adultery "in one's heart" to point out that it was the intent which constituted sin (Matt. 5:28). When confronted with adulterers, he recommended no punishment and clearly suggested that the sins of others were of equal or greater gravity (John 8:3-11). He pronounced no condemnations of sexuality among the unmarried and said nothing that bore any relation to homosexuality. The only sexual issue of importance to Jesus appears to have been fidelity, which Jonathan and David had for each other. Even the apostle Paul, in derogating homosexual behavior among the pagans did not describe people who "had fallen in love and were drawn to each other in righteousness," but only those who "burned in their lust one toward another." Enduring love between persons of the same gender may have seemed quite a different matter.