The Marriage of David and Jonathan

aleshanee said:
exactly right..... as God;s Word the bible does not hide sin... and i was just about to use a phrase about scripture not pulling punches when i saw you mention it first..... .... davids sins of murder and adultry were clearly exposed and written about... if he had committed another grevious sin... such as what is being suggested here... that would have been exposed and written about as well....

i know a lot of combat veterans.... marines who fought side by side together and faced death together - and buried fallen comrads together.... . . they have a bond between them that other people cannot possibly understand unless they have faced similar things.... and yes sometimes that bond is stronger than any love they have for their own families... ..but there is no romance involved in it at all.... . that is the kind of relationship i see jonathan and david having..... ..a bond forged by fire and blood that is stronger than the bond between 2 natural brothers..... ...

and that is what the author in 1st samuel was talking about when he mentioned jonathan giving david his tunic.. his sword and even his bow.... he wasn;t just giving david clothing.... he was giving david the tunic of a kings son and the weapons prepared for a kings son too.... he was showing israel that he was making david his brother... and not just a brother but also a brother in arms.... ...... not his wife....
Click to expand...
I think the Marine example is far more likely than a murderer and adulterer having a homosexual fling.
 
.
I remembered the story of Jonathan and David from when I was young. But all of these years, I had not read it or dealt on it until Smellin posted this thread. I have made my posts based on what I remembered - or thought I remembered.

Tonight, in an effort to be fair, I went back (with my dog on the floor to my side) and re read the story. Indeed, it talks about one soul being bound to the other and love and all that. But to be fair, it says that Jonathan loved David; that his soul was bound to David. Every interaction between them was Jonathan to David. I reread this twice and I don't see David returning the gestures. After having read this I definitely see Jonathan enamored, in love, whatever you want to call it, with David. But I'm not so sure David returned the feelings. I don't read where he did. It does mention that they kissed but men in that region - even today, kiss one another.

Upon Jonathan's death, David said that Jonathan's love for him surpassed that of a woman and that he had been good to him. He didn't say that his love for Jonathan surpassed that of a woman.

I'm beginning to feel that this was a one sided love affair - one which David appreciated (see speech upon Jonathan's death) but one that he didn't necessarily return. And I think Saul realized the effect David was having on his son. And he didn't like it.

That's just my take.

.
 
HukNduck said:
Nope. I’m saying the Bible doesn’t list every sin committed by people in the Bible. If we’re going to strictly go by the standard of what the Bible says and doesn’t say, it seems 99% of the content on this forum would disappear, starting with the myriad of posts about Calvinism.
Click to expand...

I enjoy a variety of modes and purposes of interaction, online and in real life. I could give you a host of good traits of this forum and how it fulfills fellowship, pastoral care, edification, mutual iron-sharpening, etc. I don't care what people talk about, as long as it is within the bounds of the forum rules and proper Christian comportment. Having said all that, my primary purpose for being here is to discuss the Bible and its meaning. In that vein, your comments are of keen interest to me because I believe they violate the proper hermeneutical approach that a Bible-believing Christian should take in interpreting and applying Scriptures. Truth is not arrived at by majority rule, and as a Baptist I respect the doctrine of individual soul liberty, but taken in total, the resounding opposition to your handling of Scriptures (on this subject) by a multitude of Christians from all walks of the evangelical/fundamental spectrum should serve as a warning to you IMNSHO. Have a good Lord's day.
 
ALAYMAN said:
I enjoy a variety of modes and purposes of interaction, online and in real life. I could give you a host of good traits of this forum and how it fulfills fellowship, pastoral care, edification, mutual iron-sharpening, etc. I don't care what people talk about, as long as it is within the bounds of the forum rules and proper Christian comportment. Having said all that, my primary purpose for being here is to discuss the Bible and its meaning. In that vein, your comments are of keen interest to me because I believe they violate the proper hermeneutical approach that a Bible-believing Christian should take in interpreting and applying Scriptures. Truth is not arrived at by majority rule, and as a Baptist I respect the doctrine of individual soul liberty, but taken in total, the resounding opposition to your handling of Scriptures (on this subject) by a multitude of Christians from all walks of the evangelical/fundamental spectrum should serve as a warning to you IMNSHO. Have a good Lord's day.
Click to expand...
Appreciate the concern.
 
Gringo said:
.
About two nights ago, it was late at night and I was thinking about this thread. I was outside waiting on my ride to pick me up and I thought the very same thing you have posted before you posted it. . People don't seem to have a problem with the fact that David was a murderer or adulterer or schemer but that he possibly had a romantic relationship with another man: HADES no! Considering the description given between the two men, it isn't unrealistic to realize that indeed, it could have been homosexual in nature. That David had a homosexual relationship does not mean that he did not have heterosexual relationships. He very well could have been bisexual. It is said that Alexander the Great - the great warrior, was too.
.
Click to expand...
Your analysis is really defeating defense of homosexuality. You are claiming, unwittingly, that you believe homosexuality is a sin.

David committed the sins of
... murder
... adultery

Therefore, he could commit the SIN of
... homosexuality
 
FSSL said:
Your analysis is really defeating defense of homosexuality. You are claiming, unwittingly, that you believe homosexuality is a sin.

David committed the sins of
... murder
... adultery

Therefore, he could commit the SIN of
... homosexuality
Click to expand...


.
It wasn't "unwittingly" at all. Homosexuality is a sin, according to the the Bible. Everyone of you believe that. I was trying to reason within your framework. If he was a sinful murderer; if he was a sinful adulterer, why couldn't he be a sinful bisexual? That's all I was saying.

By the way, I'm usually up real late at night, I'd be glad to scour your new posts for vulgarity, pornography etc if no one else volunteers. I saw that nudist post very early this morning. Realizing my lack of conviction of doctrinal issues, I'd be your last resort but just letting you know I'm willing.

.
 
Last edited:
ALAYMAN said:
That was for Huk.😊

And just curious, would you like any feedback on the previous post? I’d be glad to respond to it, but it was lengthy and deeply theological, requiring a lengthy response but I don’t want to waste your time if you’re not interested in some meatier back-and-forth.
Click to expand...

.
Sure. "Let me have it" 🤪😁😍
.
 
Gringo said:
.
It wasn't "unwittingly" at all. Homosexuality is a sin, according to the the Bible. Everyone of you believe that. I was trying to reason within your framework. If he was a sinful murderer; if he was a sinful adulterer, why couldn't he be a sinful bisexual? That's all I was saying.

By the way, I'm usually up real late at night, I'd be glad to scour your new posts for vulgarity, pornography etc if no one else volunteers. I saw that nudist post very early this morning. Realizing my lack of conviction of doctrinal issues, I'd be your last resort but just letting you know I'm willing.

.
Click to expand...
You add "according to the Bible"

You did not claim that murder only sinful "according to the Bible!"

Nor did you argue that adultery is only sinful "according to the Bible."

Your logic is not consistent
 
FSSL said:
You add "according to the Bible"

You did not claim that murder only sinful "according to the Bible!"

Nor did you argue that adultery is only sinful "according to the Bible."

Your logic is not consistent
Click to expand...
.
My South Alabama friend - sort of - but who unfriended me on Facebook (thought I didn't know? 🤪)

All three of those things are mentioned in the Bible as sins, two of which are in the 10 commandments. I'm not following why I'm inconsistent. Help me to understand, sir.

.
 
Last edited:
Gringo said:
.
My South Alabama friend - sort of - but who unfriended me on Facebook (thought I didn't know? 🤪)

All three of those things are mentioned in the Bible as sins, two of which are in the 10 commandments. I'm not following why I'm inconsistent. Help me to understand, sir.

.
Click to expand...
Were we friends on facebook? If so, an "unfriending" would not have been my doing. Facebook has disconnected me from a few people over the years.

Your inconsistency is that you put the phrase "according to the Bible" on only one of your premises.

You state that murder is wrong, and did not premise that statement with "according to the Bible. "

You state that adultery is wrong, and did not promise that statement with "according to the Bible. "

Then, you jump ship and require the idea that the Bible is needed for homosexuality to be seen as a sin.

That is where you are inconsistent.
 
.
I apologize for my inconsistent post.

According to the Bible, murder is sin. According to the Bible, adultry is sin. And, according to the Bible, homosexuality is sin. In fact, according to the Bible, we are a sinful species, having come short of the glory of God. The very best that we can do is as filthy rags and we are in need of a substitionary atonement for our sinful state.
It's only through the death, burial and resurrection of His Son that our sins, whatever they are, can be done away with as far as the east is from the west. It's easy to concentrate on sexual sins but in reality, they are only a drop in the bucket to our sinful makeup.
.
 
Is murder and adultery considered wrong only because they are "according to the Bible?"
 
IOW What makes wrong wrong?

Why is murder wrong?
Why is adultery wrong?
 
abcaines said:
IOW What makes wrong wrong?

Why is murder wrong?
Why is adultery wrong?
Click to expand...

.
Because in the beginning was The Word. And The Word was with God and The Word was God and without God there is no truth.
And God has declared such to be wrong.
??
.
 
Gringo said:
.
Because in the beginning was The Word. And The Word was with God and The Word was God and without God there is no truth.
And God has declared such to be wrong.
??
.
Click to expand...
I'd agree... But is that your answer or is it what you think I want to hear?
 
Gringo said:
.
(Answer to

.
(Answer to TWO posts)

No, I don't believe that you can or should love Christ more than your spouse.

Jesus Christ, the Bible teaches us, is the virgin born Son of God, the 2nd person of the Godhead. He now sits at the right hand of God. He is one to be worshipped. His Father, Jehovah, put in place a higharchy whereby you were given a helpmeet. It is that person to whom you should love and cling to. It is God and his Son to whom you should bow down to and worship. You've mentioned "Orthodox Christianity" to me in the past. I think one should be far more concerned with what the Bible actually teaches than what those in authority and publishers of books tell us it teaches. Case in point, Jonathan and David. Also this idea of a "relationship" with Jesus. You can't see Him. You can't hear Him. You can't feel Him. You can't interact with Him, with Him verbally responding to you. But you love him and have a relationship with Him? I think you should bow down to him, thank Him for the redemptive work He did on the cross, acknowledge Him as your Savior and seek to obey the scriptures that the Third person of the Godhead dictated to the writers but that you should concentrate your earthly existence on loving your spouse and being her helpmeet. I was never able to find in the Bible where we are supposed to have a "relationship" with Him. I did, however, find where we are to Believe in Him and acknowledge his Work on the Cross as our remedy.

I'm not rejecting God. I've bowed down many times and prayed to God. I've acknowledged to Him many times that He's the Creator of the Universe, the One True God. When I did believe in such things, I asked His Son to apply his Work on the Cross to my sin debt. But somehow, my belief in an afterlife and a horrendous place where the worm dieth not and an blessed place full of streets of gold, has left me.

But back to your wife, even if you do, somehow, love Christ more than her, please don't tell me such a thing. I don't want to hear it. And I certainly don't want to be asked if loving Christ means you are a homosexual.
.
Click to expand...

This will be a very brief (because I could really write a lot about what I perceive you to be saying 😁) synopsis of my thoughts.

You certainly rightly do have a decent basis of foundational doctrinal truth that you have intellectually learned, and much of what you cite is fundamental in nature, as well as accurately conveyed as to what the Bible teaches (about many of the things you reference), but it appears (again, my perception could be off and I might be misunderstanding your intent in meaning) that you have some concepts that are a bit off (no offense, again, just my perception of your theological understanding and emphasis in some important areas).

First, you take exception with what you perceive to be my adherence to what you call "Orthodox Christianity". My guess is that you believe that somehow this adherence violates what Scripture actually teaches, and that I am making my conscience subservient to the expected conformity by some ecclesiastical ("religious" for a more relatable general term) body. While there is an element of truth to the fact that where our individual (possibly novel and odd) interpretations should be checked or validated by some source outside our own potentially biased understanding/beliefs, at the end of the day, the protestant notion of ultimate authority (Sola Scriptura) is the over-riding premise for what I believe. So "orthodoxy" is VERY big term (too big to try to go into here), but suffice it to say, I think for myself ultimately, and as Luther said when confronted and threatened with death by the Catholic Church... "Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one's conscience is neither safe nor sound. Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me". So, how does this relate to your post? You implied that there was some contradiction with the idea that I would dare to claim a higher love for the Savior than my wife, but you are creating a conflict that is not even a valid problem within the pale of Orthodox Christian beliefs. It may seem weird to your sense of love, mainly because you don't believe that Christ is the real eternal Son of God. But as I accept that truth, of His personal claims being objectively true, it stands to reason that the One who saved my soul is not at odds with me loving him properly on a higher plane (not merely worshipping Him in some abstract sense). This notion of our relationship with Christ being infinitely more valuable than human relationships is easily attested to in the book of Luke 14:26

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

I am eager to address more ideas with the rest of your post, particularly the manner in which you frame your definition of "relationship", but that is enough for now, until and if you desire to go further. Let me leave you with a question to close this point out. You said that I absolutely SHOULD worship Christ, but not love Him more than my wife, and followed that philosophical admonition with the statement that I cannot hear, see, and touch Him (implying that is sufficient rationale for why I shouldn't demean my relationship with the material person of my wife), but if I can't see, feel, or hear Him (a notion that I think is slightly skewed in its understanding, but more on that later if you desire), why should I dare to even worship an entity that I can't "see, feel, or hear"?
 
Last edited:
HukNduck said:
Sure, but last I checked, he wasn’t calling for anyone to be banished from the forum, hence my comment. Capeesh?
Click to expand...
You defend forum free speech except calling for someone to be banned from said forum.
For that I now call for you to be banned from the forum.
 
ALAYMAN said:
This will be a very brief (because I could really write a lot about what I perceive you to be saying 😁) synopsis of my thoughts.

You certainly rightly do have a decent basis of foundational doctrinal truth that you have intellectually learned, and much of what you cite is fundamental in nature, as well as accurately conveyed as to what the Bible teaches (about many of the things you reference), but it appears (again, my perception could be off and I might be misunderstanding your intent in meaning) that you have some concepts that are a bit off (no offense, again, just my perception of your theological understanding and emphasis in some important areas).

First, you take exception with what you perceive to be my adherence to what you call "Orthodox Christianity". My guess is that you believe that somehow this adherence violates what Scripture actually teaches, and that I am making my conscience subservient to the expected conformity by some ecclesiastical ("religious" for a more relatable general term) body. While there is an element of truth to the fact that where our individual (possibly novel and odd) interpretations should be checked or validated by some source outside our own potentially biased understanding/beliefs, at the end of the day, the protestant notion of ultimate authority (Sola Scriptura) is the over-riding premise for what I believe. So "orthodoxy" is VERY big term (too big to try to go into here), but suffice it to say, I think for myself ultimately, and as Luther said when confronted and threatened with death by the Catholic Church... "Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one's conscience is neither safe nor sound. Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me". So, how does this relate to your post? You implied that there was some contradiction with the idea that I would dare to claim a higher love for the Savior than my wife, but you are creating a conflict that is not even a valid problem within the pale of Orthodox Christian beliefs. It may seem weird to your sense of love, mainly because you don't believe that Christ is the real eternal Son of God. But as I accept that truth, of His personal claims being objectively true, it stands to reason that the One who saved my soul is not at odds with me loving him properly on a higher plane (not merely worshipping Him in some abstract sense). This notion of our relationship with Christ being infinitely more valuable than human relationships is easily attested to in the book of Luke 14:26

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

I am eager to address more ideas with the rest of your post, particularly the manner in which you frame your definition of "relationship", but that is enough for now, until and if you desire to go further. Let me leave you with a question to close this point out. You said that I absolutely SHOULD worship Christ, but not love Him more than my wife, and followed that philosophical admonition with the statement that I cannot hear, see, and touch Him (implying that is sufficient rationale for why I shouldn't demean my relationship with the material person of my wife), but if I can't see, feel, or hear Him (a notion that I think is slightly skewed in its understanding, but more on that later if you desire), why should I dare to even worship an entity that I can't "see, feel, or hear"?
Click to expand...

.
It is true that I only have an intellectual head knowledge of the Bible. And perhaps, therefore, my thinking is "skewed". One thing is for sure: you have been consistent in your faith all of these years and I wish you the best.

I would be happy to speak further but I would just ask that you only give me "one slice of meat" at a time so that I can "digest" it.
.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top