Gagnon on David and Jonathan
Writing in Orthodoxy Today recently, Gagnon covered a number of issues which included whether David and Jonathan had some kind of same-sex relationship.
David and Jonathan
Miller cites the relationship of David and Jonathan as an example of the â€œenduring love between men,â€ adding: â€œWhat Jonathan and David did or did not do in privacy is perhaps best left to history and our own imaginations.â€ That is tantamount to saying, â€œWhat Ruth and her mother-in-law Naomi did in the bedroom is best left to our own imaginations,â€ as if the Bible could possibly be condoning a case of incest; or even tantamount to saying that whether Jesusâ€™ saying about â€œlet the little children come to meâ€ had any positive implications for sex with children is â€œbest left to our imaginations.â€ When the text of Scripture understood in its literary and historical contexts gives little or no basis for â€œour own imaginationsâ€ to conjure up sexual activity, it is irresponsible to grant or take imaginative license. Such is the case with the relationship of David and Jonathan.
Homosexualist interpretations of David and Jonathan mistake non-erotic covenant/kinship language for erotic intimacy. For example:
- The statement that â€œthe soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soulâ€ (1 Samuel 18:1) can be compared to the non-erotic kinship language in Genesis 44:31 (â€œ[Jacobâ€™s] soul is bound up with [his son Benjaminâ€™s] soulâ€) and Leviticus 19:18 (â€œYou shall love your neighbor as yourselfâ€). It can also be compared to formulaic treaty language in the ancient Near East, such as the address of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal to his vassals (â€œYou must love [me] as yourselvesâ€) and the reference in 1 Kings 5:1 to King Hiram of Tyre as Davidâ€™s â€œlover.â€
- Similarly, the remark in 1 Samuel 19:1 that Jonathan â€œdelighted very muchâ€ in David can be compared to the non-erotic references in 1 Samuel 18:22 (â€œThe king [Saul] is delighted with you [David], and all his servants love you; now then, become the kingâ€™s son-in-lawâ€) and 2 Samuel 20:11 (â€œWhoever delights in Joab, and whoever is for David, [let him follow] after Joabâ€).
- When David had to flee from Saul, David and Jonathan had a farewell meeting, in which David â€œbowed three times [to Jonathan], and they kissed each other, and wept with each otherâ€ (1 Sam 20:41-42). The bowing suggests political, rather than sexual, overtones. As for the kissing, only three out of twenty-seven occurrences of the Hebrew verb â€œto kissâ€ have an erotic dimension; most refer to kissing between father and son or between brothers.
- In 1 Samuel 20:30-34, Saul screams at Jonathan: â€œYou son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse [David] to your own shame and to the shame of your motherâ€™s nakedness?â€ Here Saul is not accusing his son of playing the passive-receptive role in man-male intercourse with David (cf. 2 Sam 19:5-6). Rather, he charges Jonathan with bringing shame on the mother who bore him by acquiescing to Davidâ€™s claim on Saulâ€™s throne.
- When David learns of the deaths of Saul and Jonathan he states of Jonathan â€œyou were very dear to me; your love to me was more wonderful to me than the love of womenâ€ (2 Sam 1:26). The Hebrew verb for â€œwere very dear toâ€ is used in a sexual sense in the Old Testament only two out of twenty-six occurrences and a related form is used just three verses earlier when David refers to Saul as â€œlovely,â€ obviously in a non-erotic sense. Jonathanâ€™s giving up his place as royal heir and risking his life for David surpassed anything David had known from a committed erotic relationship with a woman; but there was nothing sexual in the act. As Proverbs 18:24 notes (in a non-sexual context): â€œThere is a lover/friend who sticks closer than a brother.â€
The narratorâ€™s (narratorsâ€™) willingness to speak of Davidâ€™s vigorous heterosexual life (compare the relationship with Bathsheba) puts in stark relief his (their) complete silence about any sexual activity between David and Jonathan. Put simply, homosexualist interpretations of the relationship between David and Jonathan misunderstand the political overtones of the Succession Narrative in 1 Samuel 16:14 â€“ 2 Samuel 5:10. Jonathanâ€™s handing over his robe, armor, sword, bow, and belt were acts of political investiture, transferring the office of heir apparent to David (1 Samuel 18:4). The point of emphasizing the close relationship between David and Jonathan was to stress the view that David was not a rogue usurper to Saulâ€™s throne. Rather, he was adopted by Jonathan into his fatherâ€™s â€œhouseâ€ (family, dynasty) as though he were Jonathanâ€™s older brother. Neither the narrator(s) of the Succession Narrative nor the author(s) of the Deuteronomistic History show any concern about homosexual scandal, because, in the context of ancient Near Eastern conventions, nothing in the narrative raised suspicions about a homosexual relationship. (For further discussion, see Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 146-54; Markus Zehnder,â€œObservations on the Relationship between David and Jonathan and the Debate on Homosexuality,â€ Westminster Theological Journal 69.1 : 127-74).
Thoughts (apart from agreeing with my dislike of the word “homosexualist”)?