If homosexuality is a sin then how do you explain David & Jonathan?

Question

nd Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments ... and his girdle." 1 Samuel 18:1-4


Saul: "do not I know that thou has chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion of thy mother's nakedness?" 1 Samuel 20:30 (any OT scholar who has read Ezek, Hab. or Leviticus knows exactly what this means)

David says to Jonathan: "very pleasant has thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of woman." 2 Samuel 1:26

Craig, why don't you condemn God for brutally murdering so many people in the OT? Isn't murder also a sin?

David was considered to be chosen by God amongst his people.

Answer 1

Only the various religions speak of sinners, Messres Donkey.

If God truly represents the conscience of humanity then you know that having a preference for one sex over another is no more wrong than preferring peas to beans ... I could care less what the Christian bible says either way about what I know is right in my heart.

Answer 2

The only reason people keep trying to read something sexual into David and Jonathan's relationship is because they have ulterior motives. There is absolutely nothing sexual about close, brotherly love.

Saul was jealous and vengeful because God had chosen David to be Israel's next king. Not only that, but David had won the people's respect and admiration, including that of Saul's son, Jonathan. So, if Jonathan and David had been involved in a homosexual relationship, if Saul had suspected any such behavior (let's not forget how paranoid he was) that would have been the perfect ammunition for Saul to use to incite the people against David and win back their favor for himself. Not only that, but both Jonathan and David would have been put to death, and God certainly wouldn't have chosen someone engaging in an act He calls an abomination to be king.

It's true, the Bible says David was a man after God's own heart, but God never fails to discipline those He chooses to carry out His will when they sin against Him. And, I think we all know that homosexuality is considered a sin in God's eyes. No matter how people try to muddy it, scripture is crystal clear on this issue (and it's not just one of those levitical laws we're no longer under; it's still listed as sin in the New Testament). It's not something God would have overlooked in a man He had appointed to be the future king over His chosen people - a man He also promised that from his descendents would come the Savior of the world.

For those who are interested in the truth rather than a sensationalized lie, http://www.moodymagazine.com/articles.php?action=view_article&id=385 has a good explanation of the close relationship shared between Jonathan and David.

Answer 3

There may be a confusion here between 'erotic' love, and 'brotherly' love. The way I understand these passages is 'brotherly' love. This is later set forth and expounded upon in Rev. 3:7-12, where the writer exhorts us to ABSTAIN from temptation, NOT to succumb to it! If anything, I see trust as the underlying theme between David and Jonathan, not erotic desire. Trust is exactly what Saul lacks (the same as any typically paranoid king, including the Herods of Jesus' day), and envy is the main motivation for behaving the way he did. In 1 Sam 20:30, we see a classic psycological projection (outright lie) of blame, along with accusations of distrust. Actually, it was Saul who was to be embarrassed, not Jonathan's mother. Saul just couldn't bear to think God had forsaken him for David, even though deep down he knew the truth. The same will happen to anyone who judges themself unworthy, and acts rashly.
David knew he could trust Jonathan, and naturally loved him for it, was greatful to God for it, in a time where murder, mayhem and distrust were the standards of human behavior (and in many ways, still are today).
Further, if David at all demonstrates erotic love, it is in his escapades with Bathsheba, (a woman) and not with any men.
(2 Sam 11)

Answer 4

Jesus accepted everyone, period. He didn't judge and his teachings were so much against it. He never mentioned homosexuals. He spoke of love, compassion, we all know these things. But the NT does make anti homosexual comments by Paul. The two main characters of the NT do come in contradiction here. There are many times that I believe that christians are mistakenly called so, it seems to me they should be ApostlePaulians or something like that. I seriously doubt that Apostle Paul's teachings were in accordance with Jesus' teachings. Maybe this good cop -bad cop thing that the NT has is part of a bigger plot, or maybe Jesus was just corrupted by those timers as He is being corrupted now by all these people who use His name to spread hate and bigotry. Jesus if ever existed was really above all that. This is my opinion. I really don't believe that Jesus would ever allow to anyone to go to hell just because he/she falls in love with the same gender.

Answer 5

I don't see anything in David and Jonathan's relationship beyond strong friendship. These guys CLICKED; they were each other's right and left hands. Sex doesn't have to be involved in such a relationship. Suffice it to say they were closer than brothers, and leave it at that.

Why must every "close" relationship somehow involve sex? I have never understood that opinion. It is extremely possible for two people (same sex or different sex, doesn't matter) to have strong mental and emotional bonds, to be best friends, without sex being part of the equation. Think of the "blood brother" bond with the Native American's; how much of that is sexual? (answer: None).

I do notice that you chose the older King James Version of the Bible, which is MUCH easier to misunderstand and twist with today's English. Why don't you try the NKJV, or the New International Version?

Answer 6

They were friends plain and simply. But I know that now sadly in this world, if you do love a friend as close as these two did you would be considered homosexual.
Honestly, then if you were to hear my conversations with my best friend, you would then take the words "I love you" to mean I was homosexual as well.

Answer 7

i don't know about David and Jonathan, but i stronly believe that homosexuality is not a sin, bacause it's a choice of gender orientation. in my women's studies, homosexuality is considered only by the society as a sin because it does not conform to the conventionality of male/female distingishes of the human species. in a way, the society also affects the construction of our gender by assigning characteristics of feminities and masculinities to men and women, but disregarding the choice of gender orientation and identity of a person. unless someone who is a homosexual did not do any crime against living beings, and his only difference is his gender, then i will not condemn him/her. =)

Answer 8

How kind of you to offer up this exercise in rationalization. Let the games begin!

Applechick is first on the rationalization board!
Craig R - weak attempt, but he's trying.
Jim B's got the blinders on, but he's nonchalant about it.
Sportznut05 is starting to YELL!
MamaBear is the queen rationizer so far! Like you don't understand true friendship dude, and your Bible - hmpf - out of date.

Answer 9

I agree with Gazpacho..

Came across this, I copy and pasted some of it here but there is more just click on the link...

Homosexuality

Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law.

Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner.

Divine Law

The rejection of homosexual behavior that is found in the Old Testament is well known. In Genesis 19, two angels in disguise visit the city of Sodom and are offered hospitality and shelter by Lot. During the night, the men of Sodom demand that Lot hand over his guests for homosexual intercourse. Lot refuses, and the angels blind the men of Sodom. Lot and his household escape, and the town is destroyed by fire "because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord" (Gen. 19:13).

Throughout history, Jewish and Christian scholars have recognized that one of the chief sins involved in God’s destruction of Sodom was its people’s homosexual behavior. But today, certain homosexual activists promote the idea that the sin of Sodom was merely a lack of hospitality. Although inhospitality is a sin, it is clearly the homosexual behavior of the Sodomites that is singled out for special criticism in the account of their city’s destruction. We must look to Scripture’s own interpretation of the sin of Sodom.

Jude 7 records that Sodom and Gomorrah "acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust." Ezekiel says that Sodom committed "abominable things" (Ezek. 16:50), which could refer to homosexual and heterosexual acts of sin. Lot even offered his two virgin daughters in place of his guests, but the men of Sodom rejected the offer, preferring homosexual sex over heterosexual sex (Gen. 19:8–9). Ezekiel does allude to a lack of hospitality in saying that Sodom "did not aid the poor and needy" (Ezek. 16:49). So homosexual acts and a lack of hospitality both contributed to the destruction of Sodom, with the former being the far greater sin, the "abominable thing" that set off God’s wrath.

But the Sodom incident is not the only time the Old Testament deals with homosexuality. An explicit condemnation is found in the book of Leviticus: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. . . . If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them" (Lev. 18:22, 20:13).

Answer 10

I predict you will be a born again Christian before the end of your life.