daud mencintai jonathan lebih dari ia mencintai wanita

The author of 1 and 2 Samuel is thought to have been a member of King
David’s court. He seems to know the intimate details of David’s life
and pulls no punches when telling the story of David’s reign, and of his
predecessor King Saul. As part of this story, the author tells about
Saul’s son Jonathan and his unique relationship with David.


You may have heard Jonathan and David’s story, but if you’re like
most people, you have probably never looked at it closely. If your
pastor preached about it, the sermon probably talked about the
“friendship” of Jonathan and David. Some Christians point to Jonathan
and David as an example of idealized male bonding — a type of “brotherly
love” not “stained” by the romantic entanglements of male-female
relationships. The biblical text, however, is completely inconsistent
with this strained interpretation. We will present the biblical
evidence and let you be the jury. You decide: Were Jonathan and David
merely good friends (experiencing brotherly love), or was there a deeper
(romantic) level to their relationship?


The author of 1 Samuel tells of a man named Saul, who became king
over Israel and fathered a son named Jonathan. David, who was a
shepherd from the smallest of the tribes of Israel, came to the
attention of Saul and Jonathan when he volunteered to fight a giant who
was troubling their nation. The text tells us David was not afraid
because he believed God was on the side of the Israelites. In a show of
courage, David fought the giant with only a sling shot and a handful of
pebbles. Miraculously, he was victorious. Saul was intrigued by this
courageous young man, and so he called David to come talk to him, which
brings us to Exhibit A. The text says:

“When David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was
bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
Saul took him that day and would not let him return to his father’s
house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him
as his own soul. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was
wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his
bow and his belt.” (1 Samuel 18:1-4)

Now, imagine if this story had been about Jonathan and a woman.
Suppose the author had written that “Jonathan’s soul was bound to
Mirriam, and Jonathan loved her as his own soul.” And suppose that upon
meeting Mirriam for the first time, Jonathan immediately gave her all
his most precious possessions. (The armor and weapons of a prince were
important symbols of his power and status.) If 1 Samuel 18:1-4 were
about Jonathan’s first encounter with a woman, theologians everywhere
would be writing about this as one of the greatest love stories of all
time. The story of Jonathan and his love would be the source of dozens
of Hollywood films. But because the object of Jonathan’s affection is a
man, our cultural prejudice kicks in and we insist (notwithstanding the
biblical evidence) that this could not have been more than deep
friendship.


This “culturally correct” reading will not withstand scrutiny. It
asks us to put an interpretation on the story that is completely at odds
with our own experience of human behavior. When was the last time you
saw a heterosexual man, swept away by brotherly love, offer another man
his most precious possessions in their first encounter? Suppose the
pastor of your church (assuming he is a man), upon meeting another man
for the first time, stripped himself of his suit and gave it to the
other. Suppose in that same encounter he also offered his most precious
possessions — perhaps a family Bible, a wristwatch with an inscription
from his parents, and his beloved four-wheel drive pickup truck.
Wouldn’t this strike you as more than just a little “queer”? Let’s face
it, the author of 1 Samuel is describing a classic love-at-first-sight
encounter that happens to involve two men.


But there is more to the story than this one meeting. The text goes
on to tell us David became a mighty warrior, and his popularity with the
people of Israel threatened Saul’s throne, so Saul planned to kill
David. But Jonathan warned David, and he fled the palace before Saul
could act. Eventually, Jonathan convinced his father to allow David
back, but Saul soon planned again to kill David. This time he did not
tell Jonathan (he’d learned his lesson the first time), but David was
able to escape anyway.


Then Jonathan and David met in secret. Jonathan begged David to come
back to the palace, but David was afraid for his life. So they made a
plan: Jonathan would go home and try to find out what his father was
thinking. If his father had cooled down, he would let David know it was
safe.


One night, at the royal table, the subject of David came up, and Jonathan spoke on his behalf. Saul’s reaction is Exhibit B. Saul said to Jonathan:

“You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you
have chosen [David] the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame
of your mother’s nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon
the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established.” (1 Samuel
20:30)

Many gay men have experienced dinner conversations that sounded very
similar to this one. They made the mistake of talking about their lover
at the table, and their father became furious. More often than not,
the blame goes first to the mother, who was “too soft,” or “too harsh,”
or who “perverted” her son somehow. Then the father turns his anger
toward the son: “Can’t you see how you’re shaming the whole family? Do
you even care what this will do to your career? You’ll never amount to
anything until you give up this foolishness!”


Note 1. Leviticus 18:6-18 begins, “You shall not
approach anyone near of kin to uncover nakedness” and goes on to list
every possible incestuous relationship (except that of father and
daughter), stating before each one, “You shall not uncover the nakedness
of . . .”


In the biblical text, the arguments are the same. And, even more
significantly, Saul’s reference to shaming Jonathan’s mother’s nakedness
carries a sexual connotation. Uncovering the nakedness of a family
member was a euphemism for incest in the holiness codes of the Old
Testament, and Saul would not have used this phrase lightly. (See note
1.) The implication is that Jonathan is bringing sexual shame on his
family.


Jonathan immediately ran from the table. And, that night, he went to
tell David the sad news. The narrative of their final meeting is full
of tragedy and pathos, and constitutes Exhibit C.

“David rose from beside the stone heap and prostrated himself with
his face to the ground. He bowed three times and they kissed each other
and wept with each other; David wept the more. Then Jonathan said to
David, ‘Go in peace, since both of us have sworn in the name of the
Lord, saying, “The Lord shall be between me and you, and between my
descendants and your descendants, forever.” ’ He got up and left; and
Jonathan went into the city.” (1 Samuel 20:41-42)

Note 2. The story of David adopting Jonathan’s son
Mephibosheth is found in 2 Samuel 9. For examples of how some other
monarchs dealt with the potential heirs to the throne, see 2 Kings
10:1-11 and 11:1-3, 13-16.


This was the last time they would ever see each other. David went
into hiding, and Jonathan was eventually killed in battle, alongside his
father. Perhaps they had some idea this was the end. They certainly
knew their love was doomed. And Jonathan reminded David of their
covenant with each other. He reminded him that even if they could not
be together, they had made a pledge and the bond between them would last
through all generations. All their children and grandchildren would be
like one family, bound by their love for each other. Later, after
taking the throne, David would remember this covenant and adopt
Jonathan’s only son as his own — something completely unheard of in a
time when kings were expected to kill anyone with any connection to a
previous, rival king. (See note 2.)


So, we ask, was this merely deep friendship or a romantic
relationship? In Exhibit A, upon their first meeting, Jonathan is said
to have loved David as his own soul and to have given him his most
precious possessions. In Exhibit B, Jonathan’s father uses language of
sex and shame when he decries Jonathan and David’s relationship in a fit
of rage. In Exhibit C, we see Jonathan and David’s passionate, tearful
goodbye, and Jonathan reminding David of the eternal covenant they have
made to each other — a covenant David still honors years later, even
though honoring it is politically incorrect. But if you are still not
convinced this was a romantic relationship, there is one more piece of
biblical evidence — the smoking gun, so to speak. The story has one
more passionate chapter.


In the first chapter of 2 Samuel, the author tells us that after Saul
and Jonathan were killed in battle, David tore his clothes and fasted, a
sign of deep mourning. He wept and wrote a song, which he ordered all
the people of Judah to sing. In that song, he included these words,
which are Exhibit D:

“Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely!

In life and in death they were not divided;

they were swifter than eagles,

they were stronger than lions.

How the mighty have fallen in the midst of battle!

Jonathan lies slain upon your high places.

I am distressed for you my brother Jonathan;

Greatly beloved were you to me;

your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.”

(2 Samuel 1:23, 26-27, emphasis added)

Here it is in black and white. David states the love he shared with
Jonathan was greater than what he had experienced with women. Have you
ever heard a heterosexual man say he loved his male friend more than his
wife? This goes well beyond deep friendship between two heterosexual
men.


In this story, we have a direct biblical answer to our question: Can
two people of the same sex live in a loving, committed relationship with
God’s favor? The answer is “yes,” because Jonathan and David did, and
the Bible celebrates their relationship.


Note 3. On pages 20-24 of Homoeroticism in the Biblical World, Martti Nissinen does a good job discussing the Epic of Gilgamesh,
which he says is “sometimes considered the most important ancient Near
Eastern depiction of homoeroticism.” (Page 20.) In this story, Gilgamesh
is described as a half-man half-god, whose energy for sex and adventure
are endless. He ravages the young men and women of Uruk so
uncontrollably that the people of Uruk call to the creator goddess to
create him a suitable partner, so he will leave them alone. The creator
goddess makes a red-haired man named Enkidu, and the adventures of
Gilgamesh and Enkidu make up the rest of the tale. David F. Greenberg
also discusses the Epic of Gilgamesh, along with other examples of Near Eastern homosexual warrior love relationships on pages 110-116 of The Construction of Homosexuality.
He states, “Parallels to the Gilgamesh-Enkidu relationship have often
been seen in the biblical stories of David and Jonathan, and in the
devotion of Achilles and Patrocles for one another in the Illiad.” (Page
113) For further discussion of the Epic of Gilgamesh and how it might have been used by the writers of the Bible, see also Reading the Old Testament (Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, CA, 1999) by Barry L. Bandstra, pages 76-77.


The author feels no need to explain away the love between these two
men, putting in a note saying “this may look like a love story, but no
hanky-panky happened.” When King Saul assumes the relationship is much
more than friendship, the author leaves Saul’s comments in, and lets the
reader assume the same. The author also would have been aware of this
story’s similarity to other ancient Near-eastern stories that contained
homoerotic aspects. (See note 3.) He would have known his story would
be interpreted by readers of his time with these other accounts in mind,
yet he did not bother to differentiate Jonathan and David’s
relationship.


Under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the author of 1 and 2 Samuel
wrote this beautiful love story and saw no conflict between it and the
earlier Scriptures in Leviticus. How is this possible? Apparently the
author of 1 and 2 Samuel understood the Leviticus passage the same way
we do, seeing it as a condemnation of Canaanite temple sex which,
therefore, had no application to a deep romantic relationship between
two men who loved and served the God of Israel. (See Israel's Holiness Code for a complete discussion.)
If someone had challenged the author of 1 and 2 Samuel, he might well
have responded, “This is not what Leviticus was meant to condemn.
You’ve got to understand the context in which Leviticus was written.
This is a very different situation.”


Why can’t we use the same common sense today? Why are some
Christians so determined to condemn what God has so clearly approved in
Scripture?


Note 4. The Bible tells us both David and Jonathan
married. (1 Samuel 25:39-42; 2 Samuel 3:14; 4:4; 9:3-7; 11:27) This is
not inconsistent with a romantic relationship between them. Even
today, many homosexual people marry and bear children to conform to
social pressures. As a prince, Jonathan would have had no choice but to
marry, so as to bear a son to become his heir. David would have faced
similar pressures. Other Bible stories indicate David was capable of
feeling lust for women. (2 Samuel 11:2-26) He appears to have been
what we today would call a bisexual — someone capable of forming a deep
romantic relationship with persons of either sex. By contrast, based on
what we find in Scripture, David seems to have been Jonathan’s only
sincere romantic interest. He appears to have been what we today would
call a gay man.



Remember, David is not some minor hero in the Bible. He is called “a
man after God’s own heart.” (1 Samuel 13:14) He is one of Israel’s
best-loved kings. He is one of the most prolific writers of Scripture
(writing many of the Psalms). He is in the lineage of Jesus Christ.
And he loved Jonathan. (See note 4.)




For Further Study


Books



The Children Are Free: Reexamining the Biblical Evidence on Same-sex Relationships by Rev. Jeff Miner and John Tyler Connoley
"Short, clear, and amazingly easy to read, this book does
much more than offering loopholes or excuses with regards to the Bible.
Instead, the authors combine careful research with a tremendous respect
for God's Word, using humor, personal stories, and Biblical examples to
make their case." --review from GayChristian.net. Most of the text on
this site is from The Children Are Free.

The Good Book by Rev. Peter Gomes
Some people idolize the Bible, and others discount it. Rev.
Gomes does neither. This thoughtful book describes the nature of Bible
abuse in the church throughout history, and proposes a way to read the
Bible without neglecting either its Divine inspiration or its cultural
context.

Holy Homosexuals : The Truth About Being Gay or Lesbian and Christian by Rev. Michael S. Piazza
Rev. Piazza makes his case elequently in a book suitible for
lay people and clergy alike. Piazza shows a deep respect for scripture,
while educating the reader on context in both Hebrew and and Greek
society.

Is It a Choice? Answers to the Most Frequently Asked Questions About Gay & Lesbian People, Third Edition by Eric Marcus

Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? A Positive Christian Response by Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Mollenkott
This compasionate book examines the meanings and intents of
Scripture, but also speaks of real people's lives, and challenges
Christians (gay and not) to re-examine their attitudes toward gay and
lesbian people.

Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church by Jack Rogers
Evangelical theologian and former Moderator of the
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Jack Rogers observes that today's church is
led by many of those who were once cast out: people of color, women,
and divorced and remarried people, and he argues that we must interpret
the Bible through the lens of Jesus' redemptive life and ministry.

Our Tribe: Queer Folks, God, Jesus, and the Bible by Rev. Elder Nancy Wilson (This title is out of print, but Amazon usually has used copies available.)
Our Tribe is the anecdotal, scripture-citing, and
very funny memoir of the ministry of Rev. Wilson, Moderator of the
Metropolitan Community Churches.

The Queer Bible Commentary by Deryn Guest, Robert E. Goss, Mona West, Thomas Bohache

Stranger at the Gate: To Be Gay and Christian in America by Rev. Dr. Mel White
Rev. White details his twenty-five years of being counseled,
exorcised, electric-shocked, and nearly driven to suicide because his
church said homosexuality was wrong. His story is powerful and
uplifting.

Virtually Normal by Andrew Sullivan
Writer, blogger, and gay Catholic, Andrew Sullivan analyzes
the politics of the homosexuality debate. His ideas are sure to give
both sides something to think about.

What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality by Daniel A. Helminiak
An examination of all of the Biblical passages that are
commonly used to condemn gay people and gay behavior. The methods of
Biblical interpretation, and their validity, are explained well.