HOME | DD
MeteoDesigns — David + Jonathan
Published: 2009-12-14 05:35:13 +0000 UTC; Views: 22471; Favourites: 181; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
DAVID & JONATHAN (1000 bce)After killing the Philistine giant, Goliath, the young hero David was brought before Saul, the first king of Israel. Saul’s eldest son Jonathan instantly fell in love with the handsome young warrior, and stripped off his own robe and armor and placed them upon David. When Jonathan was killed by the Philistines on Mt. Gilboa, David mourned and said: “greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women”. The story of David and Jonathan is told in the Old Testament of the Bible, in books 1 and 2 Samuel.
Related content
Comments: 62
I don't think they were lovers, David was a notorious womanizer. David commonly called Jonathan his brother, which alludes to philia, the Greek word for brotherly love. It is however a very interesting theory, but I have a hard time believing it.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Of course it's hard. There is no way to be sure. No documents except the holy books. If they had a relationship, she could very well have been hidden. Or it could be the fantasy of some editors. Or a misinterpretation of a relationship between two ancient men that we look at with the eye of the 21st century. And you know, loving women, it does not always stop to love men too. Moreover, in most ancient cultures, there is no homosexuality or exclusive heterosexuality, rather a broad cultural bisexuality.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
People who try to erase David and Jonathan's marriage confuse me so much: like, it's literally a crucial part of the plot, without which the narrative makes no sense. The only reason David gets a legitimate claim to the monarchy is because he's in a pederastic union with the king's son.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
He was also married to Michael, Jonathan's sister and Saul's daughter, so that's why he claimed the throne, after Jonathan, Saul, and the rest of Saul's sons died in battle.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
He was already of the house of Saul before he married Michal, as is stated more than once in Samuel 18.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm literally a biblical scholar by profession, hon. I can show you the Hebrew passages if you want.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sorry for the late reply, I literally just got my new computer. ANYWAYS, sure I would appreciate to see some supporting passages.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No problem.
The clearest passages (aside from the ubiquitous "beyond the love of women" passage) are in 1 Samuel 18:
1 And it was as he had finished speaking unto Šā’ūl, and the soul of Yāhū-Nāṯān was wedded to the soul of Dāwḏ: and Yāhū-Nāṯān loved him as his own soul.
2 And Šā’ūl did take him in that day, and he did not let him return to the house of his father.
3 And Yāhū-Nāṯān and Dāwḏ cut up a contract, for he did love him as his own soul.
Yāhū-Nāṯān’s soul נקשרה (niqšərāh, “was wedded”, “was married”, “was united”, “was bound”) to the soul of Dāwḏ, indicating a love at first sight or soulmates as expressed commonly in the same idiom of other romantic, nuptial relationships, such as Tobiah’s love for Sarah in Tobit 6:18, or as between a husband and wife as per Ephesians 5:33. Šā’ūl appears supportive of his son’s relationship with Dāwḏ, “taking” (very commonly used of men taking wives or fiancées, here used of a father taking his son an apparent fiancé) Dāwḏ and keeping him from going home to his father’s house (also commonly used of betrothed girls). Yāhū-Nāṯān forming a ברית (bərîṯ, “contract”, “covenant”, “pledge”, “troth”, “vow”) also seems to denote a pederastic marriage: a ceremonially-validated union of two males in which Yāhū-Nāṯān acts as erastes (the pederast: the older, passionate partner), and Dāwḏ acts as eromenos (the adolescent, receptive partner). That such bonds existed in the ancient Near East is evidently ubiquitous, however this appears to be the only known depiction of same-sex marriage rituals in a Hebrew context.
4 And Yāhū-Nāṯān stripped off the mə‘îl that was upon him, and gave it to Dāwḏ: and his clothes, and unto his sword, and unto his bow, and unto his ḥăḡōwr.
The חגור (ḥăḡōwr, “belt”, “girdle”, “obi”, “cummerbund”) generally referred to an expensive and cherished cloth worn around the waist and hips as a tie for the weaponry and clothing, worn typically by either wealthy women or exceptional warriors and princes who earned theirs as a status symbol indicative of extreme individual merit. That Yāhū-Nāṯān bestows his outer robe, all his clothing, all his weapons, and even his prized ḥăḡōwr upon Dāwḏ denotes an ancient same-sex marriage ceremony, in which the pederast (in this case Yāhū-Nāṯān) displays his absolute devotion to his eromenos by stripping naked before him and literally handing over everything worn on his person, including extremely valuable and cherished symbols of status and power such as the sword and ḥăḡōwr.
17 And Šā’ūl said to Dāwḏ: “Look, my eldest daughter, Mêraḇ: I will give her to you for a woman. Nevertheless, be for me a powerful son, and wage the wars of Yahweh!” And Šā’ūl said: “Let it not be my hand upon him—but let it be upon him a hand of Pəlištîm!”
18 And Dāwḏ said to Šā’ūl: “Who am I, and what is my life—a clansman of my father in Yiśrā-’Êl—that I shall be daughter’s-husband to a king?”
19 And it was at the time of giving Mêraḇ, daughter of Šā’ūl, to Dāwḏ, and she was given to ‘Aḏrî-’Êl the Məḥōlāṯî for a woman.
20 And Mîḵal, daughter of Šā’ūl, loved Dāwḏ. And they reported it to Šā’ūl, and favorable was the statement in his eyes.
21 And Šā’ūl said: “I will give her to him for a stumbling block—and let it be upon him a hand of Pəlištîm!” And Šā’ūl said to Dāwḏ: “A second time you will be my son-in-law, this day.”
Though ambiguous, the phrase בשתיםתתחתן (bištayim tiṯḥattên, “a second time you will be my son-in-law”, “twice you are become my son-in-law”, “doubly you are my son-in-law”) may refer jokingly to the relationship between Yāhū-Nāṯān and Dāwḏ, likening what was presumably meant as a pederastic union (and thus perhaps regarded as distinct from the transaction of marriage to a woman) to a typical politically-motivated betrothal. While it might refer (albeit abstrusely) to the failed betrothal of Mêraḇ to Dāwḏ—giving him a second chance to become a son-in-law to Šā’ūl—given the only previously noted contracted marriage was between Dāwḏ and Yāhū-Nāṯān (while Mêraḇ was merely offered, no contract or actual union was established before she was given in marriage to another man), it seems plausible that Šā’ūl means to mock the relationship between Dāwḏ and his son (though he previously seemed accepting), impliedly calling Yāhū-Nāṯān a “bride” or “daughter”, whilst also insinuating that Dāwḏ is to become receptive eromenos to a woman (and hence be not only humiliated, but doubly under the house of Šā’ūl). The Septuagint may support a meaning referring to Yāhū-Nāṯān and Dāwḏ’s relationship: using the distinction επιγαμβρεύσεις (epigambreuseis) that refers to levirate second-husbands, hence impliedly casting Yāhū-Nāṯān as an incestuous “brother” to Dāwḏ incapable of producing heirs, and Mîḵal as wife to a soon-to-be-dead husband (whose death will result in her returning to the house of Šā’ūl and preserving her salability as a bride; a problem left unresolved in the alternate reading, in which Mîḵal will become a widow at Dāwḏ’s death). A similar use of implied incestuous perversion to deride Dāwḏ and Yāhū-Nāṯān’s relationship is used by Šā’ūl in 20:30, lending further plausibility to Yāhū-Nāṯān as the “first wife” insinuated in this unusual verse. Given the brevity of Mêraḇ’s role, and the fact this and the other place she is mentioned in Samuel appear to have been heavily redacted to the point of contradiction, it is conceivable that in fact verses 17-21 have been clumsily altered, with verses 18 and 19 interposed from later in the narrative in order to provide a second prospective wife (so as to avoid the otherwise obvious Yāhū-Nāṯān)—by such an interpretation, verses 20 and 21 would likely follow from verse 16, with verse 17 a vestige of an original, longer recension of verse 21; whether verse 18 is original would be uncertain.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Thanks for the passages and sorry about the delayed response again, I'm an incompetent human being.
I did find it funny when I reread it and it did seem like David was treated like a wife and couldn't return to his father's home, and the bit about him and Jonathan being like soulmates is very interesting. I still don't think they were homosexual lovers but close friends. I do believe two people can be very close together, like soulmates, but not have any sexual attraction to each other. I should know, I'm a twin.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Well certainly two people can be very close and have no sexual attraction. I'm gray-asexual 
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
First and for most I want to thank the creator of this drawing for creating it, and showing that it was okay back then and In my opinion only became a isse in "these modern times." Second as a Christian (even though I don't feel religion needs a label) I don't think the Lord now or than would have a problem with it, Love is Love. Thirdly I would like to apologize on the behalf of my "fellow Christians" for some of their rude comments they do not represent the whole, however they are the ones mostly heard and seen. And would like to direct them to lidsworth.deviantart.com/ check out her Christian Literature particularly " Do Not Call Yourselves Christians. lidsworth.deviantart.com/art/D…
I'm sure I'll get a lot of negativity from some for this, but it will be ignored, but seeing some of the comments made me want to speak out.
And also a friendly reminder the Bible was written almost a 1,000 years after all these events take place, and heavily edited since. It's like a 10,000 year old came of telephone really. But I'm not saying the events didn't happen just perhaps not the way they're "idealized" to have happened
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I always find it astounding how some self-professed Christians can disbelieve the Bible, the foundation of Christianity, but other than that (and your blatant ignorance on what the Bible actually says on the subject), I agree with you.
Christianity wasn't supposed to be a religion but a relationship between man and God and showing others the same kind of love that Christ showed us.
And now for some fun lessons on what "love" actually is!
Did you know the New Testament was originally written in Greek, and in Greek, the word "love" comes from philios, storge, eros and agape? That is friendship, familial, sexual and godly love, respectively.
The love that God has for us and commanded that we show others is agape, and it is a love that isn't felt through fuzzy feelings or only shown to beloved family members and friends but it is a will to love unconditionally, even to strangers and enemies.
The "love is love" doesn't appear in scripture but what does is "God is love" and "love is kind (etc.)"
On a more serious note, I'm concerned with your attitude of both dismissing the Bible and claiming to know what God actually wants. God tells us His will plainly in scripture, a true and real and reliable account written by men but inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16). If you did not believe this, then surely your salvation is in question since scripture also reveals the way in which to be saved. To be a Christian isn't to be good or to do good but to be saved by grace through faith by Jesus Christ.
Besides, isn't it self-defeating to think the Bible was "heavily edited" and "idealized" by fallible men with absolutely no input from God (otherwise the Bible WOULD be important) but still use the story of Jonathan and David as (erroneously) committing same-sex acts as proof God approves of such things to further your cause?
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Edit: we really need the option to edit comments.. sorry I didn't realize my comment had so many errors
I apologize in Advance for any Scripture misquote,
I have six bibles and no large print and I'm blind as a bat
Secondly I agree with you whole heartedly Christianity has become something it wasn't meant to be
If the Lord and Jesus command me to love thy neighbor and thy enemy then I shall
First off, no I do not know God's will, and I have never claimed to know what God wants out of me or any us. I've have spent my entire life suffering from a physical disability and every day I have wondered why, why me, what is The Lord's plan? Just three years ago I watched my mother painfully die of Cancer, all the while being the only who believed she would make it. because of her faith and mine. Trust me I wish I knew or that God would tell why I have to suffer for the rest of my life or why my mother had to die.
Now religion has never been a big topic in my family, What I do know from reading, Scripture and watching documentaries on repeat is this: God loves us regardless, regardless of our sin. Sent his only Son our savior to die bleed and suffer for us. So I highly doubt the Lord would condemn or turn his back on someone for sleeping with a person of the same Gender.
If the Lord and Jesus command me to love thy neighbor and thy enemy then I shall, regardless shape, size, gender, or sexuality. b "So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."John 8:7" as I have said countless times What you do in the bedroom is your business, and what I do in the bedroom is mine, and it's nobody-else's business whose in love with who. We all have to account to it eventually and Only God can judge.
I am not judge and jury. I've spent my life being judged by my condition. I can't go to the grocery store without getting stared at by kids and adults. at My family gets angry at the people who stare, and while it does hurt, I don't get upset as I used too. "Judge not, that ye be not judged." Matthew 7:1 I know the people who stare, can't understand why I walk so different and am hunched over But regardless they judge me. Even when my family are ready to start a brawl in my defense I beg them to stop and literally quote "Then Peter came to Him and said, "Lord, how many times could my brother sin against me and I forgive him? As many as seven times?" Matthew 18:21 "Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven." Matthew 18:22.
I also never said I didn't believe in the Bible, I do, I've gotten in many family arguments because I defend the Bible. But again as I said the Scriptures weren't put together official in one book til almost 1,000 years later. And things do get lost in translation. In exodus it is said that the Israelites crossed the Red sea, and it's been proven The original text is Sea of Reeds or "Reed sea." What of the so called "Gnostic" Gospels that are the same age as the new testament if not closer to the time of Jesus but weren't included On the orders of (I forget which Pope) because he belived they were too shall we say liberal for the canon. Unfortunately man will always have it's own agenda .
Another fine example: In Exodus we are told Moses is called Moses because It's the Ancient Egyptian word for "Drawn out" how ever there si no Egyptian word for Drawn out. But Moses- is a suffix in An ancient Egyptian names; like Tuth-Moses (Tuthmoses) growing up he may have had that name and simply dropped the Thuth after leaving Egypt.
Now about, David and John, none of us were actually there so we don't know the exact nature of their relationship. Unless we borrowed a time- machine. But it can be seen either way. Besides even if they were lovers, you can be lovers/in a relationship without being sexual. And a physical relationship can be more than sex, it could be a shoulder to cry on or a hand to hold, or sometimes people just need hug or some need more affection than others. Just like you can be in love with someone but as a soul mate, because you love someone for their personality, kindness, heart, companionship not just for the physical act And in truth is that not what should all aspire to do?
And as for it being self defeating exactly the opposite really, The people who wrote the Bible took their time, doing their best to preserve the message of Christianity that until than had been only handed down orally. The official language Jesus and the rest of the Jews at the time spoke was Aramaic , meaning it was translated first from Aramaic to Greek, than Latin and Eventually English and no two languages match word for word. Not to mention The apostle at the time who traveled the known world to preach, and those who heard no doubt told others, the version we have today is by know means perfect or 100% but still true, The Bible, The Tora, The Quran. Same story different version. Christianity and all it's factions (Catholicism, Protestant, Episcopal etc.) is descended from Judaism The original religion of Jesus (Yeshua) Judaism comes from the descendants of Isaac younger son of Abraham and Islam from Ishmael eldest of Abraham and half brother of Isaac. We are all Children of the Lord and he loves us regardless. I'll be first to admit I'm a sinner, undeserving of his mercy, but that doesn't mean I won't stop trying to do as he commands
If you disagree so be it. I will not judge you nor argue, but I am up for civil discussion
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Edit: I know I said I would ignore the hate but I don't think it's very Christian to call someone ignorant or that you have a problem with their attitude, for something you claimed they did. And then tell them their beliefs are wrong and they're salvation is in question.
And than to say To be a Christian isn't to be good or to do good, uh yes it is. Jesus came to save us from our sins, and show us the error of our ways, that does not mean we get to be terrible and do horrible things.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hah! Christian homophobes disproved by the bible! Take that, you homophob morons!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Fan interpretation doesn't trump canonicity.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
True, and I don't really care for fanfiction. But have you ever actually read this part in the bible? Because I did.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I read the majority of the Bible, including all of the NT, 1 and 2 Samuel, Kings and the 5 books of Moses.
I re-read them.
I looked at articles about various subjects.
I'd say I have a good idea of the context of the story of King David, including his sins.
Homosexuality is referenced about a dozen times as a sin (including the act of adultery and aldutery in heart as lust).
David committed the act of adultery with a married women and God punished him by taking the life of the resulting child.
David repented but this same behaviour extends to his children (one son rapes his half-sister and another takes his father's concubines).
And what does God do with this highly influencial leader (whose son would later stray the entire nation to idolaltry just by having foreign wives) with this established sin of homosexuality that was great enough to warrant the destruction of two evil cities?
Nothing.
And that's because David had a love for God and a love for a friend and repented of any wrongdoings.
Clearly, those who see more than friendship are creating this delusion not supported by the Bible, but by their own imaginations.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks, it's nice to have someone actually listen. 😊
And I'm not homophobic. I'll say it as it is, the Bible states homosexuality as a sin (Romans 1) and that was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah (Jude 1:7) but that doesn't mean I'm going to go about it in a hateful manner.
I would never, at least purposely (I have my bad days like anyone), bully anyone, being a victim of it myself.
And don't worry, we Christians have our fair share of nonbelievers who don't know the literature they're talking about.
An interesting thing is that a comparison can be made of Noah's flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and Jesus' Second Coming.
The fact 10 righteous were not found and so destruction came and that the destruction was swift and without warning.
Except in Jesus' Second Coming, there will be more than 10 righteous in the world and for their sake, there will be survivors, saved and unsaved, and I assume it's a second chance for the unsaved to accept Jesus as Christ. (Matthew 24).
Just thought 'cause we were on the subject of Sodom and 10 righteous I'd bring this up. ☺
👍: 1 ⏩: 2
Even in the strictest interpretation; the Bible prohibits sex between men, not love. It is entirely possible to have a deep, fulfilling, and loving relationship with someone without having sex. love is universal, and can be felt for either sex: expression of love is culturally dictated, and can certainly be different depending on the sex of the lovers. It annoys and disgusts me how modern people with their minds in the gutter insist on limiting love to a single act and discarding all the other parts of a relationship. I think it is rather crass to speculate on what these people did in the privacy of their beds: and that is between them and God anyhow, it is not for us to judge. We can however celebrate the relationship. The fact is, they loved each other deeply and were in a formal union. That formal union bit is important to the story, because it gives David a legitimate claim to the throne after Jonathan's death. This means that such unions were normal and recognized by the community. This makes sense in a society where keeping the land in the family is all-important, especially in a time of war when young men were likely to die. If you are not lucky enough to have multiple sons, then it is helpful if you can acquire a second legitimate heir by some other means. A formal union between your son and an orphan boy would be one way. It is also "caring for the widows and orphans", which is kind of a big theme throughout the Bible and mentioned often as one of the things that separates Israelites from other people.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I do my best to know what I'm talking about (I'm a future archivist, so I must know, so I can support the users). ^^
I'm glad that you see my point, because I know people who talk about religion and know nothing about it. I also hate it when people talk about a "Holy war" or "crusade" against terror or something. The crusades were bloody and horrible (no matter how hard I try to see it through the crusader's eyes) and pope Urban II. lied about the reasons for the first one. There were countless massacres in the crusades and that's completely depraved.
Also, there is nothing holy abour war. It's just unnecessary bloodshed with ulterior motives.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Good to know.
And yes, the Crusades, witch burnings and such are terrible. They're largely done for political reasons and use religion as an excuse.
Christianity really should be looked on at its core and not it's outward religiousness.
Jesus was absolutely perfect as God, but relatable as human (He got tired, thirsty, tested, cried and ultimately died.)
We could all aspire to be like Him (just look at 1 Corinthians 13 and Galatians 5:22-23).
It's important to note that achieving Christ-likeness doesn't mean we're perfect or that our own works will get us into Heaven.
We've all fallen short and sinned and all our good works are like dirty rags, but it's Jesus who makes us clean by grace through faith.
God loves us all, and the criminal crucified alongside Jesus is a great example of His love. Doesn't matter how late we get into the game or how little, it matters whether we get into it or not.
👍: 1 ⏩: 2
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Like, totally! When I get sad and I read Jesus' words, it makes me feel so much better. It makes me really feel like there is someone up there who cares for me. Oh, what means up there, God is EVERYWHERE!!! ^^
I do feel sorry for God sometimes, though. The things He must have seen...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I love this. I'm not very fond of Christianity since many claim the bible to state love is a sin when it clearly is not. But every time I read more about this David and Jonathan, I feel more and more into them. I start to wonder if the haters have actually read the bible? They claim to be Christian and yet hate? I believe these two were actually lovers, their love has so many clues!
I also love the art!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
you can have bro love too , I don't have debate argument on " bro or not bro love" , well , it could be the way it "tilt" in your head when you read it.
Why do I even talk about it.. *Rolling her eyesatherself* :rolleyes:
lol. well well..
hate is not suppose to be a christian concept , anyway..it could hurt you know.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Glad you liked it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It's scenes like this that make me wonder if they actually were homophobic back then
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Wonderful you include this.
I hate to see people looking at this and yelling "its a sin" when it isn't.
The part about gay relationships was added in the 1900s.
This is shown in the bible without it being condemned. David didm't have to repent or cry out in guilt like when he had that affair with Bathsheba. Indeed, David was Bisexual. And he had great favor with the Lord. If God didn't mind David loving a man, who are we to step in and say its wrong to love your own gender? He created some of us to be gay. And he has no problem with it. So, why are we condemning a part of our being that God intended? He never condemned committed, lifelong, monogamous relationships of ANY gender. The only problem was using our bodies for other false gods or being reckless.
Other interesting facts:
In the old testament, the Mosaic law ACTUALLY prohibited men from sleeping in the same bed as women due to menstrual blood being unclean. The verse is loosely translated as "Men should not sleep with a man in the same bed as a woman." Not "men shall not lay with a man as a woman."
Ruth told Naomi (Her mother in law) she loved her as Adam loved Eve. This is one of the mentioning of lesbians in the Bible.
David was Bisexual (as mentioned above)
Jesus affirmed a gay couple.
The Enuchs were gay men who played major roles in the first churches.
Jesus mentions his returning and mentions "two men sleeping together and one disappearing" meaning, Jesus affirmed gay marriage.
The verses people refer to when saying gay marriage is a sin actually condemned other acts.
Such as:
Child molestation,
Self Harm,
Violence,
Prostitution,
perversion.
I fully support ya. I'm a Christ following lesbian.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I beg you please oh PLEEASSEEE DELETE THIS then ask God for Forgiveness!! How dare u lie in the face of these Devianarters and say that Davis and Jonathan was gay!! NO !! David was a man of God if you knew Him you'd understand that He would repulse by this!!!How dare you perevert their words and their meanings. don't Be held accountable for people going to Helll by telling the "Okay to be gay, Man of God , David was so it's Fine" no it os not nor will vere be just as smoking, swearing, lieng,cheating, stealing,having sex outside marriage, unholy union between man and man andwomen and women, gossip and every otherthing outside of God.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
It says that they were gay IN THE BIBLE
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
no it didn't. Thast a Lie and your notdoing your research and Letting the Holy spirt lead you correctly.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
no. have a nice day now
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I like the drawing completely, David and Jonathan, whom you read the Bible, you can see quite possible that they were very fond, intimate hug loving gesture.
And then the testimony of David when Jonathan died, that Jonathan was his great love, and he was better than a woman (is so in the Bible, anyone who thinks there was nothing against homosexuals is quite dear)
However, for me it is more a story playhouse with homo erotic, whether intentionally or not, is also questionable (what the author was thinking at that time, but in the ancient world was all homoerotic)
More such beautiful drawings, I wish I even like the very Ancient Times.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
David and Jonathan weren't gay...
No sin was edited out and it never says God accepts it just because it's in the bible. The act of homosexuality is stated to be a sin ten times in the bible. Every time David sinned he felt bad for it later and tried to be a person after God's own heart. Homosexuality was not one of the sins he committed, although he did commit adultery.
The love David and Jonathan felt for each other was not sexual but of an ideal friendship. The quote "your love to me was extraordinary, surpassing the love of women." is not gay. The original word in Hebrew for "love" was more political with the woman likely referring to his wife whom he had to work hard for.
Now, I'm not "homophobic". No extreme fear of gay people. Just letting it out there the truth about David and Jonathan's relationship.
David looks good in the picture, by the way.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
But from the looks of it,it can be said that it wasn't platonic.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The picture does look suggestive.
There's nothing suggestive in the Bible itself, though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Ok so this is false. It is also stated that David was a dear person to him in the way of a brother...brother!!! Not what you are portraying. And loving someone more than a woman was common when it came to the Bible and faith. Christians are to love Christ more than anything and you can love someone in a family way more that the love of a "woman" as you put it. This is entirely misrepresented.
If the assumption is that it is impossible to love someone and force it to be an intimate love, the regular bounds of family are false in every way.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Can we get some lesbian loving? Sorry if it sounds insulting or as if I'm complaining, I'm really now, this is a lovely gallery about queer history. However, I'd like to see more Queer couples, not just cis gay men. It's a suggestion, nothing more.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
he's a male (likely homosexual) why should he have to? one draws what they find most appealing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>