Which of the Ten Commandments prohibits Homosexuality?

Which of the ten commandments prohibits this form of sexual expression?

Only two of the prime commandments mention sexual matters and homosexuality is not listed among them which is extraordinary if God had a prohibition against it of the magnitude which some Christians (and some Jews) seem to possess.

The seventh commandment (mitzvah) condemns adultery, and by extension multiple liasons.

The tenth commandment (mitzvah) condemns lust leading to the surrender of the existing relationship.

Note that neither commandment condemns cohabitation between the same sex (whether male or female).

It is my conclusion that the Ten Commandments (called in Hebrew the Ten Words) are the BASIC MORAL FUNDAMENTALS upon which the 613 cultural expressions of Israel are based.
Dr Les Aron Gosling
Jewish Messianic Rabbi
All Rights Reserved Worldwide

Surprising facts about Daniel's sexuality by Messianic Rabbi Dr Les Aron Gosling

This was one of the most viewed items on our blog last year and we are publishing the most popular blog posts for a new audience this month.

The prophet Daniel was a great man of God. In fact, he was considered by God to be only one of three men (up to the Axial Period of world history) whose lives were characterised by righteousness and holiness. Daniel is linked to Noah and Job. Please note this intriguing statement below which is located in Ezekiel's writings and notice that Daniel (along with Noah and Job) are contrasted by God in relation to the depraved society that the Lord was, at that time, condemning.    

"The word of the LORD came again to me, saying, Human being, when the land sins against me by trespassing grievously, then will I stretch out my hand upon it, and will break the staff of the bread thereof, and will send famine upon it, and will exterminate man and animal from it: Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own lives by their righteousness, says the Lord GOD. If I cause noisome creatures to pass through the land, and they spoil it, so that it be desolate, that no man may pass through because of the creatures: Though these three men were in it, as I live, says the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither sons nor daughters; they only shall be delivered, but the land shall be desolate. Or if I bring a sword upon that land, and say, Sword, go through the land; so that I exterminate man and animal from it: Though these three men were in it, as I live, says the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither sons nor daughters, but they only shall be delivered themselves. Or if I send a pestilence into that land, and pour out my fury upon it in blood, to cut off from it man and animal: Though Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, as I live, says the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall but deliver their own souls by their righteousness" (Eze 14.12-20).

FOUR times God declares that Daniel was RIGHTEOUS in his devotion to God's expectations of human beings as revealed in the Torah! It is the Torah which defines sin (1 Jn 3.4) and it is the Torah which defines "righteousness" -- Ps 119.172 tells us that this is so. "All your commandments are righteousness." Rav Shaul as an interpreter of the Torah for the Gentiles agrees: "Wherefore the Torah is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good" (Rom 7.12).

In the Torah itself we read: "Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me that you should do so in the land whither you go to possess it. Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. For what nation is there so great, who has God so near to them, as the LORD our God is in all things concerning that for which we call upon him? And what nation is there so great, that has statutes and judgments so righteous as all this Torah, which I set before you this day?" (Deut 4.5-8).

Also in the writings of Ezekiel (who was contemporary with Daniel) there is a further mention of the prophet of God.

"The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying, Human being, say unto the prince of Tyre: Thus says the Lord GOD; Because your heart is elevated, and you have said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet you are a man, and not God, though you set your heart as the heart of God: Behold, you are wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from you" (Eze 28.3).

Daniel was clearly a "wise" man. God said so. Who are we to argue with the Most High God?

 YET...in the Hebrew Scriptures Daniel is not included among writings of the "Prophets" (Neviim) -- whether Major Prophets or Minor Prophets. Rather, he is located in the "Writings" (K'tuvim: generally classified as the "women's" section of the Bible). And why is this the case? This fact of Daniel's exclusion has caused much perplexity as far as scholars are concerned. But we can know the answer!

There are four reasons why Daniel is found in the feminine-oriented "Writings" division of the sacred Scriptures.

Firstly, while he was not called a prophet he was recognised as a "Seer" or "Wise Man." Only those writings by people called "prophets" are included in the second division of the Bible. Yes, we all recognise that Daniel was indeed a prophet -- and a great prophet of God, at that -- but he is not called a "prophet." There was a rabbinic antagonism directed toward his person, and this must be grasped if we are to appreciate the reasons for his exclusion from the biblical division of the Neviim.

Secondly, the character of the scroll is much different to that of books penned by other prophets as one can tell even upon a surface scan of the volume. Its character better suits the third division.

Thirdly, Daniel was a government official, and the Spirit-inspired Writings of personages who were of legal standing in the community of Israel -- Kings, priests, scribes etc -- were located in the third division. David was a prophet as pointed out in Acts 2.29,30 but his Psalms (which are highly prophetic in nature) are also located in this third division. David, you see, although he was a prophet, was also a King.

Fourthly, and possibly most importantly, was the fact that -- in Jewish thoughtform -- the author and the book he wrote were to be considered inseparable; they were not to be differentiated.

Hence the volume penned was considered to be the person himself.

I must now be entirely responsible as a Teacher and point out that Daniel was a eunuch and thus prohibited from entering the Temple (Deut 23.1); his prophetic volume comprised predictions relating to Gentile kings and kingdoms; their rise, their conquests and their eventual collapse. His scroll included references to Gentile persecution of the people of Israel. Like a eunuch, no heathen Gentile could enter the sacred precincts of the Temple of God. They were equally excluded along with castrated males. This is a main reason WHY all three volumes of the last division ("Writings") of the sacred Scriptures, namely Ezra/Nehemiah (considered one volume), Chronicles -- a genealogical work -- and Daniel, were not permitted to be placed within the library of the Temple itself and had to be preserved at the official walled-village of the Sanhedrin, Bethphage. This place was found "outside the camp" on the Mount Olivet, the extension of the Temple precincts.  (Flavius Josephus apparently disagreed with the decision to canonise Daniel in the "Writings" section of holy Scripture. He placed him squarely in the second division!)

Despite the fact we actually know nothing of Daniel's immediate genealogy (other than that he was of the Royal Jewish line), nothing about his age (except that he was a "boy" or "lad" when he was carried away captive to Babylon), and absolutely nothing of his death, the events contained in the book of Daniel span to around the third year of Koresh (Cyrus) 536 BCE which would cover a period of 70 years. Scholars are in agreement that Daniel himself may well have lived on to circa 530 BCE. He does not speak of himself in the first person until chapter 7. In the first person, "Daniel" is located repeatedly in the latter portion of the scroll (Dan 7.2,15,28; 8.1,15,27; 9.2,22; 10.2,7,11,12; 12.5).

Now again, I must return to the emphasis that Daniel happened to be a man explicitly disqualified by the statements of the Torah from ever entering the sacred precincts of the Temple of God. He was forbidden to do so, as we have seen, because he was a eunuch (Deut 23.1). How he became a eunuch we have no way of knowing. But Daniel also found himself among a number of royal captives spared by Nebuchadnezzar and taken as prisoners to the city of Babylon, on the Euphrates. The prophet records that he was placed in the care of a gay court official by the name of Ashpenaz who was "the master of the eunuchs" (Dan 1.3,7). It is a well-attested fact of history that eunuchs were essentially "gay" having been castrated and thus lacking a proper production of the male hormone, testosterone. Of course, I have used the word "essentially" and not "exclusively" as far as "sexual orientation" is concerned. In the Roman empire (1st century CE to 3rd century CE) eunuchs were nothing more than the sexual playthings of Roman emperors and soldiers. In contrast, Chinese eunuchs often became administrators of dynasties and also were pressured into heterosexual marriages, and in the Ottoman empire they managed Government affairs (as in ancient Babylon). Authorities on the subject, however, inform us that the sexual orientation of the castrated male was basically homosexual. There is no castigation biblically leveled at eunuchs, and they were seen to be primarily talented and gifted people -- have we glossed over the mention in Genesis of a eunuch in the court of Pharaoh when Joseph was rising to power? He is mentioned as holding the office of "chief chamberlain."

Having said all that, let me now share this insight from the writings of Daniel himself. While it will prove to be entirely unpopular with some, Daniel admits that he was brought "into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs" in Nebuchadnezzar's palace (Dan 1.3,4,6,7,9). Best estimates have his age at this time as around 14 or 15 years old. Certainly, age 17 would be tops.
While in the gentle care of Ashpenaz, "the chief of the eunuchs," Daniel was educated in the language and learning of the "Chaldeans." The expression includes the professors of divination, magic, and astrology in Babylon (Dan 1.3,4). He was given the new name of Baltassar (Babyl. Bal�tsu-usur, "Bel protect his life"). In no way did Daniel refuse this pagan name, even with its idolatrous meaning. Daniel was most accommodating (well, up to a point). Certainly, Daniel and his companions were to be educated in the ways of the Babylonians extending over a period of three years (Dan 1.5). They were all to be fed a special diet from the king's own banquet table consisting of specialised meals which were designed to make them nicely plump in appearance (Dan 1.5) -- for obvious reasons. Notice that it was after the three years when they would approach the king. They had to be to his definite "liking."

Now stop and think for a moment about the situation in which Daniel found himself. Here was a young boy, not more than a youth, who suffered the trauma of national invasion of his homeland, saw his family butchered before his eyes, was probably castrated by violent pagan soldiers, taken away as a prisoner to an unknown and uncertain future, conscripted to become a slave in Nebuchadnezzar's palace because of his good looks and condemned to live among the idolatrous heathen for whom every Jew had contempt. He could not be blamed by any of us if he occasionally displayed some rancour toward his negative situation, and even perhaps toward God Himself who (after all) had permitted such a terrible thing to occur. But instead, Daniel maintained and exhibited time and time again an explicitly confident faith in God and an affirmative view of life, what we would refer today as being a positive mental attitude.

Whatever the relationship was that existed between Daniel and the Master of the Eunuchs, Ashpenaz, Daniel himself uses the Hebrew term chesed v'rachamim. All agree that chesed is "mercy." V'rachamim is a plural form utilised to emphasize its relative importance. It, like so many words in Hebrew, can have multiple meanings. Among other things, it can also mean "mercy" and it can also mean "physical [marital] love." I very much personally doubt that Daniel was intending to tell us that he was shown "mercy and mercy" by Ashpenaz! Rather, the humble prophet of God was shown mercy by Ashpenaz and he engaged in physical love with the handsome Jewish youth.
Allow me to clarify a major misunderstanding that people have as it pertains to eunuchs. Until the publication of the Thousand Nights and a Night by the explorer and adventurer Sir Richard Burton (1885) it was assumed that the wives collected in an Arabian harem were in good hands if under the watchful eye of a eunuch. It was thought that the eunuch was trusted with the many wives of a sheik precisely because intercourse need not be feared. Well, such was the common belief. Burton revealed the truth of the matter in explicit language which left nothing to the imagination. The truth is that the (usually) neglected women of a harem were in good hands (from their point of view) for when one considers that pregnancy was impossible sexual intercourse was not. This, of course, depended on the timing of the castration of the eunuch. If castration occurred in boyhood or around puberty, such a eunuch did not lose his sexual drive and the ability to gain an erection. This may surprise some people but it is very much the truth. It would not have been difficult for Ashpenaz and Daniel to have been lovers as it is recorded that Daniel was a very young man when he was castrated.

As unacceptable as this might first seem to be to Christian ears, we must understand that through this relationship Daniel learned to survive in the palatial court of one of the most brutal despots of the ancient world -- Nebuchadnezzar -- the Saddam Hussein of the Axial Period who changed the world forever. Intriguingly, the KJV reference to "tender love" would appear to be the closest to the truth concerning the loving relationship that existed between the two men.

And, as its context plainly reveals, we must not overlook the fact that God Himself brought the relationship into existence for Daniel's very survival.

Rebbe
BRI – all rights reserved worldwide

David and Jonathan

The story in the Bible of David and Jonathan has been subject to much speculation over the years. Was it merely a strong friendship, or does the orginal Hebrew text hint at something more? The following article is by Messianic Jewish Rabbi, Dr Les Aron Gosling and I am delighted that we have been granted permission to share it with our worldwide GLBT Messianic Family.

"Do not be afraid of the past. If people tell you it is irrevocable, do not believe them. The past, the present and the future are but one in the sight of God, in whose sight we should try to live. Time and space, succession and extension, are merely accidental conditions of Thought. The Imagination can transcend them, and move in a free sphere of ideal existences. Things, also, are in their essence what we choose to make them. A thing IS, according to the mode in which one looks at it. Where others see but the Dawn, coming over the hill, I see the sons of God shouting for joy...what lies before me is the past, my past. I have got to make myself look on that with different eyes, to make God look on it with different eyes. This I cannot do by ignoring it, or slighting it, or praising it, or denying it. It is only to be done by fully accepting it as an inevitable part of the evolution of my life and character: by bowing my head to everything that I have suffered" - Oscar Wilde, De Profundis.

According to Wikipedia, "De Profundis was written by Oscar Wilde during his imprisonment in Reading Gaol. It takes the form of a 50,000 word open letter written to Lord Alfred Douglas, his erstwhile lover.

"Wilde was not allowed to send the letter while still a prisoner, but was allowed to take it with him at the end of his sentence. On his release, he gave the manuscript to Robbie Ross, who may or may not have carried out Wilde's instructions to send a copy to Douglas (who later denied having received it). Ross published an expurgated version of the letter (about a third of it) in 1905 (four years after Wilde's death), expanding it slightly for an edition of Wilde's collected works in 1908, and then donated it to the British Museum on the understanding that it would not be made public until 1960. In 1949, Wilde's son Vyvyan Holland published it again, including parts formerly omitted, but relying on a faulty typescript bequeathed to him by Ross. Its complete and correct publication first occurred in 1962, in "The Letters of Oscar Wilde."

The textual passages referring to the relationship that existed between King David and Jonathan the son of Saul (and the next in line to accession of the Throne) are located in the biblical books of 1 & 2 Samuel. One cannot read these passages without coming to the distinct conclusion that an extremely intimate bond existed between David and Jonathan. Of course, Samuel the prophet of God decided that Saul had totally disqualified himself as kingly administrator over Israel and he therefore anointed David the shepherd son of Jesse to be the next regent. This event aggravated the already existing mental illness that afflicted the mind of Saul.

Most believers who read these passages in the Bible interpret the friendship of David and Jonathan as entirely platonic. After all, God would not place a homosexual into such a powerful and influential position over His Chosen people of Israel. Would He? This latter assessment is reflected in comments overheard by the Rebbe and Rebbetzin over many years in their attendance at fundamentalist Pentecostal and historic churches. Then there was this specific condemnation: "God judged [killed] Heath Ledger because he acted as a homosexual in the film Brokeback Mountain" -- a comment made by a scrappy bunch of giggling "silly women laden with sins" who were visiting a BRI Yeshiva in recent times, and (as far as I know) are still attending a Pentecostal church run by a disqualified and discredited self-styled "Apostle."

What does the biblical revelation say about David's sexuality? Well, it tells us he had many wives and concubines and a number of unruly children running amok all over the Davidic Empire. It also informs us that he despised weak, effeminate men referring to them disparagingly as those "who hold a spindle" (2 Sam 3.29). David could not stand weak "effeminates." Nor could Rav Shaul (1 Cor 6.9,10). That David carried a deep psychological sense of personal shame is more than hinted in his own writings (Ps 51.5). David is, however, described in his sexual adventures as heterosexual.

Having said this, many authorities have gleaned from the biblical account that he is also decidedly bisexual. There is no way any of us can skirt around the edges of David's life and shy our eyes away from the patently obvious. The writers of the Bible certainly did not overlook this proclivity. This becomes candidly crystal clear when the Hebrew is also consulted.

Consider: When David is introduced to the army of Saul "the soul of Jonathan [Saul's son] was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul...Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul" (1 Sam 18.1-3).

Jonathan "loved" David, and as a consequence of this "love" a "covenant" was made between the two men. This was an ancient age which saw such intimate relationships blossom between the masculine bisexual warriors of old like Gilgamesh and Enkidu in the Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, of Achilles and Patroclus in Homer's Iliad, and of Alexander the Great and Hephaestion -- as concerning the latter, Mary Renault's fine volume Fire From Heaven (1969) is probably available to access in your local library.

Upon making this covenant or contract with his friend, Jonathan stripped naked and gave his clothes and his armour to David. Strange happenings indeed! What was Saul's attitude toward Jonathan's relationship with David? The Spirit of God made sure his volley was recorded for all to read.

"You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! [subtext: you didn't get these genes from my side of the family.] Do not I know that you have chosen [Hebrew, bachar] the son of Jesse [David] to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother's nakedness?" (1 Sam 20.30).

The use of "nakedness" in such a context involving "shame" (personal shame and a mother's shame) is a naked and glaring reference to Canaanite debauchery (T. Horner, Sex in the Bible, 1974, 86). Not only so, but Saul's careful use of the word "chosen" (Hebrew, bachar) in the phrase "you have chosen the son of Jesse" is used of "selecting" or "choosing" a wife! This becomes the more remarkable when we realise that Jonathan was already a married man who had fathered a son, Merib-Ba'al (1 Chron 8.34). "Merib-Ba'al" means "Ba'al contends against" or "the god that fights against me."

Jewish authorities are themselves very well aware of the sexual current that existed between David and Jonathan, a fact from which Christian moralists hide. "David, darling of the people, emerges, fighting for his life against Saul and tied by tender bonds of tragic love to Jonathan, Saul's son" (Leo Trepp, A History of the Jewish Experience: Eternal Faith, Eternal People, 1962/1973, 83 Behrman House). "The conversation between Jonathan and David in chapter 20 [of 1 Samuel] highlights not only their personal friendship but the intertwining of Saul's line with David. Some commentators consider Saul's cursing of Jonathan to be an accusation of sexual misdeeds between Jonathan and David [Samuel Terrien, Till the Heart Sings, 1985, 169] but at least equally likely as the source is Saul's bitterness that David is supplanting Jonathan as the heir to the throne" (J. Carmody, D.L. Carmody & R.L. Cohn, Exploring the Hebrew Bible, 1988, 144). If what these authorities say is to be believed, little wonder Michal was given to David by Saul!

Really, there can be no doubt that a sexual relationship was occurring between David and Jonathan which was displeasing to Saul for inheritance reasons in relation to the crown. Saul wanted, as all kings do, progeny to follow him for centuries.

The upshot is that Saul arranges to murder David. Jonathan and David arrange a secret meeting when they bid farewell to one another. "David rose from beside the stone heap and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed three times. And they kissed one another, and wept with one another, until David recovered himself" (1 Sam 20.41). Its a tragic story and they never met with each other again. Jonathan is later killed on the battlefield. David composes a dirge. Its very revealing in itself:

"I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan!  Very pleasant have you been to me; Your love [Hebrew, ahavatkha] to me was wonderful, Passing the love of women [Hebrew, me ahavat nashiym]" (2 Sam 1.26).

Later, David virtually adopts Meribaal the crippled surviving son of Jonathan. Meribaal means "the God who fights against me." Jonathan's son saw life as brutal and despairing. Don't we all feel like this occasionally...sometimes it seems that God refuses to prosper us and that His heavy hand is set in concrete against us in our walk before Him. That this is a mere perception sometimes eludes us. How did Meribaal become a cripple?

It was the usual procedure in ancient times for a new king to assassinate all members of a previous king's family so that there would be no possible contenders to make trouble for the new administration. Consider the first act as Regent of "wise king Solomon" in the brutal assassination of David's previous opposition. The smell of revolution was always in the wind. Jonathan feared for his child's safety. Certainly when David was made king and approached Jerusalem, relatives of Saul fled for fear. Among these people fleeing for their very lives was Meribaal, only a mere five years of age and in the arms of his nanny. In the confusion and rush she dropped him (possibly down stairs and some scholars suggest that maybe he was trampled by horses) but the outcome was that he lost the use of both his feet. He was hidden from David in the desert. Its my take that he was then named Meribaal (for quite apparent reasons) by his nurse (See 1 Chron 8 where his name is recorded).

Fifteen years later he is found and brought to David's chambers. He is given a new name by David, "Mephibosheth," which means "He who scatters my shame." It is David's intention to change his destiny in honour of his father, David's lost lover (2 Sam 9.7-10).

"Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. 'I will give her to him,' he thought, 'so that she may be a snare to him [he'd keep his eyes off male candy and keep him so satisfied that he'd lose his military skills and prowess] and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him.' Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law" (1 Sam 18.20-21 NIV).

I often speak of the NIV (although quite helpful in some instances) as the Non-Inspired Version. Other versions also try hard to dissociate any marital relationship between the two men. The translators of the King James Version, translate verse 21 as: "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the one of the twain [two]." Most Jewish versions follow suit but generally slightly change the phrase to be "through the one of the twain" rather than "in." Its called "changing the cover text [the English text] so as not to bring it into disrepute in the eyes of the Gentiles."

Saul had already offered his older daughter Merab but the offer had been firmly rejected. Then he offered his younger daughter, Michal. People reading through the text would assume that when Saul refers to "the one of the twain" he was referring to his two daughters -- one rejected and the second accepted. And this seems to be a reasonable interpretation. The facts of the case, however, do not warrant this assumption at all. Indeed, modern scholars realise that the Hebrew text cannot substantiate this view. The phrase "the one of" (especially in the KJV, but also in some other versions) appears in italics -- it is not in the original Hebrew. Its so important that some Bibles make a note about it in the margin or at the bottom of the particular page.

The transliteration into English from the Hebrew is decidedly as follows: "You shall this day be my son-in-law, in the twain." Or, if you will permit in more modern English, "Today, you are my son-in-law with two of my children." This could not be speaking of Merab as she had been married off to someone else.

THIS MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE. This statement would then more properly be defined as a reference to both his son Jonathan and his daughter Michal. The Hebrew original recognises the homosexual relationship that existed between the two men -- David and Jonathan -- as the equivalent to David and Michal's heterosexual marriage. The entire text of the Saul-David relationship obviously makes out that Saul violently disapproved of David's relationship with his son Jonathan, and for good reason (as far as Saul was concerned). Listen! If this were all the sacred text reveals it would be enough to define the intimate association between David and the son of Saul. But its not. Consider the following disclosure inspired by the Spirit of God.

When David and Jonathan were finally forced to split up the story informs us that "After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the rock and crouched before Jonathan three times, with his face to the earth. Then they kissed each other and wept together - until David became large" (1 Sam 20.41 Hebrew).

Translators of various versions of the Bible seemingly could not accept the plain written word of God that David began to respond sexually. So they gave us the following:

"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David got control of himself" (AMPLIFIED)

"They kissed each other and wept aloud together" (New American Bible)

"Then the kissed one another and shed tears together, until David's grief was even greater than Jonathan's" (Revised English Bible)

"They kissed each other and wept together until David got control of himself" (Modern Language)

"Then David and Jonathan kissed each other. They cried together, but David cried the most" (New Century Version)

"...and they sadly shook hands, tears running down their cheeks until David could weep no more" (Living Bible)

As to the latter translation NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. How distorted is this wresting of the sacred text! David and Jonathan "sadly shook hands"?

The KJV was more honest in relation to David's sexual reaction in allowing the penetrating insight that "David exceeded." Well, it’s closer to the truth of the matter than other versions will allow. This may be due to the fact that King James was a homosexual himself, a fact most "KJV only" people ought to have brought to their attention. The fact is that Jonathan "turned David on" until he "grew large" -- he had an erection!

David's testimony ought to stand by itself. He sobs, "I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women" (2 Sam 1.26).

"Wonderful" is in the feminine constructed form in Hebrew, "she-was-wonderful." Further, David's confession in his poem of "your love" is "love-of-you" (Hebrew, ahavatkha) the feminine form of love which is used to describe Jonathan's love for David. "Passing the love of women" is me ahavat nashiym -- the sexually-charged emotional love a woman lavishes on her man.

We need to stop at this point and admit freely enough that we often think of the people who lived in the Orient in the ancient past as really being very much like us socially and culturally. But this is a fabrication. It is not true. Its a distortion to read about the ancient world and to view it through our own modern eyes and to clothe the past in 21st century dress. In the days of Yeshua, and certainly prior to this, men considered women as sexual objects -- from start to finish. Our modern concepts of that which constitute "dating" and "love" and "platonic" relationships between the sexes must be at once jettisoned when considering ancient Oriental history. Women existed to bare children. That was their duty; that alone was their purpose. Women existed to be used by men sexually. It was their prime function and reason for being alive. Students of history know this to be true.

THEREFORE, when David speaks of the "love" that he had for Saul's son, and that it "exceeded that of women" he is referring to that which was sexual by nature. Additionally, we must emphasise that the "covenant" or contract Jonathan made with David which appears in 1 Sam 18.3 the narrator of the story uses the common word that relates to a marriage contract (J. Boswell, Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, 1994,137).

The truth about David and Jonathan stares us in the face.

Isn't it high time we cast off our prejudices once and for all, and grant to homosexual lovers who believe in the Lord Yeshua as their Personal Saviour, and who are committed to a lasting covenant in relationship, the recognition and acceptance they rightly deserve?

Rebbe

Copyright © BRI 1996 Revised 2009
All Rights Reserved Worldwide