Well, a lot of you have been asking about a David/Jonathan thread, about not how they were just lovers but married! @maklelan and @sohelpmejesseca were just talking about it too! Here it goes! #threadseries#thread
So let's get the obvious stuff out of the way. David was bisexual, and he and Jonathan were lovers. The evidence in the text of this is strong. And while some may deny it, those are the same men who scream that Song of Songs is about Israel and God. So let's go through this./1
We read in 1st Samuel 18 that Jonathan's "nefesh" his soul, became "nik'sh'ra" (bound up or binded) with the "nefesh" of David. Soul on soul love. Deep love. This is not friendship. This is soulmates. Moreover, from a Hebrew point of view, the word "nik'sh'ra" is.../2
..is a word that is parced in the perfect third feminine singular. There is a "feminine" aspect to Jonathan, a slim young man, in contrast to David's masculinity. There is an attraction of souls that occurs, and (there is a scribal error here, see below) but one loved.../3
...the other as himself. For those pointing back to the Levitical idea of a neighbor...NO. The wording is totally different there. There is no "nefesh" mentioned in the loving on one's countryman/fellow/neighbor. This is a different love. The author was purposeful here. /4
And, it is right here, friends, in verses 1 Samuel 18: 2, 3, and 4 that a marriage takes place. In the Ancient Near East, the three elements that made a marriage were 1) A parental exchange, i.e. moving from one house to another, 2) a vow or covenant, and 3) a gift. /5
We see each of these in the following verses. Before we do so, keep in mind that these elements eventually evolved into a parent's "blessing" after it was transactional, the vows given at a wedding ceremony, and a ring (i.e. the gift exchange). But these were not the.../6
...traditions of the time, so we have to be careful not to look for 21st century marriage clues in a biblical text. All three are there, and here we go. 1Sam 18:2 - Saul, the father of Jonathan, takes David into his family, (into his service is not in the text but implied).../7
...and David no longer returns to his father's house because, why would he? He is marrying Saul's son! Once a marriage occurs, one of the people married leaves their father's house and goes to another house. /8
It is at this point, once the parental exchange is done, that the vow comes in: Jonathan and David, standing together, made a "brit" a covenant with one another. Again the words "nefesh" are used. The word "brit" is not a friendly "pact" as the translator lead you to see.../9
The words are well known in Jewish wedding ceremonies that a "brit" is an everlasting covenant between two people, and that exactly what David and Jonathan did with one another. Their souls make a pact together to be together, it is quite beautiful! /10
And finally, we come to the gift. In verse 4, Jonathan takes off his cloak and tunic, and gives them to David, with his sword, his bow, his belt. While commentators struggle to understand this gesture, those who understand Near Eastern wedding rituals see it clearly. /11
It is the gift from one person to another to solidify the third step of a wedding ritual of the time. Now, how about some supplementary evidence to help? Remember in 1Sam 18:17, Saul attempts to have David married off to his daughter, Merab. You know, a woman. /12
David's answer to him, when seen through the lens we have built with the wedding ritual that just occurred is actually quite funny. A young man who will be come king says to Saul (see text below) but seriously dude, "I'm already your son-in-law." And then he runs out the clock/13
...on Merab so she marries someone else. Pretty sneaky and genius. Verse 20 tells us that another of Saul's daughters, Michal, wants to marry David too, and Saul thinks, "Ok let's try this woman." David finally catches on that this is the way to the throne, and marries her./14
Keep in mind, friends, that a King can have many wives, so this was not a big deal that he was secretly married to Jonathan, and publicly married to Michal. We can see Saul had some inkling of the marriage of David and Jonathan by 1Sam 20. /15
And the bond between Jonathan and David is more than just friendship, it is soulmates, put together by love and ancient ritual:/16
And it is in verse 32-33, that the mystery of why Saul wishes to murder David is now (perhaps) clear. David has done no wrong, but perhaps Saul has figured out that he and Jonathan have been married./17
Later in 1Sam 20:42, we see loving language, kissing and crying, and Jonathan again reiterating that they have sworn to each other in the name of God! /18
Now, are there plenty of people who will disagree with this interpretation? Those who will say they were just "close friends," that the ritual exchanges and vows meant something else, that their souls were bound together in friendship? That Saul's jealousy was the cause?/19
Of course! And that is perfectly fine. But one cannot ignore the cultural repertoire of an ancient near eastern wedding ritual, the elements of them coming together, and the actions of the two, the love language, and the events that come after without saying..."hmmm".
THE END.
If you liked this thread, you'd probably like my classes that I teach from time to time. You can see them at: rabbimichaelharvey.com/events
And, I also wrote a book to help look into things like this! If you're interested, it's available in print, kindle, and audiobook! amazon.com/Lets-Talk-Rabb…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Follow me for a day and you will see the same tiresome critiques of Jews and Judaism that have been crystalized into a series of repetitive tropes, that originate and date from the first four centuries of Christianity. #thread #threads
A quick survey of the first four centuries of Christianity was, almost from the beginning, opposed to Jews and Judaism. It's difficult to find any extant Christian texts from the eastern Mediterranean, from Egypt to Syria to Asia Minor, that does not speak about the Jews.../2
...with some antipathy.
We see the same tropes repeated for the next 1400 years, even into the 21st century on social media, as those structures and seedbeds of antisemitism were formed formally by Christian leaders and authors. /3
I was recently asked the question as to whether it is possible to be a Christian without also being a supersessionist?
The answer I would give is "maybe, but it would be difficult."
The reason being is that supersesionism is baked into the foundational texts.../1
...of Christianity itself. It calls itself the "new Israel" (thus making the Jews the "old" Israel). It calls Christians "fulfilled Jews," but accepting Jesus makes a person not a “fulfilled” or “completed” Jew but a Christian. It presupposes that Jesus is.../2
..."predicted" in the Tanakh (rather, the Greek translation of a different manuscript, with books in a different order, and called the "Old" Testament, thus meaning that the "New" Testament replaces it." Of course, for motifs that they may claim point to Jesus.../3
Guys. Seriously. Stop it.
A quick #thread in response to this absurdity.
Messiah - anglicized form of the Hebrew Mashiach, meaning “anointed one”
Anointment being a ritual for inaugurating figures ascending to divinely sanctioned positions, such as king, priest, or prophet./1
Ancient Judaism envisioned the Messiah as a restored human king in Jerusalem, likely descended from King David, preoccupied with the entire people (not individuals), and a strong leader who will vindicate God in demonstrating the political, military, and economic freedom.../2
and strength of God’s people by overthrowing Israel’s foreign oppressors, fulfilling biblical prophecies as Jews interpret them, and ushering in God’s kingdom.
A more contemporary variant conceptualizes such an idealized Kingdom as a universal reign of peace that fulfills.../3
Commented on this obscenely incorrect tweet and then realized there was far more to say. So why not join me tonight with a #thread about how the portrayal of Pharisees in the Gospel accounts were not only skewed, but ahistorical in nature, and for an agenda: #Threads
So to put it simply, no, the Pharisees, in real life, were not any of these things. The Gospel authors, (the evangelists) who wrote 40-100 years after Jesus' encounter with that particular sect, are not a firm historical account by any means on this group of people. /2
I'll speak briefly as to the fact that Jewish-Christians at the time of the Evangelist writings worked hard to distance themselves from the Jews living in the Roman Empire, due to their witnessing of the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE as well as brewing tensions that.../3
Okay folks, I realize that in past #threads regarding anti-LGBTQIA I have focused primarily on the clobber passages, but it seems that even with explicit proof within the Bible, some of our Christian friends still believe the sin of #Sodom was homosexuality.
Let's settle this./1
Let's start back in Genesis 14, where we read that the King of Sodom has engaged in a great battle in the Valley of Siddim. We get a little idea of Sodom when we see that it loses the battle, has all its possessions taken, and the Kings throw themselves into pits while.../2
...the people of Sodom (and Gomorrah) escape to the hill country. Could this be a turning point for the people of Sodom to become inhospitable? Also, the sages ask, "why would Lot settle and remain in such an evil place after it was attacked and he was robbed as well?"/3
I am surprised by the fact that many in the comments had never considered this paradox, I guess that speaks to the strength of sheltering in religion. Nevertheless, here is that #thread I promised discussing this concept: https://t.co/wmqHZZtVaI
Long ago, I was sitting in my favorite coffee shop with a student, studying Torah, when I was asked a question. The question concerned a moment in Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy, as we know, is the last book of the Torah, and contains Moses’ final speeches to the Israelites.../2
...before they travel without him over the River Jordan, into the promised land. As Deuteronomy explains, once the Israelites enter the promised land, they are to go city by city, eradicating the peoples who currently dwell there—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites../3