"The Naked Truth"

Jesus and the Beloved Disciple
John 13:23-25; 19:25-27; 20:2-8; 21:1, 7, 20-24.

Now, if I were motivated by my prejudices, as many preachers, teachers, lay-leaders, and politicians have been when it comes to ascribing a contemporary understanding of homosexuality onto ancient Near Eastern culture and texts, I'd have a field day with this one.  In fact, I think I will!  It's as easy as taking candy from a baby to ascribe a same-gender-loving relationship into this, one of the bible's most intriguing narratives and mysteries - "The disciple whom Jesus loved."  I mean really...  Who is this man that enjoys a special closeness to Jesus that appears to surpass his love and affection for the other disciples?  Who is he?  Where did he come from?  Exactly when did he and Jesus spend so much time together that the author of this gospel saw fit to emphasize the closeness of their "relationship?"   So much so that he identifies him in such a way that if they were with us today, we would say, without question or hesitation, that this man was Jesus' "boo!"  Who is this mysterious disciple - this man that doesn't seem to show up in any of the other three gospels?  Or does he?  Put a pin there.  Indulge me for a moment, while I do a few of my own hermeneutic gymnastics and tricks around the aforementioned verses.

Traditionally, John, the brother of James (the sons of Zebedee) is not only the author of this eye witness testimony, but he is also believed to be the "beloved disciple."  Honestly, I won't be here long because I find that line of reason to be a bit peculiar and frankly speaking, quite humorous.  Church tradition holds fast to the tenet, "Thy word is true from the beginning; and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever" (KJV Psalm 119: 160).  That is, everything therein is inerrant - totally and completely free from and without error.  Okay then, let's take a look at this "disciple whom Jesus loved" at face value.  In "truth," we really don't know who the author of the "Gospel of John" is - or do we?  The original title of it was, "The Fourth Gospel,"  But, could he, John, have been the "disciple whom Jesus loved?"  Maybe, but I doubt it.  Come, take a walk with me.

Arguably, the first time we hear of this mystery man is at the last supper, where Jesus is grieved in his spirit as he is about to announce to the disciples that one of them is going to betray him.  "Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom, one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.  Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be, of whom he [Jesus] spake.  He, then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it" (John 13:23-25)?  Now I don't know about you, but I'm wondering, "why is anybody, especially a man leaning on Jesus' breast?"  Yes, it was customary to lounge while eating, as they often sat on the floor or on the ground, but was it customary to lounge upon one another while eating?  While I can't say for sure, someone I know would probably say, "I don't think so.  Homey don't play dat."

The next time we see this special someone, is at the cross.  "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas and Mary Magdalene.  When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman behold thy son!  Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother!  And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home (19:25-27).  Slow down, you're moving too fast.  Jesus, the eldest of his mother's children, we know had other brothers and sisters.  Yet, he usurps his brother's role, responsibility and honor of caring for his mother by trusting her into the care of this "beloved disciple?"  Whom, as far as we know, is not a member of the immediate family.  Okay, keep walking with me.  I said slow down, not stop...  After Jesus has been crucified, on "The first day of the week," after Mary Magdalene braved the dark to find the stone at the entrance of Jesus' tomb rolled away, she runs away and "cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith, 'they have taken away the Lord...'"  The two men get into a testosterone measuring exercise by racing to the tomb.  Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the "beloved disciple" out ran Peter (20:2-8).  Didn't you just know that was going to happen?

Oddly, there is much ado about the identity of the "beloved disciple."  A whole host of candidates have emerged, ranging from John and James (Jesus' brother), to Lazarus and even Thomas.  In some circles, Mary Magdalene has also emerged as a possible candidate.  While the latter is tantalizingly intriguing, it is not nearly as plausible, nor as mouth watering as the other male possibilities - especially those who are not considered to be a part of Jesus' immediate family.  Why?  Because, the mere thought of Jesus having a special affinity toward one of his disciples would turn this whole thing completely topsy turvy.  But, as I stated earlier, it's an easy argument to make if one so dared.  And dare, I do.  I mean seriously, we have a man - "Jesus Christ [the] Superstar," of questionable birth, who begins a ministry that challenges his own religious traditions and practices of his day.  He's not married (supposedly), he hangs out with a rag-tag gang of men and women of ill repute - tax collectors, fishermen and if I may correct the record, MARY MAGDALENE WAS NOT A PROSTITUTE - but a woman cured of several illnesses!  And then, on the eve of his death, he has the nerve to lay up with some mysterious man at supper that we have come to know as, "the disciple whom [he] loved."  So, if "The Word is true," then it is true entirely!  I didn't make this up.  Again, it's in the book - the same book that lazy and prejudicially motivated folks like those I mentioned to you earlier, will turn flips and do somersaults around to point out verses within its pages that supposedly condemn homosexuality - but who will read/walk right over verses such as these, that not only speak of same-gender-love, but emphasizes it as radically different, radically special, and radically sacred.  I know somebody out there is cussing me out about this, but hey... I give as good as I get.  So let the cussing begin!

Oh, I almost forgot, where is that pin?  Take it out.  In the book of Mark, Jesus goes off and prays for his life in a place called Gethsemane.  Okay, most people say the garden of Gethsemane, so I'll let you have that.  After he prays for his life, he is seized, "by a multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priest and the scribes and the elders."  Judas betrays him with a kiss, one of the disciples cuts off the ear of one of the servants of the high priest and all the disciples leave him and take off running.  As they were carrying Jesus away, "there followed a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him; and he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked" (Mark 14:42-52).  Pay close attention as I wrap this up.  "The Fourth Gospel," stands out in three ways; 1) It contains the shortest verse in the King James Version of the bible, "Jesus wept" (John 11:35).  2) Jesus' greatest miracle - raising Lazarus from the dead - which by the way is also why "Jesus wept."  And, prior to that, when Mary first summoned Jesus to come to the aid of her ailing brother, she called out to him saying, "Lord he whom thou lovest is sick" (John 11:3).  Finally, 3) the mysterious, "Disciple whom Jesus loved."  Uh oh, wait a minute now....  I think we  just stepped on something.  Hmmm...  I wonder if....  Could it be?  "LAZARUS COME FORTH" (11:43)!

I feel another bible study coming on...  Caller you say what?

One final note; If we take love along on our faith  walk, and approach the sacred texts with respect, honor and an open mind without conforming to the rigidity of tradition, we may all be changed.

© Dorinda G. Henry, 2010

THEOLOGIA HABITUS EST!

"What's It All About?"

Jesus and Mary Magdelene

As I mentioned last week, we had a movie night where the participants of my bible study class watched and discussed Martin Scorsese's, "The Last Temptation of Christ." Needless to say, we had a riotous good time! As you may or may not know, this man called Jesus, after being baptized by John the baptist, was led by the Holy Spirit into the wilderness/desert to be tempted by the boogeyman, Satan - that anthropomorphic "embodiment of terror." In the scriptures, he was tempted only three times; 1) Jesus is told to change the stones around him into loaves of bread. For which, he responded, "It is written, 'One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.'" 2) He's taken to the holy city (Jerusalem), and placed at the highest point of the Temple. He's then told to throw himself down, as angels would come and bear him up so "you will not dash your foot against a stone." The response to that was, "Again it is written, 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'" Finally, 3) He's taken to the pinnacle of the highest mountain and shown all the kingdoms of the world. "All these I will give you if you fall down and worship me." And Jesus said, "For it is written, 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him.'" Defeated, Satan moves on and angels show up to minister to Jesus (NRSV Matthew 3: 13-17; 4: 1-11). Well, in the movie, Jesus' "last temptation," was to live a regular life, with a regular family, having regular sex that lead to regular kids, doing regular things - that regular guys do. Ah, but WHAT IF?

For many years, some scholars have engaged in the theological discourse of exploring the possibility of there being a romantic and yes, intimate relationship between Jesus and Mary of Magdala, aka Mary Magdalene. While there is much speculation and arguably, even more exciting evidence out there surrounding this most titillating "WHAT IF," for me, the question is, "And so WHAT IF they were?" While I understand and respect the fact for many of you, the man called "Jesus of Nazareth," the man Christians have come to know, love, honor and yes, worship, must remain pure - untouched, wholly unscathed in any way - in order to be the Christ. He must be and remain henceforth and forevermore, as other worldly and miraculous - as they want us to believe his birth was. But WHAT IF he wasn't? WHAT IF, he enjoyed the romantic and intimate company of a woman? Would it diminish your faith in him - in God? Would he lose his appeal and power as Lord and Saviour? For me, he would not lose anything in the way of my faith. Quite the contrary, I almost need him to have experienced that aspect of what it means to be wholly human.

I need him to experience and feel the heat of a love in full bloom. I need him to feel the sting and the pain of a love withering away at the end of its season. Without it, like the Mary Magdalene character in "Jesus Christ Superstar," I'm left, wondering, just exactly, "What IS it all about?" C'mo, sing it with Mary;

I DON'T KNOW HOW TO LOVE HIM

(Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice)

I don't know how to love him.

What to do, how to move him.

I've been changed, yes really changed.

In these past few days, when I've seen myself,

I seem like someone else.

I don't know how to take this.

I don't see why he moves me.

He's a man. He's just a man.

And I've had so many men before,

In very many ways,

He's just one more.

Should I bring him down?

Should I scream and shout?

Should I speak of love,

Let my feelings out?

I never thought I'd come to this.

What's it all about?

Don't you think it's rather funny,

I should be in this position.

I'm the one who's always been

So calm, so cool, no lover's fool,

Running every show.

He scares me so.

I never thought I'd come to this.

What's it all about?

Yet, if he said he loved me,

I'd be lost. I'd be frightened.

I couldn't cope. Just couldn't cope.

I'd turn my head. I'd back away.

I wouldn't want to know.

He scares me so.

I want him so.

I love him so.

© Dorinda G. Henry, 2010

THEOLOGIA HABITUS EST!

"A Man of Sorrows"

Jesus and Mary of Magdala

"For he grew up before him like an infant and like a root out of the dry ground; he had no form nor comeliness; and when we saw that he had no beauty, we denied him. He was despised and humbled of men; a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and we turned our faces away from him; we despised him and we esteemed him not. Surely he has borne our sorrows and carried our griefs; but we considered him stricken smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was slain for our sins, he was afflicted for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have strayed; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the sins of us all. He drew near and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; he was led as a lamb to the slaughter; and as ewe before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment; and who can describe his anguish? For he was cut off out of the land of the living; and some of the evil men of my people struck him. He made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, although he had done no iniquity, neither was there any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the LORD to afflict him; he has put him to grief; he laid down his life as an offering for sin, that posterity may see, and his days shall be prolonged, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see the reward of the travail of his soul, and be satisfied with the knowledge; he shall justify the righteous; for he is a servant of many, and he shall bear their sins. Therefore I will divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he has poured out his life to death; and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bore the sins of many, and died the death of transgressors"

(Peshitta Isaiah 53: 2-13).

We're having movie night! This Saturday, we will be watching "The Last Temptation of Christ." Our class will be exploring the full humanity of Jesus as it relates to his personal struggles as one who was both wholly human and wholly divine. As I've previously stated, this bible study series is on "Relationships in the Bible." As such, we will explore the possibility that Jesus not only had a romantic relationship with Mary of Magdala, but may have even married her! While Martin Scorsese does take generous artistic license - as any artist does - this is a wonderfully daring and exceptional inquiry into the "what ifs" of the man we have come to know as Jesus the Christ. Although I wish you all could be there. I have no doubt it's going to be a deliciously delicate, yet delightful discourse. Can't wait to tell you all about it next week. Until then, Peace.

© Dorinda G. Henry, 2010

THEOLOGIA HABITUS EST!

"A Tale of Two Sistahs"

Esther

"You're so vain, you probably think this song is about you.
You're so vain, I'll bet you think this song is about you.
Don't you? Don't You?"

Well it ain't! Oh sure, within this book is one of the scriptural text that clearly have a lot of men out there thinking they are supposed to be "Lord" and "Master" of their household. No doubt, there are both men and women who believe that way, and who have bought into this notion that the man is the head and even "King" of everything. Some women even have the nerve to blush when a man says to them, "I'm looking for my Queen." I mean, really... Why? How in the name of God are you looking for a Queen and you're not the "King" of or over anything? What is even more ridiculous is that most of them who have the nerve to utter the phrase, don't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of! So ladies, the next time some good looking, good smelling, good talking and dare I say, good - - - - - - - man tell you he's looking for his Queen, ask him for directions to his Kingdom. In fact, ask him for the keys to his Kingdom. Find out how many "chariots" he has in the garage and which ones are yours! Am I being flip and smart in the mouth? Of course I am. That's what I do. But I am serious about this thing. And, if by some quirk of fate, you do run into a man who indeed has a Kingdom and wants to make you his Queen, RUN! Run away as fast as you can!

Why? Well let's put our feet to the earth and our ear to the wind to hear what the ancestors would have us to know. In the book of Esther, a feast is in the making. King Ahasuerus is preparing a feast for all the people in the palace, "both great and small." Now the palace was something to see ya'll. From the description of it, it sounds like it would be the result of all of the top interior designers and HGTV carpenters and contractors coming together and allowed to, "do what you will or may!" There was "white cotton and wool" curtains, hanging violet with cords of fine linen and purple to silver rings and pillars of marble.... couches were of gold... sitting atop marble pavement (floors), with carpet (rugs) of white linen and silk." And the wine.... The wine was plentiful! There was no lack. The guest were all served in "vessels of gold" and not one was like the other (1: 1-8).

Also, Queen Vashti, "made a great feast for all the women in the royal house," which was the King's (v. 9). Okay, problem number one. The King is having a feast for all the people, both great and small. But the Queen is having a feast for all the women. Do you see where I'm going here? The women were not a part of the "great and small" population. So, Queen Vashti, being a woman herself, and up to this point, not on the list of invitees to the King's great feast, decided to have a "girl's night out" of her own. At some point on the seventh day, the King, full of wine and full of himself, sends his castrated boys to "bring Vashti the Queen before the king with the royal crown to show the people and the princes her beauty.... But the Queen, Vashti refused to come at the king's command (vv. 11, 12). Okay, problem number two - and you know I have to put it out there as real as I can, so here's Queen Vashti's response according to the black woman's cotton patch version commentary... "What? He wants me to do what? And put on what? The royal crown? Negro please... I ain't! I am the Queen baby! I ain't gettn' up and putting on my good @$$ royal crown, leaving my good @$$ guest to come over there to dance and parade around for him and his drunk @$$ friends!" Yep, that's exactly what the ancestors wanted me to share with you. I tell you, one of these days I'm gonna have to do a black woman's cotton patch version of the bible. I must. I really must. But until then, I'll make use of what I have.

Where was I? Oh, so Vashti refused to degrade herself for the benefit of her husband, the King. I have to be honest with you that a couple of my bible study participants (women) had the nerve, the temerity, the audacity, the unmitigated gall, to fix their mouths to suggest, "Vashti was 'smelling herself!'" Whaaaaaat? She was "smelling herself?" The Queen! When I tell you they have done a job on us, I mean it. Make no mistake about it, I got 'em together about it. Love ya'll! Anyhue, embarrassed and angry, the King consults with his advisers, who in return instruct him in the way of the law of the day, that not only had Queen Vashti wronged him, but she had "done wrong to all the princes, and to all the people... For this deed of the Queen shall reach all women, so that their husbands shall be despised in their eyes and they shall say, King Ahasuerus commanded Vashti the queen to be brought in before him, but she did not come" (vv. 13-16). They went on to suggest to the King that a decree go out and Queen Vashti not be allowed to come before the King anymore and her "royal estate" be given to another, "who is better (obedient) than she... The decree shall be proclaimed and published throughout all his empire... that all wives shall give honor to their husbands, both great and small... That every man should bear rule in his own house" (vv. 19-22). Umph...

Well, I shouldn't have to tell you this, but I am done with this post. No, I am not going to go into the rest of the story, because it is nothing more than another narrative about the manipulation and exploitation of another woman, Hadassah (Esther), by men for their own benefit. Yes, within this text is the overly used phrase, "For just such a time as this," which comes right after Esther, who like other women in scripture before her, is pimped out by her uncle Mordecai, and then confronted, threatened even - by him, the very man that pimped her out in the first place - to risk her life in order to save his and the life of others (Ch. 4).

For me the book of Esther is about the expectant and preferred behavior of women in an androcentric society. It is about everyday challenges of women today and what happens when our beauty, talent, confidence, education and self-worth threaten the status, power and positions of men. Whether it be professional or romantic, they seek to replace us for another that ultimately does the same thing - she just uses a little more wiggle in her wag. ;)

"You're so vain, you probably think this song is about you
You're so vain, I'll bet you think this song is about you
Don't you? Don't You? Don't You?"
© Dorinda G. Henry, 2010

THEOLOGIA HABITUS EST!

"Don't Go Chasing Waterfalls"

2 Samuel 11; 12: 1-24

"Don't go chasing waterfalls
Please stick to the rivers and the lakes that you're used to
I know that you're gonna have it your way or nothing at all
But I think you're moving too fast"

I tell you, as the bible and "Relationships" in the bible go, it has been a couple of very exciting and even exhilarating weeks for me. Surely you all know that I had riotous good time with Jonathan and David. I think I've been scratching like a dog with fleas to talk about that untold and conveniently ignored love affair between those two men. As such, I may have gotten a little carried away. But, hey, "Truth crushed to the earth, shall rise again." Okay, moving right along.

Our next "Relationship" encounter is that between David and Bathsheba. And yes, that is the chorus to another song at the beginning of this post, but I warned you early on that I believe the sacred is secular and the secular is sacred! So ya'll g'on need to get your mind around this thang. Now, make no mistake, I do not believe this particular relationship was one of mutual consent. By biblical accounts, we know very little about the historical lives of women in near Eastern culture. What we have been able to glean from scriptural texts and commentaries, however, is that women were controlled by the men of their family. In the texts, they are often times referenced only as, "a certain woman," or either one man's daughter or another man's wife - and without being one or the other, their status, safety and security was precariously vulnerable and subject to abuse and exploitation. But something happens throughout 1 and 2 Samuel that baffles my mind. David puts a whole new spin on "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor," that calls into question whether or not women were safe at all, even by virtue of being one man's daughter or another man's wife (NRSV 20:17). And of course the woman, Bathsheba, has no say in the matter. Let's begin shall we?

Shortly after we are first introduced to David, we see a man who is gifted more than his share from men and women alike. "Everybody loves David!" Jonathan gets naked and abdicates the throne for him - no, I'm sorry, he hands the throne over to him. And, I believe Saul would have done that and much more, if he had found favor in David's eyes as Jonathan obviously did. Yes, that is mere speculation on my part - there is no factual or biblical basis for that statement, just the wanderings of what some might call an "over-active imagination." Okay, alright... Don't go getting your panties in a wad over it. Back to the narrative.

Now, where was I? Oh, yeah, after paying a rather hefty, and might I add, a nasty and bloody dowry of 200 foreskins (100 more than required) of those uncircumcised Philistines, Saul gives his daughter, Michal to David to marry. Michal, like her brother Jonathan, loved David and she also defied her father to help David escape. After which, David goes about his business warring with anybody and everybody that got in his way. As a consequence of his adventures on the run and successes in battles, he acquires the wives of the defeated, as well as Abigail, the wife of Nabal, who died of a sudden and obvious, massive heart attack after she told him that she had gone behind his back and showed David some kindness he had previously refused to (1 Samuel 25: 2-42). Another wife picked up along the way was Ahinoam. Who pretell is Ahinoam? Hmmm.... Verr-ry in-terr-resting question!

The only other reference or mention of Ahinoam is in 1 Samuel 14:50. Drum roll please.... "And the name of Saul's wife was Ahinoam, the daughter of Ahimaaz." Umph, umph, umph.... So, now David has three wives - Michal (Saul's daughter), Abigail (Nabal's wife) and Ahinoam (Saul's wife). Now if you've being paying attention - and I know you have - then you know by virtue of them being David's wives, he now has two more reasons that validate his claim to the the throne. Uh oh, but wait a minute now! Sumptn' just happened... If Ahinoam is Saul's wife and Michal is Saul's daughter, hasn't somebody [David] uncovered somebodies [Ahinoam's and Michal's] "nakedness?" The evidence presented states, "Now the sons of Saul were Jonathan, and Ishvi, and Malchishua: and the names of his two daughters were these; the name of the first-born was Merab, and the name of the younger Michal: And the name of Saul's wife was Ahinoam" (1 Samuel 14: 49, 50a). In honor of my attorney friends out there, may it please the court, "You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter... For [she is] her near kinswoman: it is wickedness " (Leviticus 18: 17a and c). I suppose David gets a pass on that - or does he? Put a pin there. What he does do is continue collecting "more concubines and wives" (2 Samuel 5:13).

Clearly David cares nothing about "uncovering the nakedness" of anybody. Whatever king David wants, king David gets. So, when he observes Bathsheba taking a bath from his rooftop and "inquires" about her, I can't for the life of me understand why. After all, when he is told that; 1) "'This is Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam [son of Ahithophel, one of David's advisers] and, 2) the wife of Uriah the Hittite,'" he doesn't seem to care one damn bit. Instead, he sends messengers to "fetch her, and she came to him, and he lay with her... Then she returned to her house. The woman conceived; and she sent and told David, 'I am with child'" (2 Samuel 11: 2-5). Once again, what happened to, "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife?" Furthermore, what right did she have to decline his summons? None. What right did she have to deny, or say 'no?' None. Her body was not her own. But, if that wasn't enough, he takes it a step further! After learning Bathsheba is with child, David tries to cover up the misdeed by sending for her husband - Uriah, who was off at war, fighting valiantly for his king (little k) - so that he may, "Go down to thy house, and wash thy feet" (v. 8a). ;) ;) Funny thing, Uriah doesn't go to his house, instead, he sleeps at the door of the king's house. Upon hearing this David, tries a different approach by getting Uriah drunk the following night. But again, Uriah, a loyal soldier til the end, sleeps outside with the rest of David's soldiers, servants, and the Ark of the Covenant. What happens next could only be rivaled by a Shakespearean tragedy. David sends a letter by Uriah to be delivered to Joab, the head of the army, instructing him to, "Set Uriah in the forefront of the hardest fighting, and then draw back from him, so that he may be struck down and die" (vv. 8-15). What! Say it ain't so! Well, it is. And so it was, Uriah was killed, Bathsheba mourned her husband, David takes her to be his wife and with his misdeeds, adultery and murder all neatly covered up - they lived happily ever after. Or did they? Where's that pin? Take it out, because God is pissed. Too strong? I'm sorry, S/HE is "displeased."

"Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel: I anointed you king over Israel, and I rescued you from the hand of Saul; I gave you your master's house, and your master's wives into your bosom, and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added as much more... You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife... Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house... Thus says the LORD; I will raise up trouble against you from within your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbor and he shall lie with your wives before this very sun. For you did it secretly; but I will do this thing before all of Israel and before the sun" (12: 7b-12).

The Word of God, for the people of God - Thanks be to God. ;-)

"Don't go chasing waterfalls
Please stick to the rivers and the lakes that you're used to
I know that you're gonna have it your way or nothing at all
But I think you're moving too fast"
© Dorinda G. Henry, 2010

THEOLOGIA HABITUS EST!

"Everybody Loved David... But David Loved Jonathan"

Jonathan and David - Part II
1 Samuel 19: 1-7; 20: 30, 41, 42; 2 Samuel 1:23, 26, 27

Did you miss me? I missed you!

Honestly, I tell you, this narrative about Jonathan and David is so in your face that I've had a very difficult time taking the time to write about it. I can't for the life of me understand how anyone, especially these "jump up" preachers - who will read a contemporary western understanding of homosexuality into ancient Near Eastern culture and texts, that require a major stretch in associating the text to present day understandings of sexuality - justify ignoring this same-sex love story. And, if I may be so bold to suggest that there is arguably significant evidence that point toward a marriage between these two men. I mean, really, they make all this noise about there not being anything in scripture regarding homosexuality, except for those texts previously touched upon in early posts. Each of them have been misrepresented and misinterpreted, knowingly and unknowingly, as examples of God's condemnation of homosexuality and those who are homosexual, bisexual or just plain ole free with their expression of their sexuality. But how do they explain away, "Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou has chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness" (King James 1 Samuel 20:30)? They don't! They just ignore it. Not only is Saul calling his son, Jonathan, a SON OF A B^%@H, but he is clearly identifying something else when he continues with, "do not I know that thou has chosen the son of Jesse [David] to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness." Are you still playing naive? Alrighty then, let's go.

Last week I referenced 1 Samuel 18:1-4. Remember that? "And it came to pass, when he [David] had made an end of speaking unto Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit (bound) with the soul of David and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him [David] that day and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle" (King James). Wah Lawd! I don't know about you, but I feel a song coming on... "It's gettn' hot in here, so take off all your clothes, c'mo sing it with me, I am get-ting so hot, I wanna take my clothes off!" Okay, okay.... I'm back... Now, for integrity sake, I must elaborate on a couple of things. Aside from the fact that Jonathan was so moved by David's oratory skills that he had to get naked to cool off, he hands over to David, his clothing - robe, garments, sword, bow and his girdle - all of the accouterments of a soldier and a Prince. He gave up the family jewels ya'll! Everything that symbolized his status and his power as the heir to the throne, he handed over to David - the first time he laid eyes on him. Still fighting it huh? Wow! Okay, I love a good fight.

Riddle me this; What if this story was about a man and a woman? What if we had read in the text that a certain man, upon hearing/seeing a particular woman, was so moved by her that he fell in love with her at first sight, asked her to marry him and sealed the marriage with a kiss and his most prized possessions - the entire kingdom, would this be an issue? Would we even question that this was a "love at first sight" encounter? No, we would not! We'd probably hear about it every Valentine's Day weekend. It would be the text to preach from! Two love stories come to mind, the obvious of the two is Romeo and Juliet of course, but the other, though probably less familiar, is the story of King Edward VIII of the United Kingdom, who in 1936 abdicated the throne to marry an American divorcée, Wallis Simpson (Wallis was a woman by the way). This is precisely the "confusion" Saul was referring to. But what of this comment, "and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness" (1 Samuel 20:30b)? My goodness, what on earth could he possibly be talking about? I thought you'd never ask.

In the Hebrew scriptures, specifically, Leviticus, where we find the "Holiness Codes," whenever there is a reference to "nakedness," or the uncovering of a family member's "nakedness," it carries a sexual connotation that is improper or incestuous. When Saul chastised Jonathan by associating his behavior and affection for David to "the confusion of thy mother's nakedness," Saul was charging him with sexual impropriety that had brought shame upon the family. Still not convinced? Okay, stay with me. Because I know I recommended a reading of all of chapters 18-21, then I know you know that Jonathan and David had met in a field in secret prior to this dinner table showdown between Jonathan and his father Saul. They devised a plan to ascertain Saul's intentions toward David - was it all a misunderstanding or was Saul indeed intending to kill David? In that secret meeting in the field, they made another covenant between one another with God as their witness. They swore, one to the other, that their "seed," (offspring) would forever be cared for by the other should either of them die. Then they devised a method by which Jonathan could get the 411 and give David a heads up to escape before Saul could get to him. David even makes the suggestion that if he is to die, that it be by Jonathan's hand and not Saul's (1 Samuel 20). But hold on to your tail feathers because the best is yet to come. ;) ;)

The kitchen table brouhaha between Jonathan and his father, makes it painfully clear that Saul means to kill David. After Jonathan dodged his own bullet, I mean spear, he goes out with his armor-bearer and carries out the signs according to his and David's devised plan. He warns David that his father truly means to kill him. Afterwards, Jonathan releases his young armor-bearer, and sends him back into the city. Shhh... I have to whisper something in your ear, so you have to come a little closer for this... " As soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of the place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times; and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded" (1 Samuel 20:41). Wah Lawd! Hammercy on my soul! Do I really have to tell you what "exceeded" means? Really? Do I? Okay... The Hebrew word translated as "exceeded" is Gadal. It simply means "to grow, to enlarge, or become great; to promote, or to make powerful." Now I know that some of you will try to argue that what that means is that Jonathan, who is later killed in battle, diminishes in status and power and David who we know becomes King, "grows" in status, power and greatness... NOT... Saul, the King was still alive and, so was Jonathan, the heir to the throne, thus the reverence David pays to him every time they meet by bowing his head to the ground three times. No Dearheart, at this particular moment, in this particular context, the Hebrew translation of "exceeded," Gadal is .... Yes, a fully "grown," "enlarged," erection! Realizing this was the end of their love affair, Jonathan and David embraced, cried all over each other, kissed all over each other until they got all "swolt" up with and for one another and then had a "great" time before parting ways.... Shhh... Don't tell nobody I told you that.

If you read the rest of the story, you will learn that Jonathan and Saul both perish in battle and upon hearing of their deaths, David laments and sings for his lost love, "How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! O Jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places, I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant has thou been unto me: Thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women" (2 Samuel 1:25, 26). Umph... Whoop dere it is. Thank you King David for clearing that up for us. Oh yeah, one more thing - remember that promise/covenant made between Jonathan and David regarding their offspring? David honors it in 2 Samuel 9:1-13... Okay, that's it, I'm tired, and admittedly after this, I'm feeling a little frisky myself, so I'm gonna close this thing down.

But, if by this I have grieved you, forgive me and let not thine heart be troubled by what thy maidservant speaketh, for it is the Word of the Lord thou spake thence in thine hearing. In other words, don't be mad at me; it's in the book!

© Dorinda G. Henry, 2010

THEOLOGIA HABITUS EST!

"The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name"

Jonathan and David - Part I- An Introduction
1 Samuel 18:1-4; 19: 1-7; 20: 30, 41, 42; 2 Samuel 1:23, 26, 27

"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 [David] 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" (NRSV 1 Samuel 18: 1-4).

*I recommend that you read all of 1 Samuel, chapters 18-21... I'm just saying....

TWO LOVES
by
Lord Alfred Douglas, 1894

I dreamed I stood upon a little hill,
And at my feet there lay a ground, that seemed
Like a waste garden, flowering at its will
With buds and blossoms. There were pools that dreamed
Black and unruffled; there were white lilies
A few, and crocuses, and violets
Purple or pale, snake-like fritillaries
Scarce seen for the rank grass, and through green nets
Blue eyes of shy peryenche winked in the sun.
And there were curious flowers, before unknown,
Flowers that were stained with moonlight, or with shades
Of Nature's wilful moods; and here a one
That had drunk in the transitory tone
Of one brief moment in a sunset; blades
Of grass that in an hundred springs had been
Slowly but exquisitely nurtured by the stars,
And watered with the scented dew long cupped
In lilies, that for rays of sun had seen
Only God's glory, for never a sunrise mars
The luminous air of Heaven. Beyond, abrupt,
A grey stone wall, o'ergrown with velvet moss
Uprose; and gazing I stood long, all mazed
To see a place so strange, so sweet, so fair.
And as I stood and marvelled, lo! across
The garden came a youth; one hand he raised
To shield him from the sun, his wind-tossed hair
Was twined with flowers, and in his hand he bore
A purple bunch of bursting grapes, his eyes
Were clear as crystal, naked all was he,
White as the snow on pathless mountains frore,
Red were his lips as red wine-spilith that dyes
A marble floor, his brow chalcedony.
And he came near me, with his lips uncurled
And kind, and caught my hand and kissed my mouth,
And gave me grapes to eat, and said, 'Sweet friend,
Come I will show thee shadows of the world
And images of life. See from the South
Comes the pale pageant that hath never an end.'
And lo! within the garden of my dream
I saw two walking on a shining plain
Of golden light. The one did joyous seem
And fair and blooming, and a sweet refrain
Came from his lips; he sang of pretty maids
And joyous love of comely girl and boy,
His eyes were bright, and 'mid the dancing blades
Of golden grass his feet did trip for joy;
And in his hand he held an ivory lute
With strings of gold that were as maidens' hair,
And sang with voice as tuneful as a flute,
And round his neck three chains of roses were.
But he that was his comrade walked aside;
He was full sad and sweet, and his large eyes
Were strange with wondrous brightness, staring wide
With gazing; and he sighed with many sighs
That moved me, and his cheeks were wan and white
Like pallid lilies, and his lips were red
Like poppies, and his hands he clenched tight,
And yet again unclenched, and his head
Was wreathed with moon-flowers pale as lips of death.
A purple robe he wore, o'erwrought in gold
With the device of a great snake, whose breath
Was fiery flame: which when I did behold
I fell a-weeping, and I cried, 'Sweet youth,
Tell me why, sad and sighing, thou dost rove
These pleasant realms? I pray thee speak me sooth
What is thy name?' He said, 'My name is Love.'
Then straight the first did turn himself to me
And cried, 'He lieth, for his name is Shame,
But I am Love, and I was wont to be
Alone in this fair garden, till he came
Unasked by night; I am true Love, I fill
The hearts of boy and girl with mutual flame.'
Then sighing, said the other, 'Have thy will,
I am the Love that dare not speak its name.'

Wah Lawd! Yes indeed child! Ya might wanna get your King James out for this... See ya next week!
© Dorinda G. Henry, 2010

THEOLOGIA HABITUS EST!