• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[MBTI General] David and Jonathan � "He loved him as his own soul."

KLessard

Aspiring Troens Ridder
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
595
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
1w2
I would like to start a thread about something that’s been on my mind for a long time as an Idealist; as far as childhood, actually. I don’t know if any of you are familiar with the Old Testament story of David and Goliath, and how David became a very dear friend of the king's son Jonathan. I like the description we have of their meeting:

"And it came to pass, when [David] had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul."
(1 Samuel 18:1)

Having read the Old Testament many, many times, I don’t think it would be extravagant to say Jonathan is INFJ and David NFP. This would be a very special case of idealist-idealist soul-to-soul friendship. We see later that the friendship was truly mutual when Jonathan is killed in battle and David writes a lament about it:

"I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." (2 Samuel 1:26)

I have sometimes read that Jonathan and David were homosexuals, but I believe we are dealing with idealistic soul-mating here. As David himself describes it, it was a connection "passing the love of women," in other words, a love beyond Eros.
This deep friendship has nothing to do with Eros. I remember reading in Keirsey’s Please Understand Me that idealists will sometimes value friendship above romance and seek it rather than romance.
It is definitely true for me, and also for an ENFP friend of mine who could care less about romance as well. We both have tried to understand this.
How insulted I was when my ESTJ mother would misunderstand me and suspect I was a lesbian because I cared very much about a female friend, sometimes. It has nothing to do with Eros for me! Do you know what I mean? What are your experiences with this?

If idealists seek mating that is soul-to-soul, this can happen with anybody. A child, a husband, a friend, a teacher, no?
 

Laurie

Was E.laur
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
6,072
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7w6
I've always thought it was a very interesting friendship. I agree that "homosexual love" wouldn't encompass what they were discussing. It was a soulmate kind of love.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,192
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I've always thought it was a very interesting friendship. I agree that "homosexual love" wouldn't encompass what they were discussing. It was a soulmate kind of love.

That was my take too. I usually feel like the homosexual issue comes up when people seek to validate their own sexuality within Biblical history, but I don't think this relationship is indicating that style of support.

One note: They were not of the same generation. Study the history in the Bible and you'll see Jonathan fighting battles twenty years before David came around. It was like a connection between a 20 and 40 year old in terms of age. Jonathan was also the youngest of the three brothers but I suppose still in line to the kingship; it said something, I think, for him to support David's claim to the throne against that of his brothers and father.


Tangent: I always saw David as INFJ. He had a very very severe sense of right and wrong (I can't imagine an INFP male saying "Let me tackle the 8' tall giant because he has defamed God!", the INFP would waver back and forth at that age and not want to hurt anyone typically even if he was offended... David even at THAT age was ruthless, severe, and aggressive.) Even later in life, he had sharp opinions and took action based on them. This has been fairly typical of INFJ guys I have known; but not typical INFP, who interacts primarily with world through Ne.

Not that it matters what they were... just a note, in case it ties in with any other ideas the OP might have.
 

KLessard

Aspiring Troens Ridder
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
595
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
1w2
Tangent: I always saw David as INFJ. He had a very very severe sense of right and wrong (I can't imagine an INFP male saying "Let me tackle the 8' tall giant because he has defamed God!", the INFP would waver back and forth at that age and not want to hurt anyone typically even if he was offended... David even at THAT age was ruthless, severe, and aggressive.) Even later in life, he had sharp opinions and took action based on them. This has been fairly typical of INFJ guys I have known; but not typical INFP, who interacts primarily with world through Ne.

Not that it matters what they were... just a note, in case it ties in with any other ideas the OP might have.

The reason I saw him as NFP (I thought his boldness perhaps linked to E) was how he is so attuned to his inner feelings (Fi) and claiming in the psalms that he always speaks accordingly to the truth found in his heart (or something to that effect). I see a lot in common with Joan of Arc who is typically INFP.

As for David the poet and songwriter, I also see something of the lyrical NFP. I might be wrong. As INFJ, I don't relate to David that much. More to Jonathan.
How do you see Jonathan, then?
 

Seymour

Vaguely Precise
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
1,579
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I think it's usually a mistake to judge biblical relationships by modern standards. Remember that even marriages, for example, were mostly about property rights at the time. The women were very literally property of their husbands (or fathers or nearest male relative). They had no rights to own property themselves, and were mostly treated as highly prized possessions. When some talk of "traditional marriages" "like in the Bible" I sometimes wonder if they realize how wildly that could be interpreted.

I think we make a similar mistake when we treat other biblical relationships as a modern day gay relationship. There doesn't appear to have been any conception of a modern day, egalitarian gay relationship model at the time. So, while I think it's fine to play "what if" games, I think what was going on in David's and Jonathan's relationship is pretty opaque. Just as well to take it at face value.

I think it also pays to keep in mind that as recently as Abraham Lincoln's day, two men sharing a bed wasn't thought to mean anything in particular. Beds were expensive, and men weren't as paranoid about physical contact.

I think one irony about gay people being more visible is that it seems to have had a negative effect on male intimacy in general. Straight men today seem very paranoid about non-sexual emotional and physical intimacy with another man being interpreted as gay. I think that's too bad, because men in general don't built the kind of emotional support networks that women do.

(Sorry to go off on tangents, but I think it's an interesting topic.)
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,192
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
The reason I saw him as NFP (I thought his boldness perhaps linked to E) was how he is so attuned to his inner feelings and claiming in the psalms that he acts accordingly to the truth found in his heart (or something to that effect). I see a lot in common with Joan of Arc who is typically INFP.

It's okay, I see her as INFJ as well. ;)

Inner vision is far more Ni; the external is constrained and focused (Je function, NOT a Pe function), the inner sees a blinding vision of What Should Be.

Both were young (she died by age 20), so I don't see it as a matter of becoming more well-rounded.

As a poet and songwriter, I also see something of the NFP in David. I might be wrong. As INFJ, I don't relate to David that much. More to Jonathan.
How do you see Jonathan, then?

As an INP I identified with David a lot growing up, in terms of the Psalms he wrote... but not with his insanely obstinate judgment of others resulting in actually trying to hurt and kill them.

(Examine the Psalms and you'll see some pretty horrendous stuff that David said. I can identify with the "nice stuff" and self-agony but NOT with the "Murder their children, let their wives be barren, make them burn in the pits of hell forever, bring plagues on them" ... I mean, he just said and really meant some very dreadful things, David had a RUTHLESS sense of vengeance on those who would stand against him. INFPs do not do this; INFJs do pretty easily though; vengeance against one's enemies is not atypical.)

As far as Jonathan goes, I really don't know. He's not as well defined to me.
If I had to guess totally off the wall, I would pick ISFP, but that's purely a "feel" thing and I have little to back it up... except just his tangible gentleness with David and otherwise inability to really be very self-directed.
 

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Hmm, I could see David as an NFP. There's something very passionate in his feeling that says Fi to me. I agree with the OP about the interpretation of David and Jonathan's relationship.

Tangent: I always saw David as INFJ. He had a very very severe sense of right and wrong (I can't imagine an INFP male saying "Let me tackle the 8' tall giant because he has defamed God!", the INFP would waver back and forth at that age and not want to hurt anyone typically even if he was offended... David even at THAT age was ruthless, severe, and aggressive.)

INFPs take action when something hits a value bomb. We may be timid in our personal matters, but conflicts which involve our ideals can meet with quite a force.

Jung said:
It may, perhaps, break out in some extravagant form, leading to some astounding act of an almost heroic character

In context, this refers to an intensive "sympathy" a Fi-dom may feel, and how it can come out in a seemingly unrelated way to what stirred it, but I think it's fair to say this line is the basis for statements like this in INFP profiles:

INFPs are flexible and laid-back, until one of their values is violated. In the face of their value system being threatened, INFPs can become aggressive defenders, fighting passionately for their cause.


I think it's usually a mistake to judge biblical relationships by modern standards. Remember that even marriages, for example, were mostly about property rights at the time. The women were very literally property of their husbands (or fathers or nearest male relative). They had no rights to own property themselves, and were mostly treated as highly prized possessions. When some talk of "traditional marriages" "like in the Bible" I sometimes wonder if they realize how wildly that could be interpreted.

The capable wife described in the Psalms bought and managed land with her own money. She also dealt directly with merchants selling things she had made. It seems clear she was not just property of a husband. The "ideal" capable wife described in those verses is a very intelligent, industrious women with a lot of authority in her home and power over her own life.

Her legal rights to the land is debatable, but that has more to do with customs of the time than what is considered correct by God's standards, which can be yielding in view of human imperfection.
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
Tangent: I always saw David as INFJ.

Heh, I always saw him this way too. Some of his psalms look like he is working through his revenge feelings to me. At the beginning he says stuff like, "let them die like dogs". But by the end of the psalm everything is good and he's happy again. ;)
 

Seymour

Vaguely Precise
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
1,579
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
The capable wife described in the Psalms bought and managed land with her own money. She also dealt directly with merchants selling things she had made. It seems clear she was not just property of a husband. The "ideal" capable wife described in those verses is a very intelligent, industrious women with a lot of authority in her home and power over her own life.

Her legal rights to the land is debatable, but that has more to do with customs of the time than what is considered correct by God's standards, which can be yielding in view of human imperfection.

(Odd day... talking about bible verses and deviant sex practices in the same day.)

You mean in Proverbs 31? I think a reader of the time would assume that any authority she was granted was allowed her by her husband. I do admit it sounds like she was engaging in economic transactions (as a trusted servant would). It does say "she looketh well to the ways of her household," and earlier says "her husband is known at the gates..." which makes it sound like the results of her virtue accrue to his reputation. I suspect that the closing verse, "Give her the fruit of her hands, and let her own work praise her at the gates" was noteworthy because unlike the rest of the passage, it implies giving her personal credit for all her good works. I suspect this would be seen as unusual for the culture and a sign of God's special favor (and perhaps her husband's progressiveness).

While the Old Testament covers a broad historical period, it's pretty clear in other places that women are normally property. For example in Exodus: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." The writer is listing possession in order of value. Or Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do." A man was allowed to sell his daughter as a slave, and women weren't subject to the 6 year limitation of slavery.

Exodus 21:22-25... if a man hits a pregnant wife leading to miscarriage, he has to pay her husband, she gets nothing. Numbers 27:8-11: the only case where women are allowed to inherent property is if there are no male descendants.

Or Deuteronomy 22:28-29: raped virgin woman must marry her attacker, and he has to pay her father. Again, property has been used in a such a way that it is no value to another, so restitution must be made.

All of that isn't to say that people weren't people then, or that women weren't capable and intelligent. Just that the whole assumption of marriage being a relationship primary of equality was missing then.

I find it an interesting parallel to questions of whether various historical figures were "really gay." Whether the person engaged in homosexual acts, the meaning to their self-identity and the power dynamics in the relationship would likely be extremely foreign to people today.

Addendum: I do think some things have been lost in modern times by ascribing the romance of friendship between same sex people to "homosexual impulses." Friendships can involve non-sexual, friendly infatuation of a kind, but it isn't necessarily eros. I would say that David's and Jonathan's relationship could be a deep, non-sexual friendship, and there isn't anything necessarily gay about it.
 

lane777

nevermore
Joined
Oct 23, 2008
Messages
635
Me and my ESFJ friend have this kind of relationship. Interesting you suggest that Jonathon is an INFJ, since I recently told this ESFJ that I'm her Jonathon and she's my David. Yeah, we had a moment :D
 

Kristiana

New member
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
326
MBTI Type
INTJ
I would like to start a thread about something that’s been on my mind for a long time as an Idealist; as far as childhood, actually. I don’t know if any of you are familiar with the Old Testament story of David and Goliath, and how David became a very dear friend of the king's son Jonathan. I like the description we have of their meeting:

"And it came to pass, when [David] had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul."
(1 Samuel 18:1)

Having read the Old Testament many, many times, I don’t think it would be extravagant to say Jonathan is INFJ and David NFP. This would be a very special case of idealist-idealist soul-to-soul friendship. We see later that the friendship was truly mutual when Jonathan is killed in battle and David writes a lament about it:

"I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." (2 Samuel 1:26)

I have sometimes read that Jonathan and David were homosexuals, but I believe we are dealing with idealistic soul-mating here. As David himself describes it, it was a connection "passing the love of women," in other words, a love beyond Eros.
This deep friendship has nothing to do with Eros. I remember reading in Keirsey’s Please Understand Me that idealists will sometimes value friendship above romance and seek it rather than romance.
It is definitely true for me, and also for an ENFP friend of mine who could care less about romance as well. We both have tried to understand this.
How insulted I was when my ESTJ mother would misunderstand me and suspect I was a lesbian because I cared very much about a female friend, sometimes. It has nothing to do with Eros for me! Do you know what I mean? What are your experiences with this?

If idealists seek mating that is soul-to-soul, this can happen with anybody. A child, a husband, a friend, a teacher, no?

I love this thread. :D

My husband and I have two cats that we named David and Jonathan, because they loved each other so much that everyone at the cat shelter wanted them to go to the same home. :)

We named our red tabby David because upon meeting them both, we could see he was more extroverted than our Siamese mix, Jonathan. We figured that David in the Bible was more E than Jonathan, so that was our reasoning. We think that our David is ENxP and our Jonathan is INTJ (yes, I know that MBTI-ing your pets isn't exactly the most accurate, but so what? it's fun!).

Our David and Jonathan are both neutered (and our other lovely kitty, Amanda, is spayed), so they do not have any Eros for anyone. ;)
 

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
(Odd day... talking about bible verses and deviant sex practices in the same day.)

You mean in Proverbs 31? I think a reader of the time would assume that any authority she was granted was allowed her by her husband. I do admit it sounds like she was engaging in economic transactions (as a trusted servant would). It does say "she looketh well to the ways of her household," and earlier says "her husband is known at the gates..." which makes it sound like the results of her virtue accrue to his reputation. I suspect that the closing verse, "Give her the fruit of her hands, and let her own work praise her at the gates" was noteworthy because unlike the rest of the passage, it implies giving her personal credit for all her good works. I suspect this would be seen as unusual for the culture and a sign of God's special favor (and perhaps her husband's progressiveness).

While the Old Testament covers a broad historical period, it's pretty clear in other places that women are normally property. For example in Exodus: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." The writer is listing possession in order of value. Or Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do." A man was allowed to sell his daughter as a slave, and women weren't subject to the 6 year limitation of slavery.

Exodus 21:22-25... if a man hits a pregnant wife leading to miscarriage, he has to pay her husband, she gets nothing. Numbers 27:8-11: the only case where women are allowed to inherent property is if there are no male descendants.

Or Deuteronomy 22:28-29: raped virgin woman must marry her attacker, and he has to pay her father. Again, property has been used in a such a way that it is no value to another, so restitution must be made.

All of that isn't to say that people weren't people then, or that women weren't capable and intelligent. Just that the whole assumption of marriage being a relationship primary of equality was missing then.

You're adding some personal interpretation there & taking things out of context, and you missed my point in saying God was yielding in his standards (which I could find numerous texts for, but that's hi-jacking the thread further). The Mosaic law is very much a regulating of a culture and it's existing standards. It did not correct all views and practices, hence, the principles behind them are what is to be considered. The main principle is that women were to be valued and cared for in a time when they were viewed as property by most cultures in the world.

Anyway, I don't like to discuss the bible or religion online for the very reason that so much gets taken out of context and it's exhausting to go back & forth and have to quote stuff.

He posts now? That's AWESOME!

:D

I can't take credit for quoting Psychological Types that way...another user did so after I had posted some excerpts from it in the "Fi 101" thread.
 

Seymour

Vaguely Precise
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
1,579
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
You're adding some personal interpretation there & taking things out of context, and you missed my point in saying God was yielding in his standards (which I could find numerous texts for, but that's hi-jacking the thread further). The Mosaic law is very much a regulating of a culture and it's existing standards. It did not correct all views and practices, hence, the principles behind them are what is to be considered. The main principle is that women were to be valued and cared for in a time when they were viewed as property by most cultures in the world.

I agree that women should be valued and cared for, and it's not anti-Biblical to claim so. (Plus, I think they should be allowed to care for themselves.) I also think that some things (like the end of that Psalm) were actively subversive to the view of women as property. Also, Jesus's anti-divorce stance is entirely consistent with such a view, since divorce at the time left the wife destitute and the husband with all his property intact.

Anyway, I don't like to discuss the bible or religion online for the very reason that so much gets taken out of context and it's exhausting to go back & forth and have to quote stuff.
:hug:

No problem. I do value your opinions on things, and I agree all the quoting is exhausting. Certainly taking things from the Bible out of context is an ongoing problem in any discussion involving Christianity. I apologize if I was being unfair.
 

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I agree that women should be valued and cared for, and it's not anti-Biblical to claim so. (Plus, I think they should be allowed to care for themselves.) I also think that some things (like the end of that Psalm) were actively subversive to the view of women as property. Also, Jesus's anti-divorce stance is entirely consistent with such a view, since divorce at the time left the wife destitute and the husband with all his property intact.


:hug:

No problem. I do value your opinions on things, and I agree all the quoting is exhausting. Certainly taking things from the Bible out of context is an ongoing problem in any discussion involving Christianity. I apologize if I was being unfair.

It's all good...I ventured to discuss it this much because everyone is being very polite about it (including you :hug:). Of course, this IS the NF forum :D
 

Lacey

New member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
392
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I remember reading in Keirsey’s Please Understand Me that idealists will sometimes value friendship above romance and seek it rather than romance. It is definitely true for me, and also for an ENFP friend of mine who could care less about romance as well. We both have tried to understand this.

I never really thought about it, but I'm this way too. It's not that I don't care about romance, but I just think friendship is better all around. I have a hard time explaining why, though. It's just that I see the majority of romantic relationships being selfish and shallow. Most friendships aren't.

I always hope that if I do get into a romantic relationship, I can be that guy's friend first...no matter how foolish/naive that sounds. I've just always held the opinion that, if people treated their romantic relationships a little more like friendships in some ways...love wouldn't have such a bad name. (Yeah, this is me being completely idealistic and in my head about it. This concept probably doesn't work in the real world.)
How insulted I was when my ESTJ mother would misunderstand me and suspect I was a lesbian because I cared very much about a female friend, sometimes. It has nothing to do with Eros for me! Do you know what I mean? What are your experiences with this?
I have a friend I love very much. She's on of the few soulmates I have here on this earth. I've actually told her something along the lines of: "Too bad I couldn't find the male version of you, too. Then I'd be all set." She thought it was funny, and understood completely.

I don't think I'd go around telling other people this story, because it would definitely be misinterpreted. :rolli: It sometimes irritates me that a lot of people only use the word/concept "soulmate" for romantic relationships.

Some connections between friends can be even stronger than romantic ones. Some guy would have to be really special to be a better soulmate than my friend. She's set the bar pretty high. haha
 

KLessard

Aspiring Troens Ridder
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
595
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
1w2
I always hope that if I do get into a romantic relationship, I can be that guy's friend first...no matter how foolish/naive that sounds. I've just always held the opinion that, if people treated their romantic relationships a little more like friendships in some ways...love wouldn't have such a bad name. (Yeah, this is me being completely idealistic and in my head about it. This concept probably doesn't work in the real world.)

:) Glad to read this!

I keep having this strange experience with male friends. Whenever I have strong feelings for one, the moment I feel a good friendship is established, I feel satisfied.

One of the most successful marriages I ever saw was the one between my INTJ best friend and her ESFP husband. They were friends at Bible school for 5 years before they were married, and their relationship is beautiful and very honest.
 

benjamindavids

New member
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
13
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Book?

I found this thread while doing some googling on Jonathan and David. I had a friend years ago--we were 14 and 15--and we bonded as soul mates like David and Jonathan. Unfortunately, his parents, and the church we were attending thought we were homosexuals and it ended up being a huge fiasco. I was really hurt and eventually had to leave the church. To this day my friend and I don't talk.

Anyways, I think anything can be sexualized, but things don't have to be. My friend and I were not gay, we just connected. I'd like to write a book about how we've lost a lot of positive same-sex affection in our culture because of our tendency to sexually pressurize everything.

I'm not exactly sure how to write the book--whether to focus on my experience, to turn it into a novel, to gather other people's stories, to write it topically... Any suggestions?
 

tortoise

New member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
161
MBTI Type
ENFP
If idealists seek mating that is soul-to-soul, this can happen with anybody. A child, a husband, a friend, a teacher, no?

Yes, I've had these soul-friendships and there's been absolutely no erotic aspect at all.

My closest friend is a guy from another country and there's a slight language problem but somehow that doesn't seem to be a real problem. We can just look at each other in a situation and both laugh like crazy because we've both seen it from the same humorous angle, without even saying anything. This happens a lot. People watch us laughing our heads of and see our closeness and have thought we were gay!

I also have a strong bond with his 10-yr old daughter. It's the humour thing as well, and we're very affectionate with each other. There's absolutely no creepy weird paedo thing going on at all but we just seem to connect at an instinctive level.

I've also had the same thing with a woman 30 years older than me. Again, very strong bond for a while (although our lives went in different directions) but with zero sexual aspect.

I live for these deep bonds and they're more important to me than erotic relationships. I would only want a sexual relationship with a woman who I can have the soul-friendship with.
 
Top