Bisexual King David

[ElizaMcharty]

I wanted to talk about something which I have seen very little debate or awareness of in the Christian community, and that is the question of King David's sexuality. Bear with me as I build my case -- I'll work my way chronologically, and at the beginning the evidence is circumstantial, but it builds to harder and harder evidence toward the end.

We start our tale with Jonathon, the son of King Saul, the prince who is heir to the throne. Saul is waging war, and has forbidden his soldiers to eat until sun down. Jonathon has not heard this declaration, and after having won a battle in the name of the Lord he finds honey in the woods, and retrieves the honeycomb from the ground. It says “he dipped the end of the rod in his hand into a honeycomb and put it to his mouth, and his eyes brightened.”14:27. Jonathon eats forbidden honey off the end of a rod… paging Dr. Freud, anyone? The manner in which Jonathon eats this honey only becomes significant later on in hindsight, since it is certainly a miniscule detail. Yet biblical writers rarely write in terms of miniscule detail, and when they do so we may generally assume that it’s because they are of importance to the writer. In addition, when attempting to envision the mechanics of this act one quickly finds it is surprisingly unwieldy and awkward to eat the honey in this manner; and yet he does. It does not seem coincidental that in other translations of this text, for example the NIV version, Jonathon is depicted as using the rod to retrieve the honey, putting the honey into his hand, and proceeding to eat it thus. This gets rid of the potential phallic implications that traditionalists would find so disconcerting.

After Jonathon sees David for the first time, before they have even spoken or gotten to know each other, in chapter 18 we have Jonathon “lov[ing] David as his own life”, and we find “the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David.” (18:1). This smacks of love at first sight, considering Jonathon knows nothing of David, who is described as very beautiful. The phrase “loved David as his own life” will be repeated three times pertaining to this relationship (18:1, 18:3, 20:17). Then there will be additional references to their mutual love for one another and other assorted words of tenderness in such phrases as “Jonathon… delighted much in David” 19:2; when speaking to Jonathon David says “I have found favor in your eyes” 20:3; Jonathan vows “Whatever you desire, I will do for you.” 20:4; their vows together are forged in their love for one another in 19:17 “And Jonathan caused David to swear again by his love for him…”; and Jonathan pledges to be by David’s side always once he is king with the words “You shall be king over Israel, and I shall be next to you.” 23:17. Again and again they renew and refer to an emotional covenant between them (18:3, 20:16, 20:17, 20:23; 20:42, 23:18)

Then of course there is the incident in 18:4 which “Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, and his armor, even his sword, his bow, and his girdle.” This holds two-fold significance: Jonathan is giving up his kingship for his love, and of course the fact that one man is undressing before another, in honor of another. This is not the first of his sacrifices, because he also publicly champions David, risking his life when his father tries to skewer him (20:33.) It is understandable that he gave his instruments of war to David, because these signified the transfer of kingship. But there was no need to remove all of his clothing, including his robe and girdle -- these items bore no significance.

When David is forced to flee into exile, Jonathon is the one to warn him and send him away (after nearly being murdered by his father for daring to stick up for David in public.) But before David leaves, witness this tender exchange: "...David arose from beside the heap of stones and fell on his face to the ground and bowed himself three times. And they kissed one another and wept with one another until David got control of himself. And Jonathon told David, Goin peace, forasmuch as we have swon to each other in the name of the Lord, saying, The Lord shall be between me and you, and between my descendants and yours forever." When David is in exile, Jonathon sneaks out to meet him. At that time they renew their covenant, Jonathon "strengthens his hand in the Lord", and reassures David that he will be king, and when he is, Jonathon says, "I shall be next to you."

This promise is not to be. Jonathon is killed in battle, along with Saul. When David hears, he rips his clothes. Now, we might be able to overlook all of these things -- the kisses, the "love", the weeping, the holding each other, the vows of eternal devotion, the huge personal risks and sacrifices made, the promise to spend their lives together and to intermingle their families, the stripping off of clothing -- saying that Jonathan and David were from less homophobic times in which it was possible to have a deep, meaningful, intimate relationship between two hetrosexual men similar to the kind of close platonic friendships women are allowed in our society to have. This assertion might even be probable except for the last and most important piece of evidence.

The newly crowned King David writes a song, and demands that all
of his subjects learn it in honor of Saul and Jonathon. It's called the Lament of the Bow: “I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me. Your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.” II Sam. 1:26.

There was only one kind of love of women: sexual/romantic love. There was no platonic love of women, the closest thing to a platonic relationship in Old Testament is found between Elijah and a married woman, but in this instance the relationship is more like a quid-pro-quo, prophet/benefactor situation, for they do not spend any time in conversation indicating a friendship.

Finally, reread that section from Lament of the Bow. Some may grasp onto "brother" and say "Ah ha, proof that this is only brotherly love!" Except we can see in Song of Songs that someone that you either cared about or were in love with was always called your sibling, as a term of endearment; the male calls the female "my sister, my bride", as is customary. Now, reread that verse one last time... David's first wife's name was Ahinoam. Ahinoam means "brother of plesantness." A woman... named "brother of pleasantness"... that David married... presumably slept with... and then commissioned a song, saying that the love of David's "brother" was "pleasant", more than the love of women. It's of interest that David adopted Jonathon's crippled son, keeping his covenant with Jonathon. Also of interest is the fact that Michal, the sister of Jonathon, was the estranged wife of David. Please note I'm suggesting that David was a bisexual, not a homosexual -- there can be no argument that he was attracted to women as well. But not, it would appear, as much as he was to Jonathon.

It must be acknowledged that there is no proof this relationship was ever consummated. But in terms of proof of romantic love, we could not ask for any more.

Enjoy tearing into that one.

 

[Mling]

Yesterday, I read bits of David's lament in Hebrew, and the words translated as "beloved" have no sexual connotation. They all mean "lovely, pleasant or agreeable."

Also, I don't think it's unreasonble to tell a best friend "I love you more than I love my wife," and still be refering to platonic love (of the friend).

Edit: I think I missed the last paragraph in your post. I've never noticed that before--the "brother of pleasantness" connection. I'll have to check that out. That's pretty cool!

Despite that, yes, I do think that David and Johnathon had a romantic relationship. You left out the most persuasive evidence, though. There is an awkward statement in the passage where Saul is offering David his younger daughter (1 Samuel 18:21.) The phrase "by two," in Hebrew, has to work itself in there, somewhere.

I've seen it translated a couple of ways; the two English Bibles I have in front of my now say "And Saul said to David a second time." The problem with that is that Hebrew includes little markings to seperate phrases in a verse, and one appears over the word David. So the statement goes, "And Saul said to David// bishamayim..." the word goes with the next statement "You shall now be my son-in-law."

I've seen some Bibles translate it "You shall be my son-in-law in one of the pair," referring to the two daughters, meaning "if you can't marry the first one, here have the other." "One of" doesn't appear there either, though, and there is no indication that it should.

Literally, it says, "And Saul said to David, by two you shall be my son-in-law."

By which two? David refused the only other daughter. Now granted, that interpretation has some problems, too. David is repeatedly denying that he could be the son in law to a king, just on general principle. However, this is meant to be a trap for David anyway. It could be that Saul is trying to be extra nice by openly recognizing David and Johnathon's relationship, both just to be nice and put David more at ease, and to try to make it seem like less of an ordeal by suggesting that nothing will change. Sort of saying, "I know you're already my son in law, but let's just make it official," by offering a marriage that will have legal standing. Of course, by now Saul has tried to kill David at least once. It is usually attributed to insanity, but I have a couple of gay friends who's family members have tried to kill them or their lovers.

I don't put a lot of stock in the "stripping" scene (though his handing over his royal and warrior regalia is interesting to say the least), because I'm pretty sure he would have been wearing a tunic under the robe.

Another statement I find very telling, you touched on part of it: "When David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathon was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathon loved him as his own soul. Saul took him that day and would not let him reutrn to his father's house. Then Jonathon made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul."

Put that passage next to Genesis 2:24:

"Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh."

The passage in Genesis is meant to describe a marriage:

Seperation from birth family
Join with spouse
Become one.

The emphasis in the Samuel passage is placed on David not returning to his family, making a covenant, and David and Jonathon becoming one. I think it is very clear what the writer was trying to suggest, even if it would not have been culturally acceptable to say it blatently (maybe not even possible to say it blatently. They easily might not have had the words.)
The Hebrew words used for "cling" or "cleave" in Genesis, and "knit" or "bound" in Samuel are, annoyingly, not the same word. They have the same meaning, though--to stick two things together and join them. I don't have the background to be able to tell if they have the same connotation or not.

 

[DailyBlessings]

My take:

Jonathan + David = Gilgamesh + Enkidu


The relationship between these men, though possibly sexual in the first case and quite definitely so in the second, reflects an ideal held by a now exctinct society, and does not fit into our heavily oversimplified boundaries.

 

[Foon Nerfdahl]

I don't doubt for a second that David's Mighty Men grew mighty close while hiding out in caves together for a few years.

They may have enjoyed the experience immensely.

 

[artybloke]

My take:

Jonathan + David = Gilgamesh + Enkidu


The relationship between these men, though possibly sexual in the first case and quite definitely so in the second, reflects an ideal held by a now exctinct society, and does not fit into our heavily oversimplified boundaries.

I think you're probably onto something here; and I think it's good as a general principle to remember that we never come to any Biblical passage without almost automatically imposing our own way of thinking on it.

 

[DaveS]

Hmm you may want to take it to the Christian only section of the forums as generally you will find the 'converted' here who have already considered David and Jonathan. There is (yet another) homosexuality debate in I think Philosophy and Ethics in which this particular issue was being discussed earlier:

http://www.christianforums.com/t3113513-homosexuality.html
(11 pages and counting)

 

[Vegas]

This reminds me of the Abe Lincoln stories of the man he shared a bed with in New Salem during his early lawyer years. This was pointed to by Gays as proof that Lincoln was homosexual... when in truth it is clear from ALL the records of Lincoln's life and other contemporary accounts of life in 1800's that this was common and harmless behavior, with NO sexual connotations at all.

 

[Mling]

That wasn't only about the bed-sharing. Whether it's true or not (who can really know?), there was a bit more to it than that. The statement by the General (the guy he shared his bed with) that he had the most beautifully sculpted thighs in creation. That, even though it was common behavior, apparently his own servants found it noteworthy, suggesting that something in the particulars was uncommon.

 

[seebs]

I'm trying to think why I care who or what David slept with, and coming up empty.

 

[Im_A]

I'm trying to think why I care who or what David slept with, and coming up empty.

(i already tried to give you reps on another thread, so this will have to due.)

 

[armyman_83]

I don't doubt for a second that David's Mighty Men grew mighty close while hiding out in caves together for a few years.

They may have enjoyed the experience immensely.

Now I know why they call this the Liberal Theology thread...

 

[WhoeverLovesGod01]

Your "phallic implications" are lame.

 

[armyman_83]

If David were bisexual, I doubt that he could have been a man after God's own heart.

Unless of course you think God is ok with bisexuality, in which case that is a whole other area of conflict.

 

[seebs]

If David were bisexual, I doubt that he could have been a man after God's own heart.

Unless of course you think God is ok with bisexuality, in which case that is a whole other area of conflict.

Formally speaking, this would be "begging the question".

We may learn about what God finds acceptable by examining the tales in the Bible of people who are described as particularly pleasing to God.

For instance, in David's case, we find that polygamy is not only acceptible to God, but actively supported; on the other hand, we find that lusting after another man's wife is absolutely unacceptable, even if you're otherwise a good man.

The question of how David and Jonathan related is not entirely trivial to answer. While it is not explicitly stated that their relationship was physically sexual, nor is it explicitly denied, and many of the statements made about them are the sort that I would take as obvious evidence of a romantic relationship in the case of any other alleged couple.

Since the argument being advanced is presumably that David's alleged bisexuality is evidence that God can approve of men having sex with other men, to assert that this is false because God doesn't approve of such a thing is formally begging the question; it is making a counterargument based on assuming the conclusion (or negation of the conclusion, in this case) of the argument being discussed.

Our problems developing a theology that explains David's romantic life without inconveniencing our modern social norms, it turns out, run a lot deeper than the question of whether he was doing Jonathan; even if we assume he only had sex with his wives, he nonetheless had wives, plural, which we now find culturally unacceptible.

Personally, I am not at all convinced that the social standards of the Hebrews are a good guide to God's view of sexual morality. I do not believe that, after you have killed a woman's husband, it is morally right to declare her your wife by force of conquest, and to (after giving her a month or two to mourn her entire family, whom you just killed) regard sexual activity with her as your right, which she may not contest. This was, however, the exact moral standard the Hebrews applied to women taken in war (in most cases).

Thus my disinterest in the question. Whether David had a gay relationship or not, or how many wives he had, or whether all of them were willing or not, reflects more on Hebrew social constructs, I think, than on God's moral views. God is patient beyond our comprehension with the systematic moral abuses of His people. To say that a man is a man after God's own heart may in some cases mean merely that he is substantially less vile than the people immediately surrounding him!

But even in this we may take some comfort; after the parade of philanderers and murderers God has taken for His own, we may perhaps hope that God will find something in us to love as well.

Thank God for low standards.

 

[armyman_83]

Many wives was acceptable to God, homosexual relations was not.

I would love for some one to tell me King David was bisexual to my face.

 

[non-religious]

[armyman_83]Many wives was acceptable to God, homosexual relations was not.

So too was stoning people to death for incredibly minor things, but hey let's not split hairs here...

I would love for some one to tell me King David was bisexual to my face.

Would you? Gosh you're easily pleased......

 

[seebs]

Many wives was acceptable to God, homosexual relations was not.

I have no idea. I have seen people argue this, or argue for the contrary position, or both, or neither.

But I have seen people who argue that, when people claim that David had multiple wives, they are misreading the text. So it seems to me that the pragmatic reality is that people think David did things that are acceptable to them, and didn't do other things.

I would love for some one to tell me King David was bisexual to my face.

Why? Do you have some response in mind that can only be expressed in person?

 

[armyman_83]

Why? Do you have some response in mind that can only be expressed in person?

Its a little hard to challenge and duel some one over the internet.

 

[seebs]

Its a little hard to challenge and duel some one over the internet.

Duel?

I guess I'm not understanding. Are you proposing to physically injure people? Just to challenge them to a fight?

What happens if they have no interest in fighting, perhaps on the grounds that physical combat has nothing to do with the truth of any claim?

 

[armyman_83]

Yes I mean a duel.

Then I would say that they are a liar (and their thoughts hold no standing if they think it is not worthy to fight over), if they think they believe the truth then they should stand up for it. I would do so to keep King David's name honorable. For he himself is not now about to fight, and to abuse his good name while he is unable to rebuke such a claim then not expect a challenge would be foolish.