Was King David a Homosexual?
I have previously covered the issue of homosexuality in the (Written) Torah (1) as well as the Tanakh. (2) In the two articles concerned I argued that while the (Written) Torah and Tanakh seem to be broadly condemnatory of homosexuality: when read in the correct context (i.e., leaving out of the assumption of the universality of the identity of Israel, which derives from Christian supersessionist theology) it actually indicates that the prohibitions relating to homosexuality were only relevant to jews. As Yahweh only decreed that homosexuality is an abomination among those of Israel (i.e., the jews) and not among those who are not Israel (i.e., the non-jews/gentiles).
I further demonstrated my point in reference to the story of Sodom (in the book of Genesis) and what the sin that caused it to (allegedly) be destroyed by Yahweh actually was. (3) That sin was the homosexual seduction of Lot by the men of Sodom as well as the desire by the men of Sodom to seduce the angels (in the form of foreign men) who had come to warn Lot of impending calamity.
In my article on homosexuality in the Tanakh: I deliberately left out the most important figure in the Bible as well as the archetype for all jewish ‘heroes’ and rulers since his time. (4) That figure is King David: the eponymous jewish hero and the man whose almost non-existent ‘empire’ (5) provides the rationale for Zionist claims to Palestine and beyond to this very day. Without King David there would be next to historical justification for the Zionist project for the simple reason that without him: Israel wouldn't have had sufficient enough an alleged territorial extent for the all the jews of the world to fit into it (even at a squeeze).
Most of King David’s story is an almost complete fabrication and although there probably was a King David figure historically: he was more of a holy terrorist turned local bandit chief rather than a bringer of civilization to the ancient near east. (6) It is also worth noting that - in spite of David’s importance - there has been little in the way of biographies of him that are not hagiographic in nature and as such tend towards the intellectually absurd idea that David was actually an important world figure in his day given that we have next to no evidence that David actually existed (although a fairly recently discovered description suggests it is probable he was a historical figure but the lack of significant mention of him by his neighbours [who were scrupulous record keepers] informs us of his unimportance-cum-irrelevance). (7)
What I want to discuss here however is the controversial subject of David’s sexuality. Now I don’t suggest David was a homosexual in the usual sense that we mean that term. As that would suggest that he was primarily attracted to men since his famous rape of Bathsheeba (as well as subsequently having her husband Uriah the Hittite murdered by his thoroughly evil commander-in-chief Joab) but also his taking of Abigail the wife of Abner in a similar fashion directly contradicts such an hypothesis. Add to that David’s multiple wives and it is simply beyond the pale of reason to suggest that David wasn't sexually attracted to women.
However this voracious sexual behaviour in David’s part tends to obscure a far more interesting element of David’s relationships. This is his distinctly odd and difficult to explain relationship with Saul’s son Jonathan. The first book of Samuel (which is our only reliable [in the specific Biblical sense anyway] history of David [in spite of his appearance in Chronicles]) (8) informs us of the following sequence of events:
‘When he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him 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. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his armour, and even his sword, and his bow and his belt.’ (9)
Now in the above passage we should note the rather unusual wording used to express the closeness of David and Jonathan’s relationship: they ‘loved one another as their own soul.’ This is unusual as it is rather florid language for close friends and can be reasonably seen to be over-expressive for a simple close friendship. For example if the author of the text wished to imply they were very close then why not refer to them as if they were family (i.e., brothers) to each other as he does elsewhere with those close to David? (10)
We should also notice the other piece of purple prose that the author of this passage uses: ‘the soul of Jonathan was knit of the soul of David.’ This suggests a combination - or a binding - of souls, which is normally how marriage is described in both the (Written) Torah and the Tanakh. It is not difficult to see this phraseology as having a deeper (and more scandalous) meaning than simple brotherly affection, because the terminology used is more that of marriage than that of being close friends.
That we read how Jonathan stripped himself of all his weapons, armour and clothes in front of David and gave them to him: it is even harder to read this passage as an expression of fealty and friendship. Rather David at this point has little to no power and Jonathan has all the power, but yet Jonathan strips off in front of David and we are told they loved each other deeply.
It is difficult to see any reasonable explanation for this - if we take the passage as being a sequence of events - other than that Jonathan was probably in love with David and exposed his naked body to David as an expression of homosexual desire for him (which as the son of King he could command others to gratify him by submitting to his every whim and desire).
Interpreting this passage as a statement of Jonathan’s homosexual love for David and David’s reciprocating (or submitting to) that affection/desire makes sense of Jonathan’s fanatical devotion to David and why he was willing to spy on his father King Saul for David’s sake.
We are told in the first book of Samuel thus:
‘And Saul spoke to Jonathan his son and to all his servants, that they should kill David. But Jonathan, Saul’s son, delighted much in David. And Jonathan told David, “Saul my father seeks to kill you; therefore take heed to yourself in the morning, stay in a secret place and hide yourself; and I will go out and stand beside my father in the field where you are, and I will speak to my father about you; and if I learn anything I will tell you.’ (11)
It is difficult to see why Jonathan would have taken such an awful risk in defending David and spying on his father for him unless Jonathan had conceived some form of deep, irrational devotion to David. This devotion could hardly be that of a friend as friends could come and go and rarely would we risk our lives so outrageously for a good friend: least of all at a time when losing games of power politics often led to long, drawn-out and rather unpleasant death for you and all those associated with you. Going up against the king and risking your own life and position is not something you do for a good friend, but it is the sort of irrational thing that individuals do for those they believe they love.
That the relationship between Jonathan and David - and the subsequent political allegiance between them - is decidedly homosexual in nature can be further seen elsewhere in the first book of Samuel.
To wit:
‘Then David fled from Naioth in Ra’mah, and came and said before Jonathan, “What have I done? What is my guilt? And what is my sin before your father, that he seeks my life?” And he said to him, “Far from it! You shall not die. Behold, my father does nothing either great or small without disclosing it to me; and why should my father hide this from me? It is not so.” But David replied, “Your father knows well that I have found favour in your eyes; and he thinks, ‘Let not Jonathan know this, lest he be grieved.’ But truly, as the Lord lives and as your soul lives, there is but a step between me and death.” Then Jonathan said to David, “Whatever you say, I will do for you.” David said to Jonathan, “Behold, tomorrow is the new moon, and I should not fail to sit at table with the king; but let me go, that I may hide myself in the field till the third day at evening. If your father misses me at all, then say, ‘David has earnestly asked his leave of me to run to Bethlehem his city; for there is a yearly sacrifice there for all the family.’ If he says, ‘Good!’ it will be well with your servant, for you have brought your servant into a sacred covenant with you. But if there is guilt in me, slay me yourself; for why should you bring me to your father!” And Jonathan said, “Far be it from you! If I knew that it was determined by my father that evil should come upon you, would I not tell you?” Then Jonathan said to David, “Come let us go out into the field,” So they both went out into the field.
And Jonathan said to David, “The Lord, the God of Israel, be witness! When I have sounded my father, about this time tomorrow, or the third day, behold, if he is well disposed toward David, shall I not then send and disclose it to you? But should it please my father to do you harm, the Lord do so to Jonathan, and more also, if I do not disclose it to you, and send you away, that you may go in safety. May the Lord be with you, as he has been with my father. If I am alive, show me the loyal love of the Lord, that I may not die; and do not cut off your loyalty from my house for ever. When the Lord cuts off every one of the enemies of David from the face of the earth, let not the name of Jonathan be cut off from the house of David. And may the Lord take vengeance on David’s enemies.” And Jonathan made David swear again his love for him; for he loved him as he loved his own soul.’ (12)
When we read in the above we can both see the gravity of the situation for David and Jonathan in that we are told that there is little to protect either of them from death at Saul’s hands and that they both fear that Saul is beginning to suspect that Jonathan is a spy in his councils for David as well as the fact that their relationship is rather more than simple friendship.
This is especially clear when David inexplicably invites Jonathan out into the field and we are told nothing about their activities in the field. It is common to simply read the next paragraph with Jonathan talking to David as being what happened in the field, but we are no-where told that this was said in the field rather this is simply an assumption.
As we don’t usually simply link places with conversations, while conversations and events stop and continue at many different (often inexplicable) times in the (Written) Torah and the Tanakh. We simply cannot link these two passages together geographically: all we know is Jonathan said something during or after the time he and David went alone into the field.
This then rules out the most obvious counter-explanation of the events in the field being a continuation of the conversation: since we have no evidence that the conversation is linked to their going into the field.
However even if it were we should note that Jonathan - at the end of the passage - declared his love for David (‘And Jonathan made David swear again his love for him; for he loved him as he loved his own soul’): further suggesting that David and Jonathan were engaged in a homosexual relationship of some kind.
Returning to the subject at hand; we should note that the two passages need to be read as two separate sequences of events as opposed to a consistent narrative. This means that the events in the field need to be read as a follow-on to Jonathan and David declaring - in effect - they would die for each other should something befall the other in the course of their schemes against Saul. It is thus difficult to see why all of a sudden David should suggest to Jonathan that they should go ‘into the field’ unless they wanted more privacy than was required for discussing conspiracies against the king.
This is itself suggestive that they were engaged in a rather odd activity together, but is not itself suggestive of purely homosexuality as there could be other activities that required such privacy and intimacy (yet they are a still very few). That the purpose of the assignation ‘in the field’ was homosexual intercourse is suggested by the fact that (Written) Torah and Tanakh uses euphemisms for sex with the most common being ‘he went into her’/’she went into him’ in relation to a dwelling or house.
This focus on privacy and physical human geography to evoke the act itself is found in the idea of going ‘into the field’ (i.e., away from prying eyes, but not a normal place) in that it plays on the same ideas of privacy and physical human geography, but expresses the deviant manner of what is referring to by changing the place from a dwelling/home (i.e., a marital/heterosexual [aka normal] situation) to a field which is not a normal place for assignation (it is implicitly blasphemous according to Yahweh’s edicts in relation to the Israelites not exposing their nakedness to him, which is a necessary consequence of having sexual intercourse in a field).
Thus suggesting by an implicating pun that David and Jonathan were engaged in deviant activities that were outside the home and thus outside marriage, which were probably homosexual in nature (as they are copulating like the ‘beasts of the field’ [i.e., gentiles and animals more generally]): although there is some suggestion elsewhere that this union of Jonathan and David had received divine sanction from Yahweh. (13)
We can therefore see that this passage from the first book of Samuel informs us that David was an active player in his relationship with Jonathan (as opposed to merely a passive object of sexual affection by a homosexual princeling) and that their romantic/sexual relationship was (probably) the key motivating factor in Jonathan’s betrayal of his father’s intentions to David.
Further evidence for this position can be seen elsewhere in the first book of Samuel when we read that:
‘Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said to him, “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman, do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth, neither you or your kingdom shall be established. Therefore send and fetch him to me, for he shall surely die.” Then Jonathan answered Saul his father, “Why should he be put to death? What has he done?” But Saul cast his spear at him to strike him; so Jonathan knew that his father was determined to put David to death. And Jonathan rose from the table in fierce anger and ate no food the second day of the month, for he was grieved for David, because his father had disgraced him.’ (14)
In this passage; in contrast to the others I have quoted, we see Saul’s reaction to Jonathan’s relationship with David. Superficially Saul seems angry with Jonathan, because he is betraying his birth-right (and his inheritance from Saul) by supporting David’s claim to the throne and opposing Saul’s desire to kill David whatever the cost.
This interpretation however runs into a significant problem in how the author of this passage chooses to express Saul’s outrage at Jonathan and David’s relationship:
‘You son of a perverse, rebellious woman, do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness?’
How are we to reasonably interpret this as a statement of anger by Saul about Jonathan giving up his birth-right to David?
After all Saul refers to Jonathan as being the ‘son of a perverse, rebellious woman’ which is itself odd given that it is an insult that has little political context, but it does have significant social context. In so far as it can be seen to represent the rebellion against the order of Yahweh by upsetting the order of things politically (however this is only perceived as Yahweh has already withdrawn his blessing from Saul and given it to David) and going against the settled order of nature: represented by a rebellious woman who engages in abominations (i.e., she rebels against her husband and Yahweh by questioning his right to rule her and/or does things contrary to the laws of Yahweh).
This rebellion against Saul is obvious, but yet it is unsatisfying as it forgets that the blessing of Yahweh has already been transferred from Saul to David. Therefore the passage’s analogy must have some other meaning and probably refers to flouting the laws of Yahweh as opposed to those of Saul. That this refers to abominations to do with sexual intercourse is clear from the reference made to Jonathan bringing about his own shame (i.e., he has done something bad) that has brought shame on his mother’s sexual organs the exposure of which is contrary to nature (her ‘nakedness’).
In other words Jonathan has done something in relation to David that has contravened the laws of Yahweh and has brought shame on him as well as his mother’s sexual organs for bearing so foul a creature into the world. It is thus difficult not to see in this passage a clear reference to Jonathan and David carrying on a homosexual relationship: the factoring in of which into the passage also neatly explains why Saul struck at Jonathan (his son and heir whom he wants to rule his kingdom after him) with a spear.
After all you don’t attack your much-loved son and heir - who you are fighting for - unless they have done something that has fundamentally made you absolutely livid and the explanation for which a homosexual relationship with David provides neatly. In addition to explaining the female references in relation to Jonathan (as homosexuals have frequently been held - historically and currently - to be feminine in nature and not real men) since he is behaving like a woman than he is like a perverse, rebellious wife who exposes her naked sexual organs to the world for all to see.
What Saul was so worked up about is clear when we read further on in the first book of Samuel of a little tryst that Jonathan and David arrange.
We are told:
‘And Jonathan called after the lad, “Hurry, make haste, stay not.” So Jonathan’s lad gathered up the arrows, and came to his master. But the lad knew nothing; only Jonathan and David knew the matter. And Jonathan gave him gave his weapons to his lad, and said to him, “Go and carry them to the city.” And as the lad had gone, David rose from beside the stone heap and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed three times; and they kissed one another, and wept with one another, until David recovered himself.’ (15)
Now in this passage it is abundantly clear that Jonathan wants to be alone with David and that he made every available ploy to get rid of the serving boy who had accompanied him. Further when Jonathan has disposed of the boy then we are told that David fell on face before him, bowed several times and they kissed then wept.
You could mark this down as a hysterical expression of gratefulness in terms of a custom common among the Orientals at that time, but then if this were so: why do we not hear more of such a custom?
Indeed we know of the kissing of feet - the rough equivalent to the ‘clasping of the knees’ of Homer - as an act of supplication and thanks, but kissing each other is decidedly odd in terms of customs held to be the norm elsewhere in the books of Samuel (and the Tanakh more broadly). Especially kissing one another when nobody else is around and they are very alone.
If this passage stood alone in the Biblical text relating to David then we would chalk it up to thankfulness, but as we have seen it is a common occurrence throughout the first book of Samuel that strongly suggests that Jonathan and David engaged in homosexual acts with both parties initiating homosexual contact (as opposed to say just Jonathan doing so) since it follows a very distinctive pattern that is difficult to interpret any other way.
The case is however decisively evidenced by David’s funerary ode to Jonathan that is transcribed in the second book of Samuel. In it we read the following passage:
‘Jonathan lies slain upon your high places.
I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan;
Very pleasant you have been to me;
Your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.’ (16)
In the above it is almost impossible to argue that David isn't declaring his (homosexual) love for Jonathan as he is saying Jonathan’s love for him was ‘wonderful’ and surpassed that offered to him by the many women who we know he had sexual relations with. Comparing Jonathan’s love for him to that (sexual love) offered by many women to David is another decidedly odd linguistic formulation if all that is meant is that Jonathan’s loyalty to David was greatly esteemed by the latter.
This is made even more unlikely by the statement that Jonathan’s love has been ‘very pleasant’ for David: since the combination of suggesting that Jonathan’s love for David surpassed that of the latter’s sexual contacts with women and that love had been ‘very pleasant’ is an undeniable statement of homosexual contact between Jonathan and David that was reciprocated by David even after the latter no longer needed Jonathan as a political ally against his father: Saul.
In summary then we can see that David and Jonathan had a substantial homosexual relationship, which included sexual encounters that were initiated by both parties. Further it was Jonathan’s homosexual love for David that probably motivated him in giving up his kingly birth-right to David as well as to act as David’s spy in the councils of King Saul.
Indeed Saul’s hatred of David and his party can also be argued to at least partly derive from his recognition and disgust in relation to Jonathan and David’s homosexual relationship. This realization makes sense of a great deal that is otherwise in explicable in the story of the rise of David (such as his physical attack on his favoured son) and also allows us to further evidence the fact that homosexuality was a veritable epidemic among the ancient Israelites (hence the frequent and stringent explicit prohibitions of it by [Written] Torah and the Tanakh).
Now while we can say that David engaged in a long-term homosexual relationship: it is difficult to say that he was a homosexual per se, because of his large number of female lovers that he frequently raped. Rather it is more reasonable to suggest that David was bisexual (as far as that term applies) and sought sexual relationships with both sexes, while Jonathan was the ‘true blue’ homosexual who had wives but actively fell in love with - and sexually pursued - David leading to the founding of their rather unequal and dangerous relationship that both saved David’s life on many occasions and also laid the foundation of his claim to be the legitimate heir of Saul.
References
(1) See my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/male-homosexuality-in-the-written
(2) See my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/male-homosexuality-in-the-tanakh
(3) See my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/what-was-sodoms-sin
(4) Steven McKenzie, 2000, ‘King David: A Biography’, 1st Edition, Oxford University Press: New York, p. 28
(5) Ibid., pp. 19-20; J. W. Rogerson, 2006, ‘Old Testament’, p. 21 in J. W. Rogerson, Judith Lieu (Eds.), 2006, ‘The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies’, 1st Edition, Oxford University Press: New York; John Bartlett, 1997, ‘What has Archaeology to do with the Bible?’, pp. 12-13 in John Bartlett (Ed.), 1997, ‘Archaeology & Biblical Interpretation’, 1st Edition, Routledge: New York
(6) McKenzie, Op. Cit., pp. 5-6; for an example of a hagiographic biography see Geoffrey de C. Parmeter, 1960, ‘King David’, 1st Edition, Arthur Baker: London
(7) McKenzie, Op. Cit., pp. 10; 23; 36; 44
(8) Ibid., p. 36
(9) 1. Sam. 18:1-4 (RSV)
(10) McKenzie, Op. Cit., p. 55
(11) 1. Sam. 19:1-3 (RSV)
(12) Ibid., 20:1-17 (RSV)
(13) Ibid., 23:16-18 (RSV)
(14) Ibid., 20:30-34 (RSV)
(15) Ibid., 20:38-41 (RSV)
(16) 2. Sam. 1:25-26 (RSV)