Was King David Gay?


A transsexual strongly objected to my post on Patti Height, director of Out of Egypt Ministries, whose video testimony I presented regarding her deliverance from the bondage of homosexual sin.

The commenter derided Patti as another of those bisexuals who make money out of fools like you. And I was accused of spreading vile falsehoods about Christianity.

Websites that present a Christian defense of homosexuality will feature at least one article that revises centuries-old teaching with regards to this particular sin. In fact, when you do an Internet search be prepared to be alarmed when you discover that the articles in defense of homosexuality far outnumber — maybe ten to one — articles that uphold traditional Christian values.

The Barna Group is well-known for its extensive polling of religious attitudes in contemporary society. The statistics should be disturbing to people of faith. Ninety-one percent of Millennials view the church as being anti-homosexual. Within the church, 85% of the same age group reflect softening views towards homosexuality.

What you will find on gay websites is a revisionist interpretation of the Bible. The battleground is fought over what I call The Big Six:

Genesis 19:4-7; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:18–32; 1 Corinthians 6:9–10; 1 Timothy 1:9–10.

You can follow the links at your convenience, but just to review — Genesis tells the story of Sodom and Gomorrah; Leviticus commands that a man not lie with another man; Romans, Corinthians and Timothy are Paul’s warning that (unsaved) homosexuals will not enter the kingdom of God.

Even on gay Christian blogs you will find studies by professional theologians who claim that the original Hebrew and Greek text was misinterpreted. For example, Sodom was destroyed not for the act of sodomy, but inhospitality and pride. 

It is clear in the Genesis account that the men of Sodom wanted to know (euphemism) the visiting angels; and while it is true that the city was guilty of these other things it was the abominable action that caused the LORD to act in judgement.

As I live, declares the Lord God, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it. (Ezekiel 16:48–50)

What is the abomination? What is it? We have to refer back to one of our six reference passages.

Leviticus 18:22: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

In context, that’s when the LORD incinerated the city — when the Sodomites desired to know Lot’s visitors.

Gay bloggers will say that this verse applies only to the Levites who were to keep themselves holy as priests of the Most High. That would suggest that the act is … unholy? We cannot throw out sound hermeneutics to make the Bible say what we want it to say. There are Christians who defend their drinking habit because Jesus turned water into wine. There are Christians who engage in fornication because, they say, the admonition was not against casual sex but prostitution. And gay homosexuals will say that Paul was condemning pedophilia not homosexuality. Yet, those very same bloggers will contend that the Centurion’s servant who was healed by Jesus was, in fact, the Roman guard’s boy-lover. 

Supposedly, Ruth and her mother-in-law, Naomi were lesbians. The marriage to Boaz was for the sake of protection and security. And one of the greatest heroes of the Bible, David, had a homosexual relationship with Saul’s son, Jonathan.

A number of verses are cited in the Books of Samuel the prophet to justify this line of reasoning. Recognizing his authority as a prophet of God it is untenable to propose that Samuel would sanction even a veiled suggestion that David and Jonathan were gay lovers.

Let’s examine one questionable verse (David speaking after Jonathan was slain in battle):

I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; your love to me was extraordinary, surpassing the love of women (2 Samuel 1:26).

What is David saying? Is he describing a gay love affair, or the fraternal love of brotherhood? If it surpasses the love of women then what is he saying? There is a bond between men — like soldiers in battle, or men in contest — that far exceeds anything physical.

To clearly understand this kind of love all we need do is examine Peter’s test of love where the apostle is asked three times by the Lord, Peter, do you love Me?

That is the covenant love by which the friendship between David and Jonathan was sealed. It is the same idea expressed in the New Covenant where the Lord commands that you shall love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:39).

And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself (1 Samuel 18:3).

Two Hebrew words for love are used in the cited passage, ‘ahab (aw-hab’) or ‘aheb (aw-habe’), and they have multiple uses just as in English. For example, I love my wife … I love peanut butter — our understanding is gleaned from the context of its usage. Certainly, a man does not love a peanut butter sandwich in the same way that he loves his wife. 

The Hebrew word appears 247 times in the Old Testament. It most often is used in the relational sense to describe family ties, friendship or even objects of affection. In the lesser case where it conveys a physical relationship the context of the passage so indicates: 

Now I will uncover her lewdness in the sight of her lovers, and no one shall rescue her out of my hand (Hosea 2:10).

Context is necessary to exegete the proper interpretation of Scripture, otherwise we are imposing  upon the text what we want the passage to mean (eisegesis).

Contrary to homosexual interpretation, Jesus did not say that some men are born gay (Matthew 19:12). The Greek word for eunuch (eunouchoi, εὐνοῦχοι) described men who were born deformed, or men who chose to live a celibate life in service to the LORD. Of course, male slaves who serviced the king’s concubine were castrated for the obvious reasons — heterosexual, to be sure. 

My simple prayer is that the church be cleansed of this deception, and that all who sin will come to the place of saving grace in Jesus Christ.

Visit Us at Blogspot

Copyright © 2016 Messiah Gate


8 thoughts on “Was King David Gay?

  1. “We cannot throw out sound hermeneutics to make the Bible say what we want it to say.”

    And yet, that is exactly what some do. They claim to be Christians, but are driven to change the meaning of certain Bible passages so that they will not feel guilty but feel justified. Rather than being accountable to Scripture and changing their behavior, they twist the meaning of Scripture in order to continue in their sin — and not just sexual sins, but all sin.

    What I’ve noticed is that this is not so much a matter of lack of knowledge or lack of intelligence, but is the result of the spirit of deception. They are content to call themselves Christians without actually humbling themselves before the authority of the Father.

    What they call “love” is actually narcissism — not love at all. They are prisoners of sin and blind to the truth. It would not hurt to pray for their deliverance. Jesus said whoever wants to be his disciple must deny himself, take up his cross and follow him. Homosexual Christians need to ask themselves what is the difference between gay pride and denying yourself. It’s the difference between night and day — perfect light and utter darkness.


    1. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. (Romans 1:24–25)

      I can’t think of a more descriptive passage of the LGBT movement. Pride supplants love, and the lie becomes the truth.


  2. “We cannot throw out sound hermeneutics to make the Bible say what we want it to say.”

    And yet, you do the same when you claim Yeshua was god, yet Deuteronomy 4 clearly said that G-d has no from!


    1. Of course, God is spirit. He has no form, but the Bible teaches that the Word was God, and the Word became flesh (John 1:1, 1:14).

      I’ll confess that I don’t understand the nature of God, but I’ll trust Jesus on this …

      Jesus said to him, Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? (John 14:9)


      1. You answered from the New Testament, who’s only purpose is for you to believe in Jesus (John 20:31). This is bias on itself. You cannot use the New Testament to prove Jesus is G-d, because the New Testament can only stand if the Hebrew Bible is True. I showed you that G-d has no form, it is clear! G-d said to be aware and care because we should not believe in anything that we have not seen at Horeb! Now, to show that Jesus was actually the word of G-d in the flesh, you have to use the Hebrew Bible. If this is not true in the Hebrew Bible, then the Jews have an excellent reason to discard the New Testament. If the Hebrew Bible is so clear that G-d is one and G-d has no form, then Jesus cannot be G-d. You are using the same Bible twisting to show that Jesus is G-d, and even if I showed you clear evidences, you still deny that you are wrong! Just as there is no evidence that David was Gay, there is nothing but warning against worshipping the man-god Yeshua.


        1. Atheists, agnostics and secularists with whom I debate will not allow me to cite the New Testament in defense of Christian theology, yet you cite the Old Testament to defend the Oneness of God.

          I answer from the New Testament, and you quote from the Old. Obviously, we are at an impasse if your citation is allowed, but mine is not.

          There is a New Covenant, spoken of by the prophet Jeremiah (31:31–34), which has been fulfilled in the Word of God, that is, Jesus Christ –and so proclaimed, not by Gentiles, but by Jews of the first century who understood the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament.

          Certainly, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are in one sense distinct, but in a greater sense they are one. It is difficult to wrap our minds around this concept, yet we understand this triunity even from the Old Covenant where the divine nature of God is represented in three ways: The Lord YHWH, The Angel of the LORD and The Spirit of God.

          [That is why in the Shema, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!’, the ‘our God’ part is plural in the Hebrew (literally ‘our Gods’ and the word for ‘one’ is echad – a compound unity, not absolute unity as in the word ‘yachid’.) Arnold Fruchtembaum (Messianic Christology) wrote, ‘If Moses had intended to teach God’s absolute oneness as opposed to His compound oneness, this would have been a far more appropriate word (yachid) to use.’ But he didn’t! He used echad which is used in such passages as Gen 1:5 where evening and morning are called one (echad’) day; Gen 2:24 where when man and woman come together in marriage and are called ‘one flesh’; or Ezek 37:17 where the two sticks are combined to become one. These are all uses of echad and show that it is a compound unity … Source: JPN]

          Yachid, solitary oneness, is never used in reference to God.

          When Jesus said, I and the Father are one (John 10:30) He was expressing a unified oneness.

          God is one, then, in the manner of Divine union. Again, the best example of this is when a man and a woman become one flesh. Well, they don’t, really — not physically, but in spirit. And this is what God is — spirit. The relationship between Jesus (bridegroom) and the church (bride) is described in this same manner.

          The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me (John 17:22–23).


  3. Would you accept the Other testament, or the book of Mormons as valid if you defend your faith? The book of Mormons is valid only if it does not contradict the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. Likewise, the New Testament is valid only if it does not contradict the Hebrew Bible. Would you agree with that.

    Now concerning Jeremiah (31:31–34), we can both agree that this new covenant has not happened yet. Why? First whit whom is the new covenant? With the house of Israel and of Jacob. What will happen when the new covenant will be in effect? No longer will they (the Jews) teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. You may argue that it will happen in the last days when All Israel will be saved, but to use a prophecy that has not happen yet and use it has a fact and proof is a bit far fetch! Jews of the first century actually say “Believe in Jesus”, or in other word… know the lord (AKA Yeshua), this is direct contradiction with Jeremiah 31, which said that all Jews will know YHVH.

    For the triunity in the Hebrew Bible, you would have a hard time to prove it. Yes the messenger of the L-rd speak as he would be the L-rd. This could be easily explain by the fact that that messenger is clearly a messenger! A messenger is not the one that sent the message. Furthermore, the word “The” or Ha in Hebrew is plainly not there in most Bible verese that you claim it refer to a specific angel instead of any. If the word Ha is not there, then it’s clear that there are no specific messenger of the L-rd who is also the L-rd! For the Spirit of YHVH, you won’t see any instance that it say that this Spirit is a different entity. Unless you show me some clear passage, I won’t be able to say more, but it is a fable that the trinity is in the Jewish Bible and all attempt to show it would only show that you are a polytheist! Also, it’s not even clear in the New testament that Yeshua is G-d. It could be easily debated that he is not G-d.

    “‘our God’ part is plural in the Hebrew”
    If you look at other passages, Moses is called Elohim and Ashtoreth is also called Elohim in 1 Kings 11:5. Would you think they, as well, are plural unities? Elohim is always refereed to in the singular, look at Genesis one, Elohim created (as in He created, not They)…

    Echad means one, just as in English. One day is made of a morning and an evening, but it is still ONE day. If you look carefully at the word echad, it is used as the word one… I will bring one plague… one year… one stone… one ram… one basket… and the list goes on and on and on. None of them are plural unities! Your echad example is as good as David being gay because he loved Jonathan. In fact, their argument is actually stronger than yours!

    I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God.

    “When Jesus said, I and the Father are one (John 10:30) He was expressing a unified oneness.”
    yet Paul use the same word to contradict the writer of John, by saying there is only ONE G-d!
    For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus…

    Just as you have probably not convince any Gay to change their stance in the obvious meaning of the Bible, my example are clear, yours are not! G-d is ONE and even Paul agreed! And even if you would prove that G-d may be more than one, there is no reason to believe Jesus is that one, and not Antiochus Epiphanes!


    1. That’s a lot to chew on, but I would like to further examine Jeremiah.

      The Book of Hebrews was written to Jews living in exile somewhere in Greece. The purpose of the writer was to convey to those exiles that a new and better covenant had been established.

      Chapters 8 and 9 detail this new covenant:

      But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. For he finds fault with them when he says: “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah …” (Hebrews 8:6–8).

      v. 13In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

      9:15Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.

      Jeremiah’s hope was fulfilled in Jesus:

      It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me (John 6:45).

      Charles Ellicott …

      We trace in that hope for the future the profound sense of failure which oppressed the mind of the prophet, as it has oppressed the minds of many true teachers since. What good had come of all the machinery of ritual and of teaching which the Law of Israel had provided so abundantly? Those repeated exhortations on the part of preachers and prophets that men should “know the Lord,” what did they present but the dreary monotony as of an “old worm-eaten homily”? To know Him, as indeed He is, required nothing less than a special revelation of His presence to each man’s heart and spirit, and that revelation was now, for his comfort, promised for all who were willing to receive it … and find their fulfilment in Christ.

      The Law could save no one. It became obsolete at the Cross. All men, that is, Jews and Gentiles who receive the circumcision of their heart are the recipients of this saving knowledge.


Comments are closed.