David perhaps also breaks a sexual prohibition. His love for
Jonathan is indisputable, probably carnal, and goes beyond the
abomination of lying with mankind as with womankind: “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” (II Samuel 1: 26). David makes this declaration of love on
learning of Jonathan’s death in battle. Jonathan’s father, Saul, also
died, and he is remembered in the most heterosexual of frameworks: “Ye daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, who clothed you in scarlet, with
your apparel” (II Samuel 1: 24). The passage on Jonathan follows
the passage on Saul, so the contrast is very marked. And then there
was a lot more war and David became king and time passed; but
still, David’s concern was with Jonathan: “Is there yet any that is
left of the house of Saul, that I may shew him kindness for
Jonathan’s sake? ” (II Samuel 9 : 1). David found that Jonathan had a
son who was lame and serving another family. David restored all
Saul’s land to this son “for Jonathan thy father’s sake” (II Samuel
9: 7) and claimed Jonathan’s son as his own: “he shall eat at my
table, as one of the king’s sons” (II Samuel 9 : 11). There is no sin,
no condemnation, no wrath of God. Like the incest of Lot and his
daughters, this union made Israel stronger, not weaker. The homosexual bond extended the loyalty and protection of King David to Jonathan’s son, the grandson of Israel’s first king, Saul. David,
through his love of Jonathan, a love “passing the love of women, ”
having survived Jonathan, might be seen as Saul’s logical heir.
Hebrew society had become more complex than in the early tribal
days; Saul and David led armies; in a martial society, homosexuality is often seen to contribute to social cohesion among men. At least in this period, the Hebrews seem to have viewed it that way;
with David and Jonathan in particular it worked that w ay; and
Israel, its patriarchy intact (unlike that of Sodom), thrived. The
God of the Jew s may not have been tolerant, but he was practical.
There is nothing in the Old Testament to justify the vilification
of homosexuals or homosexuality that began with Paul and still
manifests virulently in the fundamentalist Right in Amerika. It
takes the magical claim that the New Testament is “concealed” in
the Old to sustain the illusion of divine sanction for this special
hatred of homosexuality. It is more than concealed; it is not there.
Paul saw the power of the father in decline. The power of the son
was taking its place. The Jew s were confused and divided, and
patriarchal power was not effectively being maintained by Jew ish
law. Paul worshiped male power; therefore Paul worshiped the
son, was converted to the son’s side when he saw the potential of
that side for power. He was opportunistic, politically brilliant, and
a master of propaganda. It was the shrewd Paul who finally undermined the law that had for centuries kept patriarchal power intact but now was failing, in decline. He scapegoated homosexuals as
unnatural, deceitful, full of m alignity, worthy of death, the source
of intolerable evil; and then he blamed the Jew s, and especially the
law of the Jew s, for the existence of homosexuality. “Therefore, ”
Paul proclaimed in Romans 3: 20, “by the deeds of the law there
shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law
