THE DIFFICULTY OF HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE BIBLE IN A MODERN ERA

Posted by expedition44 on November 2, 2025

If you know anything about me, you know that I am going to tell you what the Bible says as transparently as possible, present the options and issues and let you come to your own conclusion. Nothing is spoon fed. So, I am not going to approach this very difficult issue slightly differently than I have in the past. I wrote a post of homosexuality years ago and I haven’t changed my perspective on that post, but I have come to also frame the same discussions a bit differently. You might want to read this post first.

What I think doesn’t really matter, it is what the Bible says. However, in any theology and interpretation we have to deduce things. When the Bible isn’t perfectly clear we use our God given minds guided by the Holy Spirit to arrive at truth. Sometimes we come to different results, and I would encourage you to honor and respect varied biblically based views.

Homosexuality is Biblically described as sin

The Bible introduces human sexuality within the context of God’s creative design. “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). This foundational premise establishes the binary nature of human sexuality as woven into God’s original creation. In Genesis 2:24, the union of man and woman is depicted as a one-flesh covenant: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” The emphasis on male-female pairing is the template for marriage, consistently referenced throughout Scripture.¹

In describing the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, Genesis 19:4-11 recounts men of the city demanding sexual relations with Lot’s guests, who were angels in human form. The account highlights immoral behavior at multiple levels, which includes homosexual acts. While this passage also addresses other grave sins (Ezekiel 16:49-50 mentions pride, neglect of the poor, and abominable acts), the sexual violation in Genesis 19 is one of the clearest aspects of Sodom’s guilt. Homosexuality is clearly treated as sin.²

Leviticus 18:22 states, “You must not lie with a man as with a woman; that is an abomination.” Likewise, Leviticus 20:13 addresses the same practice as forbidden. These prohibitions appear in a broader context that includes various other sexual sins (e.g., incest, bestiality, and adultery), demonstrating that Scripture draws boundaries around intimacy for Israel, reflecting God’s holiness and will for human sexuality.³

Although the Gospels do not record Jesus specifically saying the word “homosexuality,” in Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus refers to the “male and female” design for marriage reaffirming the OT Genesis covenant by a since of REMEZ which then would carry other OT connotation. Jesus also underscores sexual purity (Matthew 5:27-28; Mark 7:20-23). He does not offer a direct commentary on same-sex relationships in the recorded Gospels, but many will argue that He established framework for marriage, sexual purity, and upholding Scriptural commands providing the overarching context. Matthew 5:17-18 underscores that Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not dismantle it. Ethical instructions, including sexual conduct, gain deeper clarity in the New Covenant but remain consistent in reflecting God’s righteous nature. Within this framework, contexts like Leviticus remain relevant as a moral guidepost, interpreted in the light of Christ’s sacrificial redemption.⁴

Paul’s epistles also touch on the acts in Romans 1:26-27: “Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another…” This passage highlights a departure from God’s design, emphasizing that certain acts are not in line with His created order. Perhaps similar to how Jesus mentioned them. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral… nor homosexuals, nor thieves… will inherit the kingdom of God.” Here, Paul places homosexual behavior among a list of sins. Yet in the following verse, 1 Corinthians 6:11, he offers hope: “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed…” The emphasis is on transformation and redemption offered by God. This is a challenging interpretation. Finally, 1 Timothy 1:9-11 also categorizes homosexual acts with other sins that contradict “sound teaching,” reinforcing the broader biblical ethic on sexuality. In each instance, Paul addresses same-sex activity as one among various actions deemed inconsistent with the holy living God calls believers to pursue. It seems to treat homosexuality as any other “SINFUL” act.⁵ Those involved in these acts are missing the mark.

Why this is complicated and considerations of homosexuality

Well, the above probably sounds rather convincing. And I think if you are truly unbiased, it should. I would argue there is a strong biblical directive that homosexuality both NT and OT treat the act of homosexuality as a sin. But let’s also consider the other ramifications of the arguments. It seems that much of our evangelical Christian world continues to live in a sinful state. You might reconsider…

Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger in the dirt. They kept at him, badgering him. He straightened up and said, “The sinless one among you, go first: Throw the stone.” Bending down again, he wrote some more in the dirt. Hearing that, they walked away, one after another, beginning with the oldest. The woman was left alone. Jesus stood up and spoke to her. “Woman, where are they? Does no one condemn you?” “No one, Master.” “Neither do I,” said Jesus. “Go on your way. From now on, don’t sin.”] Note: John 7:53–8:11 [the portion in brackets] is not found in the earliest handwritten copies. John 8:7-11

The OT is complicated. What do we take with us and what do we leave behind? Most Evangelical Christians I know no longer keep much if any of the law (starting with the most basic 10 commandments of honoring the sabbath – you probably don’t even know when that starts and ends let alone keep it!) What comes with us as Christians and what stays behind as antiquated law that can’t or no longer needs to be followed in the spirit of Romans 7:6? Perhaps the things Jesus restates come with, but then we have the issue that Jesus followed the law to a T (Levitical not Rabbinical law) and we are to follow His example.⁶

Let me give you a brief example of some of the other difficulties…

Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. Exodus 21:7 seems to say it is just to sell my daughter to slavery. Exodus 35:2 clearly states violators of the Sabbath may be put to death. Furthermore, homosexuality is often listed with other things that seem much more minor in the OT and could be viewed as premodern-world best practice for health. For instance, Lev. 11:10 says eating shellfish is an “abomination”, and using same words used to describe homosexuality in Lev. 18.⁷ The argument would then be that perhaps the law suggested things to an ancient world that would keep their nation pure and (sexually) disease free (circumcision, and various purification laws.) Once science caught up with a modern world are these no longer concerns? Do you want to get into a conversation of intention? You might have no issues eating shellfish today but speak up against homosexuality. Is that biased? Did Jesus truly state everything that was important to continue to keep in the law? Does your theology say if Jesus didn’t restate something then it doesn’t need to be followed? He was pretty vague on homosexuality. Some would say if His intention was to call it sin, He could have been much clearer on it. If he was a good teacher wouln’t he have been more clear if that was His intention? What about other simple issues like Lev. 11:6-8 says that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, did you ever consider a football is made of pigskin? Why do some Christians seem to so easily pick and choose what to condemn from the law and what to not even consider? Lev.19:19 indicates we shouldn’t plant two different crops in the same field, or wear garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). You could even argue Lev.24:10-16 makes a case to stone them or that Lev. 20:14 says to burn those caught in incestual relationships. Are you starting to see the complications that might come with being unbiased to the text, trying to decide what still should carry over to us? Why are women in the OT not upheld to the same sexual standards as men?⁸ What about miskebe issa?⁹ Do we want to get into that conversation?

Lastly, aren’t we called to strive to live 100% towards the finished eschatological goal? Some have said that there will be no genders in heaven, however I would argue the Bible seems to lean the other way. There is nothing in the Bible that indicates people will lose or change their gender in heaven. On the contrary, the Bible implies that we will remain who we are in heaven, and gender is likely part of who we are. In paradise, Lazarus was still Lazurus, and Abraham was still Abraham (Luke 16:22–24). But make no mistake, the first two chapters and the last two chapters are God’s ideals and at the very least there is gender equality. But that still doesn’t address all the questions or issues eschatologically. Jesus says, “At the resurrection, people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” – Matthew 22:30 The problem is Angels in Heaven had a distinctive Genesis 6 problem that had to do with all things sexual. What do you do with that? If you are going down this road, you might also consider the texts of Genesis‬ ‭3‬:‭15‬, Genesis 6:2, Genesis 19:5-8, in comparison to Galations 3:26 and Mark 12:25.

CONCLUSIVE THOUGHTS

Each person may have a different interpretation of the scripture and be in a slightly different situation. I think we should walk in balance and peace but encourage better Biblical interpretation. Has modernity and science changed over time compared to the law as a stop gap for the coming of the messiah and possibly modern medicine? (Some will argue God uses modern medicine, some see modern medicine as opposite of the healing God offers.) There are several things that should come into your theological lens in terms of agreement within your theology on this matter.

On the one hand, if you are reading this, you most likely believe the Bible is God’s Word and we can’t with integrity deny that it teaches that sex outside the parameters of a monogamous, life-long, marriage covenant is sin, whether it is sex with a person of a different gender or sex with a person of the same gender. We find the arguments of those who try to argue that Rom.1:24-28-, I Cor. 6:9 and I Tim. 1:10 don’t apply to monogamous gay relationships simply aren’t very persuasive. On the other hand, we sense that something is “off” with the stance of the church throughout history, and the stance of most evangelical churches today, toward gay people. Jesus would have unequivocally loved them and invited them to repent and join His kingdom. The approach isn’t consistent or balanced.

As an example, many of us wonder why it is that the church (rightly) embraces without question people who have been divorced and remarried – several times, in some cases –but adamantly excludes committed gay couples – couples who sometimes have a love for one another that puts the love of many straight couples to shame. What makes this question especially important is that the New Testament’s teaching that divorce and remarriage involves sin is much more emphatic and clear than it’s teaching that gay unions involve sin (see e.g. Mt. 5:32; 19:9). In fact, while Jesus taught on the sin of divorce and remarriage several times, he never even mentioned homosexuality. I have said it many times over the years, but once you step away from God’s ideal of 1 man and 1 woman united as one before the LORD in ANY WAY… you are outside of His perfect will for you. In every other situation grace covers you equally. However, we are also told to not continue to live in sin. You might argue that remarriage isn’t necessarily sin but living in homosexuality is. We also have to consider not giving into the tendencies, urge or temptations. What about the one who has the sexual urges towards homosexuality but never gratifies those urges? Isn’t that essentially the same as not giving into any sinful temptation? I think if you are truly approaching this issue with an un-biased approach toward faithful hermeneutical interpretation this subject is going to be far more complicated than you may have ever considered.

Let me get back to grace. My point is not that the church should exclude divorced and remarried people. While divorce and remarriage “misses the mark” of God’s ideal, which is the Bible’s definition of sin (harmartia), I believe that, by God’s grace, this is sometimes the best option for people. My point is rather that there seems to be an inconsistency on the part of the church on this matter, and many of us wonder why.¹⁰

Scripture consistently presents homosexual practice, like adultery and various other sexual acts outside of a man-woman marriage covenant, as contrary to God’s design. So, let’s be consistent!

At the same time, the Bible declares the potential for repentance, transformation, and redemption for all people regardless of background or personal history. For many interpreters, this forms the unified, scriptural teaching on homosexuality. In summary, the biblical record reflects a consistent stance on the question at hand-rooted in God’s initial design, repeated in the ethical instructions of both Old and New Testaments, and ultimately encompassed by the message of grace and hope found in Christ.

https://biblehub.com/q/what_does_the_bible_say_on_homosexuality.htm ↩︎
Joyce, Paul M. (2009). Ezekiel: A Commentary. Continuum. ISBN 9780567483614. ↩︎
Eisenberg, Ronald (2005), The 613 Mitzvot: A Contemporary Guide to the Commandments of Judaism, Schreiber Publishing, ISBN 0-88400-303-5 ↩︎
Massey, Lesly F. (2015). Daughters of God, Subordinates of Men: Women and the Roots of Patriarchy in the New Testament. McFarland, Incorporated, Publishers. p. 100. ISBN 978-1-4766-2143-2. ↩︎
Coogan, Michael (October 2010). God and Sex: What the Bible Really Says (1st ed.). New York, Boston: Twelve. Hachette Book Group. p. 33. ISBN 978-0-446-54525-9. ↩︎
Coogan 2010, p. 135: “Finally, the Hebrew Bible is silent about lesbian relationships, probably because they did not relate to patriarchy—or, for that matter, to paternity.” ↩︎
Meirowitz, Sara N.S. (2009). “Not Like a Virgin: Talking about Nonmarital Sex”. In Ruttenberg, Danya (ed.). The Passionate Torah: Sex and Judaism. NYU Press. p. 173. ISBN 978-0-8147-7605-6. ↩︎
Alpert, Rebecca T. (2009). “Reconsidering Solitary Sex from a Jewish Perspective”. In Ruttenberg, Danya (ed.). The Passionate Torah: Sex and Judaism. NYU Press. p. 185. ISBN 978-0-8147-7605-6. In the Hebrew Bible there is no same-gender sexuality for women and no allusion to female masturbation, whereas lying with a man as with a woman is prohibited at least twice in the Torah. ↩︎
“Since illicit carnal relations are implied by the term miškĕbê ʾiššâ, it may be plausibly suggested that homosexuality is herewith forbidden for only the equivalent degree of forbidden heterosexual relations, namely, those enumerated in the preceding verses (D. Stewart). However, sexual liaisons occurring with males outside these relations would not be forbidden. And since the same term miškĕbê ʾiššâ is used in the list containing sanctions (20:13), it would mean that sexual liaisons with males, falling outside the control of the paterfamilias, would be neither condemnable nor punishable. Thus miskĕbê ʾiššâ, referring to illicit male—female relations, is applied to illicit male—male relations, and the literal meaning of our verse is: do not have sex with a male with whose widow sex is forbidden. In effect, this means that the homosexual prohibition applies to Ego with father, son, and brother (subsumed in v. 6) and to grandfather—grandson, uncle—nephew, and stepfather—stepson, but not to any other male.” – Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17-22: A New Translation With Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Yale Bible vol. 3, Yale University Press, 2007, page 1569 ↩︎
https://reknew.org/2012/10/homosexuality-and-the-church-finding-a-third-way/ ↩︎

Michal and the Dance of David

Posted by expedition44 on June 8, 2025

Michal (/mɪˈxɑːl/; Hebrew: מִיכַל) was, was the younger daughter of King Saul and the first wife of David (1 Samuel 18:20–27) where it is said in 1 Samuel 18:20 and 18:28 that Michal loved David. The narrative does not indicate whether this is reciprocated. ¹ Her story is shrouded in transparency and strange allegiance creating a mystery of interpretation. What can we glean from her part of the story? Why is she significant in the pages of the text?

DAVID’S FAME AND SAUL’S JEALOUSY

David’s early success was marked by his victory over Goliath, the Philistine giant,detailed in 1 Samuel 17, where David declares, “The LORD, who delivered me from the paw of the lion and the paw of the bear, will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine” (1 Samuel 17:37). His triumph brought him immediate fame and favor in the eyes of the people and King Saul.

However, David’s rising popularity soon became a source of intense jealousy for Saul. We read in 1 Samuel 18:7-9 “the women sang out: ‘Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands.’ And Saul was furious and resented this song. ‘They have ascribed tens of thousands to David,’ he said, ‘but only thousands to me. What more can he have but the kingdom?’ And from that day forward, Saul kept a jealous eye on David.”

David was 15 years old when he fought Goliath and shortly after was wed and found himself fleeing Saul all within three short years.²

THE MARRIAGE

The story begins to go south by the time Saul invited David to marry Michal. The text tells us that Saul’s daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. “I will give her to him,” he thought, “so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him.” (1 Sa 18:20–21a). But when David was offered a bride, he replied, “I am a poor and lightly esteemed man”, meaning that he was unable to provide a bride price, especially one of a king’s daughter. Saul then advised him that no bride price was required except for the foreskins of 100 Philistines, to which David then “answered” by killing 200 Philistines. In the ancient world this would have been a “double portion” sentiment essentially expressing that the dowry was far greater than the price asked and also communicating a message that he was able and willing. It was often viewed in a client benefactor relationship as the returning of a reciprocal gestured gift. But I want you to also consider the implications of the text. This is a 16–17-year-old boy (likely with a forming army) who kills 200 philistines.

Can you deconstruct any traditional (David was a man after God’s own heart) thoughts you might have on David to just take a step back and unbiasedly consider the repercussions of this? David was anointed to bring back Israel to God. Saul represents the world. David is quickly enticed by the praises of the world, the flesh, and the kingship that he will do nearly anything to continue his rise to power. I doubt his interest in the wedding to Michal was much more than a political step. We don’t seem to see any inkling of more than that in the text. But consider what David did, at the request of Saul, the worldly king who at this point is positioned in the text as one being opposite of God, kills 200 philistines and brings back part of their genitals.

There is nothing in the text to hint that God thought this was a good idea, there is no divine sanction given; we are simply reading the narrative of what took place. You are always being mentored by someone and here we see David begin to be mentored by the ways of the world. Some even go as far to say that King Saul was demon possessed at this time.³ You have to ask the question then, is this cold-blooded murder? Is it an act of war and permissible in the ancient world? Why would David do this? The evident answer is it was a way of personally solidifying the throne rather than relying on God’s timing. The reality of the situation was likely that Each foreskin represents a life taken. Not by natural disaster, chaos or an act of God, not even by war, or accident. Each life was taken by David, on the jealous whim of King Saul.

By the time David is only 18 years old, Saul turns on David throwing the Javelin at him causing David to flee and rally some men for protection. Michal chooses the welfare of David over the wishes of her father. When Saul’s messengers search for David in order to kill him, Michal sends them away while pretending he was ill and laid up in bed. She lets David down through a window and hides teraphim in his bed as a ruse. J. Cheryl Exum points out that although she risked her life in helping him, after he leaves the court, he makes no attempt to contact her.⁴ This might imply a one-sided love, but we would have to deduce that as the text doesn’t clearly say one way or another. It could also be an act to protect her so that she would not have been implicated or even killed. We also don’t know why she helped David or her heart’s intentions; the text doesn’t give us that. I don’t know that at this point in the story we should be deducing much. There don’t seem to be any great biblical takeaways, it is merely character development, but don’t miss that. I used to think that David’s heart was “pure” at the beginning but after really thinking through the early parts of this story and particularly the 200 foreskins and likely trying to assume a place in the kingdom for himself, I am no longer convinced. On the other hand, we all make mistakes, but hopefully that doesn’t entail the murder of 200 people.

DAVID ALIGNS WITH THE PHILISTINES

What is even more strange than this is that within a short period of time from this instance, David sought refuge among the Philistines, specifically with Achish, the king of Gath. In 1 Samuel 27, David and his men settled in Ziklag, a town given to him by Achish. David lived among the Philistines for a year and four months, during which he conducted raids against various groups while maintaining the pretense of loyalty to Achish.

Some have tried to argue that David killed 200 Philistines as some kind of holy sanction in the name of the LORD to drive out and annihilate them. I don’t think this is a faithful view. The text doesn’t make any effort to suggest such a “smile” from God and the over whelming commands of YHWH would not line up with this kind of violence or murder particularly in form of a payment or dowry. You also have to ask the question would God be aligned with the Philistines?

The Philistines played a crucial role in the events leading to Saul’s downfall. In 1 Samuel 28-31, the Philistines gathered their forces to fight against Israel. David, still under the guise of a Philistine ally, was initially expected to join the battle. However, the Philistine commanders, wary of David’s potential betrayal, refused to allow him to fight alongside them (1 Samuel 29:4-7).

The battle culminated in a disastrous defeat for Israel at Mount Gilboa, where Saul and his sons, including Jonathan, were killed. This defeat paved the way for David’s ascension to the throne of Israel. If you are paying attention, you are going to figure out that David aided the Philistines in fighting against Israel so that he could assume the throne of Israel. In other words, he put Himself in alliance with those that God had commanded clearly not to be in alliance with. Again, if you can allow yourself to read unbiasedly, it sure seems like David is making decisions away from the heart of God and violating several of God’s commands rather than being one who aligns with them.

REMARRIAGE

The plot thickens, while David was in hiding Saul gave Michal as a wife to Palti, son of Laish. Again, the Biblical narrative doesn’t tell us much. Was this an act to blot out David from Israel as if he were dead? David will also go on to take on several other wives (which should also allude to some thigs in your plot and character analysis), but when David becomes king of Judah and Ish-bosheth (Michal’s brother, and Saul’s son) is king of Israel, David demands her return to him in return for peace between them. Ish-bosheth complied, despite the public protests of Palti (2 Samuel 3:13–16.) Again, the text doesn’t give us a lot. Is this David wanting his first love back or more of a power play? Robert Alter observes that by stressing that he had paid the requested bride price, David makes a legal argument as a political calculation to reinforce his legitimacy as a member of the royal house. Alter notes the contrast between David’s measured negotiations and Palti’s public grief.⁵ It appears Michal had a real relationship with the second husband, as he weeps bitterly as she’s taken away (2 Sam. 3:12). We don’t hear from her again until that fateful day when the Ark came into Jerusalem. But this could account for bitterness. Is she a woman in captivity?

This is where things get interesting. I have said it for many years; David is a wild card. Most people think of him as a guy with a heart after God, but as I have made the point subsequentially that isn’t biblically accurate. John Walton has a book coming out on this topic. I am not sure I could trust David, or who knows, maybe he would be my best friend. It’s messy. It is complicated. I have no idea. He loved the Lord but seemed so far away at times. He did great things for the kingdom but was nearly solely responsible for Israel’s demise and set the table for Israel completing turning from the Lord. He had been given everything necessary to do great things for the Lord but seemed to fall hugely short. The rest of the story of David and Michal continues to show this sort of messiness begging the question, what exactly is going on.

ARK HISTORY

When David brought the ark in the first time, he did so in complete ignorance. Here is the danger when every generation does not go back to the word of God and study fresh without consideration of the traditions established by the previous generation. The ark had been carted around the countryside off and on and housed for many years so that a generation arose that had no idea that God had legislated transporting the ark. In 1 Chron. 15:12, David admits his error – notice the words, “we did not seek the Lord according to the rule.” Wow, that is a Geraldo episode!

IT IS COMPLICATED

After Michal was returned to David, she criticized him for dancing in an undignified manner, as he brought the Ark of the Covenant to the newly captured Jerusalem in a religious procession (2 Samuel 6:14–22). But if you dive into the context of 2 Samuel 6 this is very complicated. We need some prior context. 2 Samuel 6:3-8 and 1 Chronicles 13:7-11 tell us that when the Ark of the Covenant was being brought back from the land of the Philistines Uzzah drove the cart on which the ark was placed when David sought to bring it up to Jerusalem. When the oxen stumbled, making the ark tilt, Uzzah steadied the ark with his hand, in direct violation of the divine law (Numbers 4:15), and he was immediately killed by the Lord for his error. This seems harsh, but that’s a different article. David, displeased because Yahweh had killed Uzzah,⁶ called the place where this occurred “Perez-uzzah”, which means “to burst out against Uzzah” according to 2 Samuel 6:8 and 1 Chronicles 13:11. That is quite a statement against the Lord. Consider that for a moment and I will remind you that it was a public profession. Can you imagine a “heart after God’s heart” making that kind of a statement?

David was afraid to bring the ark any further (after making a statement about God like that I would be too) and placed it in the house of Obed-Edom the Gittite for what ended up being only three months. The Lord then blessed Obed-edom and David went and brought up the ark of God into the city of David. Was David just in it for the blessings? At this point you should be wondering what exactly is happening between David and God. God kills Uzzah, David is mad, David drops off the Ark, God blesses them, David then wants it back and goes and gets it; then does one of his famous naked dances in the street and his wife gets upset.

“DANCING” WITH GOD

There is a word play in Hebrew that might describe David dancing like a mad man and the implication would be that he was mad at God. David danced before the Lord. The Hebrew word used for before is lipeni. This is often used as a preposition, but it can also be used as an adjective. As a preposition, it would simply mean that David danced before God. But as an adjective, it would mean that David danced in God’s presence. Actually, it would be more correct to say that David danced with God. But In Hebrew this is a contranym, meaning it can be a dance or a tussle. I say this because the Hebrew word for dance that is used here, it is karar. The common word for dance in Hebrew is mawkhole, but that is not used here. In fact, karar is used only two times in the Hebrew Bible, both in this passage. In extra-Biblical sources karar does not mean to dance at all, it means to spin around like a top and pictured as children fighting in ancient times. karar in its Semitic root means one who is possessed. In verse 20, we learn his wife Michal was upset with David because he danced naked. The word naked or uncovered however is the word nigelah in Hebrew, in English we would say to become “unhinged.” Are you following me? The Hebrew words are specific in the text and are purposeful. The implication is he was acting like a fighting child. This could be good or bad. Was he actually “dancing” beautifully with the Lord? If so, why the strange use of Hebrew words and the play on them? The Hebrew verbiage seems to imply a negative childish act of fighting with God or being mad in the way that he danced.

DAVID’S DRESS OR NACKEDNESS

Michal accuses him of going around “half-naked.” The Hebrew word is the passive form of גילה gi-lay, which is נגלה nig-la, and means to be revealed. Her meaning in 2 Sam. 6:20 seems to be “to expose oneself.” Was it a naked dance? But we need to understand grammatical voices in the text as a texture of interpretation. This is an accurate account of what Michal said, but not necessarily an accurate account of what David actually did. Particularly because the text itself says that he was clothed.

Michal may have been just in criticizing David. Her words are accurate. David was not behaving in a kingly fashion, and she accused him of taking a sexual overtone in the way he showed himself. You might read into the text an accusation of pride here. But in a way she was correct, this was not a “kingly” gesture, and it may not have been portrayed as a “Godly” gesture to some. In light of what we have discovered, interpreting this as any kind of a “God honoring” dance seems far-fetched, but that is what David claims it was.

THE EPHOD

The ephod David wore was a garment usually reserved for priests and those ministering before the Lord.⁷ As David led the procession of the ark into the city, he laid aside the royal garments and worshiped the Lord, in ecstatic joy. This is complicated. David wasn’t a priest, although all of Israel was supposed to have been priests. Is this a slap in the face or a returning to the divine plan? In some ways Michal and others might have even wondered if God would strike him down for going from wearing a priest’s ephod to being nearly naked, especially knowing what he did in terms of naming the place of Uzzah’s death. This is reminiscent of a controversial super bowl half time show of modern America. Israel knew how to party, and this could have been construed many different ways.

The text tells us that “David danced before the Lord with all his might” (2 Sam. 6:14). But this could be interpreted several different ways. It doesn’t say that is what the Lord thought or received it as. It is more like a narrator at a parade, or a restating of what David said. Michal condemned David for dressing or undressing in such a common fashion and lowering himself to dance and rejoice with the common people as the ark was being brought into Jerusalem. Was she right? Was she simply embarrassed or could she have been spiritually concerned? Is there any way this could have been an act of humility on David’s part?

FORESHADOWS

Some have made the point that perhaps he was attempting to be a nobody in his nakedness. Was he acting in pride or humility? Sometimes that is a fine line. Was Michal in alignment with God or worried about her own reputation? Whatever your thoughts, there is an element of the dance that foreshadows Jesus. David was humble to dance unlike the perceived character of the world’s expectations for a king. Jesus also in humility, did not meet the world’s expectations for a king. Perhaps in the same mindset, David knew that “poor in spirit” was the way he needed to approach God. God is the one he needed to honor, not himself. It is also worth considering that the priests were supposed to be the image of humility before the Lord and David in stripping down to nearly nothing was showing his complete transparent humility before Israel and the Lord. This could also be a foreshadow of Christ’s ultimate act of humility wearing nearly the same thing to the cross.

When later questioned by Michal David’s response is interesting, “It was before the Lord … and I will celebrate before the Lord. I will make myself yet more contemptible than this, and I will be abased in your eyes. But by the female servants of whom you have spoken, by them I shall be held in honor” (2 Sam. 6:21-22). Was his dance an act of pride, humility, or madness? He seems to get quite offensive with Michal, especially if he then withholds offspring from her. I will remind you that such dancing or leaping, seems to be a posture of the heart affirmed by Jesus (Luke 6:22, 23). I bring this up because as we question, we should be reminded that Jesus came to clarify and set several records straight. However, the context of Luke 6 doesn’t seem to be pointing towards David either, so I am not sure that applying it is a faithful hermeneutic.

MICHAL AND THE WINDOW

Saul had little inkling for anything Godly. Maybe Michal didn’t either. But perhaps she has lost any passion to truly seek to know God. The procession to bring the sacred box, called the ark, to Jerusalem was a very joyful event and much like the procession for a bride on her wedding day. On a groom’s wedding day, it was accustomed for a man to dance in front of the bride. He may be an upstanding man; but at the wedding, he was happy for people to laugh with him. On that day, he desired no honor for himself, he desired only that the bride should receive honor. This also might give us some implications to the foreshadowing of Christ as the Bride of the church which was intended to have been Israel.⁸

DAVID REBUKES MICHAL

I want to ask a challenging question for your deep consideration. Does the Bible actually tell us that the Lord was pleased by David’s dance? In the next chapter Nathan starts by telling David that the Lord is “with Him”, but then Nathan gets a word from the Lord that seems contrary and the Lord doesn’t sound pleased, in fact David is downright reprimanded by the WORD OF THE LORD. But David’s responsive prayer seems very humble in reply. OHHHHHH This back and forth….

David rebuked Michal in the Bible for criticizing his exuberant dancing before the Lord, perhaps emphasizing his devotion to God over royal propriety, or was it possibly a holy disgust? Could Michal actually be the voice (picture) of one that is holy, and the lack of children shows the tribulation of Israel before God? Either way, this incident further strained their relationship, and the Bible notes that Michal remained childless until her death. ⁹ While some interpret this as a divine punishment for her judgment of David’s worship, I don’t think that is the case or the nature of God. It is more likely that David, in his anger, withheld himself from her sexually, especially considering his other options. King David had several wives, including Michal, Abigail of Carmel, Ahinoam of Jezreel, Maacah, Haggith, Abital, and Eglah, as well as concubines. The estrangement between Michal and David, rooted in their differing perspectives on loyalty to God and the monarchy, ultimately led to their childlessness and the end of Saul’s lineage.

Let’s consider for a moment that the barrenness was a message from God. If your theology finds yourself believing David was pure in his actions and Michal was not in alignment with God or David but rather represents the world in this story, then her barrenness might also be significant as understanding foreshadowing to Christ. If the world is against Christ, then perhaps they are made barren, which means to no longer produce life… Choose Jesus or choose death. That might be an interesting implication of the text to those unbelieving of Jesus as the Messiah, which ironically was near the same cultural audience several hundred years later. Would barrenness be seen as then a punishment from God? That might be theologically problematic if you believe God is only capable of what is good. It is also interesting that Michal is not described as being beautiful (when other brides sometimes are), though Rabbinic tradition holds that she was of “entrancing beauty.”¹⁰

It is also worth noting that from this time on the Levites facilitated the worship of the nation of Israel from the days of King David to the days of Nehemiah in the temple with musical instruments and singing but not dancing according to Numbers 1:48-54, 8:15; 1 Chronicles 23:1-6; Nehemiah 10:39, 11:22. Does this carry any implications?

CONCLUSIVE THOUGHTS:

First of all, I don’t want to shape your conclusion but provide a basis of better interpretation. I am not spoon-feeding babies here.

This story is ugly in so many ways. But it didn’t have to be. This is why I am so conflicted with David and his character. What if, instead of rebuking her, he loved her? What if he sought to bring healing to her bitter heart? It is the kindness of the Lord that leads us to repentance (Romans 2:4). While I love David’s zeal, I see a little bit of pride and childishness in his response to his wife.¹¹ But then again, what if we are really missing the big picture? What if God was smiling on David because his heart had changed in the dance off or wrestling match. Could the composure of David’s prayer in the next chapter finally show him bringing a heart of repentance before the Lord?

Michal remained barren until the end of her life. But I think David could have brought healing to her wounded heart. Traditionally we hear things like David had a heart after God and danced before the Lord and God was pleased, but the text doesn’t actually say or even imply anything close to that upon more careful reading.

Lastly, we are told not to judge, but we are supposed to study the word, test the spirit, and act to bear fruit. What can we learn transparently from this text? And herein is the hope for us: If God can extend love and grace to a man like David – if God can establish the kingdom of Jesus Christ through the merciless murder of 200 Philistine men and boys – then the depth of His grace is boundless. And the same grace that fell to David is available to us all, through the Son of David, the Lord Jesus Christ. Praise be to God.