Changes

David and Jonathan are two famous characters in the [[Old Testament]], whose committed friendship and brotherly love amidst much stress makes their story one of the most remarkable ones in the [[Bible]]. Both showed themselves to be daring warriors for Israel, achieving notable victories against great odds, by faith in God and for His cause, in a  land in which dangerous enemies were yet to be fought. Their story is mainly told in [[1 Samuel]], chapters 13-23,31 and 2 Samuel 1, two books which contain the history of the kingdom of God in Israel, from the termination of the age of the judges to the close of the reign of king David.<ref>Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament</ref> David and Jonathan's close Godly kinship is revealed as an honored example of sacrificial and loyal platonic love in the cause of righteousness. However, pro-homosex proponents labor to construe it as a homoerotic affair, and charge the writers of the Bible with [[homophobia]] for covering it up, as it lacks the necessary descriptions used elsewhere to denote the eroticism they seek.  

'''David and Jonathan''' are two famous characters in the [[Old Testament]], whose committed friendship and brotherly love amidst much stress makes their story one of the most remarkable ones in the [[Bible]]. Both showed themselves to be daring warriors for Israel, achieving notable victories against great odds, by faith in God and for His cause, in a  land in which dangerous enemies were yet to be fought. Their story is mainly told in [[1 Samuel]], chapters 13-23,31 and 2 Samuel 1, two books which contain the history of the kingdom of God in Israel, from the termination of the age of the judges to the close of the reign of king David.<ref>Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament</ref> David and Jonathan's close Godly kinship is revealed as an honored example of sacrificial and loyal platonic love in the cause of righteousness. However, pro-homosex proponents labor to construe it as a homoerotic affair, and charge the writers of the Bible with [[homophobia]] for covering it up, as it lacks the necessary descriptions used elsewhere to denote the eroticism they seek.  

==Jonathan's faith and his fighting==  

==Jonathan's faith and his fighting==

While David is usually mentioned first in referencing their relationship, due to his greater popularity in Scripture, it is Jonathan who chronologically first occurs, and whom God greatly used to enable David's accession to power. Jonathan is the English translation of the Hebrew word ''yehônâthân'', which means YHVH[Yahweh]-given, a name shared by four Israelites. He was the oldest son of Saul, presumably of his wife, Ahinoam, and had two brothers, Ishui and Melchishua, and two sisters, Merab and Michal. ((1Sam. 14:49,50)  His father Saul had been anointed to be the first king by Samuel the prophet as directed by God, in condescension to the people's rebellious desire to be more like pagan nations. As the eldest son the kingship would normally have been his. It seems likely that he knew of his father's loss of the right to the kingship by disobedience, (1Sam. 13:14-16; 15; cf. Num 14:18)  and possibly may have known that that David was to be the next king.  

While David is usually mentioned first in referencing their relationship, due to his greater popularity in Scripture, it is Jonathan who chronologically first occurs, and whom God greatly used to enable David's accession to power. Jonathan is the English translation of the Hebrew word ''yehônâthân'', which means YHVH[Yahweh]-given, a name shared by four Israelites. He was the oldest son of Saul, presumably of his wife, Ahinoam, and had two brothers, Ishui and Melchishua, and two sisters, Merab and Michal. (1Sam. 14:49,50)  His father Saul had been anointed to be the first king by Samuel the prophet as directed by God, in condescension to the people's rebellious desire to be more like pagan nations. As the eldest son the kingship would normally have been his. It seems likely that he knew of his father's loss of the right to the kingship by disobedience, (1Sam. 13:14-16; 15; cf. Num 14:18)  and possibly may have known that that David was to be the next king.  

As the oldest son of Saul in a kingdom with many enemies, Jonathan would have been trained as a soldier. Jonathan is first mentioned in 1 Samuel 13, in which Saul had gathered 3,000 men of Israel to fight against the Philistines.  Saul's army was outnumbered, and the Philistines had greatly restricted their ability to arm themselves, though with Saul and Jonathan there was found some weapons. (1Sam. 13:19-22)  It  is Jonathan who commits the first act in a war of independence, attacking a garrison of the Philistines with the 1,000 men Saul had allotted him. This results in the Philistines massing for retaliatory action, "as the sand which is on the sea shore in multitude", and Israel fleeing in distress.  

As the oldest son of Saul in a kingdom with many enemies, Jonathan would have been trained as a soldier. Jonathan is first mentioned in 1 Samuel 13, in which Saul had gathered 3,000 men of Israel to fight against the Philistines.  Saul's army was outnumbered, and the Philistines had greatly restricted their ability to arm themselves, though with Saul and Jonathan there was found some weapons. (1Sam. 13:19-22)  It  is Jonathan who commits the first act in a war of independence, attacking a garrison of the Philistines with the 1,000 men Saul had allotted him. This results in the Philistines massing for retaliatory action, "as the sand which is on the sea shore in multitude", and Israel fleeing in distress.  

Samuel reproves King Saul for his “foolishness”, and states that as a consequence his kingdom would not be established, as God sought a man after His own heart. (1Sam. 13:8-14) Keil & Delitzsch think this "refers to the fact that it was not established in perpetuity by being transmitted to his descendants. It was not till his second transgression that Saul was rejected, or declared unworthy of being king over the people of God (1 Samuel 15)." Samuel leaves, with  Saul and Jonathan being together with the people.  

Samuel reproves King Saul for his “foolishness”, and states that as a consequence his kingdom would not be established, as God sought a man after His own heart. (1Sam. 13:8-14) Keil & Delitzsch think this "refers to the fact that it was not established in perpetuity by being transmitted to his descendants. It was not till his second transgression that Saul was rejected, or declared unworthy of being king over the people of God (1 Samuel 15)." Samuel leaves, with  Saul and Jonathan being together with the people.  

In the next chapter it is recorded that while his father Saul "tarried in the uttermost part of Gibeah under a pomegranate tree", Jonathan independently called to his armourbearer, that they might go over unto the contingent of the uncircumcised (Philistines), as "it may be that the LORD will work for us: for there is no restraint to the LORD to save by many or by few."  (2Chr. 14:11) This is seen to reveal his faith and commitment to the God of Israel,<ref>Keil & Delitzsch, 1Sam. 14:6</ref> and which David also demonstrated. (1Sam. 17:36,37) The response of the armor bearer, "I am with thee according to thy heart", (1Sam. 14:6,7) also indicates that Jonathan discerned and chose loyal and brave comrades. Jonathan's strategy (1Sam. 14:8-10) was one that would provide a sign whether God had delivered the Philistines into their hands to slay, and which also reveals that he was in communion with God, and depending on His Spirit.<ref>Matthew Henry. 1Sam. 14:1-15 </ref>

In the next chapter it is recorded that while his father Saul "tarried in the uttermost part of Gibeah under a pomegranate tree", Jonathan independently called to his armourbearer, that they might go over unto the contingent of the uncircumcised (Philistines), as "it may be that the LORD will work for us: for there is no restraint to the LORD to save by many or by few."  (2Chr. 14:11) This is seen to reveal his faith and commitment to the God of Israel,<ref>Keil & Delitzsch, 1Sam. 14:6</ref> and which David also demonstrated. (1Sam. 17:36,37) The response of the armor bearer, "I am with thee according to thy heart", (1Sam. 14:6,7) also indicates that Jonathan discerned and chose loyal and brave comrades. Jonathan's strategy (1Sam. 14:8-10) was one that would provide a sign whether God had delivered the Philistines into their hands to slay, and which also reveals that he was in communion with God, and depending on His Spirit.<ref>Matthew Henry. 1Sam. 14:1-15</ref>

Jonathan and his armor bearer reveal themselves to the Philistines, who do not go toward the Hebrews but respond with a invitation to come to them to fight, which is the positive sign they were looking for,  expressed by Jonathan, that "the LORD hath delivered them into the hand of Israel." The resultant slaughter of about 20 Philistines by only 2 Hebrews, as well as a small earthquake, places fear in their hearts of the Philistines, who proceed to fight amongst themselves, apparently in panic. (1Sam. 14:11-16)

Jonathan and his armor bearer reveal themselves to the Philistines, who do not go toward the Hebrews but respond with an invitation to come to them to fight, which is the positive sign they were looking for,  expressed by Jonathan, that "the LORD hath delivered them into the hand of Israel." The resultant slaughter of about 20 Philistines by only 2 Hebrews, as well as a small earthquake, places fear in their hearts of the Philistines, who proceed to fight amongst themselves, apparently in panic. (1Sam. 14:11-16)

King Saul, for his part, has placed his people under a complete fast until evening, with violation    being a capital offense, and has also found that Jonathan is not among the people. He calls for the ark of God to inquire of Him, and as the noise of the implosion of the Philistines increases, all Israel joins in battle against them, resulting in a God-given defeat of their enemies. However, a faint Jonathan, ignorant of Saul's fast, has eaten a little honey for strength. Upon being made aware of his violation, Jonathan notes the poor judgment of his father in hindering (by hunger) Israel from effecting a greater laughter among the Philistines. Moreover, in their faint condition the people eat animals left behind by their enemies without draining the blood.  Saul rectifies the latter situation, and also discovers Jonathan's violation of eating, and sentences him to death for it. Only earnest intercession by the people prevents this. This pressure by the people, or fear of it, will later factor in key decisions made by King Saul. (1Sam. 14:24-45)  Saul's willingness to destroy his own son's life can later be seen in contrast with his sparing animals belonging to the Amalekites, which he was commanded by God to slay,  (1Sam. 15:1-23)  unlike the religious vow he autocratically made which would have slain his son.   

King Saul, for his part, has placed his people under a complete fast until evening, with violation    being a capital offense, and has also found that Jonathan is not among the people. He calls for the ark of God to inquire of Him, and as the noise of the implosion of the Philistines increases, all Israel joins in battle against them, resulting in a God-given defeat of their enemies. However, a faint Jonathan, ignorant of Saul's fast, has eaten a little honey for strength. Upon being made aware of his violation, Jonathan notes the poor judgment of his father in hindering (by hunger) Israel from effecting a greater laughter among the Philistines. Moreover, in their faint condition the people eat animals left behind by their enemies without draining the blood.  Saul rectifies the latter situation, and also discovers Jonathan's violation of eating, and sentences him to death for it. Only earnest intercession by the people prevents this. This pressure by the people, or fear of it, will later factor in key decisions made by King Saul. (1Sam. 14:24-45)  Saul's willingness to destroy his own son's life can later be seen in contrast with his sparing animals belonging to the Amalekites, which he was commanded by God to slay,  (1Sam. 15:1-23)  unlike the religious vow he autocratically made which would have slain his son.   

{{see also|David}}

{{see also|David}}

[[David]] was from the tribe of Judah, (Ruth 4:18-22) and the second king of Israel, after [[King Saul]]. It is held that it is David's tribe which  Genesis 49:10 speaks of the [[Messiah]] coming from.<ref>http://www.letusreason.org/Juda1.htm</ref> (Genesis 49:10; cf. 2 Samuel 7:12-16; Matt.1:2 , Heb. 7:14-17) David was the youngest of 8 sons of Jesse, who also had 2 daughters. (1Sam. 16:8-12; 17:2; 1Chr. 2:13-16<ref>see Keil & Delitzsch on 1Chrn. 2:9-41</ref>) The name of David's mother is not given, but it appears he had a devoted father. The name ''David'', like the similar name Jedidish (2Sam. 12:25), comes from a root meaning “to love.” David is the only person who bears this name in the Bible. David's ancestor Nahshon was chieftain of the whole tribe of Judah, (Num. 1:7; 2:3; 1Chr. 2:10) and brother-in-law of Aaron the high priest. (Exo. 6:23; 1Sam. 22:3; 22:1) Thus David had a rich spiritual heritage.

[[David]] was from the tribe of Judah, (Ruth 4:18-22) and the second king of Israel, after [[King Saul]]. It is held that it is David's tribe which  Genesis 49:10 speaks of the [[Messiah]] coming from.<ref>http://www.letusreason.org/Juda1.htm</ref> (Genesis 49:10; cf. 2 Samuel 7:12-16; Matt.1:2, Heb. 7:14-17) David was the youngest of 8 sons of Jesse, who also had 2 daughters. (1Sam. 16:8-12; 17:2; 1Chr. 2:13-16<ref>see Keil & Delitzsch on 1Chrn. 2:9-41</ref>) The name of David's mother is not given, but it appears he had a devoted father. The name ''David'', like the similar name Jedidish (2Sam. 12:25), comes from a root meaning “to love.” David is the only person who bears this name in the Bible. David's ancestor Nahshon was chieftain of the whole tribe of Judah, (Num. 1:7; 2:3; 1Chr. 2:10) and brother-in-law of Aaron the high priest. (Exo. 6:23; 1Sam. 22:3; 22:1) Thus David had a rich spiritual heritage.

David worked as a shepherd of sheep, and which would require both tending to the needs of sheep as well as defending them, not only against marauders from the surrounding deserts, but also from the lions and bears with inhabited the country. This was work which, while then unknown to him, helped prepared him to later defend and lead Israel. The descriptions given of him in this regard indicates obedience to his father and diligence in his work. (1Sam. 17:20-22)  

David worked as a shepherd of sheep, and which would require both tending to the needs of sheep as well as defending them, not only against marauders from the surrounding deserts, but also from the lions and bears with inhabited the country. This was work which, while then unknown to him, helped prepared him to later defend and lead Israel. The descriptions given of him in this regard indicates obedience to his father and diligence in his work. (1Sam. 17:20-22)  

David had been chosen by God to succeed Saul due to the latter's disobedience, which revealed his heart. God sent the prophet Samuel to anoint the lowly but "ruddy" and handsome shepherd boy David, who apparently was thought to be the least qualified candidate. Saul, for his part, was punished by God with an evil spirit which troubled him, rather than the Holy Spirit which God previously had anointed Saul with. As a result, David was called as he could o play a harp type instrument, and which drove the evil spirit away for a time.  

David had been chosen by God to succeed Saul due to the latter's disobedience, which revealed his heart. God sent the prophet Samuel to anoint the lowly but "ruddy" and handsome shepherd boy David, who apparently was thought to be the least qualified candidate. Saul, for his part, was punished by God with an evil spirit which troubled him, rather than the Holy Spirit which God previously had anointed Saul with. As a result, David was called as he could o play a harp type instrument, and which drove the evil spirit away for a time.  

Saul was at war with the Philistines on a regular basis, and a giant named [[Goliath]] dared Israel to find a man to fight him, with the winner gaining the submission of the opposing side. No Israelite dared face him, and when David's father sent him with food to the battle ground for his 3 oldest brothers, David heard Goliath's taunts and his cursing , invoking his pagan gods, and how Saul had offered even his own daughter in marriage to one who would defeat Goliath. In response David soon declared to Goliath that God would enable him to defeat him, "that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel. And all this assembly shall know that the LORD saveth not with sword and spear: for the battle is the LORD'S, and he will give you into our hands." (1Sa 17:46,47) David went on to defeat Goliath with one stone out of his slingshot, and removed Goliath's head with his own sword. The Philistines then fled with Israel in pursuit, with them going on to realize a great defeat of their foe that day.

Saul was at war with the Philistines on a regular basis, and a giant named [[Goliath]] dared Israel to find a man to fight him, with the winner gaining the submission of the opposing side. No Israelite dared face him, and when David's father sent him with food to the battle ground for his 3 oldest brothers, David heard Goliath's taunts and his cursing, invoking his pagan gods, and how Saul had offered even his own daughter in marriage to one who would defeat Goliath. In response David soon declared to Goliath that God would enable him to defeat him, "that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel. And all this assembly shall know that the LORD saveth not with sword and spear: for the battle is the LORD'S, and he will give you into our hands." (1Sa 17:46,47) David went on to defeat Goliath with one stone out of his slingshot, and removed Goliath's head with his own sword. The Philistines then fled with Israel in pursuit, with them going on to realize a great defeat of their foe that day.

==Jonathan, David and Saul==

==Jonathan, David and Saul==

===Jonathan's intercession===

===Jonathan's intercession===

 

In contrast to Saul's antipathy toward David was Jonathan's esteem and love towards him, which contrast was conducive to the manifestation of such. While Saul commanded Jonathan his son and all his servants, that they should kill David, Jonathan alerted David and suggests he hide while he intercedes on his behalf. Jonathan then reasons with his father, that David did no wrong against him, and instead did him good, and that David risked his life for Israel, and which Saul rejoiced in, and so how could his father slay an innocent man? Saul comes to his senses for the time, and swears by the living God that he shall not be slain, and Jonathan brings David back into the company of Saul. (1Sam. 19:1-7)

In contrast to Saul's antipathy toward David was Jonathan's esteem and love towards him, which contrast was conducive to the manifestation of such. While Saul commanded Jonathan his son and all his servants, that they should kill David, Jonathan alerted David and suggests he hide while he intercedes on his behalf. Jonathan then reasons with his father, that David did no wrong against him, and instead did him good, and that David risked his life for Israel, and which Saul rejoiced in, and so how could his father slay an innocent man? Saul comes to his senses for the time, and swears by the living God that he shall not be slain, and Jonathan brings David back into the company of Saul. (1Sam. 19:1-7)

===Escape from King Saul===

===Escape from King Saul===

After this a hunted David is perplexed, and inquires of Jonathan as to why this changeable Saul, whom David has not sinned against, would want to kill him.  Jonathan responds that his father will not act against unless he knows it, and indicates he doubt Saul would kill him. However, David's not only understands that Saul would hide his murderous plan, due to Saul knowing that his son is allied with him, but knows of a certainly that Saul is very close to killing him. Jonathan is not at all uncertain as to whose side his is on, and expresses he is fully willing to do whatever is necessary to enable David's deliverance. David provides a strategy that will reveal Saul's heart, and obtains assurance from Jonathan that he will not betray him. Realizing the pressure by Saul he will face, Jonathan binds himself to a oath before God not to fail, but seeks a promise from David that he will not cut off his house, as the manner of kings would be in such a situation, showing that Jonathan knew David would be king. This was a request that Saul would also basically make (1Sam. 24:21) and "so Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David", but required "David to swear again, because he loved him: for he loved him as he loved his own soul." (1Sam. 19:1-17)

After this a hunted David is perplexed, and inquires of Jonathan as to why this changeable Saul, whom David has not sinned against, would want to kill him.  Jonathan responds that his father will not act against unless he knows it, and indicates he doubt Saul would kill him. However, David's not only understands that Saul would hide his murderous plan, due to Saul knowing that his son is allied with him, but knows of a certainly that Saul is very close to killing him. Jonathan is not at all uncertain as to whose side his is on, and expresses he is fully willing to do whatever is necessary to enable David's deliverance. David provides a strategy that will reveal Saul's heart, and obtains assurance from Jonathan that he will not betray him. Realizing the pressure by Saul he will face, Jonathan binds himself to an oath before God not to fail, but seeks a promise from David that he will not cut off his house, as the manner of kings would be in such a situation, showing that Jonathan knew David would be king. This was a request that Saul would also basically make (1Sam. 24:21) and "so Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David", but required "David to swear again, because he loved him: for he loved him as he loved his own soul." (1Sam. 19:1-17)

Jonathan next offers as plan to signal David one Saul's intent is made clear. When David does not show up for the new moon feast nor the meal the day after, and Saul discerns Jonathan's excuse was false, then he explodes in anger at Jonathan, calling his mother (who is nowhere named) by a slur name, and charging Jonathan with being shame on her conception, by forfeiting the power and kingdom that should have been his by birth. When Saul commands him to go get David so that he can kill him, Jonathan again seeks to reason with his father, saying, "Wherefore shall he be slain? what hath he done?" But Saul casts a javelin at him, wherefore Saul's intent toward David was made positively evident, which shameful treatment of David Jonathan is grieved at.  

Jonathan next offers as plan to signal David one Saul's intent is made clear. When David does not show up for the new moon feast nor the meal the day after, and Saul discerns Jonathan's excuse was false, then he explodes in anger at Jonathan, calling his mother (who is nowhere named) by a slur name, and charging Jonathan with being shame on her conception, by forfeiting the power and kingdom that should have been his by birth. When Saul commands him to go get David so that he can kill him, Jonathan again seeks to reason with his father, saying, "Wherefore shall he be slain? what hath he done?" But Saul casts a javelin at him, wherefore Saul's intent toward David was made positively evident, which shameful treatment of David Jonathan is grieved at.  

Saul will go on to consult a witch, in his need to hear from God whom he effectively forsook, and would die in battle, along with Jonathan and two of his brothers, against the Philistines. (1Sam. 31) These two dear friends and sworn allies, David and Jonathan, whom the Scripture evidences had no others close by on their side, and whose brotherly love was proved in danger and intrigue, would see each other no more on this earth. While Jonathan could have fled with Jonathan, nothing indicates that he had any such plans, but that he knew the kingdom belonged to David, and he was part of God's plan to bring it to pass. With that in view, and righteousness in general, then as by faith they both fought against Israel's common enemy the Philistines, so they were forced to fight against the one who would destroy Israel's God-chosen king. And as the Philistines found out, so Saul had realized at the end that one cannot fight against God and win.     

Saul will go on to consult a witch, in his need to hear from God whom he effectively forsook, and would die in battle, along with Jonathan and two of his brothers, against the Philistines. (1Sam. 31) These two dear friends and sworn allies, David and Jonathan, whom the Scripture evidences had no others close by on their side, and whose brotherly love was proved in danger and intrigue, would see each other no more on this earth. While Jonathan could have fled with Jonathan, nothing indicates that he had any such plans, but that he knew the kingdom belonged to David, and he was part of God's plan to bring it to pass. With that in view, and righteousness in general, then as by faith they both fought against Israel's common enemy the Philistines, so they were forced to fight against the one who would destroy Israel's God-chosen king. And as the Philistines found out, so Saul had realized at the end that one cannot fight against God and win.     

   

   

===The death of Saul and Jonathan and lament of David===

===The death of Saul and Jonathan and lament of David===

 

David, having escaped Saul's pursuit for many years, and sparing the king's life many times out of reverence for "the Lord's anointed," hears of the death of Saul and his sons by the hands of the Philistines. In response the psalmist of Israel expresses a deeply felt (as the Hebrew is said to show) lament "over Saul and over Jonathan his son", (2Sam. 1:17-27) of "how are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle!" His psalm here evidences that David's love for both his foe and his friend had not diminished. In part David expresses,  "The beauty of Israel is slain upon thy high places: how are the mighty fallen!" "Saul and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant in their lives, and in their death they were not divided: they were swifter than eagles, they were stronger than lions. Ye daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, who clothed you in scarlet, with other delights, who put on ornaments of gold upon your apparel. How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! O Jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places. 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.  How are the mighty fallen, and the weapons of war perished!" (2 Sam 1:19,23-27)  

David, having escaped Saul's pursuit for many years, and sparing the king's life many times out of reverence for "the Lord's anointed," hears of the death of Saul and his sons by the hands of the Philistines. In response the psalmist of Israel expresses a deeply felt (as the Hebrew is said to show) lament "over Saul and over Jonathan his son", (2Sam. 1:17-27) of "how are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle!" His psalm here evidences that David's love for both his foe and his friend had not diminished. In part David expresses,  "The beauty of Israel is slain upon thy high places: how are the mighty fallen!" "Saul and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant in their lives, and in their death they were not divided: they were swifter than eagles, they were stronger than lions. Ye daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, who clothed you in scarlet, with other delights, who put on ornaments of gold upon your apparel. How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! O Jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places. 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.  How are the mighty fallen, and the weapons of war perished!" (2 Sam 1:19,23-27)  

Horner,<ref>By Thomas Horner, Jonathan loved David,  pp. 38-63</ref> with the aid of a secular psychiatrist, sees the description as homosexual, with the words such as ''knit'', “soul” ''love'', ''covenant'', “delighteth” and ''chosen'', being focused upon by him and others as conveying a desired sexual meaning.  Horner also enlists radical revisionists,<ref>Susan Ackerman, When Heroes Love:. The Ambiguity of Eros in the Stories of Gilgamesh and David, pp. 82, 165-231</ref><ref>Nardel, Homosexuality and Liminality in the Gilgamesh and Samuel (Amsterdam, Hakkert, 2007), pp. 28-63li</ref> who perceive sex in pagan fictional poetry such as Gilgamesh and Enkidu, and believe that redactors encrypted same-sex allusions into Biblical text (though there is disagreement here about which one played the female part).  Horner also thinks that a similar story "must have" happened many times in royal courts in the Middle East in all periods. Greenberg<ref>Steven Greenberg, Wrestling with God and men, pp. 99-104</ref> sees homosex is in many places in the Bible and the [[Talmud]], and a sexual triangle between Saul, David and Jonathan, and from the outset asserts the latter was erotic.   

Horner,<ref>By Thomas Horner, Jonathan loved David,  pp. 38-63</ref> with the aid of a secular psychiatrist, sees the description as homosexual, with the words such as ''knit'', “soul” ''love'', ''covenant'', “delighteth” and ''chosen'', being focused upon by him and others as conveying a desired sexual meaning.  Horner also enlists radical revisionists,<ref>Susan Ackerman, When Heroes Love:. The Ambiguity of Eros in the Stories of Gilgamesh and David, pp. 82, 165-231</ref><ref>Nardel, Homosexuality and Liminality in the Gilgamesh and Samuel (Amsterdam, Hakkert, 2007), pp. 28-63li</ref> who perceive sex in pagan fictional poetry such as Gilgamesh and Enkidu, and believe that redactors encrypted same-sex allusions into Biblical text (though there is disagreement here about which one played the female part).  Horner also thinks that a similar story "must have" happened many times in royal courts in the Middle East in all periods. Greenberg<ref>Steven Greenberg, Wrestling with God and men, pp. 99-104</ref> sees homosex is in many places in the Bible and the [[Talmud]], and a sexual triangle between Saul, David and Jonathan, and from the outset asserts the latter was erotic.   

   

   

In response, the means of traditional exegesis evidences that the Bible makes basic laws as well as sexual human behavior (in particular) versus platonic actions evident, in their respective contexts, with David and Jonathan's love being a supreme  example of non-sexual brotherly love.  As manifested by his sacrificial loyalty to David, holy brotherly affection, and commitment to the future of the kingdom, Jonathan's love for David is seen as being of a superior platonic kind than that the mere romantic or erotic “love of women”.<ref>Matthew Henry</ref> All such accounts  are critically lacking the descriptions needed to postulate or establish erotic love, and in addtion (homosexual) expression would be radically contrary to explicit commands and the transcendent ethos of Israel. The divestiture of Jonathan's garments to place them upon David is evidenced as being partial, and having a clear ceremonial precedent. (Num. 20:25-28) The assertions of pro-homosex grammatical attempts are examined and found to be forced, and the strong emotive language expressed by David towards Jonathan is seen as being akin to that of platonic expressions in the Bible, (Gn. 33:4; 45:14,15) <ref>[http://www.tektonics.org/gk/gaydavid.html Were David and Jonathan Gay Lovers?, James Patrick Holding]</ref> and which is seen in more expressive cultures today.<ref>Regan, P. C; Jerry, D; Narvaez, M; Johnson, D. Public displays of affection among Asian and Latino heterosexual couples. Psychological Reports. 1999;84:1201–1202</ref>  As a team of theologians (including some pro homosexuals) led by Craig Blomberg of Denver Seminary points out, "only modern Westerners unfamiliar with the physical expression of friendship between men in the Middle East would mistake the Bible's references for homosexuality."<ref>"What the Bible Really Says About Sex"</ref> The political/social ramifications of pro-homosex polemics are also pointed out as presenting insurmountable problems.<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/NewsweekMillerHomosexResp.htm, Prof. Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon The Bible and Homosexual Practice], 146-54</ref><ref>Markus Zehnder, "Observations on the Relationship between David and Jonathan and the Debate on Homosexuality," Westminster Theological Journal 69.1 [2007]: 127-74)</ref><ref>Thomas E Schmidt, "Straight or Narrow?"</ref>

In response, the means of traditional exegesis evidences that the Bible makes basic laws as well as sexual human behavior (in particular) versus platonic actions evident, in their respective contexts, with David and Jonathan's love being a supreme  example of non-sexual brotherly love.  As manifested by his sacrificial loyalty to David, holy brotherly affection, and commitment to the future of the kingdom, Jonathan's love for David is seen as being of a superior platonic kind than that the mere romantic or erotic “love of women”.<ref>Matthew Henry</ref> All such accounts  are critically lacking the descriptions needed to postulate or establish erotic love, and in addition (homosexual) expression would be radically contrary to explicit commands and the transcendent ethos of Israel. The divestiture of Jonathan's garments to place them upon David is evidenced as being partial, and having a clear ceremonial precedent. (Num. 20:25-28) The assertions of pro-homosex grammatical attempts are examined and found to be forced, and the strong emotive language expressed by David towards Jonathan is seen as being akin to that of platonic expressions in the Bible, (Gn. 33:4; 45:14,15) <ref>[http://www.tektonics.org/gk/gaydavid.html Were David and Jonathan Gay Lovers?, James Patrick Holding]</ref> and which is seen in more expressive cultures today.<ref>Regan, P. C; Jerry, D; Narvaez, M; Johnson, D. Public displays of affection among Asian and Latino heterosexual couples. Psychological Reports. 1999;84:1201–1202</ref>  As a team of theologians (including some pro homosexuals) led by Craig Blomberg of Denver Seminary points out, "only modern Westerners unfamiliar with the physical expression of friendship between men in the Middle East would mistake the Bible's references for homosexuality."<ref>"What the Bible Really Says About Sex"</ref> The political/social ramifications of pro-homosex polemics are also pointed out as presenting insurmountable problems.<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/NewsweekMillerHomosexResp.htm, Prof. Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon The Bible and Homosexual Practice], 146-54</ref><ref>Markus Zehnder, "Observations on the Relationship between David and Jonathan and the Debate on Homosexuality," Westminster Theological Journal 69.1 [2007]: 127-74)</ref><ref>Thomas E Schmidt, "Straight or Narrow?"</ref>

===Responses to homoerotic polemics: chapter 18===

===Responses to homoerotic polemics: chapter 18===

In 1Sam. 18:1 the word "knit" (qâshar) is seen as by pro-homoerotic advocates as signifying homosexual attraction, but rather than being used for human sexual bonding in the Bible, it denotes  being of one heart and soul, with “loved him as his own soul” correlating to Gen 44:30.  

In 1Sam. 18:1 the word "knit" (qâshar) is seen as by pro-homoerotic advocates as signifying homosexual attraction, but rather than being used for human sexual bonding in the Bible, it denotes  being of one heart and soul, with “loved him as his own soul” correlating to Gen 44:30.  

In v. 2, Saul not letting David go any more home to his father's house is consistent with his practice previously, in which "when Saul saw any strong man, or any valiant man, he took him unto him" (1Sam. 14:52) as part of his army. While Horner sees Jonathan being homosexually attracted David by the sight of him, and even entertains the idea that Jonathan became naked, it is far more reasonable to surmise that Jonathan, who (contrary to Horner) also is manifested to be a daring warrior of faith, and who evidenced he valued those of like mind (1Sam. 13:3; 14:1-14), sees David as the bold yet humble hero that he was, whose love for God was showed in action.  Knowing of his father's loss of the kingdom, (1Sam. 13:13; 15:17-29) Jonathan was likely not only yearning for such a fellow soldier as David showed himself to be, but also a chosen successor to Saul. Due to the kinship they find as like-minded warriors of faith, Jonathan not only enlists him in the household, but ensures a committed bond of friendship, and David's future place as the head of the kingdom (evidenced in the divestiture of Jonathan's royal attire and amour upon  David).  And as such David shows zeal to uphold the laws of God, which is abundantly evidenced as forbidding illicit sex, which manifests David's notable failure, as well ss it being of a purely heterosexual nature. Their bond would thus be spiritual and platonic, nor erotic.   

In v. 2, Saul not letting David go any more home to his father's house is consistent with his practice previously, in which "when Saul saw any strong man, or any valiant man, he took him unto him" (1Sam. 14:52) as part of his army. While Horner sees Jonathan being homosexually attracted David by the sight of him, and even entertains the idea that Jonathan became naked, it is far more reasonable to surmise that Jonathan, who (contrary to Horner) also is manifested to be a daring warrior of faith, and who evidenced he valued those of like mind (1Sam. 13:3; 14:1-14), sees David as the bold yet humble hero that he was, whose love for God was shown in action.  Knowing of his father's loss of the kingdom, (1Sam. 13:13; 15:17-29) Jonathan was likely not only yearning for such a fellow soldier as David showed himself to be, but also a chosen successor to Saul. Due to the kinship they find as like-minded warriors of faith, Jonathan not only enlists him in the household, but ensures a committed bond of friendship, and David's future place as the head of the kingdom (evidenced in the divestiture of Jonathan's royal attire and amour upon  David).  And as such David shows zeal to uphold the laws of God, which is abundantly evidenced as forbidding illicit sex, which manifests David's notable failure, as well ss it being of a purely heterosexual nature. Their bond would thus be spiritual and platonic, nor erotic.   

In v. 3, the idea that Jonathan entered into a covenant of marriage with David  is dismissed in the light of the fact that covenants were common in that world, the word occurring 285 times in the Old Testament, such as in assuring present and future alliances<ref>[http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/C/COVENANT%2C+IN+THE+OLD+TESTAMENT/, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Covenant, in the Old Testament]</ref>, and only once in reference to marriage, (Mal. 2:14) with the Bible again being faithful manifest what moral manner these are of. What is manifest here in this regard is not marriage but commitments that both political and brotherly alliances require  And the fact that Jonathan and David made three covenants  (1Sam. 18:3, 20:16 and 23:18) testifies to this form. Early Christians are said to have entered into a covenant daily with each other, never to lie, or betray one another,  etc., and by which each party pledged mutual trust.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=ZVYcAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=early+christians++pliny+never+to+betray+a+trust&source=bl&ots=TWI_1jo127&sig=Hh2WvMjRFPzoa8aAzqxaAsb1_gY&hl=en&ei=XszTSb7eN-DrlQf96MDODA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA52,M1 The Early Christians in Rome, by Henry Donald Maurice Spence-Jones; p. 52]</ref>  Moreover, it is inconceivable that if this purported marriage existed, that Jonathan would not go with David when it was made clear that he must depart, and Jonathan indicated he would not see him again. (1Sam. 20:15)  

In v. 3, the idea that Jonathan entered into a covenant of marriage with David  is dismissed in the light of the fact that covenants were common in that world, the word occurring 285 times in the Old Testament, such as in assuring present and future alliances,<ref>[http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/C/COVENANT%2C+IN+THE+OLD+TESTAMENT/, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Covenant, in the Old Testament]</ref> and only once in reference to marriage, (Mal. 2:14) with the Bible again being faithful manifest what moral manner these are of. What is manifest here in this regard is not marriage but commitments that both political and brotherly alliances require  And the fact that Jonathan and David made three covenants  (1Sam. 18:3, 20:16 and 23:18) testifies to this form. Early Christians are said to have entered into a covenant daily with each other, never to lie, or betray one another,  etc., and by which each party pledged mutual trust.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=ZVYcAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=early+christians++pliny+never+to+betray+a+trust&source=bl&ots=TWI_1jo127&sig=Hh2WvMjRFPzoa8aAzqxaAsb1_gY&hl=en&ei=XszTSb7eN-DrlQf96MDODA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA52,M1 The Early Christians in Rome, by Henry Donald Maurice Spence-Jones; p. 52]</ref>  Moreover, it is inconceivable that if this purported marriage existed, that Jonathan would not go with David when it was made clear that he must depart, and Jonathan indicated he would not see him again. (1Sam. 20:15)  

Gagnon notes that this description here can also be compared to formulaic treaty language in the ancient Near East, such as the address of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal to his vassals ("You must love [me] as yourselves") and the reference in 1 Kings 5:1 to King Hiram of Tyre as David's "lover.”<ref>Gagnon, ibid.</ref>  

Gagnon notes that this description here can also be compared to formulaic treaty language in the ancient Near East, such as the address of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal to his vassals ("You must love [me] as yourselves") and the reference in 1 Kings 5:1 to King Hiram of Tyre as David's "lover.”<ref>Gagnon, ibid.</ref>  

In regards to sexual relations,  examination of the Bible shows them to be evident, but none of the specific descriptions and or their euphemisms seen so often elsewhere therein to denote such is used for David and Jonathan's relationship. ("know/knew/known": Gn. 4:1,17,25; 24:16; 38:26; Num. 31:17,18,35; Jdg. 11:39; 19:25; 21:11,12; 1Sam. 1:19; 1Ki. 1:4; Mt. 1:25; Lk. 1:34; "in unto her": Gn. 29:21,23,cf. v.30; 30:3,4; 38:2; 38:18; Dt. 21:13; 22:13; 25:5; Jdg. 16:1; Ruth 4:13; 2Sam. 12:24; Ezek. 23:44; “lie/lay,laid, with”: Gn. 19:32-34; 26:10; 30:15; 34:2; 39:7,12,14; Ex. 22:16,19; Lv. 15:18,24; 18:22,23; 19:20; 20:11,12,15,18; Num. 5:13; Dt. 22:22,23,25,28,29; 27:20-23; 28:30; 2Sam. 11:4,11; 12:11,24; 13:11,14; "bed of love": Ezek. 23:17; miscl: Gn. 24:67)  

In regards to sexual relations,  examination of the Bible shows them to be evident, but none of the specific descriptions and or their euphemisms seen so often elsewhere therein to denote such is used for David and Jonathan's relationship. ("know/knew/known": Gn. 4:1,17,25; 24:16; 38:26; Num. 31:17,18,35; Jdg. 11:39; 19:25; 21:11,12; 1Sam. 1:19; 1Ki. 1:4; Mt. 1:25; Lk. 1:34; "in unto her": Gn. 29:21,23,cf. v.30; 30:3,4; 38:2; 38:18; Dt. 21:13; 22:13; 25:5; Jdg. 16:1; Ruth 4:13; 2Sam. 12:24; Ezek. 23:44; “lie/lay,laid, with”: Gn. 19:32-34; 26:10; 30:15; 34:2; 39:7,12,14; Ex. 22:16,19; Lv. 15:18,24; 18:22,23; 19:20; 20:11,12,15,18; Num. 5:13; Dt. 22:22,23,25,28,29; 27:20-23; 28:30; 2Sam. 11:4,11; 12:11,24; 13:11,14; "bed of love": Ezek. 23:17; miscl: Gn. 24:67)  

In v. 4, the notable divestiture by Jonathan of his garments, “even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle” to place them on David, is first evidenced as being a partial disrobing (especially in the Hebrew), limiting it to his robe and outer garments, his sword, bow and “girdle," the latter denoting part of a soldiers armor<ref>Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown, 1Sam. 18:4</ref>  in such places as 2Samuel 20:8 and 2Kings 3:21. Besides such acts being a soldierly token of respect and friendship, as is seen in stories by Homer and other ancient writers<ref>Clarke</ref>, and an unselfish providence to the lowly shepherd of clothing fit for the royal household, this ceremony is shown to have a clear ceremonial significance and precedent in Numbers 20:26, (cf. Esther 3:60) in which God commanded Moses, "And strip Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son", in transference of the office of the former upon the latter.  Likewise, Jonathan, who most likely knew of Samuel's discharge of Saul as king, would be symbolically and prophetically transferring the kingship of himself (as the normal heir) to David, and which would come to pass.<ref>Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 146-54</ref><ref>Markus Zehnder, “Observations on the Relationship between David and Jonathan and the Debate on Homosexuality,” Westminster Theological Journal 69.1 [2007]: 127-74)</ref><ref>Thomas E Schmidt, “Straight or Narrow?”</ref>  Jonathan later evidences he know David was to be king. (1Sam. 20:15)

In v. 4, the notable divestiture by Jonathan of his garments, “even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle” to place them on David, is first evidenced as being a partial disrobing (especially in the Hebrew), limiting it to his robe and outer garments, his sword, bow and “girdle," the latter denoting part of a soldiers armor<ref>Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown, 1Sam. 18:4</ref>  in such places as 2Samuel 20:8 and 2Kings 3:21. Besides such acts being a soldierly token of respect and friendship, as is seen in stories by Homer and other ancient writers,<ref>Clarke</ref> and an unselfish providence to the lowly shepherd of clothing fit for the royal household, this ceremony is shown to have a clear ceremonial significance and precedent in Numbers 20:26, (cf. Esther 3:60) in which God commanded Moses, "And strip Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son", in transference of the office of the former upon the latter.  Likewise, Jonathan, who most likely knew of Samuel's discharge of Saul as king, would be symbolically and prophetically transferring the kingship of himself (as the normal heir) to David, and which would come to pass.<ref>Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 146-54</ref><ref>Markus Zehnder, “Observations on the Relationship between David and Jonathan and the Debate on Homosexuality,” Westminster Theological Journal 69.1 [2007]: 127-74)</ref><ref>Thomas E Schmidt, “Straight or Narrow?”</ref>  Jonathan later evidences he know David was to be king. (1Sam. 20:15)

In 1Sa 18:21, an attempt is made by some to render “thou shalt this day [yôm] be my son in law [châthân] in ''the one of'' the twain [shenayim / shettayimto]” (KJV: words in italics are not in original) to mean David was married to Jonathan and would become Saul's son in law again by his marriage to Michal. However, besides the unwarranted and absurd idea that Saul would recognize a homosexual marriage, or would not use such a time to get rid of David once for all, (Lv. 18:22; 20:13) and the ambiguity of the passage due to the sparsity of words, the context here is not that of Saul's son but his daughters Merab and Michal. (1Sa 18:17-20)  As Saul had promised a daughter to the slayer of Goliath (1Sam. 17:25), so he promised Merab to David, but consistent with his guile and changeable spirit he gave her to Adriel (Michal would end up raising her children: 2Sam. 21:8)  It is thus understood that by a second offer (cf. Job. 33:14) David may become the king's son in law by marriage with Michal, or as David had become the king's son in law by when he was betrothed to Merab, which was basically considered marriage, so once again he would be son in law to Saul by his marriage to his youngest daughter.<ref>[http://www.layhands.com/IsHomosexualityASin.htm Were Jonathan and David "Married"?, layhands.com]</ref><ref>Albert Barnes, Dr. John Gill, 1Sa 18:21</ref>

In 1Sa 18:21, an attempt is made by some to render “thou shalt this day [yôm] be my son in law [châthân] in ''the one of'' the twain [shenayim / shettayimto]” (KJV: words in italics are not in original) to mean David was married to Jonathan and would become Saul's son in law again by his marriage to Michal. However, besides the unwarranted and absurd idea that Saul would recognize a homosexual marriage, or would not use such a time to get rid of David once for all, (Lv. 18:22; 20:13) and the ambiguity of the passage due to the sparsity of words, the context here is not that of Saul's son but his daughters Merab and Michal. (1Sa 18:17-20)  As Saul had promised a daughter to the slayer of Goliath (1Sam. 17:25), so he promised Merab to David, but consistent with his guile and changeable spirit he gave her to Adriel (Michal would end up raising her children: 2Sam. 21:8)  It is thus understood that by a second offer (cf. Job. 33:14) David may become the king's son in law by marriage with Michal, or as David had become the king's son in law by when he was betrothed to Merab, which was basically considered marriage, so once again he would be son in law to Saul by his marriage to his youngest daughter.<ref>[http://www.layhands.com/IsHomosexualityASin.htm Were Jonathan and David "Married"?, layhands.com]</ref><ref>Albert Barnes, Dr. John Gill, 1Sa 18:21</ref>

Other passages invoked are 1 Sam 19:2,8; 20:4,16-17, 30,31;

Other passages invoked are 1 Sam 19:2,8; 20:4,16-17, 30,31;

The word in 1Sam. 19:2 for “delight” (châphêts) is invoked as favoring homosexuality, but this word is also used with the word love in 1Sam. 18:22 for Saul's delight in David, whom everyone loved, (vs. 16) and in 2Sam. 24:3 for David (wrongly) delighting in numbering Israel, and Ps. 119:70 for the Psalmist delighting in the the law of God, (which forbids homosex). When used for romantic delight, (Gn. 34:2,3,19; Dt. 21:13,14) as usual the descriptive context makes that meaning possible, in contrast to here.   

The word in 1Sam. 19:2 for “delight” (châphêts) is invoked as favoring homosexuality, but this word is also used with the word love in 1Sam. 18:22 for Saul's delight in David, whom everyone loved, (vs. 16) and in 2Sam. 24:3 for David (wrongly) delighting in numbering Israel, and Ps. 119:70 for the Psalmist delighting in the law of God, (which forbids homosex). When used for romantic delight, (Gn. 34:2,3,19; Dt. 21:13,14) as usual the descriptive context makes that meaning possible, in contrast to here.   

Pro-homosex proponents also attempt to use 1Sam. 20:3, where David states he found grace in Jonathan's eyes. However, this word denotes kindness or favor and contextually the situation is that Jonathan is David's necessary ally against Saul, who seeks his life. This is entirely fitting here without any erotic denotation, as seen by its common use in the Biblical such as in 1Sam. 17:5, where in a similar situation David states he had found grace in the eyes of Achish, or 2Sam. 14:22, where Joab finds grace in David's eyes, and Gen 32:5 of Jacob and Essau, etc.   

Pro-homosex proponents also attempt to use 1Sam. 20:3, where David states he found grace in Jonathan's eyes. However, this word denotes kindness or favor and contextually the situation is that Jonathan is David's necessary ally against Saul, who seeks his life. This is entirely fitting here without any erotic denotation, as seen by its common use in the Biblical such as in 1Sam. 17:5, where in a similar situation David states he had found grace in the eyes of Achish, or 2Sam. 14:22, where Joab finds grace in David's eyes, and Gen 32:5 of Jacob and Essau, etc.   

*[[David]]

*[[David]]

*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]

*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]

== References ==  

== References ==

  {{reflist|2}}

  {{reflist|2}}