Changes

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. 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>[https://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>