Changes

In 1Sam. 18:1 the word "knit" (qâshar) is seen as by pro-homosex 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-homosex 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 evidenced to be like that of Jonathan's father, as previous to their meeting, "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 to David, and even speculates about seeing David naked, it is more reasonable to surmise that Jonathan, who (contrary to Horner) also is manifested to be a daring warrior of faith, and who evidences he values 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 it 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 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 confirms his 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 under which David shows his zeal to uphold the laws of God, which is abundantly evidenced as forbidding illicit sex, with his notable failure being that 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 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. 3, the idea that Jonathan entering into a covenant with David was of marriage is dismissed in the light of the fact that the word is used 285 times in the Old Testament (only once in reference to marriage), as covenants were common in that world, 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> In this regard Jonathan and David are seen pledging allegiance again in 1Sam. 20:16 and 23:18 in that context. And the fact that they made three covenant testifies to this form, and against that of marriage. 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>  

As regard the words for ''love'' ('âhab  'âhêbor or its feminine form, 'ahăbâh), these can denote  platonic (the most common), or romantic, or erotic love, as there is no specific word for each, but like today, such is manifest by its context or phraseology (as in Gn. 24:67; 29:18,30; 34:2-4; Dt. 21:15,16; Jdg. 16:4; 1Sam. 18:20,28; 2Sam. 13:1,4,15; 1Ki. 11:1; 11:21; Est. 2:17; Ps. 88:18; SoS. 1:16; 2:7; 3:1-5; 5:8; 7:6; Is. 57:8; Lam. 1:2.19; Ezek. 16:33,36,37; 23:5,9,22; Hos. 2:5,7,10,12,13; 3:1; 4:18; 9:1,10)

In regard the words for ''love'' ('âhab  'âhêbor or its feminine form, 'ahăbâh) in 18:3, these can denote  platonic (the most common), or romantic, or erotic love, as there is no specific word for each, but like today, in the Bible such is manifest by its context or phraseology (as in Gn. 24:67; 29:18,30; 34:2-4; Dt. 21:15,16; Jdg. 16:4; 1Sam. 18:20,28; 2Sam. 13:1,4,15; 1Ki. 11:1; 11:21; Est. 2:17; Ps. 88:18; SoS. 1:16; 2:7; 3:1-5; 5:8; 7:6; Is. 57:8; Lam. 1:2.19; Ezek. 16:33,36,37; 23:5,9,22; Hos. 2:5,7,10,12,13; 3:1; 4:18; 9:1,10)

In addition, examination of sexual relations in the Bible shows them to be evident, but none of the specific descriptions and or their euphemisms seen so often elsewhere in the Bible 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)