Changes

{{see also|Homosexuality and biblical interpretation}}

{{see also|Homosexuality and biblical interpretation}}

While the relationship of David and Jonathan only makes evident strong platonic love between two like-hearted men of faith and commitment righteousness, pro-homosex proponents labor to construe it as a physically 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 eroticism.  In response, traditional exegesis evidences that the Bible makes basic laws as well as human sexual behavior (in particular) evident, in their respective contexts, with David and Jonathan's love being manifest as an supreme example of non-sexual brotherly love, with all accounts of their affection critically lacking the descriptions needed to postulate or establish the erotic.

While the relationship of David and Jonathan only makes evident strong platonic love between two like-hearted men of faith and commitment righteousness, revisionist pro-homosex proponents, seeking to read their own sinful desires into Scripture where they do not exist, labor to construe it as a physically "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 eroticism.  In response, traditional exegesis evidences that the Bible makes basic laws as well as human sexual behavior (in particular) evident, in their respective contexts, with David and Jonathan's love being manifest as an supreme example of non-sexual brotherly love, with all accounts of their affection critically lacking the descriptions needed to postulate or establish the 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.   

Horner,<ref>By Thomas Horner, Jonathan loved David,  pp. 38-63</ref> with the aid of a secular psychiatrist, [[wishful thinking|wishfully]] 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> claims to see homosex in many places in the Bible and the [[Talmud]], and a "sexual triangle" between Saul, David and Jonathan, and from the outset claims 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 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>

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===

"And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle. And David went out whithersoever Saul sent him, and behaved himself wisely: and Saul set him over the men of war, and he was accepted in the sight of all the people, and also in the sight of Saul's servants." (1Sam. 8:1-5).  

"And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle. And David went out whithersoever Saul sent him, and behaved himself wisely: and Saul set him over the men of war, and he was accepted in the sight of all the people, and also in the sight of Saul's servants." (1Sam. 8:1-5).  

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 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 armor upon David).  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 as 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>[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)  

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>  

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 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 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 soldier's 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>

===1 Samuel 19 and 20: brotherly love===

===1 Samuel 19 and 20: brotherly love===

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 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.   

In relation to Jonathan's friendship with David, which Saul reacts to with anger in chapter 20:30,31, Horner,<ref>ibid. p. 29, 30</ref> labors to negate the idea that David was only Jonathan's friend, and instead construes Saul's anger toward Jonathan to be due to a homosexual affair, and not to his friendship with David placing him closer to the throne.  Horner denies that Jonathan would be in line to be king, and never even shows awareness of the prophetic significance of the divestiture by Jonathan of his garments to place them upon David. (Numbers 20:26) Instead, he both supposes Jonathan and David would take after pagan nations in a homosexual relationship, and that Israel's means of determining kings would also be after their manner, which only sometimes chose the husband of the king's daughter as such.   

In relation to Jonathan's friendship with David, which Saul reacts to with anger in chapter 20:30,31, Horner,<ref>ibid. p. 29, 30</ref> labors to negate the idea that David was only Jonathan's friend, and instead construes Saul's anger toward Jonathan to be due to a "homosexual affair", and not to his friendship with David placing him closer to the throne.  Horner denies that Jonathan would be in line to be king, and never even shows awareness of the prophetic significance of the divestiture by Jonathan of his garments to place them upon David. (Numbers 20:26) Instead, he both supposes Jonathan and David would take after pagan nations in a homosexual relationship, and that Israel's means of determining kings would also be after their manner, which only sometimes chose the husband of the king's daughter as such.   

In this regard however, it was not the manner of Israel to choose kings (or priests) through the son in law, but sons of kings became the heir. (1Ki. 11:43; 14:20,31; 15:8,24; 16:6,28; 22:40,50; 2Ki. 18:4; 10:35; 13:9; 14:16,29; 15:7,22,38; 16:20; 20:21; 21:18; 24:6) Originally kings were (manifestly) Divinely  appointed. Under Samuel the prophet, Israel asked for a king because Samuel's sons were corrupt. (1Sam. 8:5,6)  In condescension to the people, Samuel was commanded by God to anoint Saul as king, (1Sam. 9:15,16) but due to his consequent failures he was told he had lost the kingdom, (1Sam. 13)  As a consequence, David was chosen by God through Samuel, to be his successor. (1Sam. 16)  Jonathan indicates he was aware of his father's failure and loss of kingdom, and  of David's anointing to be king. (1Sam. 20:15) For his part, Saul yet hoped for Jonathan to be his successor. (1Sa. 20:31) But perhaps fearing an insurrection due to David popularity, or that David's ascension might by the more directly Divine means, Saul sought to kill David while he was still (evidently) single. (1Sam. 18:8)  In seeking to do so, he betroths David to his daughter Michal (1Sam. 18:17-27), requiring a dowry that required great risk to his life. After that plan to kill David failed, then Saul did marry him to his daughter Michal, but later gave her to another man. (David would later require her return: 2Sam. 3:13-16.)     

In this regard however, it was not the manner of Israel to choose kings (or priests) through the son in law, but sons of kings became the heir. (1Ki. 11:43; 14:20,31; 15:8,24; 16:6,28; 22:40,50; 2Ki. 18:4; 10:35; 13:9; 14:16,29; 15:7,22,38; 16:20; 20:21; 21:18; 24:6) Originally kings were (manifestly) Divinely  appointed. Under Samuel the prophet, Israel asked for a king because Samuel's sons were corrupt. (1Sam. 8:5,6)  In condescension to the people, Samuel was commanded by God to anoint Saul as king, (1Sam. 9:15,16) but due to his consequent failures he was told he had lost the kingdom, (1Sam. 13)  As a consequence, David was chosen by God through Samuel, to be his successor. (1Sam. 16)  Jonathan indicates he was aware of his father's failure and loss of kingdom, and  of David's anointing to be king. (1Sam. 20:15) For his part, Saul yet hoped for Jonathan to be his successor. (1Sa. 20:31) But perhaps fearing an insurrection due to David popularity, or that David's ascension might by the more directly Divine means, Saul sought to kill David while he was still (evidently) single. (1Sam. 18:8)  In seeking to do so, he betroths David to his daughter Michal (1Sam. 18:17-27), requiring a dowry that required great risk to his life. After that plan to kill David failed, then Saul did marry him to his daughter Michal, but later gave her to another man. (David would later require her return: 2Sam. 3:13-16.)     

The preceding directly relates to Horner's rendering of the next passage of interest, 1 Sam 20:30-31:  "Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen [bâchar] the son of Jesse to thine own confusion [bôsheth], and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness? {31} For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he shall surely die."

The preceding directly relates to Horner's rendering of the next passage of interest, 1 Sam 20:30-31:  "Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen [bâchar] the son of Jesse to thine own confusion [bôsheth], and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness? {31} For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he shall surely die."

Here, an angry Saul warns Jonathan that due to his friendship and political alliance with his (Saul's) enemy instead of him, then Saul will not advance him in power or to be king. While the word ''women'' is added by translators (in italics in the KJV), and might allow the verse may read, "thou son of perverse rebellion”, yet like today, “son of a b....” is seen as an expression of contempt (Job. 30:8),<ref>Albert Barnes, 1Sam. 12:30</ref> like that of “cursed children” (2Pt. 2:14) “Thy mother's nakedness” does indeed Biblically denote something sexual, but here it is the shame of his mother's intercourse by which she normally would have conceived a future king.<ref>John Gill, 1Sam. 12:30</ref>   

Here, an angry Saul warns Jonathan that due to his friendship and political alliance with his (Saul's) enemy instead of him, then Saul will not advance him in power or to be king. While the word ''women'' is added by translators (in italics in the KJV), and might allow the verse may read, "thou son of perverse rebellion", yet like today, "son of a b****" is seen as an expression of contempt (Job. 30:8),<ref>Albert Barnes, 1Sam. 12:30</ref> like that of "cursed children" (2Pt. 2:14) "Thy mother's nakedness" does indeed Biblically denote something sexual, but here it is the shame of his mother's intercourse by which she normally would have conceived a future king.<ref>John Gill, 1Sam. 12:30</ref>   

Though these verses are contrary to Horner's idea that the kingly successor would be chosen from a son in law, Horner attempts to enlist it for his homo-theology, Seeking to extrapolate an inference of sexual involvement between Jonathan and David, Horner asserts textual corruption exists, and finds an  alternative meaning for the Hebrew word for "chosen", '''bâchar''' (or bocher), and an equivalent word  in the Greek LXX (μέτοχος metoxov) which can mean '''participation in''', and then alters the phrase, "you have chosen the son of Jesse" to "you are an intimate companion to the son of Jesse.” However, the Hebrew uses a different word here, and is used to describe Israel choosing Saul to be king, (1Sam. 12:13) and similarly in almost all of its 150 occurrences, and in no place refers to sexual intimacy. The Greek word in the LXX is used in Ps. 119:63 to denote Godly companions who fear God, which intimates nothing sexual, while in Hos. 4:17 it does have a sexual inference, but one that is spiritual.   

Though these verses are contrary to Horner's idea that the kingly successor would be chosen from a son-in-law, Horner attempts to enlist it for his homo-theology, Seeking to extrapolate an inference of sexual involvement between Jonathan and David, Horner asserts textual corruption exists, and finds an  alternative meaning for the Hebrew word for "chosen", '''bâchar''' (or bocher), and an equivalent word  in the Greek LXX (μέτοχος metoxov) which can mean '''participation in''', and then alters the phrase, "you have chosen the son of Jesse" to "you are an intimate companion to the son of Jesse."  However, the Hebrew uses a different word here, and is used to describe Israel choosing Saul to be king, (1Sam. 12:13) and similarly in almost all of its 150 occurrences, and in no place refers to sexual intimacy. The Greek word in the LXX is used in Ps. 119:63 to denote Godly companions who fear God, which intimates nothing sexual, while in Hos. 4:17 it does have a sexual inference, but one that is spiritual.   

Horner then sees “son of Jesse” as also inferring eroticism, but this is a common title for David (used 18 times), just as “Saul the son of Kish” is.  Moreover,  the context here clearly defines that the shame that Saul was referring to was Jonathan's loss of the kingdom, while any erotic or marital union would be all Saul would need to exclude David from ever being king —  and alive. (Lv. 20:13) Horner seems to utterly ignore the ramifications of what he is proposing, while requiring that such strong platonic love between same genders must be homosexual.     

Horner then sees "son of Jesse" as also inferring eroticism, but this is a common title for David (used 18 times), just as "Saul the son of Kish" is.  Moreover,  the context here clearly defines that the shame that Saul was referring to was Jonathan's loss of the kingdom, while any erotic or marital union would be all Saul would need to exclude David from ever being king —  and alive. (Lv. 20:13) Horner seems to utterly ignore the ramifications of what he is proposing, while requiring that such strong platonic love between same genders must be homosexual.     

Horner next attempt can also be seen as also as “wresting” Scripture, (2Pt. 3:16) as he asserts that the word ''bôsheth'' in 1Sam. 20:30 and translated "confusion" (or most usually "shame") "is associated in the mainstream of Israelite society patriarchal society with sex, as illustrated in the Garden of Eden story (Gn. 3) and numerous other passages." However, examination shows bôsheth is not used in the Garden story (a different word is used in Gn. 2:25) nor in all its twenty nine occurrences is it ever used to denote sexual shame. It is not (nor is its root) the word used for “confusion” (tebel) in Lv. 18:23; 20:12.  

Horner's next attempt can also be seen as also as "wresting" Scripture, (2Pt. 3:16) as he asserts that the word ''bôsheth'' in 1Sam. 20:30 and translated "confusion" (or most usually "shame") "is associated in the mainstream of Israelite society patriarchal society with sex, as illustrated in the Garden of Eden story (Gn. 3) and numerous other passages." However, examination shows bôsheth is not used in the Garden story (a different word is used in Gn. 2:25) nor in all its 29 occurrences is it ever used to denote sexual shame. It is not (nor is its root) the word used for "confusion" (tebel) in Lv. 18:23; 20:12.  

The only word left for Horner here is ''nakedness'', but the reference is to Jonathan's mother, and specifically the shame of Jonathan's mother's conception due to his loss of the kingship, which usually would have been his by heredity, and which "shame" is akin to that which may cause toward against one's own house, such as is spoken of in Hab. 2:10.<ref>[http://www.layhands.com/IsHomosexualityASin.htm Were Jonathan and David "Married"?]</ref>  

The only word left for Horner here is ''nakedness'', but the reference is to Jonathan's mother, and specifically the shame of Jonathan's mother's conception due to his loss of the kingship, which usually would have been his by heredity, and which "shame" is akin to that which may cause toward against one's own house, such as is spoken of in Hab. 2:10.<ref>[http://www.layhands.com/IsHomosexualityASin.htm Were Jonathan and David "Married"?]</ref>  

1Sam 20:41 is also focused upon :

1Sam 20:41 is also focused upon:

"And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded."  

"And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: And they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded."  

Here, akin to the apostle Paul's departure in Acts 20:38, Jonathan and David shall see each other's face no more. And thus it is like this and some other emotional meetings the Bible, being marked by tears and kisses of non-sexual brotherly affection:  "And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul's neck, and kissed him" (Acts 20:37). "And he fell upon his brother Benjamin's neck, and wept; and Benjamin wept upon his neck.  Moreover he kissed all his brethren, and wept upon them: and after that his brethren talked with him." (Gen 45:14-15) This was a fairly common but nonsexual sign of affection in that culture, as it is may be today.<ref>[http://www.tektonics.org/gk/gaydavid.html Were David and Jonathan Gay Lovers? James Patrick Holding]</ref> Christians are exhorted, "Greet one another with an holy kiss" (2Cor. 13:12). Kissing is mentioned 35 times in the Old Testament but is not evident as sexual, except between a man and a women in an erotic context, place or manner, which is very rare. (Prov. 7:13; SOS 1:2; 8:1)  Here again the story lacks these descriptions.

Here, akin to the apostle Paul's departure in Acts 20:38, Jonathan and David shall see each other's face no more. And thus it is like this and some other emotional meetings the Bible, being marked by tears and kisses of non-sexual brotherly affection:  "And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul's neck, and kissed him" (Acts 20:37). "And he fell upon his brother Benjamin's neck, and wept; and Benjamin wept upon his neck.  Moreover he kissed all his brethren, and wept upon them: and after that his brethren talked with him." (Gen 45:14-15) This was a fairly common but nonsexual sign of affection in that culture, as it is may be today.<ref>[http://www.tektonics.org/gk/gaydavid.html Were David and Jonathan Gay Lovers? James Patrick Holding]</ref> Christians are exhorted, "Greet one another with an holy kiss" (2Cor. 13:12). Kissing is mentioned 35 times in the Old Testament but is not evident as sexual, except between a man and a women in an erotic context, place or manner, which is very rare. (Prov. 7:13; SOS 1:2; 8:1)  Here again the story lacks these descriptions.

===2 Samuel 1: David's lament===

===2 Samuel 1: David's lament===

The poetic expression of 2 Sam 1:19-27 and 1:26 in particular is asserted or postulated by pro-homosexual proponents as being homoerotic, but “pleasant” also fails to be used in a sexual context elsewhere, and describes both Saul and Jonathan, and can even describe land (Gn. 49:15).  And while “love” can be used to denote erotic love, here it again lacks the necessary context and or euphemisms seen elsewhere that manifests when it is.  Horner<ref>Horner, ibid. pp. 34,38</ref> resorts to labeling the platonic understanding [[homophobic]], and asserts this is homoerotic as he also perceives such in pagan stories, utterly ignoring that Israel was distinctly enjoined not be like such pagan nations, (Lev. 20:23; Ex. 23:24; Dt. 12:4; 12:30,31; Jer. 10:2,3) particularly as regard sexual practices, (Lv. 18) which laws Israel as yet was still largely faithful to, and David and Jonathan most especially would have been.     

The poetic expression of 2 Sam 1:19-27 and 1:26 in particular is asserted or postulated by pro-homosexual proponents as being homoerotic, but "pleasant" also fails to be used in a sexual context elsewhere, and describes both Saul and Jonathan, and can even describe land (Gn. 49:15).  And while "love" can be used to denote erotic love, here it again lacks the necessary context and or euphemisms seen elsewhere that manifests when it is.  Horner<ref>Horner, ibid. pp. 34,38</ref> resorts to labeling the platonic understanding "[[homophobic]]", and claims this is "homoerotic" as he also perceives such in pagan stories, utterly ignoring that Israel was distinctly enjoined not to be like such pagan nations, (Lev. 20:23; Ex. 23:24; Dt. 12:4; 12:30,31; Jer. 10:2,3) particularly as regard sexual practices, (Lv. 18) which laws Israel as yet was still largely faithful to, and David and Jonathan most especially would have been.     

Rather than denoting a better form of erotic love, the phrase that Jonathan's love surpassed that of women best conveys the opposite, that the platonic love as manifested by Jonathan in helping David escape Saul's wrath on his way to replacing him was far superior to the erotic or romantic “love of women,” as true sacrificial love is manifested and realized in a far more comprehensive and deeper manner than simple sexual love, and the latter may often fail to even qualify as true love. Moreover, David and Jonathan's battle-proven and loyalty-tested love in a very close friendship would easily be far more rare, needful and appreciated than of the women we see that David had known. As Craig Blomberg of Denver Seminary and a team of theologians (including some pro homosexuals) state (in "What the Bible Really Says About Sex"), "After Jonathan has been killed in battle, David does indeed lament that 'his love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.' But . . . David's whole point in this text is that Jonathan was his 'blood brother' with a loyalty that surpassed that which mere eroticism creates."

Rather than denoting a better form of erotic love, the phrase that Jonathan's love surpassed that of women best conveys the opposite, that the platonic love as manifested by Jonathan in helping David escape Saul's wrath on his way to replacing him was far superior to the erotic or romantic "love of women," as true sacrificial love is manifested and realized in a far more comprehensive and deeper manner than simple sexual love, and the latter may often fail to even qualify as true love. Moreover, David and Jonathan's battle-proven and loyalty-tested love in a very close friendship would easily be far more rare, needful and appreciated than of the women we see that David had known. As Craig Blomberg of Denver Seminary and a team of theologians (including some pro homosexuals) state (in "What the Bible Really Says About Sex"), "After Jonathan has been killed in battle, David does indeed lament that 'his love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.' But . . . David's whole point in this text is that Jonathan was his 'blood brother' with a loyalty that surpassed that which mere eroticism creates."

Finally, the fact that both Jonathan (who had a child) and David were both married to women (David many times), and had children by such testifies to their heterosexual sexuality, and in David's case it is further affirmed not only by his many wives, 1Sam. 30:5;  2Sam. 5:13) but also (in a negative context) by his adulterous affair with Bathsheba.  Thus, while pro-homosex polemicists must strive and contrive to make David and Jonathan sexually involved, the Bible makes that sexual relations evident when they do occur, and that it was not men that David that he was sexually attracted to, but woman (2Sam. 11).  Moreover, if Jonathan and David were in a homosexual relationship through the years, then they would have been adulterous bisexuals, and which have been scandalous in the household of Saul and kingdom of Israel.

Finally, the fact that both Jonathan (who had a child) and David were both married to women (David many times), and had children by such testifies to their heterosexual sexuality, and in David's case it is further affirmed not only by his many wives, 1Sam. 30:5;  2Sam. 5:13) but also (in a negative context) by his adulterous affair with Bathsheba.  Thus, while pro-homosex polemicists must strive and contrive to make David and Jonathan "sexually involved", the Bible makes sexual relations evident when they do occur, and that it was not men that David was sexually attracted to, but women (2Sam. 11).  Moreover, if Jonathan and David were in a homosexual relationship through the years, then they would have been adulterous bisexuals, and which have been scandalous in the household of Saul and kingdom of Israel.

==Summation==

==Summation==