Home » Christian Ethics » David, Saul and Jonathan – Homoerotic Affairs or Political Alliances?

David, Saul and Jonathan – Homoerotic Affairs or Political Alliances?

Subjects

Amongst interpreters of the Bible, the story of David and Jonathan has always stood out as a story that showed true devotion between the two men. The depth of that devotion has recently been claimed to be much more than we have often suspected; indeed, there is a homoerotic element to the relationship according to some scholars.

 

This post will address whether or not such a homoerotic relationship existed between David and Jonathan. Unfortunately given the scope of a blog post, not all of the issues involved can be discussed here, and those that are could be subject to a lot more detailed analysis (for a rather thorough and technical investigation see Marcus Zehnder’s study entitled “Observations on the Relationship Between David and Jonathan and the Debate on Homosexuality” in Vol 69 No. 1 of the Westminster Theological Journal). Hopefully however this post will serve as a useful primer on the arguments being used.

 

Tom Horner has given what I have found to be the most concise summary of the Biblical passages in question from the resources available to me:

when two men come from a society that for two hundred years had lived in the shadow of the Philistine culture, which accepted homosexuality; when they find themselves in a social context that was thoroughly military in the Eastern sense; when one of them – who is the social superior of the two – publicly makes a display of his love; when the two of them make a lifetime pact openly; when they meet secretly and kiss each other and shed copious tears at parting; when one of them proclaims that his love for women –and all this is present in the David-Jonathan liaison – we have every reason to believe that a homosexual relationship existed”.[1] Greenberg states that despite possible redactions of the text to remove the explicit sexual references, “homophilic innuendos permeate the story.[2]

Relevant passages include:

1 Samuel 18:1-4 (ESV) “As soon as he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day and would not let him return to his father’s house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt.”

 

1 Samuel 18:21 (NIV)“I will give her to him,” he thought, “so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him.” So Saul said to David, “Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law.”

 

1 Samuel 19:1 (ESV)And Saul spoke to Jonathan his son and to all his servants, that they should kill David. But Jonathan, Saul’s son, delighted much in David.

 

1 Samuel 20:17 (ESV)And Jonathan made David swear again by his love for him, for he loved him as he loved his own soul

 

1 Samuel 20:30 (ESV) “Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said to him, “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman, do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness?

 

1 Samuel 20:41-42(ESV) “And as soon as the boy had gone, David rose from beside the stone heap and fell on his face to the ground and bowed three times. And they kissed one another and wept with one another, David weeping the most. 42 Then Jonathan said to David, “Go in peace, because we have sworn both of us in the name of the Lord, saying, ‘The Lord shall be between me and you, and between my offspring and your offspring, forever.’ ” And he rose and departed, and Jonathan went into the city”

 

1 Samuel 23:17-18 (ESV) “And he said to him, “Do not fear, for the hand of Saul my father shall not find you. You shall be king over Israel, and I shall be next to you. Saul my father also knows this.” 18 And the two of them made a covenant before the Lord. David remained at Horesh, and Jonathan went home.”

 

2 Samuel 1:26 (ESV)        I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan, very pleasant have you been to me; your love to me was extraordinary, surpassing the love of women.

 

An Analysis of the Specific Passages Involved

The verses listed above will be worked through in order here as they appear in the Bible. Some additional considerations and verses will be cited at the end of this section of the study.

 

1 Samuel 18:1-4

No real commentary on this verse is given by Helminiak, who just asserts that it “recounts a striking show of affection on the part of the prince, Jonathan, toward the ruddy and handsome shepherd boy with beautiful eyes, David…”[3] Sphero similarly passes over this passage with no commentary explaining the type of love affair that could be involved.[4] Jennings on the other hand calls this an extravagant wooing by Jonathan of which we are not told David’s response.[5]

Without a real commentary on the passage here it is easy to make assertions about it being a romantic relationship. Consider however the counter evidence to this claim:

The phrase translated as “the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David” does seem suggestive of a very deep relationship. The type of relationship is however not necessarily that of lovers. An example of this would be Genesis 44:30 where the same words are used to describe the relationship between Jacob and Benjamin (father and son). It simply means inseparable devotion with no connotations of sexual intimacy required.[6]

 

The word love involved אהב (ahav) can be used of the love between a slave and his master, between inferiors and superiors, between neighbours, and love between friends.[7] Such love is therefore not necessarily sexual in nature, even though it can be used as such. The assertions need to be backed up to assert that this is a homoerotic relationship.

McCarter points to a number of studies that have highlighted the political nature of the love involved.[8]

Looking at 1 Samuel 16:21 which talks of Saul’s love towards David (using the same Hebrew as in 1 Samuel 18:1-4) Renato Lings argues for a romantic love involved. Lings points to the love of Michal for David that is clearly romantic in nature and is “ahav”.[9] He then moves to criticise translations that diminish this sense when speaking of Saul and Jonathan. The problem with this interpretation is that it engages in a linguistic fallacy called illigitmate totality transference – namely it transfers one meaning in a semantic range to all instances of that word’s usage. Just because ahav relates to romantic love in some instances it does not mean it does in all… indeed in English we can speak of loving a certain type of food but also loving a person. It does not mean that there is a romantic love for that food.

 

But what of the fact that Jonathan loved David as his own soul? Surely such a love is more than just between friends? The problem with this reasoning is that it causes Jonathan to enter into a covenant with David and this covenant is very political in nature. The political element of the covenant can be seen by the transference of royal status symbols from Jonathan to David. The robe in question can be seen as a royal robe thereby transferring the “privilege of succession.”[10] Tsumura does not agree with this assessment of the situation, arguing that the moment Jonathan stopped using the robes and David started to use them, people would have known and this is not evident in the texts.[11] This does however assume that David would have used these robes publically and that Jonathan would always have worn them. Ralph Klein has pointed to a number of passages where the transference of weaponry also indicated the transference of power.[12] Tsumura does recognise this but asserts that it does not always indicate such, however later developments in this narrative where Saul berates Jonathan for shaming his mother may indicate that this was known and acknowledged by Saul at the least.

Gagnon further boosts the case against there being a sexual element involved in this verse when he cites political treaties using similar language. The word used for love here is also used in Leviticus 19:18 when the command is given to love your neighbour as yourself.[13] Political treaties cited by Gagnon include that of future vassals of Ashurbanipul where they are urged to love him as themselves. This is also found in 1 Kings 5:1 speaking of King Hyrem loving David.[14]

 

In summary, there is little in this passage that must be read as a romantic relationship between Jonathan and David. Covenant and kinship language is used throughout and this is backed up by a covenant ratifying action of passing over the symbols of power from Jonathan to David.

 

1 Samuel 18:21

Sphero points to the fact that 1 Samuel 18:21 talks of David being given the ability to become Saul’s son in law for a second time. The exact Hebrew wording is “by two”[15] Spero’s contention is that through his love with Jonathan, David is already his son in law. Note however that verses 17-19 provide the context for this statement. Originally David had been promised Merab but she was given to someone else, now David is given the opportunity to marry Michal. The translation in some English Bibles of “Saul said to David: ‘For a second time’” can also be translated as “Saul said to David the second time…”[16] thereby noting that it is the second time he has offered David an opportunity to be his son in law rather than it being the second time that David would be such. “for the second time you shall be” can also be understood to mean this, as a statement of intention rather than a statement of fact. Saul had already intended David to be his son-in law once, now he intended it for the second time.

 

Once again, there is nothing in the text to indicate that there was a sexual relationship between David and Jonathan. The context here is clearly pointing back to the proposed relationship with Merab that had fallen through.

 

1 Samuel 19:1

Ackerman is representative of those who see a sexual desire being expressed in 1 Samuel 19:1; she points to such passages as Esther 2:14; Gen 34:19; Song of Solomon 2:7, 3:5 and 8:4 where sexual pleasure/desire is obviously present.[17] Ackerman moves on to draw a parallel between Michal’s love for David in 1 Samuel 18:20 and Jonathan’s delight in him in 1 Samuel 19:1.

Zehnder has pointed to 1 Samuel 18.22 and 2 Samuel 20:11 as passages that contain the Hebrew verb “to delight” and argues that both of these show that there can be a political nature to the term that does not include homogenital acts.[18] According to Zehnder the term is also used of Yahweh’s delight in Savid and Solomon (e.g. 2 Samuel 15:26, 22:20, 1 Kings 10:9 etc). Once again there is nothing sexual in such an expression in these instances.

 

1 Samuel 20:17

As per the analysis of 1 Samuel 18:1-4 above, there is nothing in the language of love and love as one’s own soul here that necessitates a reading of homoerotic feelings in the text here. The language is one of covenant and kinship.

 

 

1 Samuel 20:30

Helminiak refers to the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament noting that the translation of 1Samuel 20:30 could indicate that Jonathan was intimate (metochos) with David. He argues that this coupled with the terms shame and nakedness would indicate sexual innuendo.[19]

Lexicons give various renderings to the Greek term in question that Helmeniak notes could be translated as “intimate with”: μέτοχος.

The Liddle Scott Lexicon gives the following meanings:

Sharing in, partaking in. (One such occurrence is μέτοχος with a wife thereby, as per Helminiak’s assertions indicating a physical intimacy).

Partner, accomplice in.[20] McCarter seems to see it this way when he translates it as “in league with”[21]

Another Lexicon shows that this term can be used of business partners.[22] Simply asserting that Saul was accusing Jonathan of being intimate with David ignores the other meanings of the term involved. Reading a subtext of homoeroticism where there is none required is unjustifiable.

Concerning the language of bringing shame on the nakedness of Jonathan’s mother, Gagnon argues again against a homoerotic interpretation. He notes that the shame would have been the renunciation of his birth right to the throne.[23] In this context the shame of the nakedness of his mother indicates that it brought shame on his mother to have conceived him.

 

1 Samuel 20:41-42

Theologians who support a homosexual interpretation of David’s relationship with Jonathan point to this passage as clearly involving homoerotic activity. Jonathan and David kiss each other.  Indeed, looking to verse 42 Renato Lings argues that the “as they enter into a lifelong commitment, they agree to let it encompass their descendents”.[24] This would seem to suggest that Lings sees the relationship as romantic and involving adoptive intent.

 

Kissing in the ancient world did not always entail a romantic intent/feeling. Much in the same way as in the modern age we kiss people on the cheek in greeting a kiss in the ancient world could mean much the same. A kiss was not even necessarily just a sign of greeting, it could even be a sign of submission.[25] The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary gives a further meaning, namely that of a kiss signifying a farewell.[26] Renato Lings has simply overlooked these uses

In the context of 1 Samuel 20:41-42 David is greeting Jonathan and even showing submission by bowing to him despite the previous transference of power. Kissing here is simply a form of greeting and also perhaps farewell – mutual submission/respect being in play with the kissing of one another.[27]  Such submission/respect can also be found in Samuel’s kiss of Saul in 1 Samuel 10:1 where there is clearly no homoerotic intent.

Michael L. Brown points to numerous instances of kisses between males that have clearly nothing to do with homosexuality. Such instances include Gen 27:26, 29:13, 31:55, 33:4.[28] Kissing is obviously seen as something that is normal between kinsmen in this culture. Indeed, Zehnder presses this point further when he states that “Out of the thirty qal and pi’el attestations of the verb, only three refer to relationships that unambiguously show an erotic component.  All three cases deal with male-female relationships. The majority of the attestations of נשק involve relations between close relatives where any sexual connotation is excluded.”[29] Zehnder moves on to point to the fact that at the time of the kiss recorded in 1 Samuel 20:41-42 Jonathan and David were in fact kinsmen through David’s marriage to Michal.

 

That David and Jonathan wept does not once again necessitate a homoerotic relationship between them. David’s life is about to be uprooted and he would be alienated from his best friend Jonathan and he would be on the run with his life in danger. The two had probably been close comrades who had formed a covenant relationship between each other where David became the heir to the throne, now even this seemed to be in jeopardy.

The repeated covenant here with its extension to the progeny of both David and Jonathan may indicate that they did not expect to see each other alive again.

 

2 Samuel 1:26

This passage is perhaps the most suggestive passage so far of a homoerotic relationship between David and Jonathan. The fact that Jonathan’s love is deemed “extraordinary, surpassing the love of women” would seem to suggest that David felt something here more than he could with women.

One criticism of homoerotic interpretations would be that it is often not stressed what this could be.[30] Helminiak agrees that it is possible that these words do not need to be interpreted through the lens of homosexuality but he moves on to say “But their relationship has important parallels to that of Gilgamesh and Enkidu, commonly thought to be homosexual, in the ancient Sumerian epic. That is to say, their relationship fits the model of noble military lovers, common throughout the societies of the ancient mid-East, where Israel lay. Such male-male sexual relationships were so taken for granted that they would not have to be noted explicitly.”[31] The problem with this reasoning is two-fold. Firstly we are not told what the important parallels with the Gilgamesh epic are, so it is impossible to trace these through and see if they hold (presumably he is reliant on Ackerman’s work at this point). Secondly, even if the ancient near east took these acts for granted amongst military comrades (and once again we are not given evidence to back this up) this does not mean that Israel would have followed the same practices. Given the strict Levitical prohibition of male-male intercourse and the emphasis on purity (which incidentally even Helminiak seems to note when he argues that Samuel may have rebuked Saul for thrusting in the rear) such practices would have been shunned.

 

Some have sought to bolster their case for a romantic element being involved in the text here. Sphero for example looks to the meaning of the Hebrew word translated as love here אַהֲבָה(ahavah) and states that it always refers to romantic love.[32] Sphero proceeds to cite a number of texts that do indeed show this kind of love being in play. Note however some of the meanings given by the standard lexicons that do not cohere with Sphero’s stated meaning of the term (those that do have been omitted as it is conceded that romantic meanings can apply):

Loving: Between friends and individuals in general; for oneself; for god; god’s love for his people.[33]

Surely Sphero would not want to indicate that God had sexual love towards his people or that we are to have sexual love towards God! By only noting one meaning of the term that is contextually driven Sphero presents a misleading picture of the text of 2 Samuel 1:26.

It is worth citing Zehnder at this point in a fairly lengthy quote:

“Outside Song of Songs, the noun is mainly used to denote the relationship of YHWH and Israel.  There are only three instances outside Song of Songs where the noun is used to denote intimate relationships between human beings.42  None of the fourteen attestations of the noun that refer to an intimate human relationship deals with a homosexual or homoerotic relationship. Even in instances in which אהבה refers to a relationship between human beings, no intimate or sexual connotations are necessarily present (see, for example, 2 Sam 19:7; 1 Kgs 11:2; and Ps 109:4, 5).”[34]

 

 

There are good interpretations of the text that do not require a homoerotic element. These will now be briefly discussed.

 

The New American Commentary has some insightful comments here that will be cited in full:

“David’s very personal expression of emotion here should not be taken as evidence of a homosexual liaison with Jonathan; rather, it is a manifestation of the parameters of social relations that existed in ancient Israelite society. Marriages in ancient Israel took place primarily for the benefit of the tribe—to increase the size and strength of the social group through procreation (cf. Gen 1:28) and to increase its prosperity through the establishment of advantageous formal ties with other families (cf. Gen 34:21–23). A man’s wife was his partner in procreation and parenting, but not necessarily his best friend, confidant, or social peer. For David, Jonathan was the peer, friend, and confidant that no wife could ever have been in that society; and his untimely death left a gaping hole in David’s soul.”[35]

McCarter points to the political overtones of the love language involved here but also to the obvious “warm, personal intimacy in the relationship between the two men.”[36] Once again, to leap to assertions of homoeroticism at the sight of any intimacy is as Michael L. Brown has put it when referencing 1 Samuel 18:1-4 “Only [possible] if read through a hyper sexualized lens…”[37]

Further to all of the above, the poetic nature of the text in question here needs to be kept in mind. In poetry hyperbole (exaggerated expression) is frequently found and is not intended to be taken literally. Zehnder has argued this and proceeds to note that there is ambiguity in the language as to whether the love of a woman here is that of a wife or of a mother.[38] Presumably, and I do not feel that this is the case, if the love of a mother is in view here the love between David and Jonathan was better than this as it resulted in royal succession.

 

David and Saul

Pointing to certain passages looking at the original languages Helminiak argues that 1 Samuel 16:21 could be translated to say that David had an erection before Saul. Also 1 Samuel 15:23 could be translated as an accusation that Saul had engaged in thrusts in the rear with David. Also 1 Samuel 18.12 could indicate that Saul had been in love with David.[39]

Just because these may be translational possibilities it does not make them translational probabilities. Looking at the standard lexicons Helminiak’s assertions of “thrusts in the rear” and “erection” cannot be found and therefore it is difficult to assertions whether his assertions are correct. Certainly the lack of reference to lexical sources gives cause to have some serious doubt here.

What Helminiak is driving at with these references is that Jonathan and Saul may also have had mutual sexual desires. Greenberg affirms this also referencing 1 Samuel 16:21 where Saul loved David greatly.[40]

1 Samuel 20:30 has not just been looked at as showing a relationship between Jonathan and David, it has also been thought that this episode shows that David and Saul had a relationship. Not only is there thought to be an element of (sexual) jealousy in the text but Jennings sees the reference to uncovering the nakedness of Jonathan’s mother as a key point. According to Jennings a plausible interpretation is that Jonathan, in sleeping with David had slept with someone that his father had slept with; this in turn uncovers Saul’s nakedness by extension and therefore Jonathan’s mother’s also.[41] Jennings overlooks a more plausible interpretation that has been discussed above – namely that the shame of the nakedness of Jonathan’s mother is that she had sexual relations that brought someone into the world who would renege on his right to the throne.

 

Jonathan as a Replacement of Michal

In an effort to bolster her case that Jonathan’s relationship with David supplanted that of Michal and David, Ackerman has drawn several parallels between the two. The relevant passages for comparison are found in 1 Samuel 19:12-17 compared to 1 Samuel 20:28-42. In these passages both Michal and Jonathan save David despite Saul’s intent to kill him, both lie twice to Saul and both are accused by Saul for their deceit. According to Ackerman, this shows that the relationship between Jonathan and David is meant to parallel that of the marital relationship between David and Michal, thereby suggesting an intimate/erotic dimension.[42] Horner, along the same lines notes in passing that David made no further attempt to contact Michal when they were separated as opposed to his desire to see Jonathan.[43]

That there is an intimate (very strong friendship) relationship between Jonathan and David is not in dispute; what Ackerman fails to prove however is that the relationships are meant to parallel each other in every way. The parallels that are drawn do not do this, instead they show the strong devotion that Michal and Jonathan felt towards David; that devotion is at the heart of the parallels and not some notion of sexual intimacy/desire.

 

Horner’s suggestion, that the pro-homosexual Philistine culture that surrounded Israel would have influenced their conception of homosexual love[44], is also picked up by Michaelson. According to Michaelson the erotic relationship between a soldier and his armour bearer was common in the Mediterranean context;[45] such reasoning has, however, come under criticism by Zehnder.  Zhender stresses the separation that occurred between Israel and the Philistine’s, “with boundary making much more important than simple copying.”[46] To put this another way, Israel tried to arrange itself in such a way as to distinguish itself from its neighbours rather than trying to copy their practices. Such a penchant for separation should promote caution when claiming that homoerotic practices would have been copied.

 

Conclusion

In summary, there is nothing in the narratives of 1 and 2 Samuel that necessitates a reading of homoeroticism into the text. The language involved can be explained easily in terms of close kinship language and political alliance. Whilst the relationship indubitably was a very close one strong bonds between soldiers were easily formed that would be qualitatively different from that shared with women. This was especially the case when marriages were often conducted out of political and financial expedience.

Jonathan’s political alliance with David can be explained by the fact that David had been anointed by Samuel to be the next king of Israel. If this was made known to Jonathan he would have felt it his duty before God to pass over his ascension to throne.

That the Hebrew culture eschewed male-male homoeroticism is clear from the Levitical prohibitions on this with the death penalty associated. This is the context within which the supposed relationship between Jonathan David and Saul occurred. On the face of it, it seems that a cultural disgust such as that cannot be easily overthrown by mere non-explicit suspicions of homoeroticism.

 

 

 

 

[1] Horner, Tom (1978) Jonathan Loved David – Homosexuality in Biblical Times (27-28). Westminster Press, Philidelphia, Pennsylvania.

[2] Greenberg, David F. (1988). The Construction of Homosexuality (114). University of Chicago Press. Chicago.

[3] Helminiak, Daniel A. (2000). What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality (Millennium Edition). (Kindle loc 2120). Alamo Square Press, New Mexico.

[4] Sphero M.W. (2011) The Gay Faith (Kindle loc 1076) Herms Press

[5] Jennings, Theodore W. (2005). Jacob’s Wound – Homoerotic Narrative in the Literature of Ancient Israel (16). T and T Clark International. New York. London.

[6] Tsumura, D. (2007). The First Book of Samuel (p. 471). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

[7] Brown, F., Driver, S. R., & Briggs, C. A. (2000). Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems.

[8] McCarter, P. K., Jr. (2008). I Samuel: a new translation with introduction, notes and commentary (Vol. 8, p. 305). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

[9] Renato Lings, K. (2013) Love Lost in Translation – Homosexuality and the Bible (Kindle Loc 12369)

[10] McCarter, P. K., Jr. (2008). I Samuel: a new translation with introduction, notes and commentary (Vol. 8, p. 305). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

[11] Tsumura, D. (2007). The First Book of Samuel (p. 473). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

[12] Klein, R. W. (1998). 1 Samuel (Vol. 10, p. 182). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

[13] Gagnon, R. A. J. (2012). The Scriptural Case for a Male-Female Prerequisite for Sexual Relations: A Critique of the Arguments of Two Adventist Scholars. In R. E. Gane, N. P. Miller, & H. P. Swanson (Eds.), Homosexuality, Marriage, and the Church: Biblical, Counseling, and Religious Liberty Issues (p. 70). Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press.

[14] Gagnon, Robert A.J. (2001). The Bible and Homosexuality – Texts and Hermeneutics (148). Abingdon Press.

[15] Sphero M.W. (2011) The Gay Faith (Kindle loc 1089) Herms Press

[16] Lange, J. P., Schaff, P., Erdmann, D., Toy, C. H., & Broadus, J. A. (2008). A commentary on the Holy Scriptures: 1 & 2 Samuel (p. 244). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

[17] Ackerman, Susan (2005). When Heroes Love – The Ambiguity of Eros in the Stories of Gilgamesh and David (kindle loc 4439). Columbia University Press, New York

[18] Zehnder, Marcus (2007). Observations on the Relationship Between David and Jonathan and the Debate on Homosexuality. Westminster Theological Journal, 69(1), 147.

–          See also Gagnon, Robert A.J. (2001). The Bible and Homosexual Practice – Texts and Hermeneutics (149). Abingdon Press

[19] Helminiak, Daniel A. (2000). What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality (Millennium Edition). (Kindle loc 2120). Alamo Square Press, New Mexico.

[20] Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. S., & McKenzie, R. (1996). A Greek-English lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

[21] McCarter, P. K., Jr. (2008). I Samuel: a new translation with introduction, notes and commentary (Vol. 8, p. 339). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

[22] Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

[23] Gagnon, R. A. J. (2012). The Scriptural Case for a Male-Female Prerequisite for Sexual Relations: A Critique of the Arguments of Two Adventist Scholars. In R. E. Gane, N. P. Miller, & H. P. Swanson (Eds.), Homosexuality, Marriage, and the Church: Biblical, Counseling, and Religious Liberty Issues (p. 71). Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press.

See also: McCarter, P. K., Jr. (2008). I Samuel: a new translation with introduction, notes and commentary (Vol. 8, p. 343). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

[24] Renatao Lings, K. (2013) Love Lost in Translation – Homosexuality and the Bible (Kindle Loc 12512)

[25] Myers, A. C. (1987). Kiss – In The Eerdmans Bible dictionary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

[26] Klassen, W. (1992). Kiss (NT). In (D. N. Freedman, Ed.)The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday.

[27] Bergen, R. D. (1996). 1, 2 Samuel (Vol. 7, p. 219). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

[28] Brown, Michael L. (2014) Can you be Gay and Christian (103). Frontline.

[29] Zehnder, Marcus (2007). Observations on the Relationship Between David and Jonathan and the Debate on Homosexuality. Westminster Theological Journal, 69(1), 149.

[30] See for example: Countryman, William L. (2007) Dirt Greed and Sex – Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and their Implications for Today. Revised Edition. (Kindle loc 629). Fortress Press

[31] Helminiak, Daniel A. (2000). What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality (Millennium Edition). (Kindle loc 2140). Alamo Square Press, New Mexico.

[32] Sphero M.W. (2011) The Gay Faith (Kindle loc 1169) Herms Press

[33] – Koehler, L., Baumgartner, W., Richardson, M. E. J., & Stamm, J. J. (1999). The Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill.

See also: Brown, F., Driver, S. R., & Briggs, C. A. (2000). Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems.

[34]Zehnder, Marcus (2007). Observations on the Relationship Between David and Jonathan and the debate on Homosexuality. Westminster Theological Journal, 69(1), 139–140.

[35] Bergen, R. D. (1996). 1, 2 Samuel (Vol. 7, p. 293). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

[36] McCarter, P. K., Jr. (2008). II Samuel: a new translation with introduction, notes, and commentary (Vol. 9, p. 77). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

[37] Brown, Michael L. (2014) Can you be Gay and Christian (98). Frontline.

[38] Zehnder, Marcus (2007). Observations on the Relationship Between David and Jonathan and the debate on Homosexuality. Westminster Theological Journal, 69(1), 140.

[39] Helminiak, Daniel A. (2000) What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality (Millennium Edition) (Kindle Loc 2150, 2167)

[40] Greenberg, David F. (1988). The Construction of Homosexuality (114). University of Chicago Press. Chicago.

[41] Jennings, Theodore W. (2005). Jacob’s Wound – Homoerotic Narrative in the Literature of Ancient Israel (17). T and T Clark International. New York. London

[42] Ackerman, Susan (2005). When Heroes Love – The Ambiguity of Eros in the Stories of Gilgamesh and David (kindle loc 4686). Columbia University Press, New York

[43] Horner, Tom (1978) Jonathan Loved David – Homosexuality in Biblical Times (33). Westminster Press, Philidelphia, Pennsylvania.

[44] Horner, Tom (1978) Jonathan Loved David – Homosexuality in Biblical Times (27-28). Westminster Press, Philidelphia, Pennsylvania.

[45] Michaelson, Jay. (2011) God vs. Gay? The Religious Case for Equality (96).

[46] Zehnder, Marcus (2007). Observations on the Relationship Between David and Jonathan and the debate on Homosexuality. Westminster Theological Journal, 69(1), 173.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: