Nonetheless, in Horner’s warped perspective, he has to use them as an example to justify how “natural” and “accepted” homosexual relationships were - not just in Pagan societies, but in Christian societies, as well (which is a complete lie). Horner uses these friendships to set up his argument for David and Jonathon’s “homoerotic” relationship because they shared a “heroic” or “noble love.” 

But he doesn’t use the term in its proper context, otherwise it wouldn’t fit his narrative. If we are to use the correct definition of “noble,” from Merriam-Webster which is to “possess outstanding qualities,” or to be of “high birth or exalted rank,” then the ancient heroes previously mentioned expressing this love makes sense - Gilgamesh and Enkidu loved each other as brothers because of their shared virtues, strengths, and pursuits. It’s this type of noble love seen among comrades in arms, war heroes serving their nation - that binds men together spiritually, emotionally, (and in some sense) physically together. It is one thing to have a friend you can count on that will help you move into a new place or a friend to call when you need someone to talk to. It’s another when you have a friend who is willing to risk his life for you. Tom Horner distorts this endangered form of camaraderie by sexualizing this form of love. His interpretation is that these brave men were homosexuals by nature - and that it was the effeminate men, those who did not serve or who some would call “cowards” today - that were frowned upon in ancient societies. Horner goes even further (with no evidence) stating that it was not homosexual acts that caused these effeminate men to bring shame to their nation, but rather their lack of service and outward displays of their feminine behavior that brought shame [pg. 22].

So what of David and Jonathon? How did the two come to meet each other and become inseparable, joined at the hip? Well let’s first briefly go over the events of 1 Samuel, beginning with Jonathon and his father King Saul’s interactions with the people of Israel.

In 1 Samuel 14, Jonathan demonstrates his strength and allegiance to God in the following: “Come, let us go over to the garrison of these uncircumcised; it may be that the Lord will work for us; for nothing can hinder the Lord from saving by many or by few.” (1 Samuel 14:6-7) Jonathan is able to successfully slaughter a number of the Philistines, and when the Israelites hear of it, they recognize that the Lord has delivered them. Later, King Saul makes a rash oath (directly going against God’s commands) saying: “Cursed be the man who eats food until it is evening and I am avenged on my enemies.” Jonathan - who was somewhere else at the time - had eaten from a honeycomb. When Saul hears of his son eating of the honey, he doubles down on his oath. However, the Israelites recognized the greatness that was in Jonathon, saying: “Shall Jonathon die, who has wrought this great victory in Israel? Far from it! As the Lord lives, there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground; for he has wrought with God this day.” The wars continue between Israel and its neighboring enemies. King Saul, although anointed king by the prophet Samuel, has several problems regarding his ego, temperament, and decision-making abilities. We see him disobey the Lord when ordered to kill King A’gag, and the Lord in return rejects Saul from being king over Israel. “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day, and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you. And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or repent; for he is not a man, that he should repent.” This person whom the Lord would send Samuel to anoint as King over Israel was the youngest of Jesse’s sons, the shepherd-boy named David.

The reason I had to explain this information in brief detail was because Horner did not provide us any historical background as to who David or Jonathon were. I have no idea whether Horner felt that the audience reading his book would just assume that the readers would already be familiar with the story of these two individuals. But it does a disservice to people who are not familiar with the Bible and to those who read his book. At the start of Chapter 2, Horner begins his homosexual narrative by quoting the KJV version of the Bible and giving his commentary:

“Now he was ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to” (1 Samuel 16:12) Most modern versions of the Bible have translated the second of the three phrases above to read that he had “beautiful eyes” which, on the basis of Genesis 29:17, was thought to be a very desirable thing… On the basis of the Goliath story, David came to the camp of King Saul and very soon emerged as a hero himself, in which case it would have only been natural that the two heroes should have gravitated toward each other.”

Let’s start with the problem of this first statement before we go any further. As a simple layman, I can’t give textual criticism in regards to “beautiful countenance” versus “beautiful eyes.” Regardless, let’s understand why the young David was described in this way. Horner wants us to believe that David was sexually desirable and that, becoming a hero after slaying Goliath, made him even more “attractive” to Jonathon. But this is completely wrong. So why does the sacred author of the books of Samuel describe him this way? Well let’s go back to when the prophet Samuel anoints David as the future king over Israel. Samuel makes his way to Jesse’s house per the Lord’s instructions in 1 Samuel 16:4-5. Samuel looks at all of Jesse’s sons, starting with Eli’ab. “Surely the Lord’s anointed is before him.” But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for the Lord sees not as man sees; man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.” Samuel, doing what the Lord instructs, does not anoint any of the seven sons that Jesse has shown to Samuel. When asked if he has any more sons, Jesse tells him of his youngest who is tending the sheep. He is described as being “ruddy,” with “beautiful eyes,” and who is “handsome.” 

The point here is that the anointing of the young David over his older brothers and the detailed descriptions of their appearances serves as a point of comparison. While Tom Horner can imply that David was sexually desirable by taking Scripture out of context, a full reading of the text gives a more thorough understanding of what is happening. No one sees the youth David as being physically attractive in an erotic sense. After all, Samuel’s first inclination was to believe that the oldest brother - the tallest son, standing with confidence - was to be anointed King. But God chose differently because He “looks on the heart.” In this sense, the description of David’s physical beauty is a positive reflection of his submission towards the Lord’s will. “Arise, anoint him; for this is he.” This is not a novel idea, as Socrates believed that beauty was mirrored or reflected with the moral good.

Horner’s second claim is that David becoming a hero made him and Jonathon draw close. If Horner were to speak truthfully - he would understand that the love they shared for each other was that of friends or brothers; a type of fraternal love. Horner goes on to quote 1 Samuel 18: 1-4 (for this part I’ll be using my RSVCE version of the Bible)

“When he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathon was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathon loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would not let him return to his father’s house. Then Jonathon made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathon stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt.”

So what’s the sacred text saying here that Horner is leaving out? Horner, writing in the next paragraph after quoting these verses wants us to believe that Jonathon was “obviously smitten” with David, but that could be no further from the truth. A covenant in the Old Testament is merely an agreement between two or more parties; and in the Old Testament in particular the people of Israel were to keep their loyalty to God. A breaking of this covenant, by means of rejection of God’s law or through sin, would mean that God would leave Israel to their own devices - to suffer the consequences of their actions until they cried out to God and renewed their covenant. So all this covenant between Jonathon and David means is that they were to stay loyal to each other. If we’re merely talking about an ancient form of a contract, then this would be the traditional Jewish custom of that. The ancient Pagan equivalent found in many European, African, and Asian societies would be the rite of blood brotherhood. In the early Church, the Christian version of becoming someone’s spiritual brother would be adelphopoiesis.

These rituals varied from culture to culture - all of which I hope to expand on and write about in a separate post. The important thing to note for readers is to not view ancient customs and practices with a modern lens, nor to be easily fooled by a revisionist who claims expertise in a certain field. To further explain the ridiculous lengths someone like Horner will go to “prove” something that didn’t happen - he cites a not a historian, nor a theologian - but a psychiatrist - to suggest that Jonathon was the “aggressor” in the “relationship” and that David was the “willing seductee.” I’m going to quickly debunk this fabrication by going over some important events regarding King Saul and David. 

Recall earlier in this post how I mentioned King Saul’s erratic behavior. This, combined with his disobedience to God caused a strife between himself and David when King Saul saw the praise David was receiving for the killing of Goliath and the enemy Philistines. The people of Israel celebrated, chanting: “Saul has slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands.” We see Saul give his daughter Michal over to David, with his only request being to bring back a hundred foreskins of the Philistines. We read how this was all a ploy by Saul to kill David on a dangerous mission: “Now Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines (1 Samuel 18:25).” Both Michal and Jonathon feared for David’s safety, as Saul’s envy over David grew with each passing day.

Jonathan tries to bargain with his father Saul, asking him what has David done to deserve his father’s wrath. Finally realizing he is unable to persuade his father, Jonathan meets David alone, telling him: “You shall not die… Whatever you say, I will do for you.” David suggests that if some harm were to come to Jonathon, that he should die. “But if there is guilt in me, slay me yourself; for why should you bring me to your father?” Jonathan sees no shame in his friend, and insists that if harm were to come, that it should be upon him instead of David. “But should it please my father to do you harm, the Lord do so to Jonathon, and more also, if I do not disclose it to you, and send you away, that you may go in safety… And Jonathon made David swear again by his love for him; for he loved him as his own soul.” 

Again, my reasoning for going over all this history is because I’m doing the job Horner refused to do. Horner wants you to ignore the greater context of the story so he can select a few samples from Sacred Scripture that read a bit unusual in today’s secular, sexualized Western culture. This ultimately comes back around to a major problem many readers (and Christian readers!) of the Bible have, and that is to interpret everything as if it was literal. Horner doesn’t consider the literary styles, language, or even the historical context of the Bible. Take euphemisms (or “beautiful expressions”) for example.Two examples of this device can be found in 1 Kings. One repeated phrase can be found here: “And Rehoboam slept with his fathers in the city of David. (1 Kings 14:31)” This marks the death of Rehoboam - with Abijam ruling over Judah afterwards. The passage does not literally mean that Rehoboam slept next to or in the same bed as his fathers. Similarly, the Lord says to Elijah in preparation to anoint a new king: “Yet I will leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him.” This is not an indication of an exact number of people, nor is it describing the act of “kissing” Baal as being the source of God’s anger. Rather, the sin in this case is the rejection of God and His covenant (the covenant He established with His people Israel). The text also shows us the promise God is making to Elijah, that Elijah will not be alone, and that the worshippers of the pagan god Baal will be but a small problem to the One true God.

Because Horner doesn’t want you to understand literary devices (nor does he explain the reasoning for their use in ancient texts) - you come away believing that idioms, euphemisms, allusions, and metaphors should all be taken literally. This is why Horner butchers the meaning of the text, with another example being in 1 Samuel 20:30-31 (again, I’ll be using the RSVCE version)

“Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathon, and he said to him, “You son of 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? For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established. Therefore send and fetch him to me, for he shall surely die.”

Horner believes that a more “correct” Greek interpretation of Saul’s outburst to Jonathon should read as: “For, do I not know that you are an intimate companion to the son of Jesse?” Now let’s just take what Horner says at face value for the sake of argument. Because in his Greek translation we have two distinct words we need to comb through: “intimate” and “companion.” If the text were to suggest that Jonathon had erotic or sexual desires, then “intimate” is the wrong word to use. Intimacy does not have a solid definition, for one can have an intimate moment with a loved one as well as experience intimacy through a variety of different means. Being near the deathbed of an elderly grandparent is an “intimate” moment because it is the final moments between family. Horner’s other word of choice: “métochos” for “companion” also doesn’t make sense. As both in the Old and New Testament, “métochos” was used to demonstrate unity or fellowship with God. “For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 6:4 NASB).”

Another deceitful trick Horner employs is naming a practice without giving a name to it. He gives mention to a “Semitic practice of refusing to pronounce the actual name of a person or group… as in the case of homosexuality – that is being put down.” And while this might sound intriguing (and could very well be true in other cases), Horner doesn’t provide any other mentions of this practice in Scripture. Even in his footnote, he does not give any citation or source for readers to learn more about this practice, instead musing about Paul’s use of the word “dogs” and “them” in the New Testament. What Horner is essentially arguing is this: 

“Saul didn’t give a name to homosexuality in his outburst because of how offensive it was, therefore homosexuality must have been the cause for Saul’s outburst against his son Jonathon.” This repeated type of fallacious thinking is destructive, especially when biblical literacy has drastically taken a turn for the worst over the past two centuries. So for Horner to intentionally employ such logic rather than to be genuine is not only a grave sin, but to put the lives of his readers in jeopardy if they actually believe what he is saying. We must be consistent and apply logic and reason when reading Sacred Scripture - thus, from our knowledge of the story, we can say with certainty that Saul’s outburst was directed at Jonathon because he felt betrayed by his son choosing his friendship with David (thus, Jonathan demonstrates that he is more loyal to God than to his own father - echoing Luke 14:26).

Finally, we make our way to the most abused passages in Scripture when it comes to the relationship between David and Jonathon, and that is 1 Samuel 20:40-41:

“And Jonathon gave his weapons to his lad, and said to him, “Go and carry them to the city.” And as soon as the lad 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, until David recovered himself.”

The text goes on in verse 42:

“Then Jonathon said to David, “Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the Lord, saying, ‘The Lord shall be between me and you, and between my descendants and your descendants, for ever.’” And he rose and departed; and Jonathon went into the city.”

This would be the last time David and Jonathon spoke to each other that we know of. It’s tragic when you read later in the story of how Jonathon and his father died in a battle against the Philistines. And while David was able to reconcile with Saul beforehand, and did not take vengeance against him, the death of his best friend and his King brought grief to him and to all Israel. I’ve given historical, literary, and religious context all so anyone reading this who may be unfamiliar with the story of David and Jonathon can better understand (even if you don’t believe the words of the Bible to be true) that there is valuable insight to be gained. My whole point in writing this post is to talk about the dreadful loss of something that no one seems to be talking about - and that is genuine brotherhood.

I gave an example earlier that there is a distinction between a friend who would help you move into an apartment and a friend who would willingly die for you. I ask now - how many of you reading this would say you have a friend who would be willing to do the former for you? Are your friends just casual acquaintances? Online friends? Is small talk the only conversation that stirs up - or is small talk the only type of conversation you feel comfortable sharing with another person? If you read 1 Samuel for yourself it should be clear the deep, intimate friendship David and Jonathon had. If you read the Gospels you can read for yourself the loyalty Peter had for Jesus, and the betrayal Christ felt when one of his own disciples - Judas - betrayed him. 

The problem we face today in Western society and in general dialogue is that we don’t know how to make friends anymore. Everything has been distorted and blurred - from the consequences of Women’s Liberation which divided the sexes against each other, to the rise of the LGBT movement which distorted the meaning of sex, gender, and even friendship. This is just part one, and in future posts I will discuss ways to remedy this situation we find ourselves in, as well as understanding the nuances of trust, love, family, and its relationship with ourselves, our bodies, and our minds. I want to end this post with a quote from C.S. Lewis:

“Those who cannot conceive of friendship as a substantive love but only as a disguise or elaboration of Eros betray the fact that they have never had a friend.”