David and Jonathan: Gay Couple or Best Buddies?
Were the Bible’s David and Jonathan a homosexual couple or did they simply share a deep and intimate friendship? The debate is far from a new one.Our modern answer to this question may say more about us than it does about David or Jonathan.
David and Jonathan
Queer Christians have often held up David and Jonathan as an example of queer figures in Biblical times. In a recent guest article for Katholisch.de, Mathias Winkler, a professor of theology at Germany’s Ruhr University Bochum, poses an answer: it doesn’t matter much to the story of David and Jonathan if r they were a gay couple as we think of couples today. What does matter is how our view of David and Jonathan reflects our perception of male friendships and masculinity, and heterosexual vs. homosexual relationships.
In 1 Samuel, the Bible says that Jonathan and David “made a covenant”, and that Jonathan loved David “as himself.” It also describes Jonathan giving David the very clothes off his back, as well as his weapons.
In his article, Winkler asks the reader to imagine two men sitting down at a cafe and greeting each other with a kiss. Are these two men a gay couple? Winkler answers:
“Most Germans would spontaneously say, Yes.’ If you were to ask French or Italians or people from other Mediterranean countries, the answer would be, ‘Not necessarily.’ That’s because I haven’t revealed how the men in the café are kissing. If it were a French kiss, it would be obvious to everyone that they are a couple. If it were a peck on each cheek, it would be a normal greeting in certain countries and cultures.”
This example illustrates Winkler’s primary point: we can’t ascribe modern, Western sensibilities about male friendship to people who existed in a culture so completely different from ours. In the Bible, David and Jonathan embrace each other, and weep when saying goodbye. Today, we consider that to be “incompatible” with a platonic male friendship between heterosexual men. But in Biblical times, they might have understood such behavior differently. “We are geographically, culturally, and temporally very far removed from those who left us the biblical stories,” Winkler says. “While physical contact between men is considered strange male behavior today—apart from a firm handshake—it may have been perfectly acceptable in male relationships back then.”
This view that deep friendships between men are incompatible with heterosexuality is actually harmful to modern men. According to Winkler:
“The prevailing ideal of the heterosexual man [of having only] casual male friendships is particularly prevalent today, because this ideal implies that successful relationships for heterosexual men are only possible with women. This can lead to excessive demands on heterosexual couples, but also to isolation.”
Winkler calls the debate on whether David and Jonathan were actually gay a “pseudo-debate,” and “no reason to get upset.” The question, he says, “doesn’t really revolve around the question of the homosexuality of either man, but rather around the question of what relationships between men are considered “appropriate” within the framework of which conception of masculinity.”
So, what do you think? Do Winkler’s ideas convince you that David and Jonathan were simply performing acceptable adult male behavior of their time and place? How important is the story of David and Jonathan for you as a Catholic LGBTQ+ person? Share your thoughts in the “Comments” section of this post.
—Lynnzee Dick, New Ways Ministry, January 2, 2026
While I agree with professor Winkler’s assertion that we need to enter into the time of the writing in biblical stories, as well as enter into the time of any of the stories that we know from history as well as family memories.
I disagree with the professor when he is writes that “physical contact between man is considered strange male behavior today.”
I have heard many stories of military men who explain the feelings they have of loss and grief; of concern for another member of their platoon. Also the examples of military men acting for male or female comrades all they can do to save them.
I suspect that professor Winkler in Germany would see men hug at a soccer game. We see it here in various public events beyond sports.
I doubt anyone would consider this strange.
I agree wholeheartedly that men need to share feelings with other men as well as their male offspring. I encourage fathers and grandfathers to write letters to their children and grandchildren to share their stories and feelings.
While it is significant and valuable to understand any of the biblical stories in their context, I think we need to acknowledge that and engage the stories and the memories in our own time.
I would agree with Winkler. To read into things written so long ago from a different culture is to do injustice to the writing and to our modern culture. Affection between men is not only optional but very helpful. The intimacy we find in close friendships feeds the mind soul and body. Would that we were more expressive in our love for our “brothers and sisters.”
Excelente! Hay muchas tareas por hacer hoy en cuanto a la integración afectiva masculina, particularmente en occidente.
I don’t think the question is about their orientation–the question is whether same-sex acts for this couple would lead to their human flourishing. If David and Jonathan had decided that sexual acts would increase their love for each other, then those acts would ordered toward the good of intimacy. Those acts wouldn’t be “intrinsically disordered” since those acts would have been part of a long-term, loving relationship. I’m not saying whether they did or did not have sex–I’m simply saying they could have, and their sex would have led to human flourishing. I disagree with the Catechism–I think there are contexts in which same-sex acts are ordered toward the good.
I would agree mostly with Winkler said about the relationship between David and Jonathan, but I would add I think that they had a very strong connection between, one that is both deeply emotional and spiritual. I don’t think that they had a romantic relationship, but they probably did have a very intimate platonic relationship. I tend to compare it to a kind of relationship that could be called a queer platonic relationship. It could have gone a little more very affectionate than most male relationships, but I don’t there were any romantic feelings. The modern concept of homosexual relationship didn’t really exist in this time, so I don’t think they would have really thought in those terms at all. They would just consider it a very strong intimate friendship.