Biblical Manhood: A Primer

~  Biblical Manhood  ~

In this post we examine six marks of biblical manhood. Granted these are sweeping generalities, which is to be expected when the subject is so broad. Four-hundred-page books have been written on the subject (and some of them even manage to be good!), so suffice it to say, we won't be 'plumbing the depths' but, rather, sketching the barebones of biblical manhood. The six marks of biblical manhood we'll address are as follows:

Men are to LOVE GOD.

Men to be STRONG. 

Men are to LEAD

Men are to PROVIDE and PROTECT

Men are to DISCIPLINE

Men are to PRODUCE

Men are to LOVE GOD.

What does God require of you, Oh man, but to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God? - Micah 6.8

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your strength and all your mind. And love your neighbor as yourself. - Luke 10.27

The command to love God isn't just for men but for all people. It is the foundation of both biblical masculinity and biblical femininity. Biblical manhood and womanhood spring out of it; without this foundation, manliness and femininity are but parodies of what God intends for us. It should go without saying that godly masculinity involves godliness at its root. We are designed for relationship with God. We are designed to love God. This love isn't mere feel-goodery: it is devotion to the Creator, a trusting submission to Him in every aspect of our lives. It's a love that produces ever-growing obedience to Him and submission to His laws for us. If masculinity is viewed as a tree, then the roots are love for God and the branches are all those aspects of masculinity that separate manliness from femininity. If the roots of a tree are healthy, the branches flourish; if the roots are unhealthy, the tree will be limp and insipid at best and poisoned at worse. If a man wants to be a man as God designed Him to be, then he must first get on his knees and submit himself to his Creator.

Micah speaks of this devotion to God in the phrase of 'humbly walking' with Him; Jesus speaks of it in the sense of a full-faceted devotion to God. Both make the key point that devotion to God produces an outward disposition towards others that seeks their good. The man who is devoted to God cannot help but to love others, to seek justice, and to show mercy. This is the testimony of both the Old and New Testaments. As we look at aspects of biblical masculinity, we must not miss the forest for the trees: the bedrock of true masculinity - the masculinity that men are designed to embrace - is love for God.

Men are to be STRONG.

Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. - 1 Corinthians 16.13

Strength isn't just physical, though physical strength is indeed part of what it means to be a man (in our effeminate culture, strength should be pursued not for vanity but for the ability to carry out our tasks and to bear witness to the reality that men are to live as men). To be strong as a man involves steadfastness, patience, alertness, and courage. The Apostle Paul commands the Corinthian Christian men to 'play the man,' to embrace biblical manliness. Biblical manliness is summed up in the idea of strength: men are to be firm, resolute, standing tall against the storms and not crumbling under pressure. It isn't easy to do, which is why it requires strength. Husbands are to be their wives' strength; the Apostle Peter says in 1 Peter 3.7 that women are the 'weaker vessel,' which isn't just a reference to the biological fact that they are generally weaker but an observation that they are not designed to be the protectors, the providers, or the ones who stand before their families and absorb the blows thrown at the household. Men who cover behind their wives are no men at all.

The source of biblical strength isn't in our own abilities but in the power of God working in us. Masculinity is corrupted by the fall: all men tend towards abdicating their masculinity by being weak or by corrupting their masculinity by tyrannizing others. Godly masculinity isn't natural to fallen man; its source is in the God who works in our hearts to conform us to His will, and His will is for men to be strong and courageous.

It is a sin to be a 'soft' man. Men are to be strong and resilient; or, in other words, hard. This is reflected in our anatomy: men become hard when procreating, whereas women are soft and supple in the act. The Apostle Paul puts 'soft' men on the same level as homosexual activity: 1 Cor 6.9-10 reads, 'Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals... will inherit the kingdom of God.' The Greek word translated 'effeminate' is malakos, and it refers to men who are 'soft' or 'womanly.' Some modern translations render malakos and arsenokoites (which we looked at last month) and conflate them in English as 'homosexuals,' the idea being that malakos refers to the catcher and arsenokoites to the pitcher in gay sex. However, this understanding of malakos is a recent idea, and older translations capture the true meaning of malakos and translate it as effeminate. When we see malakos used in contemporary Greek writings, this meaning is clear:

Herodotus makes the observation that'soft men [malakoi] are wont to spring from soft countries.' In a speech from The History of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides records a warning given to an assemblyman who might foolishly vote for war for fear of being 'thought a coward [malakos] if he did not.' Twice in The Athenian Constitution, Aristotle speaks of the malakoi: once when it is recorded that men of the house of Codrus were no longer chosen as king 'because they were thought to be luxurious and to have become soft [malakous]'; and again when it is said that 'some of the kings proved cowardly [malakous] in warfare.' Closer to the time of the New Testament, the Jewish historian Josephus writes: 'After this, the Israelites grew effeminate [malakōs] as to fighting any more against their enemies, but applied themselves to the cultivation of the land, which producing them great plenty and riches, they neglected the regular disposition of their settlement, and indulged themselves in luxury and pleasures.' Again, Josephus says, 'Do not you pretend to be either more tender [malakōterous] than a woman, or more compassionate than a mother;..." The meaning of malakos is clear: to be effiminate or soft is to play the woman.

Thus in 1 Corinthians 6, Paul is talking about two types of men who will not inherit the kingdom of God: the effeminate man and the one who practices gay sex. What, though, is effeminacy? An effeminate man is soft, indulgent, a playboy, vain, and womanly. Club-hopping party-boys, those who sleep with lots of women and refuse to do the hard work of building a family, bodybuilders who glory in the limelight and love showing off their bodies, those who seek to embrace their 'feminine side' and wear women's clothing - all these are effeminate acts, and those committing them are failing at manhood and need to repent. In our culture, which hates masculinity, effeminate living is praised as enlightened and revolutionary, but really it is wickedness.

So we see that men can fail at being strong by abdicating their strength (giving up their strength and being soft weaklings), but they can also fail at being strong by corrupting their strength (by being domineering or tyrannical towards others). Biblical strength is resolute and steadfast; it is not domineering or tyrannical. Men are naturally dominant - due to the patriarchal order built into the world - and just as being weak is a failure to be strong, so being tyrannical or overbearing is a corruption of manly strength. There is such a thing as toxic masculinity, but it isn't masculinity itself but the corruption of that masculinity. A toxic masculinity poisons all it comes into contact with, especially the one who is behind the wheel. Biblical strength strengthens and encourages those whom it comes into contact with.

Men are to LEAD.

An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?). - 1 Timothy 3.2-5

God's patriarchal order built into creation has established that men are to be leaders in society, in the church, and in the home. In 1 Timothy 3, the Apostle Paul instructs Timothy on the sort of man who is qualified to serve as an overseer in the local church. This 'requirement list' gives us a snapshot of what biblical masculinity looks like in practice. Men are to be:

The Husband of One Wife (not adulterers or polygamists)

Temperate (not drunkards)

Prudent (sensible)

Respectable (known for integrity)

Hospitable (not quarrelsome)

Able to teach (wise and informed)

Not pugnacious (or hotheaded), but

Gentle (fair and moderate)

Peaceable (not quarrelsome)

Not in love with money or its trappings..

And he is to be one who manages his household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (or gravitas). Let's unpack this: the Greek word for 'manage' is actually used to mean 'rule,' so that a man is to rule his household well. When we look at the roles of husbands and wives in a few weeks, we will see how men are to lead their wives; but men are also to lead their households. To put it more bluntly, God expects them to rule their households. What does this mean? Well, it's actually quite simple: men are to be the kings of their castles.

Men are to rule over their wives.

Men are to rule over their children.

Men are the ones who make the rules.

Men are the ones who enforce the rules.

Men have the final say in what happens in their homes.

Period.

Because men are to rule over their wives, wives are commanded to submit to their husbands, even to the point of calling their husbands 'lord.' But men are to rule their wives lovingly and gently, seeking their wives best interests and the interests of the household over their own. The tyrannical or domineering ruling of wives is strictly prohibited and is a corruption of manliness. This caveat on leadership was given by the Apostle Paul, and it was radical in a time when men could beat their wives and cheat on them with impunity.

Because men are to rule over their children, children are commanded to obey the head of the household. At the same time, godly men are to keep their children 'in subjection' not with harshness, cruelty, or beatings but with 'gravitas,' an aura of respect and authority. Fathers are to discipline their children not out of anger or wrath but from godly principles. This caveat, like the one above, was also radical in a culture in which children could be beaten and even orphaned for disobedience.

Biblical manhood involves real leadership and authority, but because the root of it is love for God and, consequently, love for others, it is not a tyrannical or despotic sort of rule. Men fail to rule in two ways: they either abdicate or give up their rule by letting their wives call the shots or by letting their kids run free so that the household is in shambles, or they rule with an iron fist, keeping wife and children in submission through fear and coercion, which also leaves the household in shambles. Biblical, manly leadership involves a loving, just, and tender ruling of the household, but it is a ruling nonetheless.

Men are to PROVIDE and PROTECT.

But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. - 1 Timothy 5.8

Paul is straightforward: men are to provide their families with what they need. Food, shelter, and clothing are immediate needs, but other needs include leadership, discipline, and protection. A man who fails to provide for his family has, according to Paul, denied the Christian faith and is worse than an unbeliever.  A man can fail to provide in two ways: he can fail to provide the necessities of his household, or he can fail to provide the more ephemeral needs, such as leadership, discipline, and protection. Lazy, self-indulgent men often fail to provide the necessities in that they can't hold down a job or, if they do, they spend their earnings on themselves or rack up debt, failing to pay the bills while indulging their own needs and wants over those of their household. Other men may fail in that they keep a fat bank account, keep the pantry full, and pay the bills, but they fail to lead their families by spending their time 'with the boys' or in video games, or they fail to discipline their children, or they fail to protect their family from the world. Biblical manhood is exhausting: it requires hard work, time, energy, and a denial of your own wants and needs. Because of this, many men fail to provide what their families need simply because it is hard. Effeminates especially fail in this regard, because when you are soft, you cannot at the same time have the hard qualities needed to provide fully for your family. Is this to say that any man who struggles to provide has denied the faith? Not at all! The mission of providing for a family doesn't come naturally; it has a learning curve and requires repentance along the way. But those who refuse to provide by virtue of loving themselves over their families have indeed denied their faith and are worse than unbelievers.

Another form of provision is protection. Men are to protect their families: they are to take the front line against hostilities towards their household. Just as God protects those under His care, so men are to protect those under their care. God designed men to be fighters, and distortions of this innate design include abdication - not willing or afraid to fight for one's own - and wonton violence. A man who fails to protect his family isn't only failing to provide something they need - namely protection - but also failing to rule his household. If a man's home is his castle, it stands to reason that at times that castle may need to be defended, and it is the head of the castle - not his wife nor his children - who is tasked with being the first into the fray.

Men are to DISCIPLINE.

Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him. - Proverbs 13.24

For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. - Hebrews 12.11

Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. - Ephesians 6.4

Men are tasked with leading the discipline in the home. The husband is the head of the household, the head of both his wife and children, and so that responsibility falls on him. This discipline isn't simply the dishing out of punishment, though sometimes it certainly is that: children are to be punished when they do wrong, but that punishment is towards a specific end. It isn't simply about negative reinforcement - 'If you do this, something you don't like will happen!' - rather, it's about showing a child the way forward. When Paul says in Ephesians 6 that fathers are to discipline their children, he isn't saying that children need to be spanked when they do something wrong; he's building upon a standard Greco-Roman concept in which fathers are tasked with disciplining - or training - their children so that they will be honorable members of society. Children are inherently foolish; it takes hard work and discipline to grow into a mature adult who contributes positively to society. Greco-Roman fathers were tasked with leading this development; the pride and joy of a father was a son or daughter who contributed positively to Roman civilization. When parents speak of disciplining their children so that they grow into mature, respectful, honest, and hard-working members of society, they are echoing a long tradition that stretches back to antiquity.

Paul, building on this concept, carries it a step forward. Fathers aren't tasked merely with raising their children by discipline and instruction so that they contribute to the larger society rather than being a drain on that society; Paul's more concerned that fathers raise their children to be productive and responsible members of the kingdom of God. This is why Paul says fathers are to discipline and instruct their children in the Lord. It is a father's responsibility to impart to his children the gospel message, biblical teachings, and love for God; it is his job to show them what it means to love and serve the Lord; he is to show them and teach them what it means to be a member of God's kingdom. He is to model obedience to God, confession of sin, and repentance. In this vein, fathers shouldn't be leaving the instruction of the Lord to private Christian schools or even churches. Only recently has this become the norm: for much of history, most Christian teaching took place in the home. It wasn't unusual for families to have devotions and worship each night.

Fathers fail in discipling their household when they fail to discipline their children at all - letting them run amuck, giving them everything they want, and leaving their education in the hands of the state or even in the church. Fathers also fail when they are overbearing, dictatorial, or tyrannical; this was common in the ancient Greco-Roman world, which is why Paul is adamant in ordering fathers to not provoke their children. The idea conveyed by the Greek word for 'provoke' is the anger and discouragement produced in children by a father's arbitrary and unsympathetic rule. A father's household rule isn't to be arbitrary - in other words, it needs to have direction and focus, in this case gearing the child for life as a Christian in the wider world - and it isn't to be unsympathetic - fathers need to remember that children are children, that they will act like children, and that they shouldn't be expected to act like adults. Psalm 103.14 tells us that God remembers our frame: He is mindful of the fact that we are made of dust. The psalmist recognized that God doesn't expect perfection from us; He knows that we are sinful, prone to wandering, and in need of constant correction; He keeps this in mind when He deals with us, and so He deals with us patiently, with mercy and pity. Fathers are to deal with their children in the same way.

Men are to PRODUCE. 

Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. - Genesis 2.15

In Genesis 2 we see man's original vocation: he was to cultivate and protect the Garden of Eden. He was designed to produce. He was to work and tend the Garden and preserve and protect it. But protect it from what? From the outside wilds as the Garden advances across the globe. God could've made the whole world an Edenic paradise, but His intention was to use His image-bearing creatures to do the work. God embraced a two-fold approach to get this done: Eden would be physically extended by working the grounds and subjugating the wild frontier, and 'gardeners' would be multiplied as women bore children and raised them to function as God's image-bearers in the Garden. People are, at heart, gardeners. Wherever civilization advances, what do we find? We find the cultivation of land and the building of parks; from the ancient Hanging Gardens of Babylon to Central Park in New York City, mankind has an innate urge to shape and beautify the world, an echo of our original vocation.

Men are designed to work. They are designed to produce, to put food on the table and shelter over their families' heads. Because of the Fall, however, this labor has been stained, and it's become a real struggle:

Then to Adam [God] said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;

Cursed is the ground because of you;

In toil you will eat of it

All the days of your life. “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;

And you will eat the plants of the field; By the sweat of your face

You will eat bread,

Till you return to the ground,

Because from it you were taken;

For you are dust,

And to dust you shall return.”

- Genesis 3.17-19

Though work has been stained by our Fall in the Garden, men are nonetheless tasked with working.  They are to be producers; this is why it falls upon men to be the 'breadwinners' in the household. Ruling a household inevitably means providing for it, and access to provisions happens through work: whether that means working the ground to produce food and raising livestock for meat, or performing a service to earn money with which to purchase necessities, men are called to be the ones leading the acquiring of provisions whereas wives - as we will see - are tasked with taking those provisions and applying them skillfully to the home.

The statement above would make a modern feminist howl. Does this mean that women can't work? Does this mean that a mother can't have a job? Does this mean that fathers shouldn't be stay at home dads? These are prickly questions, and there are a variety of answers, often depending on specific situations or circumstances. At the core, however, is the biblical reality that God has ordained households to operate a certain way, and His creatures should seek to adopt those operations insofar as they are able to do so.

Parting Shots

What do all these aspects of biblical manhood share? They are reflections of the Creator, who is known for His strength, His wise and loving rule, and His provision and protection and discipline of those He loves. True masculinity is a reflection of God. But masculinity on its own doesn't complete a man. Adam, whose masculinity was pure prior to its corruption in the Fall, was lacking in something; specifically, he lacked a feminine side. Men need a feminine side, but it isn't found in adopting womanly pursuits or feminine manners of living. It is found in a wife.