Biblical Manhood: God’s Calling to Love and Excellence

1. INTRODUCTION

Male. Masculine. Manhood. Man. In modern American culture, few other terms are so indefinable. Within the realm of biological sciences, the meaning of man is quite black and white: an organism of the homo sapiens species possessing XY chromosomes and producing sperm gametes. However, after one begins to consider things beyond mere science, the question of what a man is becomes much less clear. Modern American culture has presented many different meanings and examples of manhood. Not only are these messages numerous and frequent, but they have been distorted over many years, negatively impacting adolescent males growing into men.

One does not have to search very long to observe this crisis in manhood. In 2018, eight boys were expelled from Canada’s St. Michael’s College School on account of gang violence and sexual assault. After a rigorous police investigation, certain students were expelled and convicted of repeated incidents of hazing, gang violence, gang sexual assault, and armed sexual assault. Additionally, the past decade has seen a sharp increase of men identifying to the online incel (involuntary celibate) culture. Incels are typically heterosexual males who are unable to find a partner. According to Wikipedia:

The incel subculture’s online discourse has been characterized by resentment, hostile sexism…, sexual objectification, dehumanization of women…, racism and a sense of entitlement to sex, nihilism, rape culture, and the endorsement of sexual and non-sexual violence against women and the sexually active. (“Incel”, 2026)

Additionally, consider the example of Larry Nassar. After a lengthy investigation in 2016, Nassar was arrested on counts of possession of child pornography and sexual assault of over 265 women and girls. Evidently, there is a real crisis and lack of real men in society. Infidelity, pornography, sexual abuse, drug and alcohol addiction, misogyny, lack of responsibility, pride, domineering behavior, and abuse of authority are simply commonplace things now in the lives of American men. Negative role models and rampant sin among men such as Larry Nassar, Andrew Tate, Jeffrey Epstein, Harry Styles, and Donald Trump have inspired negative attitudes and expressions of manhood.

These twisted perceptions and expressions of manhood have driven most of American culture to fall into two ditches of belief concerning masculinity. The first one is that of absolute authority and dominance over men and women through the pursuit of power, sex, and money. The other is that of no responsibility, no gender-specific responsibilities, and no duty to others, manifesting in effeminacy, transgenderism, and cross-dressing.

In complete opposition to these views, God shows in the Bible that men are created for a specific purpose. While they are equal in value with women, they do not have identical functions. The different aspects of manhood are not about right or superiority but God’s beautiful and unique design. The primary purpose of men created in the image of God is to reflect His glory in their character and actions. A true man is ultimately one who does “what is right, love[s] mercy, and live[s] humbly with…God” (MacArthur, 2010, Micah 6:8). In order to reflect his glory, God has designed men to live and act in a way that mirrors his own likeness. Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson of the Supreme Court of the United States is famous for having no answer to the question of what her definition of a woman was during her confirmation hearing in 2022. In this discussion, my aim will be to avoid such intellectual cowardice and definitively provide an answer to the following questions: What is a man? What is the significance of being a man? And what does it truly mean to be and live as a man? At the end of a day, a man is a created being, formed by God with three different aspects: a material, physiological body; a personal, rational, and relational being; and an attitude and character imprinted with the characteristics of His own likeness. God did not create men this way by accident; rather, like a diamond, every facet of a man is designed to reflect God’s glory in a slightly different way. The created reality of a man should then function within responsibilities and roles that practically align with a man’s physiological, relational, and moral identity

2. IDENTITY OF A MAN: PHYSIOLOGY

First, we must examine man as a material, physiological, and anatomical entity. While a man’s identity is not solely limited to physiology, an understanding of God’s definition for manhood should be informed by the way God physically made them. For example, consider a glass mug with a handle. When a person looks at the handle, they can know that the purpose of that handle was to provide the drinker with a means to hold the cup. The handle is not there for the sake of appearance; rather, it was placed there for a functional purpose. In the same way, men are created with certain physiological, anatomical, and cognitive differences such that they can accomplish the specific roles, responsibilities, and duties given to them by God. According to Dr. Olan J. Stubbs (2006), “It seems foolish to think that God commands men to fill the roles of head and leader and would not specially create them to be able to fulfill these roles” (p. 14).

Hormonally, men at any given time have between 265 and 923 nanograms of testosterone per deciliter of blood, while women typically only have 15 to 70 nanograms of testosterone for the same volume of blood. According to Harvard Medical School, testosterone in men regulates libido and spermatogenesis, increases bone density, develops the penis and testes, deepens the voice in puberty, and increases skeletal muscle size and strength (Harvard Health Publishing). Testosterone also results in making men “more aggressive, physically active, and competitive” (Stubbs, 2006, p. 15). Cognitively, male brains are specialized for making decisions. Stubbs states, “One side [of the brain] works on spatial problems, while the other side addresses verbal and word problems…Neither sex is smarter. But typically men can analyze a problem more accurately and make a decision...better than women can. This helps in their leadership roles” (Stubbs, 2006, p. 15). In Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Gregg Johnson (1991) states, “The more lateralized male brain would be expected to be more single-minded, focused, less distractable, and perhaps less socially aware. This, coupled with the hot-wired limbic system, may increase males’ competitive, goal-setting, rulemaking, hierarchical approach to social interaction” (p. 293). Additionally , the anatomical features of male bodies are not merely for physiological purposes but to represent in a symbolic manner the roles that a man should fulfill in life. Dr. Stubbs (2006) continues to clarify this symbolic relationship between anatomy/physiology and functional roles:

Men are made strong with broad shoulders to bear the weight of responsibility. Men are made physically stronger so that they can work hard to provide for their wives and families and to fight and protect them when need be. Men’s bodies are made to move out and toward a woman in sex as initiator. This too is a picture of a man’s role in relating to women. (p. 10)

Stuart W. Scott (2004) says, “A strong and godly man will be characterized by the qualities that are necessary to fulfill the roles that God has given to him” (p. 15). God has not delegated responsibilities that men are incapable of accomplishing. However, there needs to be a clarifying note on these physical features such as broad shoulders, competitiveness, and aggression. God has created every man to be unique. Therefore, the perception of a man as a muscular and competitive entity is simply a stereotype. Many men are created without broad shoulders. Some men may be culturally effeminate, and neither of these characteristics are sinful or wrong. Ultimately, the most important part about the identity of a man is in how he relates to God and other people around him.

3. IDENTITY OF A MAN: RELATIONSHIP

Were God to simply stop at forming man as a physiological entity, we would be no more valuable than animals. However, God created man with a conscience, a rational mind, a soul, and emotions in order to interact with others for the purpose of relationship. God created man in Genesis 1:27, saying, “God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” (MacArthur, 2010, Genesis 1:27). This verse is peculiar for its seemingly redundant nature. However, these three separate clauses each say something distinct about who a man is.

The first – “God created mankind in his own image” – demonstrates the value and significance of humanity because humanity is structured and formed in God’s image (Genesis 1:27). Being created in the image of God theologically means that humanity is created with intrinsic value, worth, purpose, and dignity because God has imbued his likeness upon us. This likeness includes the possession of a rational mind, the ability to love, and a free will. This likeness mirrors God and distinguishes us in value and dignity from animals or plants. While God loves all his creation and created all of it good, God only has a personal relationship with humanity.

The second clause – “in the image of God he created them” – indicates that men and women are equal in value (Genesis 1:27). The author of Genesis clearly states that both men and women reflect God’s likeness equally. Despite the fact that Adam was created first, the Bible does not say, “God created Adam in the image of God. Then he also created Eve in the image of God.” For the sake of clarity, the Bible says that both men and women are equally able to reflect God in their lives.

The third clause – “male and female he created them” – states that while men and women are both equal in value and worth, they are different in their structure (MacArthur, 2010, Genesis 1:27). Men are equal in value and worth to women but not function or design as can be seen in their numerous anatomical and physiological differences. However, the differences between men and women run deeper than cognitive organization and genitalia. In accordance with God’s design, men are given the exclusive responsibility of being elders and pastors. Does this mean that men are more valuable than women? On the other hand, women are given the exclusive ability to give birth to new life. Does this give more worth to women than men? Nothing could be further from the truth.

Modern culture repeatedly attempts to claim that equality extends to all areas of existence. Feminism has equated equality to identity, and as a result, any adherence to traditional roles of men and women has been labeled sexist. While in terms of human dignity and value, men and women are created equal, men and women are not designed or meant to function equally. According to J. Montgomery Boice (2002), “A man is absolutely superior to a woman at being a man. A woman is absolutely superior to a man at being a woman” (p. 95). However, neither sex is superior to the other at being human. These ideas are summed up in the teaching of complementarianism. Rather than state what it means to be a man or be a woman, this belief simply summarizes what it means to be human. It is not a theory of how manhood itself should play out, and neither is it a theory of how womanhood should be manifested. Rather, it is a belief on how men and women should act and behave in respect to each other. Complementarianism believes that men and women are “equal before God as persons and distinct in their manhood and womanhood” and that “distinctions in masculine and feminine roles are ordained by God as part of the created order” (The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 1998). Therefore, any differences between men and women, from functional roles to physiological distinctions, are not a matter of competency, but design. Many women are far more competent leaders than men, but God has clearly stated in his word that within the family and the church, the male sex has the responsibility of headship. There are many differences between men and women that will be explored further, but the most important thing to understand about the relational identity of a man is that the biological reality of an XY chromosome man is deeper than genitalia. Men are meant to live in relationship and community with other men, other women, but most importantly God. According to The Gospel Coalition (Kassian, 2012), “Who we are as male and female is ultimately not about us. It’s about testifying to the story of Jesus. We do not get to dictate what manhood and womanhood are all about. Our Creator does.” The way that men reflect God’s likeness that He has imbued on them is in living in relationships with other people that are pleasing to God. Men were designed to live in relationship with others is within four functional roles that God has equipped men to perform: lover, leader, protector, and provider.

4. IDENTITY OF A MAN: CHARACTER

Finally, God says the identity of a true man is established in his character. What is character? The English word character comes from the Greek χαρακτήρ (charaktér), meaning an engraving tool or the mark impressed upon a coin. Since Oxford Languages defines “character” as “the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual,” then it can be inferred that the biblical character of a man is the mental and moral qualities distinctive of God that are impressed on an individual. For our discussion on manhood, we must look in the Bible to see what qualities God impressed upon men.

Ultimately, God wants all men to be a certain type of man, not just a human who accomplishes certain tasks. While He commands men to follow certain functional roles in the church, family, and society, performing certain actions to earn His favor is not what God intends or desires. To illustrate, consider that in order to be a biblical man, one must be humble. This characteristic is vitally important. God calls men to be leaders continually throughout the Bible. However, being a leader by dictionary definition is not enough. For example, a proud leader is not a leader at all, but a self-centered tyrant. If one transposes this concept onto other roles such as provider, we can see that a selfish provider is not a provider at all, but a stingy relinquisher. While fulfilling the tasks God has assigned is necessary, men will be incapable of fulfilling those roles in the manner that He commands if their lives are not marked by the stamp of the godly qualities that God calls us to live in.

In Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus, he outlines characteristics and qualities of elders and deacons within the church. According to Paul, a godly elder is above reproach, sexually pure, emotionally temperate, prudent, responsible, hospitable, considerate, and faithful to his familial responsibilities. Furthermore, Paul says that an elder is a lover of good, justice, and that which is pure. In stark contrast, Paul says that a godly man is not a drunkard, quickly angered, contentious, materialistic, arrogant, self-willed, violent, or sexually immoral. Stuart W. Scott (2004) says, “Since these two passages[, 1 Tim 3:2-7 and Titus 1:6-9,] were specifically given by God to [men], the basic instructions found in them are profitable for understanding what is truly masculine and what is not. It could even be said, from God’s perspective, that these commands and prohibitions are prerequisites to genuine manliness” (p. 15).

Therefore, to reflect God within the roles of leader, lover, protector, and provider, a man must have certain characteristics and qualities in order to fulfill those roles in the correct manner. To lead others well, a man must possess wisdom, initiative, and courage. In order to love others well, a man must excel in servanthood, self-sacrifice, kindness, patience, and all the other qualities of love outlined in 1 Corinthians 13. In order to protect others, a man must have courage, strength, and alertness. Finally, in order to provide for others, a man must possess humility, love, and a servant’s heart.

5. FUNCTIONAL ROLES: LOVER

The first functional role that God calls men to live out is the role of lover. This does not mean lover in the modern sense as one who makes sexual love to another but rather a sacrificial, selfless, and unconditional love. In English, love is a very ambiguous term due to its excessive use in modern day culture. However, for this discussion, we will focus on sacrificial love, expressed in the Greek word agape. According to the Bible Project, the agape love that Jesus taught “is not primarily a feeling for someone else that happens to you…For Jesus, love is an action” (The Bible Project). When Ephesians 5:25 commands men to “love [their] wives,” Paul interestingly uses the Greek agapao, the verb form of agape love (MacArthur, 2010). When he commands husbands to love their wives, one might think that he would use the verb eros, referring to romantic love. On the contrary, he calls them to act in agape love; this verb is also used throughout perhaps Jesus’s most famous statement, “For God so loved [emphasis added] the world, that he gave his only Son…” (John 3:16). Clearly, the Bible is not commanding men to romantically love others. Ephesians 5 goes on to call men to love their wives “as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify [the church], having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor…[so] that she might be holy and without blemish” (Ephesians 5:25-27).

In the context of agape love, men are to be lovers. Practically, this love should present itself in every area of life, permeating the subsequent roles of leader, protector, and provider. As a provider, a man is to provide financially and spiritually for his family out of a love for his wife and children. This can play out in many ways, but all men are to treat this responsibility joyfully, not begrudgingly, because a man should ultimately love and seek the betterment of others.

Ultimately, Jesus Christ is the ultimate example of love that men should look towards to guide their actions. Jesus’s love is “sacrificial and acts in a way that works for another’s benefit, even at his own harm” (Rogers, 2020, p. 76). By washing the disciples’ feet, Jesus gave them an “example” to do the same for each other (MacArthur, 2010, John 13:15). This example demonstrated that leading, protecting, and providing in love is not a feeling or mental acknowledgement, but an action that lifts up others unconditionally in a character of humility. After all, Jesus’s disciples did not treat him with the same love and respect that he showed to them. He continually placed himself in the role typically expected of the lowest slaves in the full knowledge that in the following hours, every one of his disciples would either abandon Him to death, deny ever knowing Him, or willingly betray Him to the authorities to be crucified. As a final clarification, this love should be expressed to everyone, not just wives in the context of a marriage. Right after washing the disciples’ feet, He tells them of a love greater than that in a marriage – “Greater love (agape) has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13) – a love that Jesus clearly would show to His disciples in the following hours.

6. FUNCTIONAL ROLES: LEADER

Not only does God call men to be lovers, but He also calls them to be leaders. The topic of leadership and the subsequent questions are currently a hot topic in today’s society. Due to prevalent ideas of male superiority and dominance, there has been an increase of sexual abuse, domineering behaviors, and sexism. According to the United States Sentencing Commission (2021), out of the 1,062 sexual abuse cases in 2021, 93.6% of offenders were men. Not only has just the stereotypical male been caught up in this horrific trend, but the church has taken part in this corruption as well. The Houston Chronicle  reports that since 1998 roughly 380 clergy, lay leaders, and volunteers affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention have faced allegations of sexual abuse, leaving over 700 victims (Downen et al., 2019). With the emergence of the #MeToo movement, there has been a wide mistrust of male leadership. Sexual abuse is by no means the only issue among men in positions of leadership; dominance, aggression, and rampant ambition exhibit themselves in verbal violence. On the opposite side of the spectrum, there have been many cases of passivity, apathy, and disinterest among men in the home. Ultimately, what men need is a wake-up-call to the true manner of leading that God commands men to live in. In this discussion, I will be using the phrase “headship” rather than “leadership” for the sake of congruency with biblical texts.

The masculine responsibility of headship is outlined in the Bible in two different contexts: in the church and in the family. God first establishes the idea of male headship at the beginning of human history in Genesis 2. In Genesis 2:15, God bestowed the responsibility of overseeing the garden upon the man, placing him “in the Garden of Eden to work it and keep it” (MacArthur, 2010, Genesis 2:15). God gave Adam responsibility over the Garden, “even though God could have done a much better job himself” (Scott, 2004, p. 15). God continues to establish the precedent of male headship by commanding him to have dominion over all the animals of the earth. “God didn’t say, ‘Here Eve, you take this half and Adam, you take the other.’ Adam was to lead” (Scott, 2004, p. 15). In the New Testament, God continues to affirm male headship. In Ephesians 5:22-23, Paul writes, “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior” (MacArthur, 2010, Ephesians 5:22-23). This single verse is itself subject to endless debates on the meaning of submission. While this is not the place for such an in-depth analysis of this command, we can conclude a few things. Primarily, within a marriage, the responsibility of headship resides with the husband. Second, leadership is not total control over a person but love for them. According to Dr. J. O. Stubbs, “Husbands are never once commanded to rule their wives, but only to love them…Men submit to women by sacrificially giving their lives up for them” (Stubbs 29). John Stott (1986) says, “Headship expresses care rather than control, responsibility rather than rule” (p. 219). Finally, the relationship between submission and headship is ultimately designed and exemplified in the life and love of Jesus Christ. Ultimately, it is God’s design that the male sex should carry the responsibility of headship in the family.

If men are designed to have the responsibility and role of leader within the church and family, the primary question to ask is in what manner a man should lead. Primarily, a leader should lead in a spirit of humility. Ultimately, the responsibility of headship upon a husband or a leader in the church is a matter of stewardship. The people whom they are leading are not theirs, but rather they belong to God and should be led and stewarded in a manner that honors God. Headship is concerned with benefiting others, not using others to further one’s agenda. Leaders should focus on the needs of others rather than their own. This characteristic of leadership is embodied in servanthood. In Luke 22, Jesus commands leaders to be “as one who serves” (MacArthur, 2010, Luke 22:26). Second, a leader should lead with love. As already stated, headship is characterized by agape love, a sacrificial love that considers the needs of others higher than their own. A leader should sacrifice his own wellbeing for the sake of his church and family. Additionally, a leader should generally lead in a spirit of initiative rather than reactivity. Men should not passively sit by, acting only when an issue or danger presents itself. Even though in the context of a family it is not necessary that every single duty or event be initiated by the husband, he should set a general pattern of initiation as the steward of the wellbeing of his wife and children. Overall, a biblical man should lead his church and/or family with a continual pattern of love, humility, and initiative.

In the family, a man should model love, humility, and initiative to his wife and children. This manifests in leading family devotionals and administering truth to them in order to spiritually nurture them. This manifests in consistently and lovingly disciplining sons and daughters. This manifests in being emotionally stable and soberminded when going through crises such as the death of a loved one, the stress of moving to a new place, or periods of sickness and emotional hurt. This manifests in performing menial tasks in a spirit of servanthood, such as doing the dishes, being the family “chauffeur,” or taking the trash out. This manifests in husbands loving their wives in a romantic and sexual relationship “by communicating an aura of strong and tender pursuit” (Piper, 1991, p. 33). There is an inexhaustible list of ways for men to lead their families, but the examples above are just a few practical ways for men to lovingly lead their wives and children.

Within the context of the church, male headship is most notably exhibited in the roles of elder and pastor. As stated in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, these two positions are to only be held by “the husband of one wife” (MacArthur, 2010, 1 Timothy 3:2), i.e., a man. In these roles, a man should model the same love, humility, and initiative demonstrated in a family, albeit in a different manner. In those two passages, Paul outlines the characteristics of a godly leader: blameless, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, welcoming to strangers, gracious, just, devout, steadfast, and able to teach the Word of God. Therefore, pastors and elders should demonstrate the sacrificial, selfless, and servant-like love of Christ in their stewardship of God’s people. As a result, these roles should never be a platform or pedestal for men to exercise power over congregants of their church. Rather, headship in the church should be modeled like a shepherd. Just as a shepherd protects his flock from wolves or thieves, pastors and elders should courageously protect their church from discord and false teaching. Paul says that false teachers arise like “wolves” to malign the message of the gospel (Acts 20:29). Just as a shepherd maintains the health and nutrition of his flock, pastors should humbly preach the Word of God in order to spiritually nourish their congregation, not demonstrate their own speaking or performative skills. Additionally, just as a shepherd should understand the struggles and needs of his sheep, a church leader should seek to know and understand the needs of his church members. A biblical man should lead his church by protecting, caring for, and nourishing his church. In conclusion, men are called to be leaders by God, and they fulfill this role in the home and church

7. FUNCTIONAL ROLES: PROTECTOR

Additionally, men are called to protect others. The definition of the verb “protect” is to keep safe from harm or injury caused from an outside force. As a result, the act of protecting others can take many forms whether that be protection from physical assault or from spiritual attacks. Deriving from a character of love, courage, boldness, strength, and alertness, it is natural that men should be protectors. First, men are called to be physical protectors, i.e. protectors of the physical world and the people in it. In Genesis 2:15, God gives Adam his responsibility in the garden, stating that Adam was to “work” and “keep” the Garden of Eden. The specific Hebrew word for “keep” (“shamar”; שָׁמַר) is the same word that describes a shepherd protecting his flock from lions, wolves and natural dangers. Nevertheless, as he did in all his appointed roles, Adam failed to protect Eve and the Garden of Eden. As a result, the man’s role as protector was corrupted, manifesting in sinful manners such as a fearful spirit. However, it is important to note that though man’s role was corrupted, it was not lost. Throughout the Bible, God continues to bestow the responsibility of protector upon men, and whether that be as a priest, soldier, general, king, judge, or prophet, God almost always commanded men to protect His people from belligerent peoples and kingdoms. Continuing in the New Testament, God continues to give the responsibility of protector to men. For example, after the massacre of Bethlehem’s infants, “An angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, ‘Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him’” (MacArthur, 2010, Matthew 2:13-15). It was not by mere coincidence that God appeared to Joseph rather than Mary. Despite Mary’s status as the mother of the Messiah, it was still Joseph’s duty and responsibility to protect his family.

However, protection from material threats is only a small part of the responsibility to which God calls men. The largest responsibility of protection that God calls men to is spiritual protection. In 1 Corinthians 16:13, Paul commands the Corinthian church to “act like men” by “[being] on the alert.” Strong’s Concordance says that the Greek word for this command to be alert, γρηγορέω (grēgoreō), means “to take heed lest through remission and indolence some destructive calamity suddenly overtake one” (EliYah Ministries). Here Paul indirectly states that to “act like [a man]” is to be alert for dangers that could overtake others (MacArthur, 2010, 1 Corinthians 16:13). Elsewhere, in Matthew 26:41, Jesus commands his disciples, “Watch (grēgoreō) and pray that you may not enter into temptation.”

After comparing the two verses here, we can clearly see that spiritual protection is different than physical protection. God does not call men to interpose themselves between a cosmic spear that Satan hurls at others. God does not call men to take up arms against the devil. God calls men to trust in Him. Jesus does not command the Apostles to battle and engage the Evil One, but rather, He commands them to pray. Ultimately, as fallen human beings, we have no innate ability to restrict or defend against the Devil. However, God calls us to enact spiritual warfare in the power of the Lord. Jude 1:9 says, “Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil…, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke you!” Michael the archangel, one of the highest-ranking supernatural beings, sets a model for spiritual warfare, as David Guzik (2018) says, “First, we see that Michael was in a battle. Secondly, we see that he battled in the Lord’s authority.” Even the powerful archangel of heaven must rely solely on the power of God. Spiritual protection in the context of men means remaining alert to threats that could harm their families, friends, and the church. However, in the end, God calls men to courageously trust in Him to supply their needs within spiritual warfare.

Therefore, a man guided by a character of alertness, humility, courage, and strength will trust God for all their needs in spiritual warfare. Out of that trust and faith, men will take action to protect the women, children, his family, and those entrusted to him in a church setting. In a physical sense, it means that men should “[embrace] the ‘women and children first’ rule and [resist] the pull of self-protection” (Brown, 2021c). No matter the physique or size, men should always be the first to engage an attacker causing danger to others. John Piper says:

Imagine two students walking from the college over to McDonald’s, a guy and a gal dating, and a guy jumps out with a knife. Now, suppose she has a black belt in karate. She could take this guy out. Suppose this guy knows she does. I would say if he says, “You take him,” he’s not a man. He’s not a man. He should step in front of her and say, “Over my dead body.” Now, she may win the battle at the end and kick him, but he’s done manly things. (Piper, 2011)

Men are called to do this in a spirit of initiative. Being alert for danger means being a proactive protector, not a reactive one. Just as a bodyguard does not wait for a gunshot to protect his quarry, so men must be proactively on alert for danger in order to protect those who God has entrusted to him.

On the matter of spiritual protection, men must guard and protect others from spiritual harm. Despite man’s best efforts, only God can give men the power needed to successfully enact spiritual warfare; however, trust does not equate to passivity. When men trust God, they act, not trusting that their actions will save them, but trusting that living in a godly manner will produce spiritual fruit. First, men are to protect women and children from false teaching. For those called to be husbands and fathers, this can manifest in many ways. The primary way men combat others from spiritual harm is through prayer. Jesus modeled this by constantly praying for his disciples. In Luke 22, Jesus says, “‘Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed [emphasis added] for you that your faith may not fail” (MacArthur, 2010, Luke 22:31-32). Another way is by modeling a continual pattern of initiating family devotions. In this act of spiritual protection, fathers and husbands will guard against lies from the devil who “prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking those to devour” (1 Peter 5:8) Not only do men bestow spiritual protection, but in this act, men bestow the weapon that others can use to protect themselves, the sword of the Spirit.

8. FUNCTIONAL ROLES: PROVIDER

The previous roles of protector, leader, and lover branch out also to the role of provider. In Ephesians 5:29, when directly addressing husbands, Paul says, “In the same [loving] way, husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it.” As Paul says, the love that a husband has for his wife should embody itself in “nourish[ing] and cherish[ing]” her. The words nourish and cherish are respectively the Greek words ektrepho and thalpo. According to Strong’s Concordance, ektrepho means to bring someone up in spiritual maturity, while thalpo means to cherish with tender love (EliYah Ministries). Furthermore, Paul writes in 1 Timothy that “if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (MacArthur, 2010, 1 Timothy 5:8). From these two verses, we can see primarily the command for men to be providers. However, they also state that the role of provider has a two-sided nature: physical/material provision and spiritual provision.

Ultimately, the Bible does not exclusively bestow the role of physical provision upon men or women. God does not command men to be the exclusive source of income in a household, and neither does He command that women should not supply any amount of income. In fact, in Proverbs 31, King Lemuel lauds the woman who brings in income for her family (Proverbs 31). Nevertheless, this specific question especially – whether a husband or a wife should be the main breadwinner – has gone under attack by Western thinkers and some feminist advocates. The idea that men are uniquely responsible to provide for the material needs of a family has been labeled misogynistic, sexist, and domineering. Certainly, the assumption that only men are gifted and able to provide household income is sexist and an insult to women. Neither man nor woman is more capable or competent to provide household income. John Piper (1991) clarifies well by saying, “The point of saying that man should feel a responsibility to provide for woman is not that the woman should not assist in maintaining support for the family or for society in general” (p. 34). He continues and states his case, saying:

What I mean when I say that a man should feel a benevolent responsibility to provide is this: when there is no bread on the table it is the man who should feel the main pressure to do something to get it there. It does not mean his wife can’t help – side by side in a family enterprise or working in a different job…But a man will feel his personhood compromised if he, through sloth or folly or lack of discipline, becomes dependent over the long haul…on his wife’s income. (Piper, 1991, p. 34 – 35)

To summarize, men desiring to adhere and follow biblical teaching should assume and sense the responsibility to provide for the material needs of his family. It is acknowledged that in many cases such as illness or disability, the man may not supply a large percentage of the household income, and this scenario is perfectly acceptable. The core issue at hand is the heart behind husbands and fathers who choose to neglect their responsibility in a spirit of laziness, self-centeredness, or apathy. A mature man “senses that if God were to come and call someone to account for not meeting the family’s needs God would come to the husband first” (Piper, 1991, p. 35).

On the second topic of spiritual provision, men are commanded to provide for the spiritual needs of their family. As already stated above, Ephesians 5:29 commands men to nourish and cherish their wives in relation to their spirituality. Furthermore, 1 Timothy 5:18 links familial provision directly to a man’s spirituality, saying that one who neglects the provision of his family “is worse than an unbeliever” (MacArthur, 2010) While it is important for a working man to bear the responsibility of material provision, a man who neglects to provide for the spiritual and moral needs of his family certainly “is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:18). Spiritual provision in practice means pouring spiritual wisdom into one’s wife and children. It would be a failure for a man as a husband and father to have a high purchasing power while simultaneously having a spouse and children who are morally and spiritually bankrupt due to his neglect. A loving and caring way to provide spiritually for his wife would be to provide emotional stability when she is struggling with doubt, depression, etc. As a wise, loving father, he should offer wisdom to his children as they grow up and struggle with friends, new ideas, and how to live as an adult. To clarify, this example is about a stereotypical man with stereotypical issues. The provided examples are by no means the only way a man should provide for his family, but a biblical man should provide wisdom, emotional stability, and the nurture needed for his household’s spiritual health. In conclusion, the role and responsibility of provider is a complicated and nuanced one, but the aim of a biblical man should be to carry out this responsibility in a character of sacrificial agape love and diligent servanthood.

9. CONCLUSION

The world provides innumerable ways to live as a man. Culture attempts to provide the solution to our question of identity by saying that there is no difference between men and women. Jesus Christ combats this view with providing a way for men to live. God has created men for a purpose, and He has gifted men physiologically to be able to accomplish his purposes. However, God did not just stop with creating men as material beings. God created men as spiritual beings that have his likeness, possessing a soul, a rational mind, and a conscience. God has given these gifts to men in order to act like Him and to possess His character of love, humility, and wisdom. Out of these character attributes, men reflect God in the functional roles of lover, leader, protector, and provider. Contrary to pop culture’s view, men are not created to have sex, drink beer, or drive tractors. At their core, men are created in the image of God to reflect and bring glory to Him. Reader, God was intentional in creating you as a man or a woman, and so, reflect Him and bring glory to  Him in everything you do.

References

The Bible Project (Producer). (n.d.). Agape / love [Video]. https://bibleproject.com/videos/agape-love/

Boice, J. M. (2002). Genesis. Baker Books.

Brown, D. (2021a). The character of mature manhood: Courage and love. With All Wisdom. https://withallwisdom.org/2021/12/01/the-character-of-mature-manhood- courage-and-love/

Brown, D. (2021b). The calling of mature manhood: Leadership. With All Wisdom. https://withallwisdom.org/2021/12/10/the-calling-of-mature-manhood-leadership/

Brown, D. (2021c). The calling of mature manhood: Protection. With All Wisdom. https://withallwisdom.org/2021/12/17/the-calling-of-mature-manhood-protection/

Brown, D. (2021d). The calling of mature manhood: Provision. With All Wisdom. https://withallwisdom.org/2021/12/31/the-calling-of-mature-manhood-provision/

Clines, D. J. A. (2015, July 22). The most high male: Divine masculinity in the bible. https://www.academia.edu/14079928/The_Most_High_Male_Divine_Masculinity _in_the_Bible

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (1988). The danvers statement. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. cbmw.org/about/the-danvers-statement/

DellaForesta, L. (2021, May 30). Jesus: The model for real manhood. River’s Edge Community Church. https://www.riversedge.life/jesus-the-model-for-real-manhood/

Downen, R., Olsen, L., & Tedesco, J. (2019, Feb. 9). 20 years, 700 victims: Southern Baptist sexual abuse spreads as leaders resist reforms. Houston Chronicle. https://www.houston chronicle.com/news/investigations/article/Southern-Baptist-sexual-abuse-spreads-as-leaders-13588038.php

EliYah Ministries (n.d.). Strong’s concordance with Hebrew and Greek lexicons. EliYah Ministries. https://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html

Got Questions. (n.d.). What is biblical manhood?. Got Questions. https://www.gotquestions.org /biblical-manhood.html

Guzik, D. (2018). Study guide for Jude 1. Blue Letter Bible. https://www.blueletterbible.org/ comm/guzik_david/study-guide/jude/jude-1.cfm

Hahn, D. A. (2022). Attitudes, values, and activities specifically relevant to the development of the dispositions and capacities of biblical manhood (Publication No. 29169220) [Doctoral Dissertation, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary]. Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.

Harvard Health Publishing (n.d.). Testosterone: What it is and how it affects your health. Harvard Medical School. https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-aging-and-longevity/ testosterone--what-it-does-and-doesnt-do?st_source=ai_mode

House, H. W. (2005). “God, gender, and biblical metaphor” (Ch. 17) by Judy L. Brown.      Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 10(1), 63 – 71.

“Incel”. (2026, April 22). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Incel&oldid=1350578529

Johnson, G. (1991). The biological basis for gender specific behavior. In W. A. Grudem and J. S. Piper (Eds.), Recovering biblical manhood and womanhood: A response to evangelical feminism (1st ed., pp. 285 - 298). Crossway Books.

Kassian, M. (2012, Sep. 4). Complementarianism for dummies. The Gospel Coalition. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/complementarianism-for-dummies/

“Larry Nassar”. (2026, Apr 22). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Nassar&oldid=1345803093

MacArthur, J. (Ed.). (2010). The MacArthur study Bible: English Standard Version. Crossway Books.

Miller, V. (2016, October 15). Nine attributes of a real man. https://www.desiringgod.org /articles/nine-attributes-of-a-real-man

Mitchell, J. (2019) Lose the toxic, not the masculinity. FamilyLife. www.familylife.com/articles/ topics/life-issues/relationships/men/lose-the-toxic-not-the-masculinity/

Mohler, A. (2005, April 21). From boy to man. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. cf.sbts.edu/equip/uploads/2010/09/boy-to-man.pdf

Moody, A. (2016, August 27). Does god have gender?. The Gospel Coalition. au.thegospelcoalition.org/article/does-god-have-gender/

Moody, A. (2017, Sep. 21). The story of gender (2): The origin of gender. The Gospel Coalition Australia. https://au.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-story-of-gender-2-origin/

Neely, D. (2013, December 17). What Joseph can teach us about biblical manhood. The Gospel Coalition. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-joseph-can-teach-us-about-biblical-manhood/?queryID=6c08b53c7c846f7bf4c442b2e3f04552

Piper, J. S. (1991). A vision of biblical complementarity: Manhood and womanhood defined according to the Bible. In W. A. Grudem & J. S. Piper (Eds.), Recovering biblical manhood and womanhood: A response to evangelical feminism (1st ed., pp. 25 - 55). Crossway Books.

Piper, J. S. (2007, October 17). Some sweet blessings of masculine christianity [Luncheon address]. Fidelis Foundation Pastors’ Luncheon. www.desiringgod.org/messages/some-sweet-blessings-of-masculine-christianity

Piper, J. S. & Patrick, D. (2011, Dec. 7). John Piper and Darrin Patrick on biblical manhood (part 2) [Interview]. www.desiringgod.org/interviews/john-piper-and-darrin-patrick-on-biblical-manhood-part-2

Piper, J. S. (2014, November 24). God created man male and female: What does it mean to be complementarian? [Sermon]. Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, MN. www.desiringgod.org/messages/god-created-man-male-and-female

Porter, C. (2018, November 23). St. Michael's, a Toronto all-boys school, is rocked by accusations of sexual assaults. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/ 11/23/world/canada/toronto-st-michaels-college-school-hazing-sexual-assault.html

Rainey, D. (2008). Stepping up: A call to courageous manhood. FamilyLife Publishing.

Rainey, D. (2011). Five themes of biblical manhood. Cru. www.cru.org/us/en/communities/ families/5-themes-biblical-manhood.html

Rogers, T. A. (2020). An approach to teaching my son about biblical manhood. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 30(1), 71-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10911359.2019.1670314

Scott, S. W. (2004). Profiling christian masculinity. Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 9(2), 10 – 18.

Stott, J. (1986). The message of Ephesians. Intervarsity Press.

Stubbs, O. (2006). Biblical masculinity: Understanding biblical masculinity [Dissertation, Reformed Theological Seminary, Virtual Campus]. https://doi.org/10.2986/tren.083-0045

United States Sentencing Commission. (2021). Quick facts on sexual abuse offenders. United States Sentencing Commission. https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and- publications/quick-facts/Sexual_Abuse_FY21.pdf

University Baptist Church Fayetteville (2007). Biblical manhood outline. UBC Fayetteville. ubcfayetteville.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/Biblical-Manhood-OUTLINE.pdf

Ware, B. (2002). Male and female complementarity and the image of God. In W. Grudem (Ed.), Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood (pp. 71 – 92). Crossway Books.