Masculinity, Maturity, and Misreadings: What Paul and the Bible Say About Being a Man

Paul’s exhortation to “act like men” (andrizomai) in 1 Cor 16:13 is a call to mature courage addressed to the whole Corinthian church — male and female — not a validation of cultural masculinity. Its LXX background and Paul’s broader practice of modifying rather than adopting Greco-Roman masculine norms confirm that the biblical text does not underwrite a gendered account of courage or maturity.

Key Takeaways

Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s warning anchors the method. “We are more fond of our own thoughts than of the thoughts of the Bible. We no longer read the Bible seriously, we no longer read it against ourselves, but for ourselves.” Masculinity is one of the areas most vulnerable to the “reading for ourselves” tendency.

The LXX background controls the sense. Andrizomai occurs 24 times in the Septuagint, paired repeatedly with ischuō in the “be strong and courageous” formula (Deut 31:6–7, 23; Josh 1:6–7, 9; 1 Chron 22:13; 28:20; 2 Chron 32:7). The phrase translates general Hebrew terms for strength and courage (chazaq / ’ammiyts) without masculine freight in the underlying Hebrew.

The overseer qualifications in 1 Timothy 3:2–3 are not gendered virtues. “Above reproach” applies to widows (1 Tim 5:7), “sober-minded” to wives (3:11), “self-controlled” to young women (Tit 2:5), “respectable” to women (1 Tim 2:9), “hospitable” to the whole community (1 Pet 4:9), “gentle” to all believers (Phil 4:5; Tit 3:2), “not a lover of money” to the whole community (Heb 13:5). The overseer’s virtues are Christian virtues.

Paul modifies rather than adopts Greco-Roman masculinity. Jennifer Glancy’s analysis of Paul’s stigmata (Gal 6:17) shows the move: scars on the back and flogging scars were emasculating in first-century honor culture; Paul boasts in them as shares in Christ’s sufferings. Susan Hylen’s “Malleable Masculinity” underscores that ancient masculine norms were too varied to function as a stable contrast class for Paul.

1 Cor 13:11; 14:20; 16:13

Deut 31:6–7, 23; Josh 1:6–7, 9, 18; 10:25; 1 Chron 22:13; 28:20; 2 Chron 32:7; Dan 10:19

2 Sam 10:12; Ps 31:24

Gal 6:17 (Paul’s stigmata)

Dietrich Bonhoeffer on reading Scripture “against ourselves”

Anthony Thiselton on andrizomai in 1 Corinthians 16:13

Susan Hylen, “Malleable Masculinity: Rethinking Paul’s Masculinity in Light of Valerius Maximus”

Jennifer Glancy on stigmata and honor culture

Why Should Christians Read Scripture Against Their Assumptions About Masculinity?

“Has it not become terrifyingly clear again and again, in everything that we have said here to one another, that we are no longer obedient to the Bible? We are more fond of our own thoughts than of the thoughts of the Bible. We no longer read the Bible seriously, we no longer read it against ourselves, but for ourselves. If the whole of our conference here is to have any great significance, it may be perhaps that of showing us that we must read the Bible in quite a different way, until we find ourselves again.”

The Bible can reinforce some of our views, but we must avoid the temptation of thinking it will reinforce all of them, including our assumptions about masculinity. Gender role orientations are particularly susceptible to this kind of confirmation bias, which is why Paul’s writing on the subject requires close attention.

What Does Paul’s “Act Like Men” (1 Corinthians 16:13) Actually Mean?

In the context of 1 Corinthians, the call to “act like a man” is intended to push the Corinthians—both male and female—toward more courageous living. While masculine concepts are often juxtaposed to feminine concepts in the ancient world, Anthony Thiselton notes, “The gender issue threatens to obscure the force of be a man!” He goes on to suggest that man (anēr) has two semantic oppositions, not one: it does not simply pose a contrast with supposedly ‘feminine’ qualities; it also stands in contrast with childish ways, as strikingly in 1 Cor 13:11…Hence the Greek suggests both maturity and courage: show mature courage.” Given Pauls’ concern that the Corinthians move toward maturity in their thinking (14:20; cf. 13:11), this reading seems wholly appropriate.

Still, we should not ignore the Old Testament background. In the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Old Testament, andrizomai occurs twenty-four times often in conjunction with ischuo in the phrase “be strong and courageous” (Deut 31:6-7, 23; Josh 1:6-7, 9, 18; 10:25; 1 Chron 22:13; 28:20; 2 Chron 32:7; 1 Macc 2:64; Dan 10:19). This combination is often contrasted with being fearful (Deut 31:6; Josh 1:9; 19:25; 1 Chron 22:13; 28:20; 2 Chron 32:7). It is also associated with keeping the law or following the ways of the Lord (Josh 1:7; 1 Chron 22:13; 28:20; cf. Josh 1:18). The word andrizomai also occurs in conjunction with “be strong” krataioo, as it does in 1 Corinthians 16:13, at various points in the LXX (2 Sam 10:12; Ps 31:24).

How should we think about the connection between andrizomai and masculinity? First, it does not suggest that only men should be concerned with developing mature courage. Paul is writing to both men and women. As such, Paul’s exhortation isn’t a statement about masculinity, but a call to those in Corinth—male and female—to pursue a life of faith despite fear.

Third, given the Old Testament usage of andrizomai with krataioo and ischuo, we should consider the possibility that Paul is drawing on this background. The use of andrizomai to translate what are more general Hebrew terms for strength and courage—often a combination of chazaq and *’**ammiyts—shouldn’t necessarily suggest that the underlying Hebrew carries the same associations with masculinity as andrizomai*. Paul may be using something of a stock Old Testament phrase that doesn’t carry any particular masculine nuance.

Finally, it should be noted that assuming anything about Paul’s notion of masculinity from the use of a single word is problematic. Even if we could assume that Paul wants all the Corinthians—male and female—to “act like men,” it isn’t at all clear from the near context or from the letter as a whole what it might mean to “act like men.” Though Paul often addresses specifically male roles such as husband, father, and, likely, master, it is difficult to find references in which Paul comments on male characteristics outside of a given role or to identify characteristics that were to be specifically male. The qualifications for overseers, which are often understood as applying specifically to men, illustrate this pattern clearly. The character traits required of overseers appear as expectations for all Christians regardless of sex elsewhere in Paul’s letters. Note the following:

“above reproach” (1 Tim 3:2)- See 1 Tim 5:7 (widows)

“self-controlled” (1 Tim 3:2)- See Tit 2:5 (young women)

“respectable” (1 Tim 3:2)- 1 Tim 2:9 (women; often translated “modesty”)

“hospitable” (1 Tim 3:2)- See 1 Peter 4:9 (whole community of faith)

“drunkard” (1 Tim 3:3)- Though this exact phrase is not applied to women, Titus 2:3 commands older women not to be “slaves to much wine.” We also see general prohibitions of drunkenness applied to the whole community (Eph 5:18).

“violent” (1 Tim 3:3)- This term is not applied to women.

“gentle” (1 Tim 3:3)- See Phil 4:5 and Tit 3:2 (whole community of faith); see also Jam 3:17 (characteristic of “wisdom from above”)

“not a lover of money (1 Tim 3:3)- See Heb 13:5 (whole community of faith)

1 Timothy 3:3-7 does offer some male-specific characteristics. Managing one’s household, for example, is seen as a male-specific role though it is possible that Paul’s instructions regarding the management of one’s household is conditioned by the surrounding culture. Paul may have been trying to avoid a situation in which Christian men were viewed as being weak or out of control within a society in which men tended to be more domineering over their families as a means of preserving their reputations. The point is that men, whether by nature or by social conventions, will embody these characteristics in unique ways within their various relationships.

Paul’s relationship to the masculine norms of his day is complex. In part, this is because masculine norms themselves were complex. As Susan Hylen notes in “Malleable Masculinity: Rethinking Paul’s Masculinity in Light of Valerius Maximus,” “The variety in masculine norms makes it difficult methodologically to contrast Paul with ‘Greco-Roman masculinity’, whether positively or negatively.” She goes on to conclude, “The varied possibilities make it difficult to select an attribute like ‘dominance over others’ and to use it ’as a measuring stick for Paul’s actions.” It would be difficult to assume that Paul is buying into a particular cultural view of masculinity because the ancient view of masculinity wasn’t uniform.

As such, Paul’s “marks,” particularly the fact that he boasts in those marks, would have been confusing within the conceptual world of the day. Commenting on Paul’s “marks” (stigmata) in Galatians 6:17, Glancy concludes:

“Habituated to a first-century corporal idiom, the Corinthians could not read a straightforward tale of manly valor in Paul’s storytelling body. Paul. Does not suggest they should. Rather, he makes clear to the Corinthians that in his own body he knew the sufferings of Christ…Paul boasts of beatings for strategic reasons: his abused body is already the subject of discussion and even derision in Corinth. He also boasts of beatings for theological reasons: he believes that the story of Jesus’ death is legible in the scar tissue that has formed over welts and lacerations inflicted by rod and whip. Paul’s share in the sufferings of Jesus is a source of corporal knowledge and ultimately of personal power.”

Glancy’s discussion provides a helpful illustration of one of the ways Paul plays with the cultural expectations of the day by modifying them through his theological framework. The goal is not to suggest that there is nothing good in the values of his day, but to recognize that such values are incomplete apart from Christ. They require expansion, definition, and correction in light of God’s word, not simple affirmation. To use Bonhoeffer’s language, we need to read against our perceptions of masculinity rather than for them.

In Act Like a Man, Driscoll claims, “In the Word, sex is fixed. It’s binary: male and female. Gender is fixed and is binary: masculine and feminine.” Driscoll’s characterization of gender as “fixed,” however, doesn’t seem to eliminate the ambiguities associated with “masculinity” and “femininity.” First, it isn’t clear from the immediate context that Driscoll isn’t just collapsing sex and gender. While I think some of his other assertions in the book betray his belief that there gender is, in fact, more of a spectrum or range than a characteristic inseparable from sex, this particular passage leaves the question open. Second, and perhaps more problematic, is that the assertion is never argued. Throughout Act Like a Man, Driscoll assumes some concept of masculinity without making what he assumes explicit.

For instance, in a separate section, Driscoll suggests, “Most unhealthy men think there are feminine and masculine emotions…This isn’t true. Men and women both bear the image and likeness of God and have the same emotions; they’re just expressed in masculine and feminine ways.” While it may be tempting to say “amen” and move on, it is important to recognize that apart from a cultural script about gender role orientations, what it means to express emotions “in masculine and feminine ways” is non-sensical. Can we really identify Jesus’s tears at the death of Lazarus (Jn 11:35) as masculine and the weeping of Mary during the same incident (11:32-33) as feminine? Aside from the difference in their sex (i.e., Jesus was male and Mary female), there is no indication that Jesus weeps in a masculine way while Mary weeps in a feminine way. Jesus and Mary just weep.

While there is certainly nothing wrong with utilizing the insights of academic disciplines like sociology, psychology, biology, etc., Driscoll isn’t doing that—he is claiming that the Bible teaches that “Gender is fixed and is binary: masculine and feminine.” That claim is difficult to sustain from the biblical text. That is not to say that the Bible endorses an infinite number of genders—I don’t believe it does—but that differentiating exemplars of faithfulness to God from exemplars of masculinity or femininity is quite difficult. To put it differently, it isn’t clear that the Bible is as concerned with masculinity or femininity—if it is concerned with such “gendered’” notions at all—as it is with faithfulness.

In the so-called “Hall of Faith” of Hebrews 11, the “cloud of witnesses” (Heb 12:1) which surrounds the church is comprised of women and men who exemplify what it means to trust the Lord. Trust is not a gendered orientation or activity. It is not masculine or feminine. While there are certain roles and positions only one sex may occupy (e.g., only men can be fathers and husbands, only women can be mothers and wives), the way they occupy these positions is not a matter of embodying some ideal masculinity or femininity but of learning to live with “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen’’ (11:1). Such learning occurs through discipleship—learning to live under the authority of Christ.

About the Author

James Spencer, PhD, is a theologian, author, and host of the Thinking Christian podcast, where he writes and speaks on Christian formation, political theology, and technology. He holds a PhD in Theological Studies from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and completed the Institute for Educational Management at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. He serves as President of the D.L. Moody Center in Northfield, Massachusetts, as adjunct faculty in Wheaton College's MA in Leadership program, and as an Associate Research Fellow at the Kirby Laing Centre for Public Theology. His writing has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, Christianity.com, and Sojourners; he has been quoted in The Telegraph; and he is a regular guest on Stand in the Gap Today with the American Pastors Network. His forthcoming book is Digital Discernment (InterVarsity Press, Fall 2026). Learn more at jamesgspencer.com.