The Trouble With Biblical Manhood

“Recovering Biblical Manhood” is a worthy aspiration, but the biblical text does not deliver the abstract definitions Piper and Grudem are looking for. The language of “mature masculinity” and “mature femininity” presupposes cultural content the Bible does not supply; passages about husbands, fathers, and the creation order are doing relational and redemptive work that resists reduction to a general theology of manhood and womanhood.

Key Takeaways

John Piper’s definitions of “mature masculinity” and “mature femininity” are internally ambiguous. When Piper considers a single mother performing “masculine” tasks, he has to qualify with phrases like “unduly masculine” or “with a uniquely feminine demeanor” — phrases whose meaning is presupposed, not defined. The concepts cannot do the work being asked of them.

Piper’s reading of Genesis 3 goes beyond the text. The curse on the woman concerns childbearing, not “nurturing labor.” The curse on the man concerns cursed ground as punishment fitting the crime of eating forbidden fruit, not a pre-Fall role of bread-winning. The desire/rule language in Gen 3:16 more likely parallels Gen 4:7 — the woman’s earlier ambition being brought under the husband’s authority.

Rejecting masculinity ideology does not force androgyny. Deut 22:5 on distinct male/female clothing, and Prov 31:10–31 as the personification of Lady Wisdom (over against Lady Folly in Prov 7; 9), show Scripture attending to male/female distinction. But the specifics are culturally-formed expressions of a theological disposition — a life oriented to God — not a transcultural gender essence.

Scripture offers something better than “biblical manhood.” It offers a call to faithfulness embodied differently by males and females in different times and places, measured finally by the single standard of conformity to Christ.

John Piper and Wayne Grudem, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

Gen 1:27–28; 3:16–19; 4:7

Deut 22:5

Eph 5:23–25; 6:1; Lk 22:26; Phil 2:1–11

Do Piper and Grudem Actually Deliver a Biblical Account of Manhood?

If masculinity and femininity are cultural constructions rather than biblical categories, what do we make of serious attempts to recover a distinctly biblical account of manhood and womanhood? The question deserves a careful answer. In Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, John Piper and Wayne Grudem represent one of the most influential efforts within evangelicalism to ground definitions of masculinity and femininity in Scripture. Their work raises a question the biblical text itself must answer: can manhood and womanhood, masculine and feminine, bear the theological weight being placed on them?

In Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, John Piper and Wayne Grudem lay out their case for what it means to be a man and a woman based on their interpretation of the biblical text. Piper suggests the following descriptions for biblical manhood and womanhood:

“At the heart of mature masculinity is a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for and protect women in ways appropriate to a man’s differing relationships.”

“At the heart of mature femininity is a freeing disposition to affirm, receive and nurture strength and leadership from worthy men in ways appropriate to a woman’s differing relationships.”

There are several difficulties with these descriptions. First, the descriptions speak of “mature masculinity” and “mature femininity.” Yet, the language of masculinity and femininity is not limited to male and female. In the New Testament period, “masculine” characteristics could be applied to women and “feminine” characteristics could be applied to men. The terms are weighed down with cultural assumptions. They aren’t technically associated with males only or females only. Piper himself recognizes this difficulty when he considers the question of the “masculinity” of a single mother:

“Someone might ask: So is a woman masculine if she is a single parent and provides these same things for her children? Are these only for men to do? I would answer: A woman is not unduly masculine in performing these things for her children if she has the sense that this would be properly done by her husband if she had one, and if she performs them with a uniquely feminine demeanor.”

Notice the ambiguity of the language used. What do phrases like “unduly masculine” or “with a uniquely feminine demeanor” mean? It isn’t clear. If anything, the meaning of the phrases is assumed. What it means to be masculine and feminine can only be presupposed.

Second, aspects of Piper’s description of manhood and womanhood are based on biblical passages related to husbands and fathers. For instance, in his discussion of leadership, Piper cites either passages that refer as much to women as to men (e.g., Lk 22:26), passages addressing the role of husbands (Eph 5:23-25), or passages related to fatherhood (e.g., Eph 6:1). The roles of husband and father are relational.

While single men can certainly learn something from these texts as well, we should not necessarily assume that, for example, the headship of the husband within a marriage carries over to male and female relationships more generally. Instead, what we may see in these relationships is an underlying ethos that is to be common among male and female Christians: to orient our lives toward God and others rather than using what we have been given for our own selfish aims (cf. Phil 2:1-11).

Biblical manhood and womanhood cannot be defined by ambiguous, assumed ideas about masculinity and femininity. Instead of embarking on a quest for some idea of biblical masculinity or femininity, we should be asking ourselves what it means to be a male disciple of Christ or a female disciple of Christ. As the scriptures offer instruction about relationships, we are surely right to listen and conform to its instruction; however, we must be careful not to import our ideas of masculinity or femininity as a standard for what it means to be a male and female disciple of Jesus.

Piper goes beyond the text in at least two ways. First, he adds “nurturing labor” (by which I assume he means raising children) to his discussion of Genesis 3; however, the curse on the woman is only related to bearing children, not raising children. The biological capacity of the woman is certainly in view in Genesis 3:16, not some domestically oriented role. There is, of course, also the reference to the wife’s desire for her husband as part of the curse as well, which—given Piper’s interpretive trajectory—would suggest a disruption in the created relationship between husband and wife.

Second, Piper assumes that the man’s curse is related to some pre-existing role ignoring the prelude to the man’s curse. In Genesis 3:17, God references the man’s eating of the fruit despite the command not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Eating the fruit results in the curse of the ground. Adam ate forbidden fruit and, because he did so, eating the fruits of the ground will now become difficult. In the near context, the cursed ground doesn’t seem to refer to some assumed pre-Fall role of the man, but to a “punishment” that fits the “crime.”

We likely see something similar in the curse of the serpent and the woman as well. The serpent is initially described as the craftiest of the beasts of the field and now will be cursed above “all livestock and above all beasts of the field.” He may still be crafty, but he is also more cursed. In addition, the enmity may be put in place as a means of further curtailing the serpent’s capacity to deceive the woman again. Any affinity or trust the woman may have had for the serpent is gone.

This reading of the text also has its problems. The point is not to provide an iron clad reading of these texts though I think this reading is plausible if not probable. Instead, the point is to highlight the problems with Piper’s interpretation, which assumes an implicit set of “natural” roles that influence the curses handed down in Genesis 3.

If Masculinity Is a Cultural Category, Are We Left with Androgyny?

Men and women are treated differently in the Bible apart from roles like husbands/wives, fathers/mothers, and sons/daughters. Maintaining clarity about the distinction between male and female is important. Confusion is to be avoided. As we read in Deuteronomy 22:5: “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.”

Passages like Proverbs 31:10-31 present a similar challenge. In contrast to “Lady Folly” who seduces others into her self-centered way of life (Prov 7:10-27; 9:13-18), the woman of Proverbs 31 is the personification of “lady wisdom” (Prov 1:20-33; 9:1-12). Proverbs 31 describes a woman whose life is characterized by the fear of the Lord that allows her to order her household and her community in ways that would have been immediately intelligible within the cultural setting of the ancient Near East. The specific expressions of that life, such as managing a household, engaging in commerce, and producing textiles, reflect the social arrangements of her time and place. We should not immediately assume that the specific tasks and social arrangements are normative. We don’t assume this for other relationships (e.g., slaves/masters; Prov 30:10) or practices (e.g., the kinsman redeemer; Prov 23:11). However, we should recognize the underlying disposition as normative. We are to live a life oriented toward God, using what he has given us in service of our families and others. The cultural form such a disposition takes may differ from culture to culture, but the disposition itself does not. This way of reading Proverbs 31 raises the question of whether specific role divisions reflected in the text have a biological basis or are purely cultural. To answer that question, we need to take a closer look at what the research on biological sex differences actually shows.

The research on biological differences between males and females demonstrates trends as opposed to hard and fast rules. When Gregg Johnson discusses the potential biological basis of male and female behavior in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, his appeals to the research are appropriately cautious highlighting “tendencies,” average behaviors, and general predispositions. Hormone levels, neural structures, and a variety of other biological characteristics may be associated more often with males or with females, but they are not limited to males or females. The averages speak to a general make-up, but they can’t provide a rule.

So, are we left with androgyny? Not at all. The question, however, points to a real interpretive challenge. Arguing that specific cultural expressions of male and female roles are not universally normative can sound like an invitation to ignore biblical instructions whenever they become inconvenient. That is not the argument.

How does all this relate to the question of manhood and womanhood? First, male and female continue to remain distinct. When God made man, male and female, in his image and pronounced that they would form a union to participate in his blessing to “be fruitful and multiply,” he created a clear boundary. Just as he separated water from land, earth from heaven, and put the various other parts of creation in proper order, male and female distinction and male and female union is an established order within the biblical record.

Second, the female was created as a response to a deficiency in the male. As God notes, “It is not good for man to be alone” (Gen 2:18). This judgment is likely related to the blessing in Genesis 1:28 to be fruitful and multiply. The reference to marital union in v. 24 underscores this point; however, Paul’s later treatment of men and women in 1 Corinthians 11 suggest that the woman’s role as “helper” is more expansive. I deal with the woman’s role as “helper” more expansively in “A Suitable Helper? Considering the Meaning of Ezer,” but I would simply underscore that being a “helper” does not denote subservience but involves supplementation and assistance in relation to vulnerabilities and shortcomings (Exod 18:4; Deut 33:29). The woman was made “for man” in this sense—she was created to fill in the man’s gaps.

As such, the husband/wife relationship, if not the male/female relationship, is one of mutuality and coordination. Both commit to moving together for the glory of God. This mutuality may take different forms at different times, but the goal remains the same.

What Does Scripture Offer Instead of “Biblical Manhood”?

“Recovering” a distinctly biblical account of manhood and womanhood is a worthy goal in the sense that it recognizes a genuine societal breakdown; however, it isn’t at all clear that the biblical text delivers what Piper and Grudem are looking for. It delivers something better. As we have seen, the language of masculinity and femininity carries cultural assumptions that the biblical writers neither share nor address directly. Passages about husbands, fathers, and the creation order are doing relational and redemptive work that resists reduction to abstract definitions of masculinity and femininity. None of this means the male/female distinction is unimportant or that Scripture has nothing to say to males and females in their respective roles. It means that what Scripture actually offers is more specific and demanding than a theology of manhood and womanhood. It offers a call to faithfulness, embodied differently by males and females in different times and places, but measured finally by the same standard—not how well we embody our culture’s vision of manhood and womanhood, but how faithfully we imitate Christ.

About the Author