What Does It Mean to Say That Masculinity Is a Cultural Construction?

First, we need to distinguish between biological sex and the ideas of masculinity/manhood and femininity/womanhood. God created an orderly world in which "The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind" (Gen 1:12). When looking at the man in isolation, God recognizes that the world won't operate as he desires it to when man is alone (2:18). Because no suitable mate is found for the man amongst the rest of the animals, God creates the woman (2:21-22). She is to be his "helper" who rescues the man from his own limitations (2:18). She is the tailored companion brought to the man as a fellow image-bearer and co-laborer in mission (1:27-28).

"Male" (zakar) and "female" (nqebah) distinguish humans and animals on the basis of biology, not an implied cultural framework of masculinity or femininity (Gen 5:2; 6:19; 7:3, 16; Lev 3:1, 6; 4:28, 32; 12:7). Biological sex is firmly established in the biblical text. The biblical text does recognize differences in the state of genitalia; however, even those who have altered genitalia—while referred to as a distinct group—appear to remain a subset of the broader male category (cf. 2 Kgs 20:18). Isaiah 56:2-5 highlights the importance of Sabbath by highlighting what God will do for eunuchs who view themselves as "dry trees" unable to have children. These men will be given something greater than sons and daughters. The implication seems to be that the eunuch is a male who is incapable of reproducing.

So, the male/female distinction remains clear and significant. A male embodies the world in a way different from a female. That difference has, I would argue, given rise to constellations of traits, behaviors, and expectations we associate with "being masculine." For instance, males are on average stronger, taller, and more aggressive than females. Does that mean that lifting a certain amount of weight, being a certain height, or having the ability to beat up another person are masculine traits? That doesn't follow. In fact, it sets up expectations for manliness that many males won't or can't reach and, perhaps more importantly, will never sustain beyond a certain age. Masculinity reflects an external standard that is not technically related to being male. To put it bluntly, just because I can't match Becca Swanson's powerlifting weights doesn't make me less male or her less female. But, by some standards, it might make me less masculine or, more likely, her more "masculine." This latter distinction is a cultural distinction that creates societal standards.

Ancient writers applied the language of masculinity and femininity as evaluative categories to both men and women. A woman could be praised for her "masculine courage" just as a man could be criticized for "feminine weakness." This was not a modern invention. Masculinity and femininity have long functioned as cultural scripts, ideals to be performed, rather than natural expressions of biological sex. The historical and cross-cultural variability of what counts as masculine should prompt some caution about treating any particular cultural consensus as theologically normative.

This cultural consensus exposes what is happening when Christians appeal to "biblical masculinity." In many cases, they are not deriving a vision of manhood from Scripture (which, I argue, is extremely difficult to do). They are reading a pre-existing cultural script back into Scripture and finding confirmation there. For instance, Esau is hairy and likes to hunt. We may code that as masculine, but the text isn't doing so. There is nothing to suggest that Esau is manlier than Jacob. In fact tam, which is often translated as "quiet" in Genesis 25:27 and "blameless" elsewhere (Ps 37:37; 64:4; Job 1:1, 8; 2:3; 8:20; Prov 29:10; cf. Song 5:2 "perfect"), should not be understood as denoting some sort of feminine characteristic (thanks to my doctoral student Renee Duffy for this observation). We may apply the category of masculinity to Esau or think of Jacob as more feminine, but that is something we are doing rather than something the text is doing. This is a recognizable hermeneutical pattern, and it requires that we slow down and ask whether the characteristics we are celebrating as masculine are what the text is actually teaching, or what our culture has already told us to expect.

A cultural construction is not therefore illegitimate or irrelevant. Culture shapes us. The question is whether we will let it shape us unreflectively, or whether we will bring it under careful theological evaluation, which is exactly what discipleship requires.

Key Takeaways: Sex vs. Masculinity

• Scripture's Categories: The Hebrew terms zakar (male) and nqebah (female) establish biological sex (Gen 1:27; 5:2), not a cultural ideology of masculinity or femininity.
• Cultural Script, Not Biology: Traits like aggression, toughness, or size are culturally coded as "masculine" but are not tied to being male—a woman can be praised for "masculine courage" and a man criticized for "feminine weakness" in ancient sources.
• The Hermeneutical Trap: Christians reading "biblical masculinity" into figures like Esau (vs. Jacob, called tam) are often projecting cultural categories onto texts that don't use them.
• The "So What": Culture shapes us inevitably; discipleship requires bringing that cultural formation under theological evaluation rather than baptizing it.