Table of Contents
Masculinity Is Demonstrated And Has Its Roots In The Church
In the Apostle Paul's writings concerning who is to be the bishop, overseer or elder in the church, he says that the overseer is to be the husband of one wife, 1 Timothy 3.
How interesting is it that masculinity is placed in a prime position in the house of God, not solely because of its strength, wisdom or loving (sacrificial) nature but more so because the man represents God.
For indeed, when the Apostle Paul said be strong, act like men, and then let all you do be done in love in 1 Corinthians 16:14, he was making a general statement to the Church, but also to men.
Why?
Because he who loves is of God. So, the placing of masculinity or manhood at the apex, so to speak, of the order in the church is a very interesting one, because it shows what God chiefly uses for His honor and glory - masculinity or manhood - the man who should lay down his life for his friends.
We know from the creation order that God made man primarily for Himself, and the woman while created for God is primarily created for the man according to 1 Corinthians 11:9.
No Eunuchs in Leadership in The Church
It's important here to also realize that eunuchs were not allowed into the Assembly of God (leadership/governance) in the book of Deuteronomy.
The Canon of The First Council of Nicea authored by the Bishops, actually precludes castrated men from becoming pastors/priests
Direct Canon:
“If anyone in sound mind has castrated himself, it is decreed that such a one should cease from the clergy. Such men are not to be promoted.”
Here are biblical scholars on this topic:
| Biblical Scholar | View on Why Eunuchs Were Excluded From the Assembly / Leadership |
|---|---|
| Keil & Delitzsch (Commentary on the Old Testament) | Eunuchs were excluded because mutilation violated God’s creational design for the body. Since Israel’s worship emphasized wholeness, holiness, and symbolic perfection, any physical mutilation was considered incompatible with representing the covenant people in sacred assemblies. |
| C.F. Keil (Pentateuch Commentary) | Keil emphasizes the symbolic purity of Israel’s congregation. The loss of reproductive capacity signified a rupture in the Abrahamic covenant, which was tied to seed, lineage, and inheritance—making eunuchs ritually unfit for roles connected to covenant continuity. |
| Franz Delitzsch (Levitical Studies) | Delitzsch argued that Israel’s sanctity laws were built on wholeness = holiness. Priestly and assembly participation required the body to be intact, reflecting God’s perfection. Eunuchs, though not morally inferior, were ritually disqualified due to symbolic incompleteness. |
| Adam Clarke (Clarke’s Commentary, 1820s) | Clarke taught that eunuchs were excluded because Israel’s religious system was “deeply family-centered.” Since they could not participate in family building, inheritance, and covenant continuity, they could not participate fully in leadership functions tied to family and tribe. |
| John Gill (Gill’s Exposition) | Gill viewed the exclusion as tied to pagan cultic practices. Eunuchs in the ancient Near East often served in idolatrous temples, particularly in fertility cults. Excluding eunuchs served to separate Israel from idolatrous rituals, reinforcing the purity of Yahweh worship. |
| Matthew Henry (Commentary) | Henry saw the exclusion as a protective measure against pagan customs, noting that many nations castrated male servants or priests. Israel’s law rejected both mutilation and exploitation, and therefore excluded eunuchs from sacred assembly to maintain “holy order and distinction.” |
| Joseph Benson (Benson Commentary) | Eunuchs were excluded because Israel’s congregation represented the covenant family of God, with genealogical integrity central to national identity. Eunuchs, unable to produce offspring, symbolized a break in lineage tied to covenant promises to Abraham. |
| Charles Ellicott (Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers) | Ellicott argued the exclusion was ceremonial, not moral. The body was a symbol of God’s temple, and any mutilation was incompatible with participation in cultic leadership. He also emphasizes that Isaiah 56 shows God later welcoming eunuchs under the new covenant. |
| H.C. Trumbull (The Threshold Covenant, 1896) | Trumbull connected the laws to ancient covenant symbolism. Reproduction was part of covenant identity; mutilation threatened the symbolic integrity of Israel as God’s “firstborn” nation. Thus eunuchs were excluded from offices representing generational continuity. |
| Kurtz (Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament) | Kurtz viewed the exclusion as part of the overall OT pattern of ritual wholeness. Worship required bodily integrity ("no blemish"), not because such persons were less valued, but because they symbolically represented the holiness and completeness of God’s presence. |
We, of course, know that they are accepted according to the book of Isaiah and we know that The Lord Jesus even gives an instruction concerning the making of eunuchs.
But in terms of the overseeing role, the Lord again highlights that the man is to be a husband. To be a husband would imply that you have your penis and scrotum intact. This is very important.
Also, when we go on we see that the Apostle Paul says that this man's (overseer's) children are supposed to be under subjection implying, again, that he has the capability of producing offspring that honor Godly leadership.
Why is this important to God?
It's important for many reasons, but one key reason is because testosterone and the male anatomy are used by God for the production of godly order in the human family, and it is this same testosterone that God uses when he says to men, particularly like Joshua, to be courageous.
It's also important to note that the same testosterone shapes the way that a man thinks so that he is geared towards protecting the family, and defending against deception as the overseer, elder, pastor, bishop should according to 1Timothy 3 and Ephesians 4:11-15.
Here's a study on this same topic:
In a study, Bos et al., 2012, it was found that testosterone heightens vigilance and protective behavior toward in-group or intimate partners while increasing caution toward outsiders.They found that men with higher T show stronger protective instincts toward those they feel responsible for.
This is exactly what the pastor is to have, and testosterone provides it.
A woman should not be a pastor in Church or assume headship in the home as they are scripturally prohibited according to 1 Corinthians 11. This is also corroborated by Isaiah 3.
God Through The Apostle Paul ensures that Adequate Testosterone is Coursing Through The Veins of Overseers/Pastors/Elders in The Church
Testosterone has a big part to play in the way that the man's brain develops, and so to have a eunuch in that position would void that man of those juices that would help to make him fit for the service of God in the leadership, governance roles in the Church.
And one of the reasons why this is important for the man is because the man needs to have that fight in him in order to defend the faith and not acquiesce to the pressures of the culture.
| Scholar | View on Male Virility in Ancient Israel |
|---|---|
| Jacob Milgrom (Leviticus Commentary, Anchor Yale) | Milgrom explains that Israel’s purity system connected male potency, fertility, and ability to “produce seed” with ritual completeness. While Israel did not have a concept of hormones, the ability to generate life was culturally tied to masculine wholeness and leadership qualification. Loss of virility symbolized diminished covenant function. |
| Tikva Frymer-Kensky (Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible) | She notes that Israel’s male identity centered on procreative power, household authority, and covenant lineage. While not medicalized, virility was considered a social and theological marker, representing strength and blessing. Impotence or castration was seen as “loss of masculine agency.” |
| Phyllis Trible (Texts of Terror) | Trible highlights that ancient Israel assumed masculinity involved ability, vigor, and generative capacity. Though not biological, these align with functions modern medicine associates with testosterone. She argues Israel judged manhood by function and role, not biology alone. |
| John Goldingay (Old Testament Theology) | Goldingay explains that Hebrew anthropology saw manliness as physical strength, courage, generativity, and leadership—all symbolized through bodily capability. He notes this aligns with what later science attributes to testosterone, though Israel conceptualized it as divine vitality and blessing. |
| Gordon Wenham (NICOT Genesis Commentary) | Wenham discusses how the command “be fruitful and multiply” shaped Israel’s view of masculinity. Male potency was connected to obedience to God’s creation mandate. Loss of virility was not a moral failing but a symbolic break with covenant fruitfulness. |
| Victor Hamilton (New International Commentary on the Old Testament) | Hamilton observes that ancient Israel valued men who exhibited strength, vigor, bravery, and “ability to stand in the gate.” These qualities—now known as influenced by testosterone—were interpreted theologically as God-given strength. |
| Susan Niditch (Ancient Israelite Religion) | Niditch connects Israelite definitions of manhood to warrior culture: strength, assertiveness, courage. Physical vigor was essential for warfare obligations (Num. 1). She states these expectations align with behavioral traits modern science associates with testosterone. |
| John Walton (Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the OT) | Walton explains that Israel’s neighboring cultures linked masculinity to fertility, potency, and martial ability. Israel shared the functional categories (strength & seed) but framed them within covenant identity rather than physiology. |
| Bruce Malina (Social-Science Commentary) | Malina emphasizes that masculinity in ancient Mediterranean cultures was defined by honor, vigor, and domination of one’s household. Male vitality (strength, aggression, virility) functioned socially much like testosterone functions biologically today. |
| Roland de Vaux (Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions) | De Vaux shows that a man’s role was heavily tied to procreation, land inheritance, and military service. Physical robustness—what we would call “hormonal strength”—was essential for fulfilling Israel’s social and covenantal expectations. |
God places a man in the overseeing role in The Church because the man is needed for the establishment and protection of the family as he tends and keeps (Genesis 2:15).
And here I'm talking about both the natural and spiritual family here on earth.
Masculinity in The Church is seen in the pastor and other leaders of the House of God.
Here are Church Fathers On The Truth Of Manliness In The Pulpit:
| Church Father | View on the Manliness of a Pastor |
|---|---|
| Ignatius of Antioch | True pastoral manliness is courageous steadfastness. The pastor must “stand firm as an anvil,” remaining unshaken under persecution or pressure. Strength is shown in immovable faith and loyalty to Christ. |
| Polycarp of Smyrna | Manliness is faithful endurance, especially in suffering. A pastor proves his masculinity by remaining loyal to Christ even at the cost of his life, modeling courage to the flock. |
| Clement of Alexandria | Pastoral manliness begins with self-mastery (sōphrosynē). The true man is one who subdues passions, disciplines his body, and leads through moral clarity and purity. |
| Tertullian | A pastor’s manliness is bold moral resolve. He must defend truth publicly, rebuke sin clearly, and stand against cultural compromise with firm conviction. |
| Origen | Masculine pastoral strength is inner victory over passions. True manliness is spiritual combat: conquering lust, pride, and fear by the power of the Spirit. |
| Athanasius of Alexandria | Manliness is fearless doctrinal courage. A pastor must guard the flock from false teaching and stand for truth “against the world” if necessary. |
| John Chrysostom | Manliness is expressed in sacrificial shepherding—bearing burdens, confronting wolves, strengthening the weak, and living in purity. Real strength is self-giving love. |
| Augustine of Hippo | Pastoral masculinity is ordered love and moral gravity. A manly pastor rules his desires, loves truth, and guides the church with a father’s firmness and tenderness. |
| Gregory the Great | Manliness is discernment joined with compassion. A pastor must know when to be gentle and when to be firm, exercising disciplined authority for the good of souls. |
| Cyprian of Carthage | Manliness is vigilant protection of the flock. A pastor stands as a watchman—guarding unity, confronting heresy, and calling believers to courageous loyalty to Christ. |
And this leadership, strength, power, and wisdom, when seen by the men in the congregation, will cause the other men to become the men of God that God desires them to be in their homes, communities, and The Church, as they seek to emulate that pastor and rise up in the ranks to become a pastor or a leader in the Church themselves.
Every man looks for a template of what true manhood looks like. As the pillar and ground of truth (1 Timothy 3:15), The Church provides this template in the overseer, pastor, elder, or bishop.
Reference:
