On Gender (Part 1)
Currents of Conviction: A Foundation for Embodied Gender
This is the first essay in the Currents of Conviction series on gender. The series overview and introduction to the Christian worldview, may be helpful to orient yourself to the goal of this series.
NOTE: The term to know in this article is ontology, the philosophy of being. I occasionally use essential or part of our core being as alternatives for this word.
What if your gender is not just a trait but a window into the divine?
In a world wrestling with identity, this article explores the bold claim that being male or female is intentional—woven into the fabric of creation by a relational God.
Starting with Genesis, we will explore how Scripture roots gender in God’s image, not as a mere biological footnote or cultural fad, but as a profound reflection of His Trinitarian nature—distinction and unity in love. From Adam and Eve’s complementarity to the eternal dance of Father, Son, and Spirit, this piece challenges shallow views of gender and invites you to see it as a purposeful gift.
I must warn you that this article may get a little deeper theologically and philosophically than I usually go. Some things require a bit more depth to cover sufficiently. Have no fear, though, for I will (hopefully) simplify the discussion in my closing remarks For the Ploughman.
Gender in the Creation Order
Just as human sexuality is rooted in the creation of mankind and the God-given directive to be fruitful and multiply, one’s gender is rooted in the creation narrative, showcasing God’s intentional design.1
Genesis 1:27—Created Male and Female
We begin this examination in Scripture, the source of truth:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. —Genesis 1:272
While Genesis 1:27 speaks to human dignity and worth, it is critical to understand the very nature of gender. Note that God immediately creates them as male and female.
God's creation of humanity as male and female is linked to the very image of God.3 This indicates an ontological aspect to gender—part of our core being, a nature that transcends the merely physical. To be created in God's image as male or female speaks to a person's very being.
We must delve deeper into the creation narrative in Genesis 2 to see this.
Genesis 2:18-25—Distinct Roles and Purposes
Building on Genesis 1:27's ontological foundation for gender, Genesis 2:18-25 reveals this significance further. In verse 18, we see:
Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” —Genesis 2:184
In this passage, unlike the animals he named, Adam lacks a being of his kind—thus, a relational void is highlighted. Humanity (represented by Adam) is incomplete alone. Therefore, God created a woman from his side as his helper.5
The creation of woman as a helper is not about her inferiority to man but the completion of man. The Hebrew word for helper suggests assistance and strength.6 Furthermore, fit for him suggests the woman is a counterpart—someone like him (i.e., human) yet distinct from him.7 The woman was uniquely suited to meet the man’s need for relationship and companionship in a way no animal could. This implies a divinely ordained complementarity built into the very being of man and woman.
The creation of woman from Adam's side further emphasizes the core being significance. Declared bone of my bones (Genesis 2:23), she embodies unity with man and a distinct identity. Neither man nor woman is complete without the other. Their one-flesh union (Genesis 2:24) reveals the fullness of humanity as God designed it. This one-flesh union, pointing toward marriage, highlights heterosexual marriage as the creational telos (i.e., goal) of this male-female relational essence.
Genesis 2 thus deepens the essential significance of gender from Genesis 1, revealing it is not merely structural but purposefully relational complementarity.
Biological Sex and Ontological Gender
Building on Genesis 1 and 2, we affirm biological sex as the physical manifestation of ontological gender.
Biological sex, the organization of bodies for reproduction, is not incidental but the very ground of our gendered being. Affirming this isn't reductionist.8 God has chosen to express our ontological gender—the gender of our being—in a way that is holistically embodied, encompassing both the physical and spiritual dimensions of our created human nature.9
Our male or female bodies are how we live out our purpose and reflect God’s image. The design of reproductive systems underscores God's intentional male-female distinction.10 Biological sex, formed intentionally by God from conception (Psalm 139:13-16), is not accidental but foundational for our ontological gender.11
But does our ontological understanding of gender, as discussed so far, have any other implications? I would say that it does, particularly relating to our understanding of God as Trinity.
Reflecting God's Relational Nature
Not only does our gender speak to our purpose and being, but it also reflects, in some ways, the nature of God. The relational nature of God, as revealed in the Trinity, is reflected in the created distinction and complementarity of our gender when understood ontologically.
Human Relationality as Image-Bearing
God exists eternally as a Trinity of Persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—in perfect unity and love. This inherent relationality is not merely an attribute of God but is constitutive of His very being.12
As creatures made in His image, humanity is created for relationship—both with God and one another. The distinction between male and female is not simply about procreation or division of labor, but is a primary way in which human relationality is structured and expressed. Just as the Trinity is characterized by distinction within unity, so too, male and female are created as distinct beings yet called to a profound unity and interdependence.
The human capacity for differentiated yet unified relationships, fundamentally present in the male-female distinction, is a key way in which humanity images the relational God. To diminish or erase this distinction is, in some sense, to obscure a unique reflection of the divine relationality within human nature.
Analogy to the Trinity (with Caution)
The Trinity is utterly unique, transcending creation. Therefore, we must use analogy, not equation, to understand our finite relationship to the infinite God. Yet, as seen in human relationality, the male-female distinction reflects God’s relational nature. This analogy works in describing the relational structure and distinction within unity. Consider, for instance, the following parallel:
The Trinity embodies an eternal, loving relationship between distinct persons who are yet one God, and
The male-female distinction embodies a created capacity for deep and fruitful relationships between distinct persons (male and female) who are yet united in their shared humanity.
This analogy helps to illuminate the ontological significance of gender pointing, however faintly, to the relational God in whose image we are made. Gender is then underscored not as a mere accident of biology or a social construct, but as a meaningful and purposeful aspect of our created being, designed to reflect, in its relationality, something of the divine nature itself.
Against Reductionist Views of Gender
Ontological gender refutes reductionist views that diminish its created fullness. While culture can shape aspects of gender expression and biology is the basis of sex, reducing gender to these misses its ontological depth and divine purpose:
Social construct views imply arbitrary, fluid gender, undermining Scripture's image of God in male and female.
Mere biology views, while acknowledging biological basis, neglect gender's relational, spiritual, image-bearing richness beyond reproduction.
It is imperative that we do not reduce gender to its seeming component parts, for in so doing we fail to see its divine meaning, purpose, and reflection of God.
Embodied Ontological Reality
Ontological gender is fundamentally embodied. It is not a disembodied essence but a lived reality in male or female bodies.
Biological sex is not incidental, but the form of our ontological gender in this world. We are not souls trapped in bodies, but unified beings, body and soul. Our bodies are essential, not accidental. Maleness and femaleness permeate our being—body and soul. Embracing ontological gender means embracing the goodness of embodiment.
God designed us as embodied male and female as a gift, not a limitation. Our sexually differentiated bodies are meaningfully designed, revealing God's purposes. Affirming embodied ontological gender affirms God's full design, rejecting views diminishing our creation as male and female.
For the Ploughman
So, what does this deep dive into the ontological nature of gender mean for us in everyday life?
Simply put, it means understanding that being male or female is not just about our bodies or our roles. It is about who we are at the core of our being as created by God—distinct yet united, like the Father, Son, and Spirit in their eternal love. Our essentially gendered nature is a truth woven into creation itself, reflecting God’s own relational nature.
Embrace this truth! Your gender as male or female is a gift, purposefully given by God, and a calling to live in a way that reflects His image. Resist the shallow ideas that reduce gender to social preference or biological function. Instead, reclaim this richer understanding that your gender is part of God’s good design for humanity.
Reflect on this:
How does understanding your gender as ontological—as part of your very being—transform how you see yourself, your relationships, and your purpose in the world?
How can you live out your maleness or femaleness more faithfully, with joy and purpose, reflecting the relational God who created you?
Brothers and sisters, understanding gender as ontological transforms how we see ourselves and each other, allowing us to embrace this truth and live out our intended purpose, reflecting the relational God who created us.
Join me again on Thursday, February 27, 2025, for the next essay in this series, where we will examine the cultural intersections and implications of our theological convictions on gender. For now, we will delay discussing homosexuality until later articles.
Until next time, keep your hand on the plow and break up the fallow ground!
If you appreciate my work but do not want to subscribe, I would invite you to consider my Buy Me a Coffee page, where you can make one-time donations.
Here, I use gender interchangeably with sex as the biological reality (i.e., as determined by chromosomes) determined by God in Genesis 1:26-28. I will save the majority of the conversation about gender dysphoria for a later article on transgenderism.
Unless stated otherwise, all references to or quotations of Scripture come from the English Standard Version.
Though already discussed in another article, I will point out that the image of God is more than a physical likeness, encompassing our rationality, spirituality, relational capacity, and moral agency.
It is important to note that the idea of a second creation of mankind (e.g., the Lilith legend) based on a seeming repetition between chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis is foolish. To think so is to miss the whole point of the narrative form and how those in the Ancient Near East often wrote. In short, Genesis 1 focuses on God's supremacy and sovereignty in accomplishing all that was made. Genesis 2 (beginning in verse 4) shifts the story from focusing on God to focusing on man.
See Matthew Henry’s comments on the significance of Eve being created from Adam’s side.
(ezer, עֵזֶר) Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994–2000), 811.
(kenegdo, כְּנֶגְדּוֹ) Ludwig Koehler et al., 666.
Reductionism, n.: a philosophy which suggests that complex concepts can be understood by studying the smaller parts. Regarding gender, reductionists would suggest that gender should be understood from a purely biological/sociological perspective.
To draw from a biological corollary, all living things have a phenotype and a genotype. Just as genotype is the underlying blueprint that manifests in the visible phenotype, biological sex can be understood as the visible reality of our deeper ontological gender. As with all analogies, there are limitations. This analogy could easily be misconstrued because genotypes do not always present with a particular phenotype. Think about someone who is a carrier of a gene for Down Syndrome. They often have unaffected children, but the gene can remain visibly unpronounced.
There is something to be said here about the reality of infertility. SImply put, this is a result of the fall of man and the entrance of sin into the world. In another article, I speak more about infertility and how you might consider it a blessing.
Here is an opportunity to mention an edge case: those who are intersex (i.e., possessing a genetic mutation that causes you to develop physical characteristics not typical for males or females). Despite being atypical, this does not mean that they are not made in the image of God. Intersex individuals have just as much opportunity to praise God for the life they live as others.
Here, constitutive refers to the way in which the relationality of the trinity makes God who He is.