{"id":18114,"date":"2025-01-21T04:30:00","date_gmt":"2025-01-21T09:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/?p=18114"},"modified":"2025-01-20T16:45:39","modified_gmt":"2025-01-20T21:45:39","slug":"do-men-and-women-have-different-natures","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/article\/concise\/do-men-and-women-have-different-natures\/","title":{"rendered":"Do Men and Women Have Different Natures?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Recent discussions about manhood and womanhood commonly speak of \u201cmale and female natures,\u201d and I have adopted this language in my own writings. However, this raises an area of disagreement concerning ontology. Even among those who affirm traditional Christian teaching on men and women,[1]<\/a> some object to the language of differing \u201cnatures\u201d because men and women must likewise share Christ\u2019s human nature to be saved. Grounding their objection in history, they appeal to the Chalcedonian Definition<\/a> (A.D. 451), which teaches that Christ\u2019s humanity is equal in nature to all mankind. With respect to Christ\u2019s nature, the Definition includes,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. This is not only a source of difference between egalitarians and complementarians, but even between narrow and broad complementarians. See Zachary M. Garris, Masculine Christianity<\/em>, \u00a0<\/em>rev. ed. (Ann Arbor, MI: Reformation Zion Publishing, 2001), 62\u201370; Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, \u201c\u2018Equal in Being, Unequal in Role\u2019: Exploring the Logic of Woman\u2019s Subordination,\u201d in Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy<\/em>, eds. Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2005), 301\u2013333; Steven B. Cowan, \u201cThe Metaphysics of Subordination: A Response to Rebecca Merrill Groothuis,\u201d The Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood<\/em> 14\/1 (Spring 2009): 43\u201353.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n
\n

consubstantial with us according to the Manhood<\/em>; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Thus, Christ is said to be \u201cconsubstantial\u201d or \u201cone substance\u201d<\/a> (\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd) with us according to his humanity. He is therefore of the same substance as all humans, irrespective of sex. Likewise, the Westminster Confession teaches that the Son of God took on \u201cman\u2019s nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin.\u201d It adds that the Son was \u201cconceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance<\/em>\u201d (WCF 8.2<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Therefore, Christ shares the \u201cessential properties\u201d of humanity, the same human substance as men and women. Through this sharing of our human nature, Christ can achieve salvation for both men and women by His priestly work (Heb. 2:14\u201318; 4:15; 5:9).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, we must also account for the fact that Jesus is a man<\/em> and not a woman. How are male and female natures the same, and how are they different? That\u2019s what I will begin to answer by looking to the past. But first let\u2019s look to the Bible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Same Human Nature But Different<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Both men and women are fully<\/em> made in God\u2019s image and thus fully<\/em> share human nature. A woman is not different from a man in the same way a bird is different from a man. Men and women are both subsets of the category of human (Gen. 1:27). Yet a man is not a woman, and a woman is not a man.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Scripture firmly distinguishes between men and women. Woman is not a man but man\u2019s \u201cglory\u201d (1 Cor. 11:7). Woman is not a man but was created \u201cfor\u201d man (1 Cor. 11:9). This is part of \u201cnature,\u201d which teaches that woman should have longer hair than man (1 Cor. 11:14\u201315). Nature also teaches that man and woman may marry, while two women having relations is \u201ccontrary to nature\u201d (Rom. 1:26). Woman is also a \u201cweaker vessel\u201d (1 Pet. 3:7) compared to man, and thus naturally different.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, there must be a way to express that man and woman are different, including their different body structures and chromosomes (sexual dimorphism). Christ did not take on a woman\u2019s body, yet he still saves women because he took on a human body with its essential properties. Some of the problem in communicating this relates to the philosophical language of \u201cnature\u201d and \u201csubstance.\u201d Is such language sufficient to account for both the unity and differences between men and women? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In answering that question, we must first acknowledge that Scripture does not give us these philosophical terms, so we must do our best to faithfully convey biblical concepts here. The Greek word homousion<\/em> (\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u201cconsubstantial\u201d) is not found in the Greek New Testament, though it accurately conveys the Bible\u2019s teaching regarding Christ\u2019s humanity. The New Testament uses the word homoiopathes <\/em>in reference to humans sharing the \u201csame nature\u201d to demonstrate that they should worship God (Acts 14:15, NASB 1995) and to show that Elijah had \u201ca nature like ours\u201d and thus God hears our prayers (Jas. 5:17). However, the emphasis of this word is on \u201cexperiencing similarity in feelings or circumstances.\u201d[2]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. \u201c\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03c2,\u201d BDAG<\/em><\/a>, 706. For those unaware, BDAG\u2014named for the four initials that represent the authors responsible for this work: Walter Bauer, F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich\u2014is the standard (English-language) Greek lexicon in use today.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

In providing technical, philosophical language that seems to fit with Scripture, Michael Carlino and Kyle Claunch have recently argued that \u201cbeing gendered as male or female is a property belonging to the essence of humanity.\u201d Being a male or female cannot be changed, and there are not degrees of either but a sexual binary. Thus, gender is not an \u201caccidental\u201d property, but part of the particularization of the essential property of being human.[3]<\/a> Therefore, all humans have the essential property of being either male or female.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. Michael Carlino and Kyle Claunch, \u201cGender Essentialism in Anthropological, Covenantal, and Christological Perspective,\u201d in Eikon <\/em>6.2 (Fall 2024): 32\u201333.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

So if by saying \u201cman and woman have different natures,\u201d one means that the two sexes are different in essential properties of humanity, then we must reject this. But if by saying \u201cman and woman have different natures,\u201d we mean their bodies are different in a significant way that affects their duties and the way they relate to one another in all of life, then this can and should be affirmed. That is, men and women differently particularize the essential property of being male or female. Woman is fully human but is not a man. Man is fully human but is not a woman. Christ died for all humans, men and women. Yet there are things that men should do that women should not, and vice-versa (e.g., 1 Tim. 2:12). The language of the sexes having differing \u201cnatures\u201d may be technically imprecise, but it does communicate that femaleness is different from maleness\u2014which is why older theologians spoke this way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While we are helped by articulating a precise, technical definition,[4]<\/a> we are also helped by looking to the past. In what follows, I offer seven examples of stalwart Reformed theologians who use terms like \u201cmale and female nature.\u201d At the end, we will consider the ongoing use of this language.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4. Michael Carlino and Kyle Claunch, \u201cGender Essentialism in Anthropological, Covenantal, and Christological Perspective,\u201d in Eikon <\/em>6.2 (Fall 2024): 20\u201371.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

Voices from the Past<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

First, in commenting on 1 Timothy 2:12, theologian John Calvin (1509\u201364) said that woman \u201cby nature<\/em> (that is, by the ordinary law of God) is formed to obey,\u201d and thus Paul \u201cbids them be \u2018quiet,\u2019 that is, keep within their own rank.\u201d[5]<\/a> Likewise, in discussing the Fifth Commandment\u2019s requirement for children to obey their parents, theologian Wolfgang Musculus (1497\u20131563) said, \u201cIndeed the mother is inferior unto the father, as concerning the law of the subjection of wedlock: besides that, weaker also in nature and kind<\/em>, so that she is not unworthily called the weaker vessel of the Apostle Peter.\u201d[6]<\/a> (By \u201cinferior,\u201d Musculus meant the wife is under her husband\u2019s authority, not that she is of lesser worth than her husband. See the language of Westminster Larger Catechism 123\u2013133.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon<\/em>, trans. William Pringle (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1856), 68.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n





6. Wolfgang Musculus, Common Places of Christian Religion<\/em> (London, 1563), fol. 72 [English modernized].\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

The seminal reformed textbook Synopsis of a Purer Theology<\/em> (1625) said that God created humans male and female (citing Gen. 1:27) but also added, \u201cYet they were unequal in nature<\/em> and dignity [natura et dignitate tamen inaequales<\/em>], as she was more feeble and lower\u2014whence especially the woman is called the image and glory of the man, as man is in the image of God (1 Corinthians 11:7).\u201d[7]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

7. Walaeus, et al., Synopsis Purioris Theologiae: Synopsis of a Purer Theology<\/em>, ed. Dolf te Velde, trans. Reimer A. Faber, 3 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 1:332\u2013333. This section, \u201cAbout Man Created in the Image of God\u201d (Disputation 13), lists Antonius Thysius as president.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

Later, Herman Bavinck (1854\u20131921) said nature teaches the \u201cdistinction\u201d between men and women, and \u201cno science or philosophy is needed to acquaint oneself with this. Man and woman differ in physical structure and physical strength, in psychological nature and psychological strength; thereby they naturally enjoy different rights and are called to different duties.\u201d[8]<\/a> Referring to woman\u2019s place in the family, Bavinck said, \u201cHer nature is designed for that<\/em>, her orientation lies in that direction, there she best fulfills her calling and best reaches her destiny.\u201d[9]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

8. Bavinck, The Christian Family<\/em>, trans. Nelson D. Kloosterman (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian\u2019s Library Press, 2012), 25.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n




9. Ibid., 145<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

Similarly, Abraham Kuyper (1837\u20131920) said, \u201cWhen men and women dissatisfied with their respective natures<\/em> attempt to eradicate the distinction that God had once established between men and women in terms of body and soul . . . They sense a personal inadequacy within themselves as women, and rebel against the ordinance of God, who determines in our very birth whether we will be male or female.\u201d[10]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

10. Abraham Kuyper, Pro Rege: Living Under Christ\u2019s Kingship<\/em>, 3 vols. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press), 2:357.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

Benjamin Morgan Palmer (1818\u20131902), the great preacher and theologian of New Orleans, said, \u201cWoman is led to this submission by the instinct of her nature <\/em>. . . Man is endowed with attributes which qualify him for his more obtrusive position. He is strong, forceful, massive, fond of adventure, full of dash and courage. The woman is not less equipped for her station by the qualities which distinguish her. She is endued with grace and beauty, to win rather than subdue . . . above all, crowned with that sense of dependence out of which submission springs as an instinct.\u201d[11]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

11. B. M. Palmer, The Family in its Civil and Churchly Aspects<\/em> (Richmond, VA: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1876), 55.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

Finally, Henry Van Dyke, Sr. (1822\u20131891)   a Presbyterian minister in New York, said, \u201cThe subordination of woman (not her inferiority) is written upon the constitution of her nature<\/em>, in the history of her creation, and in all Christian theology.\u201d[12]<\/a> He added, \u201cBut the great disability of woman for the work of the ministry is directly connected with her physical constitution, with the fact that she can<\/em> be a mother, and that motherhood with all its burdens and blessings is her divinely-appointed destiny. \u2018I will, therefore, that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully\u2019 (1 Tim. 5:14). Any state of society, and any form of ecclesiastical polity, which forbids or discourages marriage is contrary to nature and to the Word of God.\u201d[13]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

12. Henry Van Dyke, \u201cShall Women Be Licensed to Preach?\u201d The Homiletic Review <\/em>15\/1 (Jan. 1888): 27.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n




13. Van Dyke, \u201cShall Women Be Licensed to Preach?\u201d, 28.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

As with all good theology, distinctions are necessary. Do men and women share the same nature? We must distinguish. We affirm that men and women fully share the same human substance with all the essential properties of humanity. Yet we also affirm that men and women differently particularize the essential human property of being male or female. Men and women have different bodily constitutions that are commonly referred to as the \u201cmale nature\u201d and \u201cfemale nature,\u201d and the differing duties assigned to men and women are tied to these sexual distinctions. Woman is fully human, but she is not a man. Man is fully human, but he is not a woman. It is good to embrace the sexual nature God has given you, along with its accompanying duties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In recent days, debates about manhood and womanhood are essential for defining sex, gender, marriage, and humanity itself. And thus, the language we employ is critical for properly distinguishing male and female. To that end, careful attention needs to be given to the technical differences between essence, nature, attributes, properties, and the like. Admittedly, using terms like \u201chuman nature\u201d and \u201cfemale nature\u201d proceeds with some measure of equivocation. That said, when the Church had a far better understanding of manhood and womanhood, both in their natures and vocations, it is clear that the language of nature could be applied to humanity in general and men and women in particular.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And thus, in attempts to refine our language today, it would be a significant loss to treat the Reformed tradition\u2019s language of male and female \u201cnatures\u201d as confusing the essence of being human with the essential human property of being either male or female. Far better, as we seek to tighten our language in the present, we should look to the past to learn from our theological forebears. While we may be able to tighten our language today, we must not discard the teachers of the past who had a far better grasp on what it meant to be male and female.[14]<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

14. For further consideration on this point, see my Honor Thy Fathers: Recovering the Anti-Feminist Theology of the Reformers <\/em>(Odgen, UT: New Christendom, 2024).<\/h6>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

How are male and female natures the same, and how are they different?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":18116,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"none","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"How are male and female natures the same, and how are they different?","_seopress_robots_index":"","inline_featured_image":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[32,12,1967,38],"tags":[956,1886,653,823,925,273,454,810,235,1280,301,1979,425,1980,860,1595],"scripture-reference":[],"post_folder":[],"ppma_author":[2007],"class_list":["post-18114","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-article","category-concise","category-january-2025-theme","category-theme","tag-anthropology","tag-bavinck","tag-body","tag-christ","tag-evangelicals","tag-gender","tag-gender-binary","tag-human-flourishing","tag-human-nature","tag-humanity","tag-image-of-god","tag-imago-dei","tag-john-calvin","tag-mankind","tag-ontology","tag-protestant"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Garris-Anthropology-Article.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"publishpress_future_action":{"enabled":false,"date":"2026-01-13 11:48:27","action":"change-status","newStatus":"draft","terms":[],"taxonomy":"category","extraData":[]},"publishpress_future_workflow_manual_trigger":{"enabledWorkflows":[]},"authors":[{"term_id":2007,"user_id":0,"is_guest":1,"slug":"zachary-garris","display_name":"Zachary Garris","avatar_url":{"url":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Zach_2022.jpg","url2x":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Zach_2022.jpg"},"author_category":"","job_title":"","church_city_state":"","last_name":"","first_name":"","church_site":"","user_url":"","description":"Zachary Garris serves as pastor of Bryce Avenue Presbyterian Church (PCA) in White Rock, New Mexico. He is the author of Masculine Christianity<\/a> (Reformation Zion Publishing), Honor Thy-Fathers: Recovering the Anti-Feminist Theology of the Reformers<\/a> (New Christendom Press), and a forthcoming book on the Southern Presbyterians (coauthored with Sean McGowan). He writes at KnowingScripture.com.<\/a>\r\n"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18114","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18114"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18114\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":18120,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18114\/revisions\/18120"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/18116"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18114"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18114"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18114"},{"taxonomy":"scripture-reference","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/scripture-reference?post=18114"},{"taxonomy":"post_folder","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/post_folder?post=18114"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=18114"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}