- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (5/12)
- Next Post »Reading Classics Together - Time to Begin!
Pain in Childbearing
- 05/12/11
- 36
It is an interesting question to ask: What does Genesis 3:16 mean when it says that, as a consequence for her sin, the woman would now have pain in childbearing? (“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”) On one level the answer is very clear, but I think we do well to see that there is more to it than what is most obvious.
After Adam and the woman sinned (she is not yet named Eve—that will come soon), God was forced to pass judgment on them—to provide oracles, judgments about the way the world would now be. God's first word to the woman, the first consequence, looks back to her very creation. When God created human beings--when he created them as male and female--he blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth." His command to them was to bear children, to fill the earth with people, and in that way to exercise dominion over all of it. Adam and the woman were to have children and their children were to have children and soon enough the earth would be populated with more people, created in the image of God and doing the work of God. This is a critical and primary component of the Creation Mandate--God's command to the creatures he formed in his own image.
People were to multiply by childbearing. But now, after the woman listened to the serpent and led her husband into sin, something else, something far more sinister, would multiply alongside those children. Here in Genesis 3:16 God says to the woman, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children." This is not an arbitrary consequence. Rather, there is a kind of poetic justice here, what theologians may refer to as a talionic justice. God looks back to his original plan for humans and shows that the punishment will fit the crime, so to speak. Where God meant to multiply what was good, sin would now multiply what was evil. "In pain you shall bring forth children…"
God's original plan was that women would bear children painlessly. When God said to the woman that she would bring forth children in pain, this would have been a shocking pronouncement. The word he uses here--the word translated childbirth--actually refers to conception and not just the act of giving birth. “I will surely multiple your pain in conception.” Since there is no pain associated with conception, I think we need to extend this word—or at least the application of this word—so that it points to the entire process from conception to birth and even to the raising of children; it points to motherhood more than it points merely to childbirth. All of these were meant by God to be free from pain. It would be a joy to get pregnant, it would be a joy to be pregnant, it would be a joy to give birth, it would be a joy to raise children. There may be joy in all of those things still, but there is also pain. There is pain and trouble in conception as so many couples can testify; there is pain and danger in pregnancy; there is pain and danger in giving birth; and there is pain in raising children. After sin’s entrance into the world, all of these good things would now be attended by physical, mental, emotional, even spiritual pain.
Now the occasions of the greatest joy would also be occasions of the greatest pain. This pain would always remind woman of the existence of sin and of her role in bringing that sin into the world. We can imagine that with every labor pain Eve thought of the sin she had committed. God would continue to bless the woman, he would continue to allow her to multiply, but her numbers would only multiply as her pain multiplied. She would continue to fulfill her God-given mandate, but only in pain. After the fall into sin woman would no longer be immortal; she must now die. But through children she could maintain the existence of the human race. Woman would not be able to save herself from her sin, but from her line would come the one who would smash the head of the serpent. So as she gave birth to those children, she also would have trusted in the great promise that one would eventually come who would deliver us from all pain. Would he come from Cain? From Abel? From Seth? She didn't know. But she knew he would come. Obeying God's Mandate would bring dominion to the earth, but it would also eventually bring the Messiah, the one who could undo all of the pain.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (36)
This is a slightly different part of the understanding of the passage, but do you think it is a punishment, or a description of the response of sin? In other words, did God give pain as a punishment for sin, or is God describing the results of sin the in the world as pain in childbirth?
I have my opinion, but I think the answer to that question is a major split within the church in how to respond to sin and the consequences to sin.
Great post, but you took a few liberties. The scripture reads that pain in childbearing will be increased, and many commonly assume that the woman would go from no pain to a lot of pain, but the word “increase” seems to imply that there was already some pain, but now there would be more.
Also, if the original text speaks to conception, I understand how we could stretch that out over the entire 9 month term, but into childhood and rearing? Is that opinion supported by the text or are you asserting your own ideas?
This is a slightly different part of the understanding of the passage, but do you think it is a punishment, or a description of the response of sin?
It’s hard to know. I’m not sure that the Bible really states this clearly. In a sense I don’t know that there’s really a clear difference between them.
Jon,
I think we can go to 1 Timothy 2:15 as something of a parallel. Maybe I’m going a little too far, but there we see the redemption of motherhood. And once again, when Paul says that a woman shall by saved by childbearing, I think he’s using childbearing as a kind of summary of all of biblical womahood—of all of God’s design for the woman he created.
Tim, I always understood the passage at the front to mean that the pain of childbearing would “increase”. That is, it already had some physical pain and now it would increase physically and then in other ways as well like you mentioned. To feel physical pain is not evil or because of sin. If a person sin had no entered the picture and someone drowned or cut themselves it would still be death and painful right?
Craig - I would tend to disagree. I don’t know how that kind of pain could have existed in the pre-Fall world.
I agree with the comments of others, I’ve always understoood this passage to indicate that there already was pain in childbearing (pre-Fall), to some extent. To quote from the version used above: “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing…”. One cannot multiply nothing. As they taught us in math, any number times zero is zero.
Well, it’s clear that only the men have commented so far. :) I would not be at all surprised to learn that God intended “pain in childbearing” to extend to ALL aspects of childbearing—even to the regularly-timed biological function that allows women to be the bearer of children. Yes, guys, it IS quite painful for many women—every single month.
(Note, I’m not suggesting that this is an accurate interpretation of the text, merely that I wouldn’t be surprised to find that it is.)
How could there be pain in childbearing if no children had been born previous to the Fall? If creation was “very good”, I don’t think most mothers would agree birth pains are very good.
Adam, I think the result of sin and God’s (partial) punishment for sin can be the same thing.
Tim, a curious (and maybe controversial?) question: do you think the creation mandate is still in effect today? Should Christians get married with the intent to never have children?
I wonder if the pain that she experienced pre-Fall was “good pain”, so to speak - the same sort of pain Adam experienced in working the land before the Fall.
I’ve often questioned how “idyllic” life really was before the Fall. After all, Satan was present. If everything was truly perfect, why was Satan there? In heaven there will be no presence of evil, nor will there be the possibility of disobedience. So what was really going on in the garden?
I think the “multiply” argument is a bit reductionistic. “Multiply”, in Scripture, seems to mean “to create many of.” It doesn’t have the rigid definition of western mathematics.
For instance, Exodus 7:3 - “But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt…” God hadn’t done any signs and wonders there yet. How could he multiply them? He’s saying that he will create many of them, and when he does, there will be many. It’s the same usage with Abraham and his seed. God will miraculously create something and multiply it. That doesn’t necessitate that the thing multiplied already exists.
Another way to approach whether Tim has a valid argument about childbirth extending to all aspects of child-raising is to look at Adam’s curse. They’re most likely parallel. Does “thorns and thistles” and “sweat of your brow” mean that only work that deals with briars and produces physical sweat is in view? Was the point to narrow the curse to just the mentioned items, or is it metonymy? The idea is that the thing which was supposed to be your purview will now work against you. Given Tim’s excellent example of I Timothy 2:15, it seems that the woman’s purview is (normally) birthing and raising children. Hence, it makes sense that Genesis 3:16 is referring to child-rearing at large, not just specifically.
I don’t know how that kind of pain could have existed in the pre-Fall world.
Why wouldn’t pain exist in a pre-fall world? I thought the “wages of sin is death”, not pain.
I can imagine immortality in Eden, but pain is such a large part of how we respond to our environment, grow and mature, and are aware of our surroundings. It would be like losing one of our senses to live without pain entirely.
Tony, in a way you raise the point I was going to call out, even though from a different angle. Revelation 21:4 is pretty clear about heaven- there will be no “mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”
We were just studying this passage in our community group on Monday, and what helped us was considering the parallels between the curse on Eve and the curse on Adam. In both cases, what we were created for (bearing and nourishing life, ruling over the earth and subduing it through profitable labor) is now resisted, made painful and hard, and feels unnatural. It’s not natural, by God’s definition, to experience suffering and pain. It’s only natural by Adam’s definition. All of life is fighting to replace what’s natural in Adam (and Eve) with what’s natural in Christ. It feels foreign to comprehend a world without pain because it is foreign to our Adamic flesh. But it’s natural to Jesus.
And speaking as a woman who had my third daughter very suddenly with no medication, I can personally testify to how truly hellish the pain of childbirth is. I could hardly talk about it for months afterward. It truly did not feel “natural”. Epidurals are a blessing of a merciful God. :)
I am in no way a theologian, but this topic is of interest to me, mainly producing more questions than answers.
First of all, i hate the word pain, and I am not sure it is even a correct translation. I think the word is “etsev” and has been translated as pain in many american bibles, but I always thought it was translated better as “toil,” or “with great effort.” I might be wrong in my thinking, but based on limited word studies, i thought those were truer meanings. So labor would be hard work and it would be done with great effort (you might even yell or scream, but not due to pain but due to great effort). Like picking up a deal lift of 400lbs. You may yell and scream and sweat and work really hard and toil, but it does not mean it is painful. Again I may very well be wrong, I am a man after all, but I have talked to many women how have had this exact experience. Pain comes from fear, and we have no need to fear in Jesus. Based on many women i know, childbirth can be without pain, but it is always done in great effort and hard work.
Also, if this was a curse, does the death and resurrection of Jesus not come into play to redeem this curse….again, not a theologian and really do not know. Just something I am curious about. As a man, my curse is hard work to toil in the land. Again, was it not work before? Now the land is just harder to work with. How does that curse apply to me today as I sit behind a desk and earn a living for my family. It feels like this curse no longer applies to me, so why would it apply to the women? Did Jesus in fact redeem this curse on the cross.
I might be way off base here, just some thoughts…nothing to split the church over!
Tim,
Thank you for the post. I just read it to my wife as we wait in the Labor and Delivery room for our fourth child and third son. It was a wonderful and timely encouragement to us both.
God bless you.
I think you are spot on, Tim (and my husband would agree). Simply put, there are two main jobs (I said main, not nothing else) woman is made for…..to be a helper to her husband and to have and raise children. God said to be a helper but, by the way, because of sin you will have a desire to rule over your man. And two, He said to have babies but, by the way, there will be pain in childbirth (in that I mean as Tim describes). Both of these tasks are not easy and painless.
To say that it only means childbirth alone would imply that the task before a woman to raise her children shouldn’t be so painful. It takes sweat, pain, and tears to raise your children before the Lord and is most certainly a struggle. And while my husband is “toiling” to provide for the family (and having some of the pressure, stress and pain of doing so), I am with my little ones and training and disciplining, again and painful again. I would also agree with one commenter that this extends to the “womanly cycle” because the only reason we have it is to prepare our bodies to multiply. It’s a part of the bigger picture.
Also, to take it so literally would echo some that women are wrong to take pain killers during childbirth. That’s a very narrow view of what (I believe) was intended. Perhaps that argument is meant for another day.
I believe 1 Tim. 2:25 demonstrates that women are to be more like Mary—properly receiving the role God has given them, and less like Eve—taking on her own governmental priority in the relationship and demanding what she was not given. Having given birth to three children w/out the drugs (I’m not “against” pain meds), I reflect mostly on the grace of my Savior in creating life through much pain. In this “post Fall” life, we suffer and bear our cross. But thankfully, it points me straight to the cross that Christ bore to give everlasting life to His church!!
Tim,
I agree with those here who express the “increase” theory to the “pain” question of:
Genesis 3:16 (NIV): ‘To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” ’
Now, here’s a different (my) slant on the pre-fall pain/no-pain question…
Consider that during a pregnancy, even the most normal and healthy of them, there are always signals that the woman experiences from her body. These discomforts indicate that many normal and healthy things are happening. Some twinges are the result of the natural stretching and other adjustments that are being made internally to accommodate an expanding uterus. Others are the byproduct of displaced organs, and of course there’s the wonderful yet sometimes painful experience of having your baby place its feet against the diaphragm and then stretch to press its head against your bladder; causing both discomfort and concern about pressure induced leaks that could be very embarrassing!
Based upon my vicarious (thankfully!) experience of watching my wife go through two full-term pregnancies; you would be hard pressed to convince me that these events weren’t painful or very uncomfortable at best! What’s most remarkable is that after the discomfort would pass there was a definite expression of satisfaction and calm that would soon replace the facial anguish that had just occurred.
Considering the fact that our first full-term pregnancy was actually the third pregnancy of our marriage; for us, most of the pains affirmed the growth of a healthy baby. Other twinges gave her comforting indications of how strong the baby was — that there was little or no need to worry. Not that the worries ever stop when children are involved!
Although the prenatal concerns really never leave until the birth occurs — and then after the birth those concerns are replaced by new ones continuously for the rest of the parent’s life — I will summarize now by saying that most if not all of the pre-labor pains were something my wife treasured.
Perhaps it was these natural and affirming pains that were added to (increased) by God as a result of Eve’s disobedience…?
Dan H…
The whole Eden Narrative (Genesis 2-3) carries strong etiological elements which answer such questions as, Why marriage? Why domination in the husband and wife relationship? Why is farming such a challenge? Why do humans die? The author or redactor of this narrative took common ancient Near-Eastern motifs (e.g. forming humans out of the earth) reflecting their theology (think Deuteronomy - death and life set before you - now choose life). The two trees represent wisdom and immortality - two prerogatives of deity. God gives a command to prevent humans from intruding into the divine realm, and they break this command. Disobedience brings consequences - that is the main message of this narrative.From a historic perspective, death and pain have always been a reality of life. Even this Narrative does not teach that the human and his wife possessed conditional immortality. Outside of this passage, death in the Old Testament is considered an intrinsic part of what is means to be human.From a biological perspective, women experience pain in childbirth due to our adaptation to walking upright. Before our ancestors walked upright, females would not have experienced pain in childbirth like they do now.
While several people have suggested that there is not a difference between whether the toil and pain (for both Adam and Eve) is a result of punishment or description of the result of sin, I think a significant portion of the church has taught that it must be punishment and not a description. I think that is what underlies much of the theology that says women may not be leaders in the church. (I know there are new testament passages too, but most arguments I read against women leading in church reflect back to this passage as much as anything else.)
I think it matters a lot. If it is a punishment, then we can do nothing to alleviate that punishment before the 2nd coming. If it is a description of the results of sin, then I think that within the church we can work to lessen the effects of sin (although not eliminate them completely since we are not without sin).
What an interesting in-depth look at the original sin. The most popular question I hear is why, if Eve is the one who committed this sin, does every woman (and by extension, every man,) have to suffer as well? Taken from that view, then the saying “You can’t blame the child for the parent’s sin” is kind of invalid.
That’s a really interesting statement, “Where God meant to multiply what was good, sin now multiplies what is evil.” I never thought about it in those terms before. Very true.
I agree with you except one thing.
Eve, excuse me, the woman did not LEAD Adam to sin. The bible implies he was standing right there with her and was a willing participant “..and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. (Gen 3: 6)” Saying that she led him to sin lays the blame on her. If Adam had been doing his job looking out for her, he would have chased the serpent away to begin with and it never would have happened. Where was Adam while this serpent was talking to her? Standing right next to her, his attention elsewhere, maybe?
The fault lies equally with both.
Really thought-provoking post, Tim. Thanks. I am continually challenged and spurred on by what I read here. I appreciate the desire of author and commenters alike to see God and His Word exalted and to hammer out the truth. I had some thoughts on a few of the elements under discussion.
This may start off sounding silly, but since the curse on the man and the woman are probably parallel, isn’t it pertinent to consider: Did Adam sweat before the Fall, or was sweat a punishment? Was work a punishment? Adam had to work naming the animals and tending the garden, right? It seems as though God had in mind something more than sweat or work as the curse. It seems as though the increase, the change in the nature of the sweat and the work is the point. Could it not be so with pain in childbirth? ( As a mother, I thought Dan H. I thought made a good argument for this.) Isn’t the curse of sin usually evident in a change in the nature of the created things, including man?
May I also offer up the thought that just because one of the creatures can’t conceive of a world in which pain or sweat or work could be a good thing, that does not mean that it was impossible for God to have conceptualized it and created it that way? God conceived of a lot of good things that we didn’t and never could, and our perspective on His creation is skewed by sin.
I think we should also consider the possibility that “multiply” does really mean “multiply,” in the sense of considerably adding to something already present. It’s a good point that the idea of ‘multiply’ doesn’t have to fit in with our idea of Western mathematics and that we should compare other passages in the Bible which speak of God “multiplying” something, as He multiplied signs and wonders in Egypt. However, is it correct to say that God never worked any signs or wonders in Egypt before the plagues? Is not the creation itself a sign and a wonder, available for the Egyptians to see that they are subject to Him? The heavens declare God’s glory! Man is without excuse for not acknowledging God because His invisible attributes are clearly seen from what He has made. Didn’t His creation declare His presence and power to Egypt? Then the multiplied signs and wonders would have added to and emphasized His presence, power and Pharaoh’s subjection to Him. It also occurs to me that Adam and Eve were to “multiply” and while they were starting with a small number, they weren’t starting with nothing.
Sorry that’s so long…Try as I might, I don’t summarize my thoughts very well.
Good commentary! I’d like to recommend a book to those who might be interested. “The Gift of Pain” (formerly titled “Pain: the Gift Nobody Wants”), by Dr. Paul Brand, a world renowned hand surgeon and leprosy specialist.
From the back flap:
“A World Without Pain? Can such a place exist? It not only can - it does. But it’s no utopia. It’s a colony of leprosy patients: a world where people literally feel no pain, and reap horrifying consequences.
His work with leprosy patients in India and the United States convinced Dr. Paul Brand that pain truly is one of God’s great gifts to us. … As an indicator that lets us know something is wrong, pain has a value that becomes clearest in its absense.”
From a Christianity Today article on his life:
“It was on this issue that Brand’s work with Hansen’s disease met with his theological reflections on what he viewed as ‘the most problematic aspect of creation: the existence of pain.’ Pain, Brand believed, was not antithetical to life, but a requisite for it. ‘God designed the human body so that it is able to survive because of pain,’ he later wrote.”
See: http://tinyurl.com/6c7b25r
“Before our ancestors walked upright, females would not have experienced pain in childbirth like they do now.”
Adam and Eve did not walk upright before the fall?
“Adam and Eve did not walk upright before the fall?”
Interesting — I don’t think I’ve ever seen an unabashed Darwinist here before. What Caleb G. is saying is that Adam, Eve, and Eden are myths.
Where does the believing single woman fit in? As an almost-40 yr old woman who has petitioned God repetitively for years for husband and children, how does this apply to me? Is the pain in the lack of husband and children?
Caleb:
Oh yeah, right we came from monkeys, what were we thinkin… :^/
I agree with Pete’s statement.
Another point to consider: physical pain is very subjective. I have heard women describe drug-free childbirth from “painless - more of a pressure” to “like being dragged behind a train for 5 miles”.
In my own experience, the pain was completely overwhelming (14 hours) and the most intense I have ever experienced. But I chose to embrace it… in a way - submit to it. Completely silent, just breathing, not moving, not fighting against it. And it was beautiful. It was just God and I in that moment (although my husband and others were present). It was me trusting Him. It was a gift.
The physical pain was nothing compared to the emotional and spiritual pains I have experienced through infertility, and raising two children.
CHALLIES: “God’s first word to the woman, the first consequence, looks back to her very creation…..in Genesis 3:16…to the woman, ‘I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.’ This is not an arbitrary consequence. Rather, there is a kind of poetic justice here, what theologians may refer to as a talionic justice. God looks back to his original plan for humans and shows that the punishment will fit the crime, so to speak. Where God meant to multiply what was good, sin would now multiply what was evil. ‘In pain you shall bring forth children…’
How does the “punishment” of multiplying pain in childbirth serve as a talionic (eye-for-eye) justice for forbidden fruit? I am not seeing how pain in child-birth is a punishment that fits or suits in a talionic way the crime of eating forbidden fruit.
CHALLIES: “God’s original plan was that women would bear children painlessly. When God said to the woman that she would bring forth children in pain, this would have been a shocking pronouncement.”
How do we know either of these to be true?
Why would this have been shocking if there was no previous experience with which to compare, and if there was no pain pre-fall, how would she even have understood the pronouncement and its meaning?
CHALLIES: “God’s first word to the woman, the first consequence, looks back to her very creation……when he created them as male and female—he blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” His command to them was to bear children, to fill the earth with people, and in that way to exercise dominion over all of it. Adam and the woman were to have children and their children were to have children and soon enough the earth would be populated with more people, created in the image of God and doing the work of God.”
If God looks back to his original plan for humans to multiply and fill the earth, what is the corresponding punishment that fits the crime for Adam that correlates with the pronouncement to the woman that she will experience pain in “childbirth” and also directly correlates to the command to bear children?
Males make a significant contribution to fulfill this command, otherwise no “childbirth”, whatever it is. If the punishment fits the crime for the woman by multiplying or intensifying “pain” in childbirth because God looks back to his original plan for humans to fill the earth, then what is the corresponding punishment (pain) necessary to fit the crime for the man that is directly related to his impregnating a woman to fill the earth?
We did not come from monkeys, but we do share a common ancestor with them. If we did not, one could question why God created us and our genome to look exactly like like we share a common ancestor with other primates. Just as we can truthfully say that God formed a baby in the womb through procreation and embryonic development, so God could use developmental processes to creation the first humans. The same word in Hebrew (ysr) describes the process of God forming ha’adam (the human) and the Psalmist in the womb (cf. Ps 139:13 and Gen 2:7). The Old Testament speaks of God forming all humans from clay or the ground as a Potter forms a pot (cf. Job 10:9; 33:6; Ps 103:14).
I have always wondered and been perplexed and disturbed by this passage. Thanks for writing this explanation, it really help to clear much of it up. How bout a stab at the male portion of that curse? Is there more to the phrase “sweat of thy brow” than meets the eye?
Great post, Tim! It was especially interesting for me, given that I wrote a post on pains in childbirth just a few days ago (while my wife was in labor; our daughter was born on Mother’s Day!). My article came at it from another angle, though, looking at Matthew 24:8 rather than Genesis 3:16. Isn’t it interesting how the Bible associates birth pains both with the Fall and with Christ’s return at the end of the age? If anyone is interested, here is what I wrote: http://honeyandlocusts.wordpress.com/2011/05/08/the-pains-of-childbirth/
Thanks for posting this Tim…it was very timely for me to read and I hadn’t thought about the extension into childhood.
The past two weekends have brought this to the fore experientially for my family. My wife is halfway through a pregnancy and spent time in hospital last weekend with a very painful infection (her thoughts were that labour was more preferable…). This weekend we were at the hospital with our two year old who had pneumonia. Those are very tangible reminders of the extent of sin. Your post put that into perspective. Needless to say I’m looking forward to the day when hospital doors will be closed for good and pharmacies will be put out of business.
I appreciate your ministry. Keep fighting the good fight!
Caleb
The idea that this narrative is based on, or borrows from, ANE stories, is pure modernism. And it’s just an opinion. If this text is a “Just So” story, it has no real authority. We can pretend that it’s God’s Just So, but God never works like that.
A horizontal spine is constructed differently to an upright spine, and there is no missing link. This is the Just So story, and when we blow away the post-Enlightenment balloon juice, we see it for what it is.
The historical events recorded in Genesis have ramifications throughout the Bible, and they show us how God thinks of us. For instance, the world is formed then filled. Adam is formed, then filled. Marriage is formed, then filled. It is a Head-and-Body process at every step: external Law, then internal Law, or obedience then wisdom. The curses upon the serpent were external (demotion) and internal (eating the dust Adam came from). Then the curses upon Adam and Eve reflected their stations before God. Adam’s concerned his role as Covenant Head (the singular shelter/guardian/provider) and Eve as Covenant Body (succession in history).
Even if things seem weird to us, they have a purpose, and these patterns play out repeatedly in the Bible, from beginning to end.