6. The Impact of the Fall on Procreation

God cursed conception by multiplying it “greatly”

God’s curse to the woman was in part, “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception” (Gen. 3:16). Just as every other aspect of creation entered into a curse, so too did conception.¹³⁰ To ignore the impact of the fall upon procreation is to miss critical changes that have come about that can make conception a sorrow rather than a blessing (things like cancer, high blood pressure, being worn out from running after five children under the age of six,¹³¹ changes to the function of lactation, etc.). Of course, Genesis 3:15 hints at how the cross would reverse and ameliorate the curse, but the curse itself is still at work.

Note the word “and”

Note the word “and” in Genesis 3:16. It says, “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception.” That conception itself is cursed cannot be avoided (as the NIV seeks to do) by substituting an “in” for the “and.” There are two things that are being multiplied in this curse: sorrow and conception.

Note the word “greatly”

Also note the “greatly” in Genesis 3:16. It says, “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception.” Multiplication is a blessing, but this verse adds two things that turn it into a curse: the huge increase of conception (“greatly”) and/or the sorrows accompanying the conception. The Hebrew can be literally rendered, “I will multiply multiply… your conception.” The curse was not the multiplication, but was 1) the degree of multiplication and 2) the results of that multiplication. We will consider each:

First, the degree of multiplication. The Hebrew text indicates that the multiplication would itself be multiplied or intensified. This means that there can be too much of a good thing. An obvious example should suffice: without modern science, having quintuplets would have been an incredible burden for an Old Testament mother. Even if they survived for very long without modern neonatal care (which is unlikely), such a birth would likely have resulted in the curse of death since most moms would not have enough milk to adequately feed five mouths.

Just as quintuplets could potentially be a mixed blessing (we love children) and curse (it may be impossible to keep them alive), so too can having more children than a wife’s health can bear, or than the parents can possibly shepherd, or than the parents can financially support. I know one couple who could not pay for any of their deliveries, yet continued to have babies without saving up money. They presumed upon their midwives, and the midwives were a little tired of it. This amounts to justifying theft by means of a theology of no dominion over conception.

The second area of curse was the results of the multiplication. The text speaks of sorrow accompanying the multiplication and adds that “In pain you shall bring forth children.” Apparently there would have been no pain prior to the fall, so pain was an added feature of the curse. We will see shortly that part of both redemption and dominion is the legitimate alleviation of this sorrow and pain.

Evidence that this is not a hendiadys

Some people will reject this evidence by claiming that this is a hendiadys. A hendiadys is a figure of speech where a point is emphasized by linking two nouns by an “and” for emphasis rather than turning one of the nouns into an adjective. For example, to say, “sound and fury” in the play, Macbeth (act 5, scene 5) seems more striking than to say, “furious sound.” Thus, the NIV translates it as, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing,” treating the Hebrew as a hendiadys. However, the following points make it clear that the Hebrew cannot be taken as a hendiadys. First, conception itself is not painful. To change “sorrow” to “pain” and “conception” to “childbirth” (as is done in the NIV) is going way beyond anything that Hebrew vocabulary or grammar will allow.

The counter-argument of some is that conception is considered a “blessing,” and therefore it cannot possibly be seen as a curse. This is eisegesis. The text is quite clear that it is the conception itself that is cursed in some way.

First, we will demonstrate in chapter 12 that the word הֵרָיוֹן (conceive) always refers to the inception of a pregnancy and is always connected in meaning with the intercourse that results in conception. In contrast, the words לדי (“bear, give birth”) and חוּל (“to labor in giving birth”) always refer to the end point of the pregnancy.¹³² You cannot use a preconceived idea of blessing to change the literal meaning of the word.

Second, every other blessing in life has been affected in some way by the curse. God can turn every blessing to dust, and even believers continue to suffer the internal and external effects of the Fall. Why not conception?

Third, there is no grammatical basis for the translation of the NASB and NIV. It is theologically driven, not grammatically driven.¹³³

Thus it is clear from this passage that God cursed conception 1) by increasing it, 2) by accompanying it with sorrow, 3) and by bringing pain to the resulting birth of a child. If conception itself is cursed, it is important to understand how the cross of Jesus Christ reverses the curse. It is also important that we not assume that all fruitfulness is a blessing. Dominion thinking and God’s gracious reversal of the curse must be considered.

Supporting evidence from physiology

There is also a great deal of supporting evidence from physiology that conception has indeed been cursed by a massive increase over what God’s original design had been. Physiology shows that perfect bodies were designed by God to suppress ovulation as long as there was breastfeeding (up to three years). The Fall has impacted many bodies to override this normal God-given function.

Dr. Sears answers the question: “I’ve heard that breastfeeding can keep me from getting pregnant. Is this true?” He says,

Yes, as long as you nurse according to the rules of natural child spacing. The same hormones that make milk suppress the release of reproductive hormones… It’s as if your body is telling you, ‘Nourishing one baby is all you can handle at the moment. It’s too soon for a sibling.’… research has shown that women who practice natural mothering according to the above rules will average 14.5 months without a period following childbirth. Remember, this is only an average. A few mothers will experience a return of menstrual periods by six months, others not until two or three years.¹³⁴

The fact that this doesn’t always work appears to be an imperfection in some women’s bodies, not a perfection or a blessing.

It is therefore significant that Scripture speaks of weaning a child at “three years old” (2 Chron. 31:16; cf. Gen. 21:8; 1 Sam. 1:22,24; Is. 28:9-10; Hos. 1:8). So if God’s Word made allowance for three years of breastfeeding (hardly essential), and which is definitely a form of birth control, it certainly seems to have allowed for spacing babies up to three years or more apart.

Finally, the words, “Sorrow … pain,” indicate that fruitfulness is no longer unmitigated blessing, but it is blessing mixed with non-blessing. This should not surprise us, since every other area of creation came under the curse.

Other Scriptural support for the curse extending to conception

If all of the above is true, then we would expect the Bible to speak elsewhere about both blessing and cursing related to conception, and indeed it does. There are times when Scripture speaks of “Blessings of the breasts and of the womb” (Gen. 49:25) and other times when He says, “Cursed shall be the fruit of your body” (Deut. 28:18). Raising up numerous children to populate hell is hardly a blessing. So this means that most children of unbelievers are not a blessing. Deuteronomy 28-29 indicates that even the children of covenant believers may not be a blessing if those believers are not walking with the Lord. In other words, conception is a blessing in some circumstances and a cursing in other circumstances.

Interestingly, Jesus pronounced a blessing on barren wombs during times of great distress: “‘Blessed are the barren, wombs that never bore, and breasts which never nursed!’” (Luke 23:29). This may have been what Paul had in mind when he strongly urged holding off on marriage during the “present distress” of persecution in 1 Corinthians 7. Paul didn’t call it a sin to marry and have children, especially if the woman was getting “past the flower of her youth” (v. 36 – a clear reference to child bearing years that were being postponed). His advice was given because (as he put it) “I want to spare you” (v. 28). Postponing having children during trying times can be a good motivation.

Indeed, there are almost as many Scriptures that speak of the curse of many children (Gen. 3:16; Eccl. 6:3; Is. 49:19-21; Deut. 28:18-19; Ezek. 5:7-8 [KJV]; Jer. 15:9; Job 27:13-15; Luke 23:29) as there are that speak of the blessings of having many children (Gen. 17:2,20; 22:17; 26:24; 28:3; 35:11; 48:4; Ex. 32:13; Deut. 7:14; Ps. 17:14; 113:9; 127:1-5; 128:1-6; Prov. 17:6; 1 Tim. 5:14). The fall has brought about circumstances that certainly lead to great difficulties – so great that the Scripture no longer speaks of those many children as always being a blessing. This means that occasional pausing and spacing by BLCC people is not a rejection of God’s blessing, but an attempt to be wise stewards before God so as to avoid the curse implications of Genesis 3:16.

Supporting evidence from the immediate context

There is also supporting evidence for our interpretation of Genesis 3:16 from the immediate context via the analogy of fruitfulness of thorns and thistles. Such fruitfulness is not a blessing; it was the result of the curse (vv. 17-18). Letting Scripture interpret Scripture (especially within the context) would make us refuse to idolize fruitfulness, and instead to interpret fruitfulness in a Christocentric way.

Please do not misinterpret me on the preceding points. I am not saying having many children is a curse for believers. As I mentioned, I looked forward to having a dozen, and most BLCC people plan to have large families, but the outflow of the Fall (war, disease, ravages of age, and other factors) can negatively affect the blessing, and even warrant postponing more children for a time.

If turning down the blessings of heaven is always a sin, what do we make of Christ’s statement that “there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it” (Matt. 19:12)? The way that is worded, these men have deliberately chosen to turn down the right to have children (or the right to have more children??) even though they could have gotten married/ remarried. By using the term “eunuch” instead of “unmarried,” He is highlighting the fact that they are turning down the blessing of procreation, not simply the blessing of marriage.

To say that it is a sin to turn down an opportunity to receive the blessing of children is cherry picking Scriptures. Would a pregnancy that is achieved in the middle of chemotherapy that ends up killing or deforming the baby be a blessing? It would likely be better to wait for the pregnancy till after the chemotherapy is finished. If trying to get every blessing of children that we possibly can is a mandate, then shouldn’t we be marrying our girls as soon as puberty hits? Why hold off? Some NCC advocates will say, “Don’t have sex during this time of chemotherapy. You shouldn’t have the pleasure of the sex without the children that result.” We will address that separation of functions for sexual relations under chapter 8.

Discussion questions

1. Can you see any situations that would warrant temporary “childless” sexual relations because of the result of the Fall?
2. Can you see any situations where having more children might not be a blessing?
3. If you are one of the women who cannot get pregnant while nursing a child, should you feel guilty nursing until the child is two or three?
4. If you are one of the women that the Fall has impacted and nursing does not repress ovulation, should you feel guilty spacing the next baby using the Rhythm Method or condom for a few months?
5. On each of these questions, why or why not?