Gender in Medical-Theological Interpretations of Genesis 3
Ekaterina Lomperis, PhD, MDiv, George Fox University, Portland, OR
My paper will challenge the history of exegesis of Genesis 3:16 used to religiously warrant patriarchy in the Christian tradition, by linking women’s reproductive pain and women’s subjugation to men as inseparably connected by a divine decree. I will argue that modern advances in medical pain-relief options during labor and delivery provide a theological opening for contesting this tradition. By putting Martin Luther’s original interpretations of Genesis 3 in conversation with contemporary advances in obstetrics, my paper will offer a new gender-egalitarian interpretation of Genesis 3:14.
In medieval Christianity, a key biblical text for theological interpretations of women's reproductive suffering was Genesis 3:16. Medieval theologians read this text as establishing two kinds of punishments subsequently affecting not only Eve but all women, seen as Eve's descendants. The first kind was intense suffering associated with women’s reproductive experiences. The second dealt with Eve's subjugation to her husband, which was interpreted more broadly as women's subjugation to men.
Medieval theologians disagreed regarding the precise nature of these punishments (for example, it was debated which of these were physical and which were spiritual). However, generally, major medieval thinkers interpreted women's subordination to men as either a spiritual punishment affecting the woman's soul or reason (such as authors of the early Franciscan Summa Halensis) or these thinkers (for example, Thomas Aquinas) saw Eve’s punishment in her resistance and yet necessity to being ruled by her husband. The male rule itself was viewed as a divinely established order even before the first sin. [Mowbray, Pain and Suffering in Medieval Theology, 55-56]
In the sixteenth century, we see the departure from these interpretations in the lectures of a founder of the Protestant reform movement Martin Luther. For Luther, a woman’s subordinate status could not be imprinted upon her soul, but had to be external and limited to her body. In his lectures on Genesis, Luther stressed Eve’s original equality with Adam. Before her sin Luther’s Eve “previously was very free and, as the sharer of all the gifts of God, was in no respect inferior to her husband.” According to Luther: “If Eve persisted in the truth, she would not only not have been subjected to the rule of her husband, but she herself would also have been a partner in the rule which is now entirely the concern of males.” [WA XLII.151-152. XXX; LW 1:203]
Thus, in his early modern Protestant context, Luther developed a radical claim that women’s subordinate status was neither based on their inferiority, nor was it part of God’s original intent. However, together with the preceding tradition, Luther read women’s forced subordination together with women’s’ reproductive suffering as two aspects of the same divine punishment. For Luther, his contemporary women’s intense reproductive suffering was not due to severe limitations of premodern medicine but due to what he saw as the unchanged divine establishment of both female reproductive pain and patriarchy.
The importance of Genesis 3:16 for conservative theologies of gender roles persisted into the modern era. I further suggest how, in our own era. early modern exegesis of Genesis 3:16 can be constructively reimagined due to modern advances in obstetrics.
What does epidural have to do with the history of exegesis? While healthcare disparities remain a significant issue, at least in affluent Western societies, Christians read Genesis 3:16 in the context of unprecedented advances in pain-relief options during labor and delivery. With opioids, nitrous oxide, pudendal, epidural, and spinal blocks being available, the pain of childbirth has not disappeared, but it can now be greatly decreased. Developments in surgical deliveries, management of post-delivery complications, and in previously unimaginable fetal therapies now allow for the successful treatment of conditions that were likely to be fatal or permanently debilitating for early modern women and which had been historically viewed as a consequence of Genesis 3:16.
How could one theologically one account for this dramatic lessening of women’s reproductive suffering? Some biblical texts, such as Colossians 1:6, have been interpreted as implying the gradual transformative and healing effect of grace on the alleviation of suffering in the world. I suggest that, for Christian communities, this hermeneutic of grace could be used to provide a theological narrative explaining new possibilities for relieving women’s bodies from reproductive pain. Similarly, alongside reproductive healing, new possibilities for resisting gender inequalities should also be seen not as a challenge to the divinely instituted order but as cooperation with the ongoing work of grace, liberating and healing women’s bodies from both of the effects of Genesis 3:16.
In medieval Christianity, a key biblical text for theological interpretations of women's reproductive suffering was Genesis 3:16. Medieval theologians read this text as establishing two kinds of punishments subsequently affecting not only Eve but all women, seen as Eve's descendants. The first kind was intense suffering associated with women’s reproductive experiences. The second dealt with Eve's subjugation to her husband, which was interpreted more broadly as women's subjugation to men.
Medieval theologians disagreed regarding the precise nature of these punishments (for example, it was debated which of these were physical and which were spiritual). However, generally, major medieval thinkers interpreted women's subordination to men as either a spiritual punishment affecting the woman's soul or reason (such as authors of the early Franciscan Summa Halensis) or these thinkers (for example, Thomas Aquinas) saw Eve’s punishment in her resistance and yet necessity to being ruled by her husband. The male rule itself was viewed as a divinely established order even before the first sin. [Mowbray, Pain and Suffering in Medieval Theology, 55-56]
In the sixteenth century, we see the departure from these interpretations in the lectures of a founder of the Protestant reform movement Martin Luther. For Luther, a woman’s subordinate status could not be imprinted upon her soul, but had to be external and limited to her body. In his lectures on Genesis, Luther stressed Eve’s original equality with Adam. Before her sin Luther’s Eve “previously was very free and, as the sharer of all the gifts of God, was in no respect inferior to her husband.” According to Luther: “If Eve persisted in the truth, she would not only not have been subjected to the rule of her husband, but she herself would also have been a partner in the rule which is now entirely the concern of males.” [WA XLII.151-152. XXX; LW 1:203]
Thus, in his early modern Protestant context, Luther developed a radical claim that women’s subordinate status was neither based on their inferiority, nor was it part of God’s original intent. However, together with the preceding tradition, Luther read women’s forced subordination together with women’s’ reproductive suffering as two aspects of the same divine punishment. For Luther, his contemporary women’s intense reproductive suffering was not due to severe limitations of premodern medicine but due to what he saw as the unchanged divine establishment of both female reproductive pain and patriarchy.
The importance of Genesis 3:16 for conservative theologies of gender roles persisted into the modern era. I further suggest how, in our own era. early modern exegesis of Genesis 3:16 can be constructively reimagined due to modern advances in obstetrics.
What does epidural have to do with the history of exegesis? While healthcare disparities remain a significant issue, at least in affluent Western societies, Christians read Genesis 3:16 in the context of unprecedented advances in pain-relief options during labor and delivery. With opioids, nitrous oxide, pudendal, epidural, and spinal blocks being available, the pain of childbirth has not disappeared, but it can now be greatly decreased. Developments in surgical deliveries, management of post-delivery complications, and in previously unimaginable fetal therapies now allow for the successful treatment of conditions that were likely to be fatal or permanently debilitating for early modern women and which had been historically viewed as a consequence of Genesis 3:16.
How could one theologically one account for this dramatic lessening of women’s reproductive suffering? Some biblical texts, such as Colossians 1:6, have been interpreted as implying the gradual transformative and healing effect of grace on the alleviation of suffering in the world. I suggest that, for Christian communities, this hermeneutic of grace could be used to provide a theological narrative explaining new possibilities for relieving women’s bodies from reproductive pain. Similarly, alongside reproductive healing, new possibilities for resisting gender inequalities should also be seen not as a challenge to the divinely instituted order but as cooperation with the ongoing work of grace, liberating and healing women’s bodies from both of the effects of Genesis 3:16.