abortion, the church and the election
Abortion is evil. There, I said it. It doesn't seem like many people want to today, and many of those who do will try to soften the impact by saying that there are also many other things that are evil in the world. Who can disagree with that, but it doesn't minimize the evil of abortion. I am frankly stunned that this has not been an issue in the political campaigns this year. I can only recall one question in a debate and the candidates spent five, maybe six minutes talking about it in cryptic language.
I have many good friends who agree that abortion is wrong but will vote for Barack Obama on Nov. 4th. I don't think they should. I'm not questioning their faith, but I would question the wisdom of such a vote (and I think they would challenge the wisdom of my vote as well - though I haven't said who I'm voting for, I bet it's crystal clear). That's healthy discussion and disagreement. We shouldn't question motives but conclusions. Here's what I would like to do. First, I want to take some time to evaluate what the Bible says, or doesn't say, about abortion and the rights of the unborn (and what the early church said and thought as well). Secondly, I would like to think a little about the candidates positions, understanding that our fight against this evil should not just be legislative but also address economic and social realities. As a side note, I won't repeat here what you could read in full somewhere else. I'll hyperlink to other articles and try to summarize them.
First, what does the bible say, or not say, about abortion and the rights of the unborn? Scripture affirms the dignity of worth of human life from the outset, declaring that mankind was created in the image of God. Even before the specific command not to murder comes in the Decalogue we are given insight into how God views the taking of human life in his response to the murder of Abel and in the establishment of God's covenant with Noah ("Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image” - Gen 9:6).
Not many would want to deny this. The question becomes does this dignity/worth extend to the unborn? The issue is one that involves science as well as theology. If we ask the question, when is a human life a person, the issue is slippery. Very slippery - and arbitrary. I don't think its the right question because I don't think you can safely distinguish personhood from life. The question then is when does human life begin, the answer is much more clear cut - at conception (or possibly at syngamy, approximately 24 hours after fertilization when the male and female elements have fused leaving a cell with 23 pairs of chromosomes forming the genetic makeup of a particular human - Ethics for a Brave New World, by John Feinberg, pg. 54-55).
Moving out of science, which ain't my thing, to the Bible, we see that the unborn is extended vigorous protections. Exodus 21 states, “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (21:22-24). This text has been the center of the storm when it comes to making a biblical case against (or for) abortion. Two interpretations are possible, one is much more likely.
Some have understood this to mean that if the woman has a miscarriage (the death of the child), but no other harm is done, than the man responsible should be fined. If, however, the woman is killed by the man (albeit accidentally), then the man's life is required of him (lex talionis). If this interpretation is correct, it would seem to suggest that an unborn child is less of a person than the mother (if she dies the man is executed, if the unborn child dies the man is fined). Notice, however, that this is still a far cry from authorizing the taking of unborn life. The fact that the man is punished for the death of the unborn child still shows this death is evil. Moreover, I do not think this is the correct interpretation for several reasons.
I believe this passage refers to a premature live birth of the child and not to a miscarriage. Careful exegesis of the passage is required, but fruitful. The word 'yeled' is the usual word for child. 'Golem' is another word in Hebrew used for a fetus. In this passage, Moses writes that the children come out (yeled), implying a fully formed, viable, and living child is born healthily, though early. In addition, the normal word for miscarriage ('shakal') is not used here. Instead, the word 'yatza' is used which always refers to birth (live). This interpretation means that if the woman is struck and it induces labor in which she gives birth to living children, the man will be fined. However, if the child dies, the man's life is forfeited under the law. If this is the correct interpretation, it shows the Bible actually places a higher value on the life of the unborn. Normally, someone who accidentally killed another person would not be executed, but was free to run to a city of refuge. In this case, there is no refuge even though the death was accidental.
The entire biblical case does not, however, rest on this passage. In a more extended discussion we could also look at passages like Psalm 139 or Jeremiah 1 to see the value of the unborn as 'knit together in the mothers womb' and 'known by God'
Consider also intertestamental Jewish sources. Here I'll just quote the ESV Study Bible (I knew it would come in handy):
That is striking when compared to the permissive Greco/Roman culture with regards to abortion and infanticide.
When you come to the New Testament you see that nothing is said directly regarding abortion. You could look at Luke's statements about John the Baptist 'leaping for joy' inside Elizabeth's womb as a clear sign of personhood - only persons can feel joy. Still, it's not a direct statement regarding abortion. Some have wondered why, hinting that it must not have been that important to the early church. My take on this is that the apostles didn't feel they needed to make an argument against it in much the same way I don't feel compelled to make an argument against ripping fingernails off of kindergartners who act up in class. It's so appalling, who would need to have an argument made against it. Even Gentile converts to the Christian movement were well educated in their OT, so it wouldn't have been necessary.
The early church was much clearer. For example Didache 2.2 (c. a.d. 85–110) commands, “thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born.” The Letter of Barnabas 19.5 (c. a.d. 130), said: “You shall not abort a child nor, again, commit infanticide" (ESV Study Bible). Moreover, the early church was known for rescuing the newborns, usually girls, left on the streets to die because they were unwanted. They valued life.
That is a very brief overview, but a long blog post. Please come back to read part two later tonight or tomorrow.
I have many good friends who agree that abortion is wrong but will vote for Barack Obama on Nov. 4th. I don't think they should. I'm not questioning their faith, but I would question the wisdom of such a vote (and I think they would challenge the wisdom of my vote as well - though I haven't said who I'm voting for, I bet it's crystal clear). That's healthy discussion and disagreement. We shouldn't question motives but conclusions. Here's what I would like to do. First, I want to take some time to evaluate what the Bible says, or doesn't say, about abortion and the rights of the unborn (and what the early church said and thought as well). Secondly, I would like to think a little about the candidates positions, understanding that our fight against this evil should not just be legislative but also address economic and social realities. As a side note, I won't repeat here what you could read in full somewhere else. I'll hyperlink to other articles and try to summarize them.
First, what does the bible say, or not say, about abortion and the rights of the unborn? Scripture affirms the dignity of worth of human life from the outset, declaring that mankind was created in the image of God. Even before the specific command not to murder comes in the Decalogue we are given insight into how God views the taking of human life in his response to the murder of Abel and in the establishment of God's covenant with Noah ("Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image” - Gen 9:6).
Not many would want to deny this. The question becomes does this dignity/worth extend to the unborn? The issue is one that involves science as well as theology. If we ask the question, when is a human life a person, the issue is slippery. Very slippery - and arbitrary. I don't think its the right question because I don't think you can safely distinguish personhood from life. The question then is when does human life begin, the answer is much more clear cut - at conception (or possibly at syngamy, approximately 24 hours after fertilization when the male and female elements have fused leaving a cell with 23 pairs of chromosomes forming the genetic makeup of a particular human - Ethics for a Brave New World, by John Feinberg, pg. 54-55).
Moving out of science, which ain't my thing, to the Bible, we see that the unborn is extended vigorous protections. Exodus 21 states, “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (21:22-24). This text has been the center of the storm when it comes to making a biblical case against (or for) abortion. Two interpretations are possible, one is much more likely.
Some have understood this to mean that if the woman has a miscarriage (the death of the child), but no other harm is done, than the man responsible should be fined. If, however, the woman is killed by the man (albeit accidentally), then the man's life is required of him (lex talionis). If this interpretation is correct, it would seem to suggest that an unborn child is less of a person than the mother (if she dies the man is executed, if the unborn child dies the man is fined). Notice, however, that this is still a far cry from authorizing the taking of unborn life. The fact that the man is punished for the death of the unborn child still shows this death is evil. Moreover, I do not think this is the correct interpretation for several reasons.
I believe this passage refers to a premature live birth of the child and not to a miscarriage. Careful exegesis of the passage is required, but fruitful. The word 'yeled' is the usual word for child. 'Golem' is another word in Hebrew used for a fetus. In this passage, Moses writes that the children come out (yeled), implying a fully formed, viable, and living child is born healthily, though early. In addition, the normal word for miscarriage ('shakal') is not used here. Instead, the word 'yatza' is used which always refers to birth (live). This interpretation means that if the woman is struck and it induces labor in which she gives birth to living children, the man will be fined. However, if the child dies, the man's life is forfeited under the law. If this is the correct interpretation, it shows the Bible actually places a higher value on the life of the unborn. Normally, someone who accidentally killed another person would not be executed, but was free to run to a city of refuge. In this case, there is no refuge even though the death was accidental.
The entire biblical case does not, however, rest on this passage. In a more extended discussion we could also look at passages like Psalm 139 or Jeremiah 1 to see the value of the unborn as 'knit together in the mothers womb' and 'known by God'
Consider also intertestamental Jewish sources. Here I'll just quote the ESV Study Bible (I knew it would come in handy):
The noncanonical Jewish wisdom literature further clarifies first-century Judaism's view of abortion. For example, the Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides 184–186 (c. 50 b.c.–a.d. 50) says that “a woman should not destroy the unborn in her belly, nor after its birth throw it before the dogs and vultures as a prey.” Included among those who do evil in the apocalyptic Sibylline Oracles were women who “aborted what they carried in the womb” (2.281–282). Similarly, the apocryphal book 1 Enoch (2nd or 1st century b.c.) declares that an evil angel taught humans how to “smash the embryo in the womb” (69.12). Finally, the first-century Jewish historian Josephus wrote that “the law orders all the offspring to be brought up, and forbids women either to cause abortion or to make away with the fetus” (Against Apion 2.202).
That is striking when compared to the permissive Greco/Roman culture with regards to abortion and infanticide.
When you come to the New Testament you see that nothing is said directly regarding abortion. You could look at Luke's statements about John the Baptist 'leaping for joy' inside Elizabeth's womb as a clear sign of personhood - only persons can feel joy. Still, it's not a direct statement regarding abortion. Some have wondered why, hinting that it must not have been that important to the early church. My take on this is that the apostles didn't feel they needed to make an argument against it in much the same way I don't feel compelled to make an argument against ripping fingernails off of kindergartners who act up in class. It's so appalling, who would need to have an argument made against it. Even Gentile converts to the Christian movement were well educated in their OT, so it wouldn't have been necessary.
The early church was much clearer. For example Didache 2.2 (c. a.d. 85–110) commands, “thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born.” The Letter of Barnabas 19.5 (c. a.d. 130), said: “You shall not abort a child nor, again, commit infanticide" (ESV Study Bible). Moreover, the early church was known for rescuing the newborns, usually girls, left on the streets to die because they were unwanted. They valued life.
That is a very brief overview, but a long blog post. Please come back to read part two later tonight or tomorrow.
Comments