The Bible and Abortion
1. Does the Bible forbid abortion? Does it even mention it?
a. Even if there is no direct mention of the word “abortion” (in its Hebrew or Greek equivalents), it may still be the case that the Bible forbids the activity due to the kind of activity it is.
b. “Some people, such as Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, claim that ‘nowhere does the Bible prohibit abortion.’ This claim is simply untrue if one recognizes that the Bible’s statements on some other matters can be used to draw an inference that is consistent with the pro-life position. For instance it is clearly taught in the Bible that murder—the unjustified killing of a human being—is wrong (Exod. 20:13). And it follows logically from this that if the Bible teaches that the unborn are fully human, then it would be morally wrong to kill the unborn. So the real question is whether the Bible teaches that the unborn are fully human, not whether the Bible mentions or directly prohibits abortion.”[1]
c. Beckwith mentions the Sixth Commandment—“You shall not murder” (Exodus 20.13). There is also a pervasive emphasis on the immorality of shedding “innocent blood.”
i. Genesis 4.10
ii. Genesis 9.5-6
iii. Exodus 23.7
iv. Numbers 35.33
v. Deuteronomy 21.1-9
vi. Deuteronomy 27.25
vii. 2 Kings 24.3-4
viii. Proverbs 6.16-19
ix. Proverbs 28.17
x. Joel 3.19
2. How does the Bible describe the pre-born entity?
a. The following will present a cumulative case for the personhood of the unborn.
b. The relevant scriptural data can be summarized under the following five categories:
i. The Bible makes a distinction between conception and birth. The biblical writers demonstrate an awareness of the life of the unborn.
ii. Personal language is applied to the preborn.
iii. Personality traits are attributed to the fetus in utero.
iv. The unborn are called “children.”
v. The unborn are known by God in a personal way.
3. (i.) The Bible makes a distinction between conception and birth. The biblical writers demonstrate an awareness of the life of the unborn.
a. Hosea 9.11
· “The prophetic curse on Ephraim follows the process of life back to its origin.”[2]
b. Ruth 4.13
c. Isaiah 7.14
d. “Some forty times Scripture refers to conception as the start of new life in the womb. In the Genesis narratives alone, the phrase ‘conceived and bore’ is found eleven times. The close pairing of the two words clearly emphasizes conception, not birth, as the starting point of life.”[3]
i. Genesis passages: 4.1, 17; 21.2; 29.32, 33, 34, 35; 30.5, 19, 23; 38.3, 4
e. Metaphorical usage of “conception”
i. “We also find conception used metaphorically in Scripture to refer to the origins of thoughts or purposes (Isaiah 59:13; Acts 5:4; Psalm 7:14; James 1:15). James 1:15, for example, carries the figure out in detail: ‘Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.’ It is obvious in James’s metaphor that he considered conception the beginning of the matter, the crux of the origin.”[4]
f. “The biblical writers never say the words, ‘Life begins at conception.’ But they consistently refer to conception as the starting point of a person’s life, or metaphorically of the life of an idea. The usage is consistent throughout Scripture, even with its many writers extending over a period of some fifteen hundred years.”[5]
g. “For accuracy’s sake it should be noted that the Hebrew word ordinarily translated as ‘conceive’ does not mean conception in the modern technical sense of the term… the Hebrew language of 1000 BC did not have a word to describe fertilization as we know it now. This suggests caution in using Psalm 51 simplistically to identify a precise point in the procreative process at which human beings should be granted certain rights. Nevertheless, the language of Psalm 51:5 does communicate, in nonscientific terms, David’s interest in the very beginnings of his existence in his mother’s womb.” --David VanDrunen, Bioethics and the Christian Life: A Guide to Making Difficult Decisions (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2009), 153
--NOTE: The above quotation by VanDrunen is to be acknowledged but it should be added that he may be under-selling the insight from the Bible’s view of conception. In the same way that the Scriptures tell us that God has all the stars numbered (Isaiah 40.26) and yet the authors had no idea of the extent of the number of stars which we do due to astronomical devices nevertheless it is not warranted to think that had they known about such stars they would not have also attributed them to the creative power of God. So it is the case that just because modern science allows us to know more fully the processes associated with fertilization and conception that somehow this would undermine the Scripture’s authors perspective on conception. Imagine asking the ancient biblical author, “What if I could take you into the heavens and show you stars you’ve never seen before, would they too created and counted by God?” The answer seems to intuitively to be, “yes.” So in the same way, imagine asking the ancient author, “What if I could show you the exact moment of conception, the exact moment when a new human being came into existence—would this be the result of the creative power of God and would he know this one even at that moment?” I think, again, the answer would be, “yes.”
4. (ii.) Personal language is applied to the preborn.
a. Genesis 4.1
· “The writer’s interest in Cain extends back beyond his birth, to his conception. That is when his personal history begins. The individual conceived and the individual born are one and the same, namely Cain. His conception, birth, and postnatal life form a natural continuum, with the God of the covenant involved at every stage.”[6]
b. Job 3.3
· “Again we find a basic continuity between the individual born and the individual conceived. Job traces his personal history back beyond his birth to the night of his conception. The process of conception is described by the biblical writer in personal terms. There is no abstract language of the ‘products of conception,’ but the concrete language of humanity. The Hebrew word geber, generally used in a postnatal context and translated ‘man,’ ‘male,’ or ‘husband’ (e.g., Ps. 34:9; 52:9; 94:12; Prov. 6:34), is here freely applied from the moment of conception.”[7]
c. Psalm 51.5
· “Professor E. R. Dalglish, in his authoritative work on Psalm 51, comments, ‘In Psalm 51:7 [English v. 5] the psalmist is relating his sinfulness to the very inception of life; he traces his development beyond his birth to the genesis of his being in his mother’s womb—even to the very hour of conception.’ In confessing his personal guilt for his adultery with Bathsheba, David traces his involvement with sin to the very beginnings of his existence. The application of moral and spiritual categories to David as a conceptus suggests a relationship to God and the moral law even in his embryonic state.”[8]
· “David here is confessing not only his specific sins of adultery with Bathsheba and the arranged murder of her husband, Uriah the Hittite (see 2 Sam 11-12), but also his innate inclination to sin. This is a characteristic shared by all persons, and David’s claim is that he possessed it from the point of conception. Thus, an essential attribute of adult persons—an inclination to sin—is attributed to the unborn, underscoring the continuity of identity from conception to adulthood. The same sinful adult began as a sinful embryonic person in the womb.”[9]
5. (iii.) Personality traits are attributed to the fetus in utero.
a. Genesis 25.22—Jacob and Esau “struggled together within her [Rebekah]”[10]
b. Luke 1.41, 44—“When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit… ‘For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy.’”
c. “Though these references to personality in utero are few, they do support the thesis that the unborn are person.”[11]
6. (iv.) The unborn are called “children.”
a. Luke 1.41, 44—the Greek word for baby (brephos) is applied to the unborn
b. See Luke 2.12 for brephos applied to the newly born Jesus
7. (v.) The unborn are known by God in a personal way.
a. God oversees the development of the fetus
i. Job 31.13-15
ii. Psalm 119.73
iii. Psalm 139.13-16
· “A reading of Psalm 139 can only evoke holy caution and respect for unborn life. In no way can we conclude that the fetus is nothing other than an object waiting to become human at birth or some later point. To use the term fetus or parasite in order to reduce the child to a thing, an it, that may be aborted cannot be justified from Scripture. The womb is holy ground, for God is at work there.”[12]
· “The critical part of the psalm [139] comes in verses 13 to 18, in which the psalmist reflects on the way in which God has intricately created him. He describes the process with vivid figures of speech such as being knit or woven together in the womb. He marvels at the skill of God in fashioning the details of his being in the secret place of the womb. The psalmist describes himself as an ‘unformed substance’ (v. 16 NRSV), translated by the primary lexicon for the Old Testament as ‘embryo.’ David sees the person who gives thanks and praise to God (vv. 13-16) as the same person who was skillfully woven together in the womb (v. 13) and as the same person who is known by God inside and out (vv. 1-6). In other words, there is continuity of personal identity from the earliest point of development to a mature adult. That is the significance of Psalm 139 to the discussion of the nature of the embryo. It is not solely that God painstakingly and intricately created David in the womb; it is also that the person who was being created in the womb is the same person who is writing this psalm.”[13]
iv. “If God relates in a personal way to a human creature, this is evidence that that creature is made in God’s image. And it is abundantly evident from Scripture that God relates to us and is personally concerned for us before birth.”[14]
b. God relates personally to the unborn in preparing them as individuals for a specific calling
i. Isaiah 49.1
ii. Jeremiah 1.5[15]
iii. Judges 13.3-5
iv. Romans 9.11
v. Galatians 1.15
vi. “All these texts indicate that God’s special dealings with human beings can long precede their awareness of a personal relationship with God. God deals with human beings in an intensely personal way long before society is accustomed to treat them as persons in the ‘whole sense.’… God’s actions present a striking contrast to current notions of personhood.”[16]
c. Special note on poetic language used in some of the above passages
i. “The fact that poetic language is used in these passages can make these texts more difficult to interpret, but it does not, per se, disqualify them from making an authoritative contribution to this discussion. It is true that poetry is used in part to create visual images that enable the author to touch the readers’ emotion. But it does not follow that therefore poetry bypasses the intellect. Nor does it follow that poetic language is incapable of making a literal point. In fact, that it is its purpose. All figurative language is designed to make a literal point about the subject at hand. Figurative language only makes sense when related to a literal point of analogy. Of course, when speaking of God all language has its limits, and poetry is often used to enable the author to write of the surpassing glory of God in a way that prose cannot. But it does not follow from the use of poetry that the writers of Scripture cannot make a literal point about God. In these texts about persons in the womb, poetry is used to try to make sense out of that which was shrouded in secrecy prior to the advent of modern obstetrics. We should be cautious about the details of any passage of poetry. But the poetry in these texts does not obscure the literal overriding point made about the continuity of personal identity. We should be careful but not overly skeptical about poetic texts simply because that genre is used.”[17]
8. The incarnation of the Son of God
a. “Gabriel told Mary she would have a child, and that conception by the Holy Spirit would mark the beginning of the child’s life. Most interpreters think Jesus’ participation in humanity began where every human life begins—at conception. This observation is crucial, for it tells us that in God’s sight, human life at every stage of development is the object of God’s redeeming love. In this respect, Jesus’ conception and life in the womb of Mary provide a new and profound dignity for all unborn children.”[18]
9. Even if the above arguments are not conclusive, the proper response is to assume the personhood of the preborn so as not to violate God’s law.
a. “If there is any genuine possibility that the unborn child is, at any point, a human person made in the image of God, then the Christian cannot assume otherwise, for to do so would be to risk breaking the sixth commandment. And the risk is of a special kind. It is not as if there were some evidence tending to legitimize the killing of unborn children (on the ground of their lack of personal human status) and equal evidence tending to call such killing in question. There is nothing in Scripture that even suggests the legitimacy of such killing (cf. above, section 13), and there is much in Scripture that calls it in question (sections 1-12, 13, l). Everything Scripture says on the matter has the force of protecting the child, and nothing in Scripture has the force of expressly limiting that protection. If indeed, as we maintain, Scripture does not say expressly how much protection the child deserves, must we not assume that the child should receive maximum protection until someone is able to demonstrate otherwise?”[19]
1. Exodus 21.22-25
a. Some have attempted to justify abortion using Exodus 21.22-25.
i. “In other words, if you cause the death of the fetus, you merely pay a fine; if you cause the death of the woman, you lose your own life. Thus the Bible clearly shows that a fetus is not considered a person. If the person were considered to be a person, then the penalty for killing it would be the same as for killing the woman—death. Abortion, then, is not murder.” --Graham Spurgeon[1]
ii. “As we noted, the Exodus law deals with miscarriage. But it is interesting to note that the destruction of a fetus is penalized far less severely than is the killing of the mother. If the mother dies, then a life is given for her life.
“Monetary compensation is demanded in the case of the aborted fetus (v. 22c), whereas the lex talionis applies when the mother is killed or harmed in any way. If therefore a miscarriage is involved in this law, our logic helps us conclude that divine law views a fetus as something of a different order than a mother.
“We also conclude that when the ‘fetus’ becomes a ‘child’ (= is born), and then becomes a girl, and eventually becomes a pregnant woman, then she is more valuable than as a fetus in the womb. A life for life is to be given if she is fatally wounded. So we conclude, if the fetus were viewed in the Biblical material as an actual human being its destruction would have been punished by death and not a fine. Thus the fetus is considered the property of the parents, while the fine is to be levied (in the extra-Biblical parallels) is apparently in correlation to the age of the fetus.” --Dolores Dunnett[2]
b. Francis Beckwith lays out this pro-choice argument in the following syllogistic manner:[3]
i. In Exodus 21.22-25, a person who accidently kills a pregnant woman is given the death penalty.
ii. In Exodus 21.22-25, a person who accidently kills an unborn human is only fined for the crime.
iii. Therefore Exodus 21.22-25 teaches both that the pregnant woman is of greater value than the unborn human she carries and that the unborn human does not have the status of a person.
iv. Therefore, abortion is justified.
c. This argument is open to a whole host of criticisms. Beckwith lists three such criticisms:
i. The conclusion (iv.) does not follow from the premises.
· “First assuming that the pro-choicer’s interpretation of Exodus 21:22-25 is correct, does it logically follow that abortion-on-demand is morally justified? After all, the passage is saying that the unborn are worth something. In stark contrast, contemporary pro-choicers seem to be saying that the unborn are worth only the value that their mothers place on them. Therefore this Exodus passage does not seem to support the subjectively grounded value of the unborn assumed by the pro-choice movement.
“Furthermore even if the pro-choicer’s interpretation of this passage is correct, the passage in question is not teaching that the pregnant woman can willfully kill the human contents of her womb. It is merely teaching that there is a lesser penalty for accidently killing an unborn human than there is for accidently killing her mother. To move from this truth to the conclusion that abortion-on-demand is justified is a non sequitur. So saying that the unborn are not worth as much as the born does not justify the contemporary practice of abortion-on-demand.”[4]
ii. The argument from Exodus 21.22-25 does not consider the wider array of biblical data regarding the unborn (see above). It tends to privilege a, as will be seen, interpretatively difficult text over the rest of the scriptural data that is clearer about the status of the unborn.
· “Second, one can also raise the more general hermeneutical question, as Montgomery has pointed out,
‘as to whether a statement of penalty in the legislation God gave to ancient Israel ought to establish the context of interpretation for the total biblical attitude to the value of the unborn child (including not only specific and non-phenomenological Old Testament assertions such as Ps. 51:5, but the general New Testament valuation of the [brephos], as illustrated especially in Luke 1:41, 44.’
“Montgomery then asks, ‘Should a passage such as Exod. 21 properly outweigh the analogy of the Incarnation itself, in which God became man at the moment when “conception by the Holy Ghost” occurred—not at a later time as the universally condemned and heretical adoptionists alleged?’ Montgomery’s point is that if pro-choicers were correct in their interpretation of Exodus 21, they still would have to deal with the grander context of Scripture itself, which does seem in other texts to treat the unborn as persons.”[5]
iii. There is no scholarly consensus on the meaning of Exodus 21.22-25 so premise two (above) is questionable.
· Consider the NASB 1977 and 1995 translations…
a. 22And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life… (1977)
b. 22If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life… (1995)
· Two views: (a) Miscarriage view and (b) Premature birth view
· Literal rendering of the phrase in question: “and her children come out”
a. “Children” (plural) Hebrew yeled
b. “Come out” Hebrew yatza
i. “It is often used to refer to the ordinary birth of children, either as coming forth from the loins of the father (e.g., Gen. 15:4; 46:26; I Kings 8:19; Isa. 39:7, or as coming forth from the womb of the mother (Gen. 25:25, 26; 38: 28, 29; Job 1:21; 3:11; Eccles. 5:15; Jer. 1:5; 20:18). In the latter instances the reference is to an ordinary birth of a normal child; in no case is the word used to indicate a miscarriage.”[6]
ii. The Hebrew word for “miscarriage” (shachol) is not used in this context. This word is used elsewhere in the Old Testament (Genesis 31.38; Exodus 23.26; Hosea 9.14; 2 Kings 2.19, 21; Job 21.10; Malachi 3.11)
· “In summary, since the interpretation of Exodus 21:22-25 is at best divided, and since the Bible’s larger context teaches that the unborn are persons (as argued earlier), its seems rather foolish for the pro-choice advocate to put all his ideological eggs into one dubious biblical basket.”[7]
· Even if the miscarriage view is the correct interpretation of Exodus 21.22-25, this still does not justify abortion.
a. Russell Fuller acknowledges the superiority of the miscarriage view and yet argues that this does not justify the pro-choice use of this verse. He writes:
“Nevertheless this argument, its logic and its implications fail in the broader legal context of the ancient Near East and the covenant code (Exod 20:22-23:33), in the specific context of 21:22, and in the general view of the fetus from both the ancient Near East and the Bible.”[8]
“Exodus 21:22 does not indicate that the Bible values the fetus as less than human or nonhuman. The argument that different punishments imply differences in personhood fails, root and branch, both in the larger ancient Near Eastern legal context generally and in the Bible specifically. In fact Exod 21:22 contemplates only an unintentional, negligent assault on a pregnant woman, not an intentional assault on the fetus. Thus to postulate from this passage that abortion on demand is acceptable under Biblical law is irresponsible and unconscionable. Moreover the literature of the ancient Near East, including the Bible, portrays the fetus as a life that cannot be willfully destroyed. Even Exod 21:22 may suggest the personhood of the fetus by referring to the fetus as a yeled. Furthermore, other biblical passages more clearly indicate that the fetus is more than a lump of tissues. It is God’s work, a life under his watchful eye and providential care.”[9]
b. “On no account, then, may this text in the Law of Moses be used as a rationale for abortion on demand as practiced today. The circumstances are too different to be compared. How can we compare the accidental miscarriage of a woman caught up in a street brawl to the decision of a woman today to go to one of the clinics that specializes in the purposeful termination of life? There simply is no parallel in the Bible, nor does there seem to be any biblical justification for the current practice of abortion in our culture.”[10]
[1] Quoted in Russell Fuller, “Exodus 21:22-23: The Miscarriage Interpretation and the Personhood of the Fetus,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37.2 (1994), 170. Russell is quoting Graham Spurgeon, The Religious Case for Abortion, edited by H. Gregory (Asherville and Polk, 1983), 16.
[2] Quoted in Russell Fuller, “Exodus 21:22-23: The Miscarriage Interpretation and the Personhood of the Fetus,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37.2 (1994), 170. Russell is quoting Dolores E. Dunnett, “Evangelicals and Abortion,” Journal of the Evangelical Society 33.2 (1990), 217.
[4] Francis J. Beckwith, “A Critical Appraisal of Theological Arguments for Abortion Rights,” 343-344.
[5] Francis J. Beckwith, “A Critical Appraisal of Theological Arguments for Abortion Rights,” 344. Beckwith is quoting John Warwick Montgomery, “The Christian View of the Fetus,” in Jurisprudence: A Book of Readings, ed. John Warwick Montgomery (Strasbourg: International Scholarly Publishers, 1974), 585.
[8] Russell Fuller, “Exodus 21:22-23: The Miscarriage Interpretation and the Personhood of the Fetus,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37.2 (1994), 171.
[9] Russell Fuller, “Exodus 21:22-23: The Miscarriage Interpretation and the Personhood of the Fetus,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37.2 (1994), 180.
[1] Francis J. Beckwith, “A Critical Appraisal of Theological Arguments for Abortion Rights,” Bibliotheca Sacra July-September (1991), 337-338.
[2] Paul Fowler, Abortion: Toward an Evangelical Consensus (Portland, Ore.: Multnomah Press, 1987), 136.
[6] John Jefferson Davis, Abortion and the Christian: What Every Believer Should Know (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1984), 40.
[8] John Jefferson Davis, Abortion and the Christian, 41. Davis quotes Edward R. Dalglish, Psalm Fifty-One in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Patternism (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1962), 121.
[9] J. P. Moreland and Scott B. Rae, Body and Soul: Human Nature and the Crisis in Ethics (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 2000), 233.
[10] Moreland and Rae also mention Genesis 25.23 as relevant: “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger.” They argue: “God saw them in the womb as the adults they would become and in the roles they would play as adults. This suggests that God saw a continuity of personal identity from the womb through adulthood. The same individuals who would assume headship over their clan or nation are the same individuals who are maturing in the womb.” J. P. Moreland and Scott B. Rae, Body and Soul: Human Nature and the Crisis in Ethics (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 2000), 235.
[13] J. P. Moreland and Scott B. Rae, Body and Soul: Human Nature and the Crisis in Ethics (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 2000), 232-233.
[15] Moreland and Rae mention the “need for interpretative caution” with Jeremiah 1.5. “If taken too far, the synonymous parallelism here would indicate something like preexistence and a separation between biological life and the person. But it may be that the passage points to the significance of what occurred in the womb because of Jeremiah’s prophetic calling before time. One should be careful not to put too much weight on unclear texts such as this one.” J. P. Moreland and Scott B. Rae, Body and Soul: Human Nature and the Crisis in Ethics (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 2000), 234.
[17] J. P. Moreland and Scott B. Rae, Body and Soul: Human Nature and the Crisis in Ethics (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 2000), 233-234.
[19] Report of the Committee to Study the Matter of Abortion presented to the Thirty-eighth General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, May 24-29, 1971. Quoted in John M. Frame, Medical Ethics: Principles, Persons, and Problems (Phillipsburg, New Jersey.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1988), 111.
