What the Bible actually says about abortion may surprise you

[aubiefifty 18,248]

What the Bible actually says about abortion may surprise you

Melanie A. Howard, Associate Professor of Biblical & Theological Studies, Fresno Pacific University

Wed, July 20, 2022 at 7:22 AM·4 min read

Activist Jason Hershey reads from a Bible as he protests in front of the U.S. Supreme Court with the anti-abortion group Bound for Life in 2005 in Washington, D.C. Win McNamee via Getty Images

In the days since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which had established the constitutional right to an abortion, some Christians have cited the Bible to argue why this decision should either be celebrated or lamented. But here’s the problem: This 2,000-year-old text says nothing about abortion.

As a university professor of biblical studies, I am familiar with faith-based arguments Christians use to back up views of abortion, whether for or against. Many people seem to assume the Bible discusses the topic head-on, which is not the case.

Ancient context

Abortions were known and practiced in biblical times, although the methods differed significantly from modern ones. The second-century Greek physician Soranus, for example, recommended fasting, bloodletting, vigorous jumping and carrying heavy loads as ways to end a pregnancy.

Soranus’ treatise on gynecology acknowledged different schools of thought on the topic. Some medical practitioners forbade the use of any abortive methods. Others permitted them, but not in cases in which they were intended to cover up an adulterous liaison or simply to preserve the mother’s good looks.

In other words, the Bible was written in a world in which abortion was practiced and viewed with nuance. Yet the Hebrew and Greek equivalents of the word “abortion” do not appear in either the Old or New Testament of the Bible. That is, the topic simply is not directly mentioned.

What the Bible says

The absence of an explicit reference to abortion, however, has not stopped its opponents or proponents from looking to the Bible for support of their positions.

Abortion opponents turn to several biblical texts that, taken together, seem to suggest that human life has value before birth. For example, the Bible opens by describing the creation of humans “in the image of God”: a way to explain the value of human life, presumably even before people are born. Likewise, the Bible describes several important figures, including the prophets Jeremiah and Isaiah and the Christian Apostle Paul, as having being called to their sacred tasks since their time in the womb. Psalm 139 asserts that God “knit me together in my mother’s womb.”

‘The Creation of Adam’ from the Sistine Chapel ceiling in the Vatican, painted by Michelangelo. GraphicaArtis/Getty Images

However, abortion opponents are not the only ones who can appeal to the Bible for support. Supporters can point to other biblical texts that would seem to count as evidence in their favor.

Exodus 21, for example, suggests that a pregnant woman’s life is more valuable than the fetus’s. This text describes a scenario in which men who are fighting strike a pregnant woman and cause her to miscarry. A monetary fine is imposed if the woman suffers no other harm beyond the miscarriage. However, if the woman suffers additional harm, the perpetrator’s punishment is to suffer reciprocal harm, up to life for life.

There are other biblical texts that seem to celebrate the choices that women make for their bodies, even in contexts in which such choices would have been socially shunned. The fifth chapter of the Gospel of Mark, for example, describes a woman with a gynecological ailment that has made her bleed continuously taking a great risk: She reaches out to touch Jesus’ cloak in hopes that it will heal her, even though the touch of a menstruating woman was believed to cause ritual contamination. However, Jesus commends her choice and praises her faith.

Similarly, in the Gospel of John, Jesus’ follower Mary seemingly wastes resources by pouring an entire container of costly ointment on his feet and using her own hair to wipe them – but he defends her decision to break the social taboo around touching an unrelated man so intimately.

Beyond the Bible

In the response to the Supreme Court’s decision, Christians on both sides of the partisan divide have appealed to any number of texts to assert that their particular brand of politics is biblically backed. However, if they claim the Bible specifically condemns or approves of abortion, they are skewing the textual evidence to fit their position.

Of course, Christians can develop their own faith-based arguments about modern political issues, whether or not the Bible speaks directly to them. But it is important to recognize that although the Bible was written at a time when abortion was practiced, it never directly addresses the issue.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It was written by: Melanie A. Howard, Fresno Pacific University.

Read more:

US abortion restrictions are unlikely to influence international trends, which are largely becoming more liberal

Monsters are everywhere in the Bible – and some are even human

Melanie A. Howard does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

It was never about religion.  It has always been about the political manipulation of Christians.

[aubiefifty 18,248]

1 minute ago, icanthearyou said:

It was never about religion.  It has always been about the political manipulation of Christians.

i was just hoping some that use the bible to justify end abortion would share more on the topic. i have yet to make my stance concrete either way. i do not want to kill babies but they ignore all science and one of my best friends says that as soon as you release your sperm in a womans body it is a baby. i never disagree or it is bye bye friendship. hell he used to march with his wife with the anti abortion crowd but quit just a few years ago. all i know is people have been using the bible to hurt others for thousands of years. it is sickening and depressing.

[jj3jordan 2,171]

Luke 1:15  Description of John the Baptist in Elizabeth's womb.

Luke 1:39-45  Describes the meeting of Elizabeth and her cousin Mary and the reaction of John the Baptist in her womb when Mary entered the house and greeted Elizabeth.

This to me clearly implies life inside the womb. 

The article above is trying desperately to find some Biblical support for abortion and failing miserably. 

[creed 1,790]

7 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

It was never about religion.  It has always been about the political manipulation of Christians.

I agree it has been politicized, but the transformation of human life has also been marginalized by certain groups by using terms such as "viability outside the womb". These terms and others only serve to make one think abortion is trivial in the termination of a scientific, biological, life creating, and transformational process that is destined to be a human being. Every biologist and scientist will confirm it's LIFE, it's living, it's growing, it's transforming and evolving (for you evolutionist). Now that doesn't mean I'm pro-life or pro-choice I just think we should have an honest conversation without all the BS terms. Just state life is being terminated, not some made up fake term to make someone feel better.

Note: Usually life is considered something great, hell we spend billions looking for it on distance planets and galaxies and protecting species that are near extinction. But when it comes to human life some consider it is dispensable.

 

Edited July 21, 2022 by creed

[jj3jordan 2,171]

1 hour ago, creed said:

I agree it has been politicized, but the transformation of human life has also been marginalized by certain groups by using terms such as "viability outside the womb" to make one think abortion is not the termination of a scientific and biological life creating transformational process that is destined to be a human being. Every biologist and scientist will confirm it's LIFE, it's living, it's growing, it's transforming and evolving (for you evolutionist). Now that doesn't mean I'm pro-life or pro-choice I just think we should have an honest conversation without all the BS terms. Just state the life is being terminated, not some made up fake term to make someone feel better.

Note: Usually life is considered something great, hell we spend billions looking for it on distance planets and galaxies and protecting species that are near extinction. But when it comes to human life some consider it is dispensable.

 

Life on Mars would be any single cell organism of any type. But here on earth not so much.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

If "life" is your concern, I hope you do not eat meat, buy insecticides.

If living human genetic material is your concern, please do not cut your hair or fingernails.

Point being, what constitutes a human being is more than a microbiological definition, more than just the simple definition of a living creature.  This argument is absurd.

Again, the abortion issue was created, crafted to be a wedge issue driving Christians into the ranks of the Republican Party, a party that in all other respects doesn't give a damn about the human condition.

[wdefromtx 3,611]

2 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

If "life" is your concern, I hope you do not eat meat, buy insecticides.

If living human genetic material is your concern, please do not cut your hair or fingernails.

Point being, what constitutes a human being is more than a microbiological definition, more than just the simple definition of a living creature.  This argument is absurd.

Again, the abortion issue was created, crafted to be a wedge issue driving Christians into the ranks of the Republican Party, a party that in all other respects doesn't give a damn about the human condition.

Must have missed biology class. Nails and hair are dead cells once they are outside the body. So the part you cut aren’t alive. 

[TitanTiger 21,242]

The Bible is not a book to be understood in a vacuum.  What the page says is obviously important, but to understand the author's intent it helps to see how those who learned under the Apostles, and who taught on the Scriptures in the early church understood it.  In other words, we rightly interpret it by looking to see how it was always understood and has been understood over the centuries, not just reinventing the wheel every time society changes direction.

And with abortion we can do this.  One of the earliest documents on Christian teaching outside the Bible itself that exists is The Didache.  It would have been written while some of the Twelve Disciples were still living (likely around 70AD and as early as 50AD), and certainly while those who were taught by the Twelve directly were still living.

It is unequivocal on the issue of abortion:

And the second commandment of the teaching: You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery...you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one already born. You shall not covet the things of your neighbor...

If this were an erroneous understanding on how to treat the unborn, you would expect to see writings around the time that say so, much like you see apologetics for orthodox Christian teaching on other doctrinal matters and heresies of the day.  No such contradictory teachings or writings are known to exist.  

Let's also understand nascent early Christianity and how it fit in its era - it was hardly a religion that had a low view of women compared to Roman culture or the Jewish culture from which is emerged.  At the time of Christianity being established, women were considered property in Roman society, and the testimony of a woman wasn't even admissible in court among the Jews of the day.  Women were at best better than slaves but regarded less in value than any man and considered unreliable and irrelevant as it pertained to important matters, or as property or prostitutes to be used for male pleasure.

Christianity consistently stood out from those contemporary cultures with regard to its treatment of women.  Whether it was Jesus allowing women such as Mary Magadalene and others to be among his disciples (Jesus even encouraging them to sit and learn with the men in the story of Mary and Martha - something that just wasn't done among the Jews of the day), The Gospels specifically pinning the first witness accounts of the Resurrection on the testimony of the women who went to His tomb that Sunday morning, the numerous mentions in the New Testament of women in various key leadership roles in the church such as Julia, Phoebe and Priscilla, or Paul writing that in Christ Jesus there was no distinction between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female when it came to following and being saved by Christ.  If you wanted to force modern terminology on the situation, Christianity would have been seen as "liberal" or "progressive" by the Jews and Romans on this point.

So in opposing abortion, this wasn't a bunch of crotchety old white guys foisting the patriarchy on women to keep them barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.  And political considerations would have been utterly foreign to them.  It was rooted in the Ten Commandments' prohibitions against murder, applying it to abortion and infanticide - both things that were common in the pagan cultures of the 1st century.  So much so that historians of the time noted that Christians became known for sneaking outside the city to save infants that had been abandoned by the pagans to die or be eaten by wild animals (which was a frequent practice when they decided they didn't want another baby to raise) and adopting and raising them in their own families.

Now, obviously you can believe whatever you wish to believe about abortion and don't have to accept Christian/Biblical teaching on the subject.  But make your stance your own without trying to bend Biblical teaching, and how Christians have understood it for centuries, to fit your view.  Just be honest about it and discard it as you wish to do.

[TexasTiger 14,303]

19 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

The Bible is not a book to be understood in a vacuum.  What the page says is obviously important, but to understand the author's intent it helps to see how those who learned under the Apostles, and who taught on the Scriptures in the early church understood it.  In other words, we rightly interpret it by looking to see how it was always understood and has been understood over the centuries, not just reinventing the wheel every time society changes direction.

And with abortion we can do this.  One of the earliest documents on Christian teaching outside the Bible itself that exists is The Didache.  It would have been written while some of the Twelve Disciples were still living (likely around 70AD and as early as 50AD), and certainly while those who were taught by the Twelve directly were still living.

It is unequivocal on the issue of abortion:

And the second commandment of the teaching: You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery...you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one already born. You shall not covet the things of your neighbor...

If this were an erroneous understanding on how to treat the unborn, you would expect to see writings around the time that say so, much like you see apologetics for orthodox Christian teaching on other doctrinal matters and heresies of the day.  No such contradictory teachings or writings are known to exist.  

Let's also understand nascent early Christianity and how it fit in its era - it was hardly a religion that had a low view of women compared to Roman culture or the Jewish culture from which is emerged.  At the time of Christianity being established, women were considered property in Roman society, and the testimony of a woman wasn't even admissible in court among the Jews of the day.  Women were at best better than slaves but regarded less in value than any man and considered unreliable and irrelevant as it pertained to important matters, or as property or prostitutes to be used for male pleasure.

Christianity consistently stood out from those contemporary cultures with regard to its treatment of women.  Whether it was Jesus allowing women such as Mary Magadalene and others to be among his disciples (Jesus even encouraging them to sit and learn with the men in the story of Mary and Martha - something that just wasn't done among the Jews of the day), The Gospels specifically pinning the first witness accounts of the Resurrection on the testimony of the women who went to His tomb that Sunday morning, the numerous mentions in the New Testament of women in various key leadership roles in the church such as Julia, Phoebe and Priscilla, or Paul writing that in Christ Jesus there was no distinction between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female when it came to following and being saved by Christ.  If you wanted to force modern terminology on the situation, Christianity would have been seen as "liberal" or "progressive" by the Jews and Romans on this point.

So in opposing abortion, this wasn't a bunch of crotchety old white guys foisting the patriarchy on women to keep them barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.  It was rooted in the Ten Commandments' prohibitions against murder, applying it to abortion and infanticide - both things that were common in the pagan cultures of the 1st century.  So much so that historians of the time noted that Christians became known for sneaking outside the city to save infants that had been abandoned by the pagans to die or be eaten by wild animals (which was a frequent practice when they decided they didn't want another baby to raise) and adopting and raising them in their own families.

Now, obviously you can believe whatever you wish to believe about abortion and don't have to accept Christian/Biblical teaching on the subject.  But make your stance your own without trying to bend Biblical teaching, and how Christians have understood it for centuries, to fit your view.  Just be honest about it and discard it as you wish to do.

Assuming this text is reliable, what else should we outlaw? Magic? Coveting? Swearing? Holding a grudge? Forked tongues? Haughtiness? Hypocrisy? They all get equal billing.

you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born. You shall not covet the things of your neighbor, you shall not swear, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not speak evil, you shall bear no grudge. You shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued, for to be double-tongued is a snare of death. Your speech shall not be false, nor empty, but fulfilled by deed. You shall not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor evil disposed, nor haughty. 

[TitanTiger 21,242]

12 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Assuming this text is reliable, what else should we outlaw? Magic? Coveting? Swearing? Holding a grudge? Forked tongues? Haughtiness? Hypocrisy? They all get equal billing.

It's reliable.

That said, you're asking a different question than the one I was answering.  The issue the original post brought up was whether Christians were basically properly understanding their own religion's teaching on abortion and others chimed it with assumptions about where Christian opposition to abortion originated from.  I simply wished to correct that.

 

 

[TexasTiger 14,303]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

It's reliable.

That said, you're asking a different question than the one I was answering.  The issue the original post brought up was whether Christians were basically properly understanding their own religion's teaching on abortion and others chimed it with assumptions about where Christian opposition to abortion originated from.  I simply wished to correct that.

 

 

I’d say Christians who took away from Christ that they are commanded to go forth and legislate are most definitely not understanding his teachings.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

I think commandments of Christianity are about us regulating our own sin.  I do not believe we are guided to eliminate/prohibit the sins of others.

So again, I have to say,,, this isn't about religion, this is purely political manipulation. 

[TitanTiger 21,242]

9 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I’d say Christians who took away from Christ that they are commanded to go forth and legislate are most definitely not understanding his teachings.

I would say that Christians (and most other people I think as well) would make some distinction between moral/ethical questions that require laws regulating or prohibiting certain actions and those of lesser importance that while perhaps off-putting or distasteful to most people, are not the sorts of things to govern at a legal level.  In other words, issues that pertain to human health, life and basic dignity and worth are simply and understandably of a different level of legal importance than whether someone is haughty or a hypocrite. 

We don't just shrug our shoulders and say "live and let live" on matters like this.  No one does, let alone Christians.  That's not a "go forth and legislate" understanding.  It's just using one's moral and ethical framework to contribute to the forming of a society and the laws therein.  And unless one is either an anarchist or a devil, we all do it and Christians have as much right to shape that debate as anyone else.

[TitanTiger 21,242]

7 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I think commandments of Christianity are about us regulating our own sin.  I do not believe we are guided to eliminate/prohibit the sins of others.

So again, I have to say,,, this isn't about religion, this is purely political manipulation. 

It might be that for some.  I've long said that the issue of abortion has been used this way by politicians - and it's used that way by both pro-life and pro-choice politicians.  But it's lazy to just chalk it all up to that.  Christians have held these basic views on abortion for 2000 years, even when they were a persecuted minority in the Roman Empire with zero ability or even a thought that it could somehow be used in a political manner.

[TexasTiger 14,303]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

It might be that for some.  I've long said that the issue of abortion has been used this way by politicians - and it's used that way by both pro-life and pro-choice politicians.  But it's lazy to just chalk it all up to that.  Christians have believed this about abortion for 2000 years, even when they were a persecuted minority in the Roman Empire with zero ability or even a thought that it could somehow be used in a political manner.

Persecuted minorities don’t get to subject others to the requirements of their faith under penalty of law.

[TexasTiger 14,303]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I would say that Christians (and most other people I think as well) would make some distinction between moral/ethical questions that require laws regulating or prohibiting certain actions and those of lesser importance that while perhaps off-putting or distasteful to most people, are not the sorts of things to govern at a legal level.  In other words, issues that pertain to human health, life and basic dignity and worth of simply of a different level of legal importance than whether someone is haughty or a hypocrite. 

We don't just shrug our shoulders and say "live and let live" on matters like this.  No one does, let alone Christians.  That's not a "go forth and legislate" understanding.  It's just using one's moral and ethical framework to contribute to the forming of a society and the laws therein.  And unless one is either an anarchist or a devil, we all do it and Christians have as much right to shape that debate as anyone else.

Sounds nice. If it were actually true, the same folks concerned about outlawing abortion (and many of the same want to outlaw contraception) would be equally passionate about pre-natal, post-natal care, childcare, healthcare for the mother & child and frankly, education as  “ issues that pertain to human health, life and basic dignity and worth,” instead of considering folks that actually advocate for those things lazy commies.

[TitanTiger 21,242]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

Persecuted minorities don’t get to subject others to the requirements of their faith under penalty of law.

If Christians became the only ones to oppose infanticide, would that be wrong of them to impose the "requirements of their faith under penalty of law" or would it be taking a courageous moral stand for right and human worth and dignity even if everyone else felt the other way? 

My point is, Christians have a moral code.  So do Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, agnostics, atheists, New Age hippies, and people who don't have any real idea what they believe.  And they all get to argue for what they believe to be right and good and what should be enshrined in law.  Nothing about being a religious person makes their moral code unworthy to be part of the discussion.  And in fact, many religious pro-life people don't even make a religious argument when it comes to the issue of human life and worth.

[TitanTiger 21,242]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

Sounds nice. If it were actually true, the same folks concerned about outlawing abortion (and many of the same want to outlaw contraception) would be equally passionate about pre-natal, post-natal care, childcare, healthcare for the mother & child and frankly, education as  “ issues that pertain to human health, life and basic dignity and worth,” instead of considering folks that actually advocate for those things lazy commies.

I agree that Christians aren't always good at following their professed beliefs out to their logical ends such as in the ways you mention we could be passionate about other pro-life matters.  I don't think their failure to fully flesh out those implications makes them wrong on the core issue though.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It might be that for some.  I've long said that the issue of abortion has been used this way by politicians - and it's used that way by both pro-life and pro-choice politicians.  But it's lazy to just chalk it all up to that.  Christians have held these basic views on abortion for 2000 years, even when they were a persecuted minority in the Roman Empire with zero ability or even a thought that it could somehow be used in a political manner.

No, they have not.  Not in the political/legal sense. 

That is the point.  Christianity has never been about force of law.

 

[icanthearyou 4,468]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

If Christians became the only ones to oppose infanticide, would that be wrong of them to impose the "requirements of their faith under penalty of law" or would it be taking a courageous moral stand for right and human worth and dignity even if everyone else felt the other way? 

My point is, Christians have a moral code.  So do Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, agnostics, atheists, New Age hippies, and people who don't have any real idea what they believe.  And they all get to argue for what they believe to be right and good and what should be enshrined in law.  Nothing about being a religious person makes their moral code unworthy to be part of the discussion.  And in fact, many religious pro-life people don't even make a religious argument when it comes to the issue of human life and worth.

You practice Christianity.  You do not impose it.

[TexasTiger 14,303]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

If Christians became the only ones to oppose infanticide, would that be wrong of them to impose the "requirements of their faith under penalty of law" or would it be taking a courageous moral stand for right and human worth and dignity even if everyone else felt the other way? 

My point is, Christians have a moral code.  So do Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, agnostics, atheists, New Age hippies, and people who don't have any real idea what they believe.  And they all get to argue for what they believe to be right and good and what should be enshrined in law.  Nothing about being a religious person makes their moral code unworthy to be part of the discussion.  And in fact, many religious pro-life people don't even make a religious argument when it comes to the issue of human life and worth.

Maybe if the moral code was as sweeping and apparent as the hypothetical broad swath of Christians you refer to, the sincerity of the motivation would be a bit easier to accept. It rarely seems to come from a place of love, even from those citing so-called Christian motivation.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

26 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It's reliable.

That said, you're asking a different question than the one I was answering.  The issue the original post brought up was whether Christians were basically properly understanding their own religion's teaching on abortion and others chimed it with assumptions about where Christian opposition to abortion originated from.  I simply wished to correct that.

 

 

Are you speaking with an authority you actually possess?

[TexasTiger 14,303]

6 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I agree that Christians aren't always good at following their professed beliefs out to their logical ends such as in the ways you mention we could be passionate about other pro-life matters.  I don't think their failure to fully flesh out those implications makes them wrong on the core issue though.

You’re being overly generous to a group that’s rarely so generous themselves. Perhaps you belong to a small sect that is. It’s pretty small, though.

[TitanTiger 21,242]

4 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

No, they have not.  Not in the political/legal sense. 

That is the point.  Christianity has never been about force of law.

Yes it has.  It has been the impetus for all sorts of legal prohibitions AND protections for people over the centuries.  Hell, it was the impetus behind MLK and every Christian who were involved in the Civil Rights Movement.  It was the impetus for William Wilberforce getting slavery outlawed in England and the abolitionist movement here in the US.  I could go through a litany of laws and political movements over centuries where Christians - motivated by their faith and the teachings of Scripture - advocated for changes in the law in their societies, either to prohibit harmful acts, create affirmative protections, or to remove harmful provisions in the law.