The Historical View of Abortion

Series: Pro-Life MessagesText: Exodus 21:22–24

By: Shaun Marksbury Date: January 21, 2024

Venue: Living Water Baptist ChurchOccasion: AM Service

Introduction

What is abortion? We could describe it as ending a pregnancy, but that is not the definition that most people use when they refer to this subject. For instance, a miscarriage is sometimes referred to as a “spontaneous abortion,” but there is no one who thinks of this when they are debating the ethics of abortion, unless they are playing a semantic game to muddy the waters of the discussion.

Typically, folks think of abortion this way: It is a premeditated act to intentionally cause the death of an embryo or fetus, otherwise known as a baby within the womb, with the goal to directly end a pregnancy. This would include surgical medical procedures or the injection/ingestion of abortifacients. Regardless of the reason one would procure an abortion, this is the definition that most people have in mind.

The debate typically hinges on two questions. The first is whether the fetus is considered a person (sometimes the question is framed as whether it is alive, but medical science clearly establishes that to be the case.) Not only is it a life by every definition, consuming, growing, and developing, but it is a unique life to the mother, having its own DNA, blood type, etc. The question, then, isn’t whether it is alive or even human, but whether it is a person afforded with the same rights to life and protection under law as any other person has.

The second point of contention is whether it is ever ethically and morally permissible to engage in abortion. Some would point to instances of rape and incest as somehow outweighing any right to life that the child would have. Some would also point to instances of detected physical or mental deficiencies or deformities as cause to terminate pregnancies. Still others say it doesn’t matter what the reason is — that a mother’s right to autonomy and personal freedom is superior to any right to life the child may have.

As Christians, we should have no problem and no shame in looking to Scripture for the answer to our moral quandaries. Some would argue that Scripture never mentions abortion, let alone forbids it. The implicit claim is that pro-life advocates are reading something into Scripture that isn’t there, doing so for political gain. However, as we will see today, Scripture not only forbids us from obtaining an abortion, but this has been the historic view of the church. So, for this Sanctity of Life Sunday, we will consider both what Scripture says as well as the historic Christian position on this question.

What Does Scripture Say?

Now, if we look in a concordance or run a search of an electronic Bible, it is true that the Scripture does not use the word “abortion.” However, that doesn’t mean that the concept isn’t taught in Scripture. We see that in the passage we read a few minutes ago.

This is a highly disputed text. As one study Bible notes, “Defenders of abortion have sometimes cited this verse to support the idea that life in the womb is something less than a person. No matter how it is translated, this verse contains nothing that would support the modern practice of abortion on demand.” There has existed discussion on the application of the passage for some time; as another study notes, “Later rabbinic debate on the implications of this scenario used the references to harm for both the death of the infant (see b. Baba Qamma 48b) or the death of the mother (see b. Sanhedrin 74a; 79a).” We’ll consider this as we move along.

First, we should say a word about the Law of God. There are certain aspects of the law, known as the civil law, that are not directly applicable to us because we are not the Nation of Israel. However, we still see a basis for morality and holiness that is always applicable.

In Exodus 21, we see a continuation of the laws given in the previous chapter. We call the leading imperatives of Exodus 20 the Ten Commandments. The moral laws which follow in some way fit within these commandments. For instance, v. 23 of that chapter says, “You shall not make other gods besides Me; gods of silver or gods of gold, you shall not make for yourselves.” This falls under the commandment against idolatry.

In Exodus 21, we come to a section on personal injuries, starting with v. 12: “He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death,” which obviously falls under the category of the commandment against murder, assigning a penalty of capital punishment. The next verse deals with how to handle an accidental death. Verse 15 falls under the category of dishonoring one’s parents, describing perhaps a teenaged or older son who strikes them. In v. 16, there’s an example of theft — in this case, the stealing of a human being — and it prescribes capital punishment for that crime (and thus forbids the slave trade as we knew it in the West). These are just a few examples.

So, what do we have in vv. 22–24? This is another potential violation of the sixth commandment against murder. Two men fight, which might result in either of their deaths, and intent is suggested in the text. However, an innocent pregnant woman is accidentally struck in the process. If we were to imagine a man holding up a convenience store with a firearm, and after another man engages him with a firearm of his own, a shootout ensues, striking a bystander, we imagine a similar legal scenario for our courts to untangle.

The question of the text is whether there is injury. Some might say that the question of injury is restricted to the woman, but why then does the text highlight her being pregnant and induced into a premature child birth? As the NASB footnote states here, this may be translated “an untimely birth occurs” or literally, “her children come out.” The question of injury seems better suited, then, to both mother and child. If there is no further injury, the text describes, the husband and the judges will decide on an appropriate fine.

If, however, there is further injury, then the situation escalates. The lex taliones or law of retribution takes over, demanding “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” As Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount, this isn’t talking about retaliation for personal offences (Matt. 5:38–39; Luke 6:27–29); the retribution here is to an actionable crime, and the sentencing should only match (and never exceed) the severity of the crime. For our discussion today, we are considering murder, hence the call for a “life for life.” Since the mother or the child may conceivably perish from this altercation, the responsible party or parties would face capital punishment.

Now, admittedly, we’re not talking about abortion in that text. However, the text is giving us a picture of how God wants His people to see the child in the womb. If a pregnant woman is struck so that she is induced into early labor, and the baby dies as a result, then the guilty party must pay with his life. This is so even though other unintentional killings were forgivable under the Law (cf. vv. 12–13).

There are those who try to use the Hebrew language and the discussion among rabbis to wave away these implications. They assert that the only way to understand v. 22 is that the woman miscarries rather than gives birth, and that the injury of v. 23 then only applies to the pregnant woman. So, they say, if God wanted us to think of the unborn life as a person, He would have enacted a stronger penalty than just a fine in v. 22. Is this a checkmate?

Well, the Jews themselves answered this question for us in their Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. As another study notes, “In the Hebrew text, the one harmed may be understood as the fetus or as the woman, but the Septuagint refers explicitly to the harming of the fetus.” That is in keeping with the implication in our English translation. These verses, then, contains an application of the sixth commandment to apply to either the mother or the unborn child.

This would be in keeping with the views of the ancient near east around this time. According to the Lexham Bible Dictionary:

The Middle Assyrian Laws, which date as far back as the early 11th century BC, specifically addressed abortion. In these laws — a collection of legal codes including decrees of the Assyrian kings and Amorite legal customs (Tetlow, Women, Crime, and Punishment, 126) — abortion was considered a serious offense against the state and was punishable by death. This was probably due to two different concerns:

1.Abortion was an offense against familial ties because of the mother-child relationship.

2.Abortion was a crime against the state because it killed future citizens, particularly soldiers.

If a woman was found guilty of inducing abortion, she would be impaled on a stake and denied burial. The bloodshed in death would remove the offense against the state, and the denial of burial was recompense for polluting the land, in keeping with the ancient fear of shedding innocent blood (Tetlow, Women, Crime, and Punishment, 137–38).

Of course, that was more of the pagan view. Yet, there’s no indication that the biblical view on abortion is much different. The main difference would be the view that the unborn child was created by Yahweh and a child of the covenant.

Consider when Mary visited her cousin Elizabeth. John wasn’t yet the Baptist, nor was he born. He was yet a six month-old fetus. Yet, when Mary first greeted her cousin, Scripture says, “When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit” (Luke 1:41). Scripture records him as reacting to the presence of the mother of our Lord. Some might argue that the baby was still unaware, but Elizabeth says, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, “For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy” (v. 44). The baby experienced prenatal joy and thus reacted.

Consider what the Lord says of Jeremiah. In Jeremiah 1:5, He says, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.” Scripture describes him as a person within the womb, which is how we are to see all the pre-born.

Yet, are we correct? It is possible that we are misreading Scripture because of our own political biases. It’s always worth our time to be honest and admit that we do have traditions and beliefs which might influence how we interpret a text. So, how have Christians throughout the centuries and in other parts of the world interpreted the question of abortion?

What is the Historical Christian View on Abortion?

Let’s begin by considering the early church. One of the earliest collection of teachings outside of Scripture for believers was The Didache, dating possibly to the early part of the second century. Going down the Ten Commandments and providing application, it says, “And this is the second commandment of the teaching. Thou shalt do no murder, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not corrupt boys, thou shalt not commit fornication, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not deal in magic, thou shalt do no sorcery, thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s goods….” Here, we can see that corruption of boys and committing fornication are both acts applied to the command against adultery, and more to the point, abortion and infanticide are both applicable to the command against murder. Christians after the death of the Apostle John were already forbidding abortion, if not sooner.

Also in the second century was a document that was claimed to be written by Barnabas. The church never recognized this document as such, since it was written too late to be by the actual Barnabas, but it was sometimes read by Christians. The Epistle of Barnabas says, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain. Thou shalt love thy neighbour more than thine own soul. Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion, nor again shalt thou kill it when it is born.” So, in a similar fashion, it connects the command against murder to abortion.

Later in the second century, a philosopher converted to Christianity by the name of Athenagoras of Athens. He defended Christianity, even writing to address Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus to correct the record on Christian belief. He also wrote this:

And when we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fœtus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it.”

As an aside, exposing children was a common way in which the Romans committed infanticide. If the baby was unwanted, most commonly due to its sex at birth, it would be left by the roadside to die of exposure. Not only did Athenagoras write against this, Christians often rescued these little ones and adopted them as their own.

Moving into the third century was the apologist and prolific writer Tertullian. Much of what we know about the early church is found in his writings. For instance, he wrote Apology (or Apologia), which has nothing to do with asking for forgiveness but rather defending the truthfulness of Christian belief. In that work, he penned:

In our case, murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fœtus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed.

Citing sources, the Lexham Bible Dictionary recognizes a couple more interesting comments from early church history: First, “Basil declared that a woman who had induced an abortion should be tried for murder (Kapparis, Abortion, 48).” Second, “Augustine extensively spoke against abortion, particularly as he wrestled with theological issues such as the existence of the soul (Bakke, When Children Became People, 133).” That explains why both Evangelicals and Roman Catholics have retained a relatively uniform opinion on the matter.

This all only considers evidence from the early church. We could also briefly consider the Middle Ages. We might wrongly consider abortion to be a Western concern, but Eastern Orthodoxy, even before the Great Schism between it and the Western Church, was considering this. At the end of the seventh century, the Council of Trullo pronounced capital punishment in relation to abortion. It stated, “Those who give drugs for procuring abortion, and those who receive poisons to kill the fœtus, are subjected to the penalty of murder.” Even though that wasn’t considered an ecumenical council, it shows that Christian opinion remained the same whether east or west. Women who sought to end the life of their children in the womb faced capital punishment.

Before we close, I want us to consider one more opinion. As we fast forward to the time of the Reformation, we see that early Protestants retained their opinion that abortion is a sin. John Calvin commented on the passage we considered, Exodus 21:22–24. He states,

This passage at first sight is ambiguous, for if the word death only applies to the pregnant woman, it would not have been a capital crime to put an end to the fœtus, which would be a great absurdity; for the fœtus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being, (homo,) and it is almost a monstrous crime to rob it of the life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fœtus in the womb before it has come to light. On these grounds I am led to conclude, without hesitation, that the words, “if death should follow,” must be applied to the fœtus as well as to the mother.

Let’s conclude this lesson.

Conclusion

These data points alone demonstrate that this is an issue far removed from the American political context. We are not simply reading our own biases into the text. Instead, we are standing with a strong tradition established by Christians for 2,000 years, and with believers dating well before that. This tradition has always been unpopular, challenging the morality of the pagan world. Yet, this is part of what the Lord has taught us. Abortion is murder — this isn’t something said in the heat of the current political moment, but the consensus of church history and of Scripture.

Each time we talk about this issue, though, we want to be sensitive to the fact that there also may be those who have already had abortions. It may be that it was only once, or it may have been multiple times. Yet, you may be surprised to see how the Bible describes it and how serious many Christians throughout the years have taken this issue. You’re starting to think of this as it is — the murder of those created in the image of God. It’s a serious sin, but understand that Christ took even this sin upon Himself on the cross, paying the sin-debt for even repentant abortionists. Call upon Him and find the payment and forgiveness for this sin in the Lord Jesus Christ.