I wrote an op-ed piece that I submitted to the Wall Street Journal last week in which I address two misconceptions surrounding the contemporary debate over abortion. I haven’t heard yet if they have decided to run it or not, but reading a post today by Scot McKnight reminded me once again why I wrote the essay.
I’m not trying to pick on McKnight, but his post illustrates one of the two fallacies that I addressed. He wrote:
I’m with you and our method is fine until we come to something — like abortion or prolonging life indefinitely with drugs or with machines or prolonging life through heart transplants and blood transfusions or the threat to God’s good world with nuclear war — that clearly isn’t discussed in the Bible because it was a document of its times (the point of my book Blue Parakeet
). The Bible doesn’t address your issue directly because the biblical times didn’t have that kind of sophistication about this kind of issue.
I’m not interested in discussing all the various issues that he brings up–what I am interested in is his assumption that “biblical times didn’t have that kind of sophistication about [abortion].”
I have found that this assumption is quite pervasive, that is, ancient peoples were not as technologically savvy as we are and therefore they did even contemplate many of the moral, cultural, and ethical issues that we face today. While there might be isolated instances in which this is true, ancient peoples dealt with a surprising breath of complicated issues–at their core, humans really aren’t that different, even when a few years separate them.
As a matter of fact, abortion was known and practiced in the ancient world. I go into this in more detail in my essay but let me give a quick example. Middle Assyrian documents give a recipe for a drinkable substance that would cause an abortion. It was made from eight plants (one of which was likely saffron which does have an abortifacient quality) that were crushed together, mixed with wine, and then drunk on an empty stomach. Furthermore, Middle Assyrian laws prohibited a woman from unilaterally initiating an abortion: “If a woman has caused an abortion at her own initiative and they have established the truth about her, they shall impale her on stakes, they shall not bury her. If she has died in aborting, they shall impale her on stakes, they shall not bury her.â€Â Also, Sumerian laws outlaw a man purposefully causing an abortion by striking a woman.1
While McKnight’s post contains some very thoughtful and helpful reflections, his assumption that ancient peoples “didn’t have that kind of sophistication about this kind of issue” does not cohere with the historical record (neither is this statement fully factual but that might be for another post: “Since these authors had no idea how humans formed, their words are metaphorical to some degree”).
- For more on this topic see M. Stol, Birth in Babylonia and the Bible (Brill/Styx, 2000), 39-48. [back]
please read my context: I’m aware of abortions and may be behind 1 tim 2. I was referring to when someone becomes a “person.”
Charles,
You are correct. The Greeks, especially the Spartans, also had some potions that would cause abortion. The Didache addresses abortion as something that Christians did not participate in. The list could go on…
James
Did the ancient Near East treat abortion as a life issue? Or was it more a matter of making sure a man had sons to help with the family business, to pass on his name and inheritance, etc.
Awilum… cool name…
Now that I look at what I said — “The Bible doesn’t address your issue directly because the biblical times didn’t have that kind of sophistication about this kind of issue” — I realize why you’ve taken me to task. My prose is not clear. What I meant to say was:
“your issue” = when does someone become a person
“this kind of issue” = the same.
James, your question about the life issue is very debated and likely a combination of the two issues that you raise. I might write another post about this as well.
Scot, I’ve had more times than I care to remember where I’ve said something with less than clear prose. However, I agree with you that some of the ancient language on the topic of personhood is metaphorical and not precise, however, people in the ancient world did have definite ideas on when humans became persons. I include this in my op-ed piece as well, maybe I’ll write a short post about this also.
Charles,
Are you familiar with Moshe Weinfeld’s research insofar as it touches on the topic of abortion? It is fascinating stuff. I’m sorry I don’t have references handy.
Not to be cliche, but the Bible does show that God considered us to be persons before we even had bodies:
“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.” -Book of Jeremiah.
Not to mention Romans 8 and Ephesians 1 in the verses that talk about God and predestination.
I am also an OT instructor, and I deal with a related question in discussions. I would like to hear some thoughts here: How do you deal with the issue of abortion in relation to God’s command to kill or participation in the killing of infants in the OT (i.e. Joshua, 1 Sam 15.3, the flood, the Passover)?
Interesting stuff, to be sure. I’d like to see the op-ed posted here if WSJ doesn’t run it. Mike’s comments are relevant if we’re thinking about the issue theologically, too.
Anyone’s views of these issues from a historical perspective are undoubtedly colored by a philosophical starting point.
My question would then be this: To what extent do our presuppositions influence the way we read “metaphorical” or “imprecise” statements on personhood? I’d love to see more on this, and the specific texts in question.
As to Jeremy’s question: I doubt Mrs. Suburbia with three kids and an undesired fourth on the way could legitimately appeal to the ban as vindication for an abortion. I’m sorry that I don’t immediately see how such texts are all that relevant, perhaps you could clarify?
Tyler: This is NOT my argument, but roughly how I have heard it phrased – If God can kill a baby or command a baby to be killed for an arbitrary reason (i.e. they just happened to be the firstborn of Egyptian parents or born to Canaanite parents in the 13th century – issues over which the child had no control), how can one claim that the teaching of the Bible opposes abortion?
Pingback: Heston Comments on McKnight’s Fallacies concerning Abortion « SoCal Theologica: Musings from the West Coast
Jeremy,
So many issues…
1) The idea that God’s killing can be compared to human killing is a variety of the ‘via eminentia’ approach to theology (i.e., God is like us, only more so). This eventually leads to your conclusion that humans can judge God by human standards. Yada, yada — it’s all in the Book of Job. The real issue is theodicy, and it goes far beyond abortion. But I’m going to wager that you don’t care much for the classical theological doctrines about God’s aseity or incomparability to humankind, so let’s look at the texts you cited:
2) God expressly renounced the possibility of ever flooding the earth again, so one seeking to live by imitatio Dei might perhaps steer clear of that example.
3) The rest of the examples you cite are all, broadly speaking, ‘war texts.’ If there is *any* ‘issue’ on which God changes God’s mind and methods between ancient Israel and the New Testament, it is clearly war. (I trust I don’t need to cite my texts among scholars.) Although there is no doubt an ancient tradition of loving peace in ancient Israel (and beyond), a shift in attitudes about war was quite evident already by the exile. Therefore the war texts you cite are not valid prooftexts for a biblical theology of abortion that is based on the Christian canon.
Some people have a hard time living with a God who changes His methods. Not I. Would anyone really want a God who endorses Bronze Age methods in the Information Age?
Well, unfortunately, some would. There are entirely too many Bronze Age Christians out there for my taste…
Chris,
You have convicted me. I’m going to shut down the website, throw away my cell phone and only communicate via inscribed tablet sent by courier.
Jeremy, such arguments presuppose that the ban was arbitrarily imposed upon Israel. That’s a presupposition that needs to be justified before that kind of an argument could stand on its own two feet.
And, as Chris implicitly suggests, such a presupposition cannot accord with any truly biblical-theological inquiry because it denounces the character of the Author of the text in question.
To understand a Christian view of abortion, such critics would need to engage Christian readings of Scripture.
I’m not real clear on why you’re freaking about God “killing” firstborn Egyptian babies. God allows all of us to die, at least until the Second Coming. None of us gets out of here alive, and we live exactly as long as God says. So I don’t see where you think firstborn Egyptian babies should be exempt from the usual process.
Israelites being commanded to kill babies is the real question here.