Ten years ago today, Hannah was involved in a presentation at her school. I’m sorry I didn’t get better pictures than I did, but here she is as part of an exercise demonstration. Just click the image for a larger version of the picture.
We’re taking our time with this topic, The Borders of Life, continuing the series on Biblical Anthropology, because frankly there’s a whole lot to meditate on. And after all, it is a major topic that our world is focused on.
Every once in a while the debate comes back about how “incremental” our approach should be when it comes to law. Should we change a law that only stops some abortions? Or should we only aim to stop all of them together? Are we being consistent? Is it all right to be inconsistent politically or legally on our way to an ultimate goal?
I’m not taking the time to answer these questions because I’m focusing on laying foundations in this series. But you can certainly see how tricky things can get when you take a simply example – a law that outlaws the killing of a baby as soon as a heartbeat can be detected. In theory, this may stop a lot of murder. But of course there’s a lack of consistency. Does a detectable heartbeat make one a person? Someone of value? What about someone with an artificial heart, who technically has no heartbeat at all? Can they be legally killed?
When it comes to law, it is strange but true that one Scripture passage is brought up by two very different sides in order to support their point of view. And it’s not an easy passage. But I want to give you an introduction to it, because you will hear it come up in debate. Let’s take a look:
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.
Exodus 21:22-25
Now, at first glance, it would appear (in English, anyway) that if the woman has a miscarriage – that is, the baby dies – the guilty party simply pays a fine. If, however, the woman dies, the guilty party is executed.
However, there are some problems with this interpretation.
There is some challenging translating going on here, but the above is a fairly literal translation of the first part – “her children come out”. Some versions obscure this, but the law does indeed consider the unborn to be “children”. It (or they) is/are a human life.
You’ll also note that it doesn’t specify if the baby lives or dies. So if we read this more or less literally, this seems to be the idea. If the baby is born prematurely, but the mother and the baby are fine, the guilty party pays a fine. But if the child and/or mother dies, he is executed.
But there’s something else. There’s a very difficult phrase here – translated above “he shall pay as the judges determine”. There’s actually a lot of disagreement about what this phrase in Hebrew even means, but it seems that somehow the guilty party pays for his guilt. In the Law of Moses, this could be a fine, but it could also be the death penalty. When we look at other uses of this phrase in Scripture, it is always talking about something extremely serious.
Trust me, that is only an introduction – there are a number of interesting issues here, but that would be a series of posts in itself! But the idea seems to be that the Bible clearly identifies the unborn as a child, and that the punishment would be the same for mother or child – life for life.
Of course, the Bible is very clear about the value of human life, including at the borders of life. So we should not take a less clear text and try to overturn the clearer ones, even if we could somehow argue that this text supports abortion (which it does not!).
In spite of modern attempts to make the Bible support the killing of the unborn, the Church throughout history has been remarkably consistent here. One of the earliest texts from church history is the Didache. It’s so early that some people believe it may have been written before the New Testament was completed. It’s not inspired Scripture, but it does give us a picture of what some of the earliest Christians believed.
And it says it well –
…you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born.
The Didache
In both cases, it’s a child. Do not murder.
Back in those days, people found that infanticide was quite convenient if you don’t want the baby. They knew very well that it was the same life in the womb as it was outside, and so why not be allowed to end the life either way? And so many people would “expose” their babies – leave them outside to die (or be picked up by someone looking to build up their slave resources).
And I should mention that today, some respected scholars think that this is a reason why we should allow infanticide again.
The first Christians rescued and raised many many of these abandoned babies. There are many stories of this in early Christian writings. Until finally, government outlawed exposing babies. That’s actual progress.
But today, some want to bring the practice back. An article from 2011 featured in the BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics, entitled After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?, explored this. Scholars from Australia and Italy wrote: “…we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be.” They suggest we emphasize the morality of this by changing language from “infanticide” to “after-birth abortion”. How can they defend this? Because, they claim, the baby is really only “a potential person”.
I wonder who decides who is only a “potential” person? Hitler decided that Jews were not people at all. And millions were murdered.
Let’s admit it, many of us would agree in one way – a few centimetres or a few days does not change the value of a person. These scholars do indeed conclude, “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus”. But of course they don’t believe that either was made in God’s image. And so, according to many, we can decide – or the “experts” can decide – who is a person and who is not.
If we don’t believe in the imago dei, we look for value in other places. Maybe if someone is severely handicapped, they have no value. Maybe if they can no longer contribute to the community, they’re no longer a “person”. Or perhaps we let the government decide. Brothers, NO!
And so this brings us to the other border of life. We’ll look at that next time.
We recently came back from our mission’s Latin American Conference, which is a conference for missionaries in . . . you guessed it. Dozens of missionaries from all around the hemisphere gathered together in Panama.
We had lots of meetings, but also lots of time to talk and meet people and even to be touristy. This was the first Avant conference we’ve been to since Camino Global and Avant joined together, so there were quite a few missionaries who didn’t know each other (and there there still are – it was impossible for us to even meet everyone). I believe that they try to have a regional conference every 2 years.
Without going into all the details, there were times of worship, prayer, Bible teaching, and a lot of mission information meetings. There was also a special program for the youth and kids.
Yes, we were able to go and visit the Panama Canal, and even see ships go through. Having lived near the Trent–Severn Waterway in Ontario, it was interesting to compare and contrast the two. (The Canadian system of course having smaller locks, but being much more extensive. It was mostly finished before the Panama Canal was started.)
To see the wildlife, all we had to do was look out the window or walk out the door. It was a birdwatcher’s paradise, to say the least. And yes, Shari and I went to see some sloths. Here is an action-packed video for you to enjoy:
Last time we were looking at the Bible and also modern law, talking about various terms for murder, and various different categories.
Interestingly enough, our culture has piled on all kinds of terms and terminology around killing, especially at the “borders of life”. For example, killing a baby before it’s born is “abortion”. Killing a baby after it’s born is “infanticide”, or more commonly now “postpartum abortion”.
And instead of “baby” we use various words depending on the stage of development, “fetus” being the most well-known (of course, “baby” refers to development as well).
We know more about the development of human life in the womb now than ever before in history. For example, we know that from day 1, the new little life has its own DNA. It is not its mother – it is a different, growing, alive, human being.
From the start, this new human is an independent life. Not, of course, in the sense of not needing its mother. We all depend on others, to a certain point (see Genesis 1 and 2: Keywords #2 and #3). A two year old depends on its parents (which does not give them the right to kill it!). But it’s independent in the sense that it’s its own living human life, apart from its mother.
At only 8 weeks old, we can see the hands and feet of the baby. The baby can already suck its thumb! The main component of its eyes has already formed. “I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made!” (Psalm 139:14a)
People in past ages didn’t know as much about baby development as we do, but they did know that there was a new life in the womb. And yet, in some places in the world, people seem to have the irrational and seemingly archaic idea that if you can’t see it, it’s not really a person! (Just cover your eyes and look in a mirror and see if it works.) I’m not sure how else you can explain why some seem so willing to kill a baby in the womb, but not a newborn (although, of course, there are many advocating for the right to kill the newborn as well).
Sadly, in the first days and weeks, some mothers voluntarily take a “morning after” or “plan B” pill, which murders this precious new person. And we have to say that some so-called contraceptives actually do murder the baby. And some go to clinics where the baby is murdered. Maybe we should use the word as it should be used.
And speaking of terminology, what do we call people who commit murder? I’m not talking about anyone in particular at this point, just clarifying terminology. But it’s hard to say – even to type – when you’re talking about certain categories….
There are some arguments that are used in favour of killing the unborn baby which disappear when we start using biblical categories.
What about in the case of rape? Well, why should the child be murdered for the sake of a parent?
The mother was too young. So you’ll murder the child because of the mother’s age?
The baby is part of my body, and “my body my choice”.
We already know that this is another life, so saying it’s part of the mother’s body isn’t exactly honest in the first place. But it begs the question again, what magic changes the baby into a person worthy of life when it’s born? Does it depend on its location? You can murder someone who is here, but not there?
There’s a reason why many people have pointed out that it’s important to know what it being “terminated” in an abortion. Terminology is important.
This is not to ignore the challenges and pain and complications and emotions in all the many different situations that mothers find themselves in. It’s not to ignore the complications of law and society. I understand the differences of opinion about how we should try to legislate or not in various situations. But let’s not ignore the seriousness of taking a life either. God takes it very seriously. And we must start with His Word, not with out current legal situation.
Those are just a few quick thoughts, but next time we’ll take a look at a much-discussed Bible passage, and then go on to see how the Church and the world look at this topic.
Continuing our discussion on the borders of life, let’s take a closer look at what the Bible says about murder.
We’ve repeated it several times now – every human has incredible value in God’s eyes. God made this clear even in his covenant with Noah:
Whoever sheds the blood of man,
Genesis 9:6
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image.
Yes, the image of God (imago dei) is important when it comes to our discussion of murder – God Himself says so. (Read Part 3: The Image for more details on the image of God.)
Coming to the Ten Commandments, we have the well-known words – well, especially in old English – “Thou shalt not kill.”
That word for “kill” is an interesting word. I’m told that there are actually seven different Hebrew words for “kill”. The idea here is not that we should never kill anything, like a caterpillar or a cow. We also know from the rest of the law given to Moses that God does order certain legal executions. And so the idea here is what we would call murder – taking a human life that you should not take. And there are very few exceptions to this in the law.
So we might say in English, “You shall not murder”. But things get more complicated from there. For example, there’s intentional murder and unintentional murder. It gets confusing to get into all the legal terms, but an example of unintentional murder might be “involuntary manslaughter”.
You can kill simply by doing something reckless, or by being negligent. In fact, you can kill by doing nothing. So that could be involuntary manslaughter through negligence. Maybe you want to save money, so you stop feeding your kid. (Don’t do that.) Or, I dig a hole in my front yard, and someone falls in and breaks their neck. (Maybe put up a fence next time.) Negligence.
Again, this is not an article about legal definitions – I’m aware that a lot more nuance would be required. But we just need to be aware of some of the general categories.
You can kill someone entirely by mistake. Involuntary homicide.
And we could go on, but those are some basic concepts. And these general concepts are in the Bible. And it all starts with Genesis 1, and the purpose of the Creator. After all, if we’re all just bags of chemicals, what does it matter if those chemicals get rearranged?
Let’s look at a few passages today and see what kind of homicide might be involved.
But if anyone hates his neighbor and lies in wait for him and attacks him and strikes him fatally so that he dies, and he flees into one of these cities, then the elders of his city shall send and take him from there, and hand him over to the avenger of blood, so that he may die. Your eye shall not pity him, but you shall purge the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, so that it may be well with you.
Deuteronomy 19:11-13
Easy – this is premeditated, first degree murder.
This is the provision for the manslayer, who by fleeing there may save his life. If anyone kills his neighbor unintentionally without having hated him in the past— as when someone goes into the forest with his neighbor to cut wood, and his hand swings the axe to cut down a tree, and the head slips from the handle and strikes his neighbor so that he dies—he may flee to one of these cities and live,
Deuteronomy19:4-5
Here we have unintentional homicide. It could be because of negligence (if you knew that the axe head was loose), but looking at the details here it’s probably just talking about something totally unintentional.
When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring the guilt of blood upon your house, if anyone should fall from it.
Deuteronomy 22:8
In a culture where people are often on the roof, if you don’t make it safe it’s definitely negligence. Like not putting a fence around that hole, or around your swimming pool.
It’s usefully to summarize intentional, illegal (against God’s law) killing of a human being as murder. But there is guilt involved in other types of killing, right? If someone drives dangerously, and someone dies as a result of an accident, the driver is guilty.
There’s a lot to talk about here! But now that we have some of the basic categories down, we’ll start by talking about the first border of life – the beginning.
My father was an expert on the history of hymns, having spent countless hours over many years researching and collecting resources. He published one book of hymn stories, and had manuscripts for two more.
I’ve been working through his articles and other materials, publishing them in blog format online. And at the beginning of this month (June) I started on the Hymn Almanac.
For every day of the year, he has facts and stories about hymns, often including a video or audio version of the hymn.
For example, yesterday featured the story of a hymn that was written when Elvina Hall’s mind began to wander during a sermon (shocking, I know). And have you ever wondered what in the world the “Balm of Gilead” is all about?
So for the next year, Lord willing, I’ll be publishing mostly posts from this almanac, every single day of the year (2022-2023). If you know someone who is interested in hymns, would you do me a favour? Would you send them the link – http://wordwisebiblestudies.com ?
I think you’ll find the information fascinating, and sometimes it will be information you won’t see anywhere else (for example, my father met more than one hymnwriter. And guess why he called up a circus museum one day to find out about one hymn writer, who had been a clown?).
Check it out, and share! 🙂
