More Religious Q&A

 

Does the Bible sanction abortion under special circumstances?

Various Bible passages are often misinterpreted, taken out of context, or mistakenly thought to approve of abortion or the killing of children. Before exploring such passages, there are several Biblical themes and principles we should keep in mind:

 

1) God is the only one capable of making decisions of any kind from a completely sinless standpoint, hence, His judgments in the Old Testament regarding the punishment of various people and nations are not to be taken as justification for sinful humans to do the same in a selfish, unrestricted carte-blanche manner. We are morally unqualified to make such decisions.

 

2) Under no circumstances does the Bible claim God desires anyone to suffer or perish. This Biblical truth is similar to civil judges today who dispense sentences on criminals, not because they want to see criminals languish in prison but to bring restitution, restoration and to protect society. In the same way, God allows us to suffer through our sinful ways in order to bring us back to Himself as seen in 2 Peter 3:9: "The Lord is....patient toward you, not wishing for ANY to perish but for ALL to come to repentance."

Suffering and hardship are not necessarily punishments but a means to a greater end.

 

3) One method for God to bring a rebellious nation back to Himself was by withdrawing His unwelcomed presence in a nation - including His protection over the nation. When a nation stopped relying on God and wanted to follow their own will, they were allowed to leave God's protection, thus inviting their enemies to plunder them. The enemy nation of Assyria was used to bring Samaria back to God as seen in Hosea 13:16: "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."

Samaria, in a quest for independence from God, deliberately left God's protection - unwise decisions led to severe consequences including the death of their unborn children. So it is overly simplistic and unfair to assume there are any similarities between those past events and the freedom to choose abortion today....although one could argue that when Samaria left God, their unborn babies died and similarly, when parents today leave God, their unborn babies also die - although most today die at the hands of their own parents rather than at the hands of a brutal enemy nation. What does that say about our society?

 

4) Another method for God to bring a rebellious nation back to Himself was by direct supernatural intervention. A visible and pronounced supernatural calamity upon an individual or nation - and clearly seen by others - served as a warning so others would be saved and brought back under God's protection as in Hosea 9:14: "Give them, Lord - what will you give them? Give them wombs that miscarry and breasts that are dry."

 

5) In either case above, some may object to the death of the unborn child because of the sins of their parents. Why would God punish the unborn child for the sins of their parents? The answer is God was not punishing the unborn child for the sins of their parents - see Ezekiel 18:20 ("The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.").

 

But if the child died, wasn't that a punishment for the child? The answer is no - when the child died, it was a punishment for the parent, not for the child. The sinful parent was punished by losing the joy and privilege of being a parent and losing an all-important heir for the family. The unborn child, on the other hand, died but was not punished. Physical death, in itself, is NOT a punishment unless after death, the deceased go to the place of eternal punishment (Hell).

 

Death can be a release from present suffering or persecution as in the case of Stephen the Martyr in Acts 7:59-60 (" And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Then he knelt down and cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not charge them with this sin.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep.").

 

Was this death a 'punishment' for Stephen? Absolutely not - as clearly seen by its context. In fact, most of Jesus' apostles died at the hands of their persecutors - and God allowed their deaths. Were their deaths a punishment from God? Once again, no. But God did use their deaths as a powerful testimony which eventually brought countless numbers of wayward people back to Himself, saved for eternity - and is still doing so today.

 

We must remember the Bible clearly shows our life to be a continuum, with death being a point of transition from life in this world to life in eternity. Death is not an across-the-board act of punishment by God in every and all cases. To presume so would be to ignore the context and the overall theme of the Bible itself.

 

Does the Bible explain what happens to a child who dies prior to birth or shortly after?

This question is not specifically addressed in the Bible. However, the Bible makes clear that although the physical body can be destroyed, the incorporeal soul continues to "endure forever":

 

2 Corinthians 5:8: "We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord."

 

John 11:25-26: "Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die."

 

Ezekiel 18:4: "Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine."

 

Ecclesiastes 3:14: "I know that everything God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it and nothing taken from it. God does it so that people will fear him."

 

These passages show God's work, including the creation of a soul, lives on.

 

Also, the related principle of the 'Age of Accountability' is addressed. The Book of Numbers gives the account of Israel's disobedience to God's command to go into the Promised Land (modern-day Palestine) and to take it by force. Except for a few God-fearing people, the rest of Israel decided not to obey God's command and not fight against the inhabitants because they appeared well-armed and fearsome.

 

In Numbers 14:2-3, all the people of Israel said: “If only we had died in Egypt! Or in this wilderness! Why is the Lord bringing us to this land only to let us fall by the sword?"

God took a dim view of Israel's disobedience, especially in light of His many displays of power and faithfulness to Israel up to this point (the many supernatural plagues against Egypt, parting the Red Sea, etc.) of which all of Israel were first-hand eyewitnesses. So in Numbers 14:29, God spoke through Moses to the people of Israel: "In this wilderness your bodies will fall—every one of you twenty years old or more who was counted in the census and who has grumbled against Me."

 

For those twenty and older, they wandered in the wilderness until they died - exactly as they had previously complained (Numbers 14:2: "If only we had died...in this wilderness!"). Only those remaining went on into the Promised Land.

Apparently, those under twenty years old were too young and still under the authority of their disobedient parents. Because they were under the 'Age of Accountability', they were not punished. (See also Ezekiel 18:20: "The child will not be punished for the parent's sins.").

 

Expanding on this principle to include the unborn or the very young, if someone dies prior to a time when they can be fully accountable for the knowledge of right and wrong, God mercifully allows them to enter heaven. For special circumstances such as those mentally handicapped, God may allow them to enter heaven by virtue of never having reached the 'Age of Accountability' in their lifetime due to their disability. The specific age of twenty, however, should not be construed as directly applicable today but only for that specific circumstance for the people of Israel long ago.

 

Another hint of how God deals with young children who die is seen in the Book of Samuel. When King David's seven-day old son died, in 2 Samuel 12:23 he said: "I will go to him one day, but he cannot return to me."

David seems to say his dead son cannot return to this life ("...he cannot return to me."), but also believed at his own death, he will be reunited with his son in heaven ("I will go to him one day...").

 

The principle of the 'Age of Accountability' means aborted babies are entering heaven by the millions - and may also answer another question about the Bible. Christ stated "few" will find the way to heaven (Matthew 7:14: "...the road to (eternal) life is narrow and few find it.") but John saw a vision of heaven and stated a huge number were there (Revelation 7:9: "...a large crowd which no one could number..." and Revelation 19:1: "After this I heard what sounded like a roar of a great multitude in heaven...").

In this regard, Eternal Perspective Ministries' Randy Alcorn (www.epm.org) makes a case for heaven being populated by a huge number of unborn aborted and miscarried children - far exceeding those who were born.

 

In any case, the Bible clearly states that in eternity, our God - whose generosity is beyond our imagination - rewards those who belong to Him and He also restores what was lost by those who suffered loss in this world. We rest and trust, ultimately, in God's character of love, patience and fairness, which is far beyond the capacity of sinful humanity to fully comprehend, much less to even come close to duplicating with our own sinful human character.

 

Genesis 2:7 says Adam wasn't a living being until he took his first breath after God breathed life into him. Since unborn children haven't taken their first breath yet, they're not really "alive" at the time of an abortion.

This is a common misunderstanding of the original ancient Hebrew text. Here is the verse in question:

 

Genesis 2:7: "Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

 

Several points need to be addressed:

 

1) The original ancient Hebrew word for "breath" used here is "ruach" which means breath, wind, spirit, or conscience. In the context of creating a living being, it is understood that God gave Adam's physical body a spirit to animate it. In other words, God infused life into Adam. This verse in no way implies that breathing is a criterion which defines life. The main point, instead, is that God is the sole creator of life and only He infuses life into the physical body.

 

Ezekiel 18:4 also supports this view: "Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die."

Therefore, although breathing is a normal biological activity for adult human beings, this verse is not establishing a relationship between breathing and life; rather, it is declaring that God infused life into Adam.

 

2) The original ancient Hebrew text does not imply a two-step process of creation, with the first step being the creation of the physical body followed by the second step of infusing the body with a spirit. Rather, the creation of Adam's physical body WITH the spirit were performed simultaneously.

 

The Pulpit Commentary explains this as follows:

"By an act of Divine omnipotence man arose from the dust; and in the same moment in which the dust, by virtue of creative omnipotence, shaped itself into a human form, it was pervaded by the Divine breath of life, and created a living being, so that we cannot say the body was earlier than the soul."

 

Therefore, Genesis 2:7 is not to be taken as a declaration that Adam's body was lifeless or without a spirit prior to taking his first breath; instead, he was created both physically and spiritually alive at the same time.

 

With this understanding, Genesis 2:7 has no pro-choice application to abortion. Instead, we see that every unborn child is initially created by God - with both physical and spiritual aspects simultaneously. This, in turn, disputes the pro-choice claim that "the unborn have no soul".

 

3) Also, we must keep in mind this Genesis account of bringing Adam to life was a one-time event - unique in all of history. Adam was never an unborn child like the rest of us. Therefore, any attempt to apply such a unique situation as Adam's creation to that of aborting an unborn child today is hardly appropriate nor applicable.

 

Does Leviticus 27 assign a lesser value to young children and no value to infants less than 1 month old?

This is a common misunderstanding of the Bible passage. Here is the passage in question:

 

Leviticus 27:1-8: "Now the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘When a man consecrates by a vow certain persons to the Lord, according to your valuation, if your valuation is of a male from twenty years old up to sixty years old, then your valuation shall be fifty shekels of silver, according to the shekel of the sanctuary.  If it is a female, then your valuation shall be thirty shekels;  and if from five years old up to twenty years old, then your valuation for a male shall be twenty shekels, and for a female ten shekels;  and if from a month old up to five years old, then your valuation for a male shall be five shekels of silver, and for a female your valuation shall be three shekels of silver;  and if from sixty years old and above, if it is a male, then your valuation shall be fifteen shekels, and for a female ten shekels.  ‘But if he is too poor to pay your valuation, then he shall present himself before the priest, and the priest shall set a value for him; according to the ability of him who vowed, the priest shall value him."

A cursory glance over this passage can cause one to mistakenly 'see' a descending order of monetary value for an adult, on down to a one month old infant.

 

However, a more careful look shows otherwise:

 

1) Verse 2 speaks of family members who have been dedicated to temple service. This is stated as "When a man consecrates by a vow certain persons to the Lord...” The monetary values are those one must pay if they change their mind about their previous commitment to temple service and want to "buy out" their service time and dissolve their previous oath. This has absolutely nothing to do with the inherent value or worth of those people.

 

2) Verse 8 speaks of those who don't have enough funds. They can still dissolve their oath for a lower sum set by the priest.

 

3) A similar situation today would be where a working teenager may make less per hour than an adult. Or a gardener who makes less per hour than a physician. In either case, whether by age difference or occupational difference, the monetary wage difference has absolutely nothing to do with the worth of those individuals.

 

Does Numbers 3 assign no value to infants less than 1 month old?

This is a common misunderstanding of the Bible passage. Here is the passage in question:

 

Numbers 3:14-16: “The Lord said to Moses in the Desert of Sinai, “Count the Levites by their families and clans. Count every male a month old or more.” So Moses counted them, as he was commanded by the word of the Lord.”

The command by the Lord was only to take a census, not to assign a specific value to human life. Reasons for taking a census can include planning for resource allocation for public, military, and other purposes.

 

Census-taking today, for example, does not include taking a count of unborn children. In doing so, however, the state is making no statement about the value of the life of the unborn child.

Does Numbers 31 approve of killing children?

This is a common misunderstanding of the Bible passage. Here is the passage in question:

 

Numbers 31:15-17:  "Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.  “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them.  “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people.  Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

 

1) Why did Moses command the adult Midianite women to be killed?

In Midian's war against Israel, some Midianite women were commissioned as military personnel to fight against Israel, through their sexual seduction. They were not innocent civilians but were willing, cunning adversaries, meant to undermine and sabotage Israel's military might in an all-out effort to annihilate Israel. Therefore, Moses ordered only those adult women involved in this war effort to be executed as enemy combatants (see verse 17: "And kill every woman who has slept with a man...")

 

Also, if the hostile adult Midianite women were allowed to assimilate into Israel's tribes, this would have allowed the continuing of the pagan practices which kept polluting their society.

 

The Matthew Henry Commentary states:

"The law in case of whoredom was, the adulterer and adulteress should surely be put to death. God had put to death the adulterers of Israel by the plague, and now it was fit that the adulteresses of Midian, especially since they had been the tempters, should be put to death by the sword. "It is dangerous to let them live; they will be still tempting the Israelites to uncleanness, and so your captives will be your conquerors and a second time your destroyers." Severe orders are therefore given that all the grown women should be slain in cold blood, and only the female children spared."

 

2) Why did Moses command all of the Midianite boys to be killed?

This was another common but unfortunate wartime survival move for countries under martial law in the ancient world. We must remember the context for this passage was all-out war, with Israel significantly outgunned, outmanned, and surrounded by hostile enemies. So everyone was under martial law, by which any individual's actions which could cause instability and significant war casualties from within, was prohibited.

Ancient Israel did not have safety or stability. Israel was situated in the same land as its enemies - multiple enemies - constantly around them. There was no Pacific or Atlantic Ocean to buffer them, as in the case of the U.S., for example. They were under constant martial law because it was mandatory for survival. If the Midianite boys were allowed to grow up in Israel, they would eventually rise up and cause havoc from within, and the whole nation would have been decimated in short order. This is why we see the results of a very harsh martial law in the Old Testament.

Although the Midianite girls were allowed to live and assimilate into the Israelite tribes, once the boys became men, they would have taken vengeance upon the Israelites and killed them. In this respect, any possible vengeful Midianite women were not an equal threat as vengeful men.

 

Some considerations in deciding the different outcomes between the captive girls vs. boys may have included (a) men tend to be much more physically violent. (b) Men tend to be much stronger. (c) Iron weapons were heavy and most effectively used my men. Hence, less mercy upon the boys than the girls - for self-preservation reasons.

 

In more modern times in the U.S., this type of situation was how family feuds went on for generations with more killing, revenge, and the destruction of whole families. Likewise, the historic Biblical account in Numbers 31 should not be understood as a God-ordained system. It was certainly a very unfortunate wartime situation under martial law, without which the nation of Israel would not have survived. And as such, it has absolutely no application to modern abortion in the 21st century.