Yet the Hebrew is not clear. The Hebrew word for miscarriage is not used. Rather, the word is literally translated "to come out". At least one translation retains this ambiguous word, some interpret it as "miscarriage", while others, rightly in my opinion, interpret it as "born prematurely." This interpretation makes sense of the eye-for-eye principle in those verses.
From the New Testament
John the Baptist "leaped for joy" in his mother Elizabeth’s womb when he heard the voice of Mary, pregnant with Jesus. This demonstrates the relationship between John and Jesus was in play even before their birth. John "prepare[ed] the way of the Lord" even before his birth.
Advertisement
Assertions that such an interpretation is "ridiculous and tendentious exegesis" do not make it so, especially in the wider biblical context concerning life in the womb. It's also fascinating to note that the same Greek word describes the unborn John, the infant Jesus and the children/infants being brought to Jesus to bless.
Jesus himself, conceived by the Holy Spirit, was not a non-person until his birth. Throughout the history of the church, it has been held that the incarnation – God becoming flesh – occurred not at Jesus' birth, but his conception.
Silence from Jesus and Paul on this issue is hardly surprising. Jesus was in a (Jewish) culture where abortion was seen as an attack on the image of God, breaking the law against murder, not to mention the cultural understanding that children are a blessing from the Lord.
Paul wrote letters to churches who took on the Jewish scriptures as their own, and so would be formed by its worldview on children. Moreover, they were letters written in response to problems in the church. Abortion was not one of those, it seems.
But their silence is hardly an argument. It is entirely possible they did speak on these issues, but it wasn't recorded. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Winter notes that second century Jewish teachers made exceptions when the life of the mother was threatened. As far as I'm aware, that is the argument for all pro-life groups, and is irrelevant – even calling it "abortion" is misleading. In these cases, preserving life is the goal, and the death of the unborn is the tragic side-effect. Killing the unborn is the goal of abortion.
Advertisement
The Bible is not silent on abortion. Its view on the unborn, that they are humans deserving protection, accords with other ancient cultures, and with science. As medicine has advanced, we have discovered the unborn child is a unique, complex, living human being, with DNA distinct from the mother's. Science agrees with the Bible, as other ancient cultures did, and as do many cultures around the world today.
Christians should not feel intimidated when an associate professor of New Testament Studies asserts that their views are not actually biblical. Not even when they use words like "ridiculous". First, plenty of Biblical scholars argue strongly that our views are biblical. Second, and more importantly, our authority is not the "experts", but the Scripture itself. We read it, all of it, interpreting Scripture with Scripture, understanding one part in the light of the other parts. We become like the Bereans, examining what we're told to see if these things are so (Acts 17:11).
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
6 posts so far.