Difficult Passages: Genesis 22:2

Abraham is Called to Sacrifice Isaac

There are quite a few difficult passages that have readers thinking or questioning the Bible. One of these passages starts in chapter 22 when God commands Abraham to sacrifice his one true son Isaac to Him (Gen. 22:2). Initially, the readers question this type of command from God to sacrifice a human since this is what the pagan gods of the land would require. Why on Earth would God command such a thing? As one unfolds the story though, the true meanings begin to leak out. The theme of faith, love, testing, obedience, and most importantly the shadow of what God would do Himself is displayed for all to see. God is simply giving Abraham and all of humanity a picture to understand that God does not require this of us, but rather this is what will be required of Him, to sacrifice His only begotten Son to atone for the sins of many (John 3:16; 8:56; Isa. 53:7). Here are some interesting facts to take away from these themes:

The Theme of Testing – This is the first time that the Hebrew word nsh is used to describe a test. Many times, in our lives, God will test us to see if we are in the faith and for us to know that our faith is real. God frequently does this to His children to refine them, to purify them, and for them to take deeper roots in Him. This theme is seen all throughout scripture (1 Peter 1:6-7; Dan. 3:16-18; Isa. 48:10; Jas. 1:2-4, 12; Job 1:22; 2:7; Ps. 66:10; Rom. 8:28).

The Theme of Love – Again, this is the first time that the Hebrew word hb is used to describe love. It is noteworthy to see that love is first described in Scripture between a father and a son. As the theme of love unfolds in Scripture, the readers will see the archetype of love culminates in the love that God has for His one and only Son whom He will offer as a lamb to be slain for many. How fitting it is to see this type of love described in the life of Abraham as a shadow of this type of love (John 15:13).

The Theme of Faith – Faith is the very thing that the Holy Spirit gives us in order to believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:8). Faith has always been the key element in what saves a person and what is interesting is both Paul and James appeal to this very narrative to make their point about justification by faith and justification by works (Jas. 2:21-24; Rom. 3:28; 4:3). Furthermore, Abraham is listed as the greatest man in the hall of faith in the book of Hebrews and is given the most space in this chapter because of the faith he had in God to work out this test for God’s glory and his good (Heb. 11:17; John 8:56). 

The Theme of Obedience – All throughout scripture one will begin to see that without obedience, God will not rain down blessing upon His people. In fact, if God’s children are disobedient; judgement, chastisement, and the cutting off of the covenantal promises are seen in Scripture. Abrahams obedience is crucial here in this test and we see Abraham pass with flying colors never questioning God and he even wakes up in the early morning to go to accomplish this task that God has given him (Gen. 22:3). 

The Theme of Sacrifice – The theme of sacrifice is the highlight and purpose of this entire text. This sacrifice will be the epicenter in which God will later lay down the sacrificial laws to Israel to atone for their sins by the sacrifice of animals. This will be a picture or a type to make way for the future archetype, Jesus Christ, who will be the final sacrifice. What I love the most about this particular text in Genesis 22, is Abraham tells his son that God will provide a lamb for this sacrifice, but yet instead, God provides a ram. The narrator is pointing us that in the future, God will provide His lamb which will be His Son Jesus to be the sacrifice for the world (John 1:29; 3:16).

So, there you have it, one of the hardest texts in all of scripture to swallow but yet as one looks at it closely, it provides us with the greatest picture we can possibly see about faith, obedience, love, testing, and sacrifice. What glorious truths we find in God’s Word!

A Bridegroom of Blood

A Bridegroom of Blood

Exodus 4:18-31 has been noted by scholars as one of the most impossible, troubling, ambiguous, and perplexing passages to understand in all the Hebrew Scriptures (Durham, 1987; Embry, 2010; Howell, 2010; Margaret, 2017). Such strong language focuses on verses 24-26. The highlight of the overall passage proclaims the absolute sovereignty of God and His omnipotence even over the human heart (Ex. 4:21-23). In addition, the narrator goes through great lengths to show how important an identity in God needs to be in one’s life (Ex. 4:24-26). Often, people who read the Bible struggle with the idea of human responsibility and God’s sovereignty when compared to the specific text dealing with Moses, Zipporah, and Gershom; the text has left theologians puzzled (Chisholm, 1996). Much research has been put into this puzzling passage, and various scholars have a very different outlook on the passage.

Some of these various interpretations range from Moses being the one who God was going to kill, and others would say it was Gershom being the one the Lord wanted to kill (Childs, 1976; Durham, 1987; Embry, 2010; Margaret, 2017). Scholars offer suggestions as to why God wanted to kill Moses was due to his failure to circumcise Gershom and also a very striking parallel story with Balaam and his donkey (Embry, 2010). Others argue due to the direct context in Exodus 4:21-23 that God will strike down the firstborns of Egypt; it is Moses’s firstborn Gershom who is in danger (Cole, 1973; Howell, 2010; Stuart, 2006). There are even less popular views that Moses lied about his identity the whole time he was in Midian and the phrase “the Lord met him and sought to kill him” is explained that Moses was overcome with a suicidal depression (Reis, 1991). 

What interpretation is correct? What does this passage admittedly mean? What is God trying to communicate through the narrator here? Did God want to kill Moses after he just commissioned him to free His people from slavery? A proper exegesis of the text will determine the interpretation of the passages. Moving forward, the Mosaic covenant will be presented with the importance of circumcision and the co-text of this passage will be identified. Also, the scenes, plot, and other details will be pointed out in the narrative. Furthermore, the intention of the author will be presented, and a recontextualized view will be discovered for even a contemporary setting.

The Mosaic Covenant

Before diving into the text of discussion, it is helpful to discuss the Mosaic covenant and the importance of circumcision briefly. Even though the Mosaic covenant came after this event, the passages in question highlight or shadow the sign of this covenant which is circumcision. The Mosaic covenant was the third covenant that God bestowed on to humanity. Unlike the first two covenants that were unconditional, this covenant was conditional. Arnold and Beyer (2015) say, “obedience to God’s commands brings blessing while disobedience brings failure” (p. 198; cf. Deut. 28; Ex. 19:5-8, 20). Obedience was vital to the Mosaic covenant, but it was not just a bunch of rules to follow; it was the new way of the Jewish life. Wright (2013) said,

The law was not a set of arbitrary rules to keep God happy. It was a way of life, a way of being human, a culture in a particular time and place, to show what a redeemed people under God looks like. (p. 32)

The Decalogue, law, or Sinai covenant was an agreement between God and man to obey all that God had commanded to inherit the full blessing and promises that God gave to Abraham (Macedo, 2016). The Mosaic covenant was an extension of the Abrahamic covenant, but it came with conditions. God wanted this covenant to serve as a way to set his people apart from the other pagan nations of the Earth, but this covenant also provided the means to make them holy and reflect the glory of God (Alexander, 2012). It was because of the law that God promised Israel that He would make them a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Ex. 19:6). 

In addition to the promises that God gave Israel with the Mosaic covenant, He also provided the means and way for them to be forgiven of their sin. The sacrificial system was the means unto forgiveness and would serve as a type or shadow for things to come. The sacrificial system introduced the concept of just how important it was for blood to be shed for the sins one commits. This shedding of blood is captured in the sign of circumcision (Osborn & Hatton, 1999). Circumcision is the act that God’s people did to identify themselves as an Israelite child and placed them as a member of the covenant community (Howell, 2010; Ryken & Hughes, 2005). God commanded His people to do so back in the time of Abraham,

This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. (Ex. 17:10-11)

Even foreigners and sojourners who wanted to partake in the covenant blessings of God could if they believed in the one true God, Yahweh, and were circumcised (Ex. 12:43-49). Circumcision is a fundamental act that one must complete to identify themselves with the God of the Old Testament, which will be why this act is taken so seriously in the text of observation. Circumcision and the shedding of blood are key when trying to properly understand the specific text of Exodus 4:24-26.

Identifying the Co-text

Identifying the co-text of a passage is crucial since it helps the interpreter identify new ideas of thought. The purpose of the text and the theological significance can change due to the co-text; this is why it is important to establish it at the beginning of interpretation (Vogt, 2009). Co-text passages are often referred to as pericopes, which speak of self-contained stores inside a larger narrative (DeMoss, 2001; Embry, 2010). Co-text passages have markers which identify repeated words, change in scenes, or the people who are involved. Laying these markers out is helpful when observing the co-text (Vogt, 2009).

In Exodus 4:18, there is a significant shift in scenes and characters. Previously in Exodus 3, the narrative focuses on Moses meeting God and the requests God had for Moses to instruct Pharaoh to let His people go. This narrative continues until a shift happens in Exodus 4:18. Moses’s conversation with God ends, and Moses now goes back into the mainland of Midian to inform his father-in-law that he has been asked by God to go back to Egypt (Ex. 4:18). This new co-text presents itself to the end of the chapter ending in verse 31. Although separate co-texts can be introduced for a more profound exegesis (Ex. 4:21-23, 24-26, 27-31), the focus will be the overall co-text of verses 18-31.

Scenes Throughout the Narrative

Inside the narrative of any co-text, scenes are important to identify to help with interpretation. Vogt (2009) says scenes “represent where the action takes place, who is involved, and what actually occurs” (p. 53). Identifying these elements will help the interpreter know what the author thought was important and what may not be necessary since it was not included in Scripture. The passage in question is Exodus 4:18-31. This passage has four primary scenes that take place within the co-text. The first scene is found in verses 18-20. The characters involved are Moses, Jethro, Zipporah, Moses’s son, and Yahweh. In this scene, Moses just left the presence of God at the burning bush and has now come home to ask Jethro if he can leave Midian and return to Egypt to see his brothers (Ex. 4:18). Jethro gives his approval, and Yahweh announces to Moses that all who sought to kill Moses in Egypt are now dead. Moses then takes his wife and children and starts the journey to Egypt.

The second scene deals directly with Moses and Yahweh. The exact location is not given, but God gives Moses instruction on what to do in Pharaoh’s presence and what to tell Pharaoh when he arrives in Egypt. His instructions are to show Pharaoh the miracles that God has given Moses to authenticate his message and to warn Pharaoh that if he does not let God’s children go, the firstborns of Egypt will die (Ex. 4:21-23). The third scene deals with Moses, Yahweh, Zipporah, and Moses’s son. They are at a lodging place, and in this scene, Yahweh seeks to kill someone, and Zipporah circumcises her son and tells him that he is a bridegroom of blood to her (Ex. 4:24-26). 

The final scene involves Aaron, Moses, Yahweh, and the elders of Israel. This event takes place first at a mountain where Aaron and Moses meet for the first time in years and describes the events that have taken place with their God. Both of them present this to the elders of Israel, and they all believe their words and worship God. These four incredible scenes are shown inside this pericope, but the highlight of all four scenes is discovered once the plot is identified.

Discovering the Plot and Minor Details

When doing a proper exegesis on a narrative passage, identifying the plot is helpful because the climax is revealed. The climax will help the interpreter identify which details need to be unraveled the most to figure out the author’s intent (Vogt, 2009). In Exodus 4:18-31, the plot starts with Moses returning to Median to announce that he is going back to Egypt. The plot increases in intensity when Moses leaves with his family back to Egypt, and God instructs Moses what to tell Pharaoh. The climax is presented when God wants to kill someone; either Moses or Gershom, and Zipporah circumcises her son and throws the skin at either one’s leg, calling him a bridegroom of blood. The co-text concludes and decreases in intensity when Moses meets up with Aaron and informs the elders of Israel all of what the Lord had spoken. Due to the three statements within the climax, this will be the focus of the exegesis. (1) The Lord met him and sought to put him to death. (2) Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin and touched his leg. (3) A bridegroom of blood, because of the circumcision.

Put Who to Death?

Genesis 4:24 says, “at a lodging place on the way the Lord met him and sought to put him to death” (English Standard Version). The Good News Translation, the New Living Translation, and the New International Version all incorrectly translate the Hebrew word for him, הוּא (hu), as Moses. Why have scholars over the years attributed this singular third-person pronoun to Moses? Some scholars suggest after a divine mission is assigned; it usually prompts a divine encounter (Gen. 17:10; Jos. 5:13). Like Jacob and Joshua, the Lord gave Moses an important mission, but this mission required their whole household to be in good standing order (Margaret, 2017). Moses would be unable to pronounce judgment on Egypt when his own house was in error (1 Peter 4:17). This is a good observation, but when interpreting the Bible, context is the champion when determining the interpretation of a word or passage (Duvall & Hays, 2012; Klein, Blomberg, & Hubbard, 2004; Plummer, 2010).

In the immediate context, the verse before verse 24 talks about God instructing Moses to tell Pharaoh to let God’s firstborn son, Israel, free; or else God will kill their firstborn sons (Ex. 4:23). The very next verse shows how God sought to kill Moses’s firstborn son Gershom, not Moses (Cole, 1973; Howell, 2010). Stuart (2006) makes this point,

The Hb. grammar of the passage uses proleptic pronouns to refer to Gershom at first and never names Moses at all. Gershom is referred to in v. 25 finally as her son, which tells the reader who it was that God threatened to kill. The choice of the niv to include the name of Moses twice (in brackets each time) is just that: a translator’s choice, not a matter of literal translation. Its effect is to skew the reader’s attention to Moses rather than the actual referent of the pronouns, her son. (Volume 2)

Therefore, the immediate context before this narrative and the narrative to follow in the following verses points to Gershom whom the Lord wanted to kill.

Circumcision

The shedding of blood, whether in the Passover or through circumcision, always provided protection and cleansing (Sproul, 2005). Circumcision was an outward sign of an inward faith (Courson, 2005). Circumcision was the act that identified the people of God as Israelites and made them a member of the covenant community of God (Howell, 2010; Ryken & Hughes, 2005). Circumcision in those days literally made a person one of God’s first-born sons (Howell, 2010). This physical sign of blood being shed was so important because it was to shadow an event called the Passover, which would take place during the event of God taking the first-born sons of Egypt. Moses needed to have his house in order so that his family would not be mistaken during the time of judgment (Howell, 2010). If one wants to be under the covenant community and participate in the Passover, then blood must be shed (Ex. 12:43-49; Josh. 5:2-9; cf. Heb. 9:22). The entire event of Zipporah, Moses, and Gershom is a precursor of how God will save His people from the first-born judgment. Blood is shed and wiped on the leg of Gershom, and during the Passover; blood is shed and wiped on the doorposts of people’s houses (Osborn & Hatton, 1999).

When speaking about the circumcision of Moses, some scholars believe that Moses was already circumcised as an infant since he was taken care of by his mother for the first three months of his life and Pharaoh’s daughter was able to identify him as a Hebrew child quickly (Ex. 2:6). In addition, other commentators believe that if Moses was not circumcised as an infant, then he would have been partially circumcised as a child since Egyptians practiced partial circumcision (Douglas, 2006; Durham, 1987). Furthermore, once Moses fled to Midian, he would have been fully circumcised there since the Midianites practiced circumcision as part of the Midianite marriage rite (Douglas, 2006; Howell, 2010; Stuart, 2006). Due to these reasons and no evidence of Moses being circumcised later in Scripture, one can reasonably conclude that Moses was exempt from the attack made by the Lord. Why would God commission His prophet to do one of the most significant events in human history and then seek to kill him shortly after? This question has perplexed commentators, which is why the focus and main character of these verses are Gershom (Howell, 2010). 

Bridegroom of Blood

What about the obscure phrase that Zipporah uses, “a bridegroom of blood” (Ex. 4:26)? The Hebrew word for bridegroom is חָתָן (ḥātān), and when used in a noun form, it usually is defined as a son-in-law or one who is related by affinity (Howell, 2010; Osborn & Hatton, 1999; Stuart, 2006). Since it has been established that in context, the focus of the narrative in these verses rests with Gershom, the statement Zipporah makes is directed at her son (Stuart, 2006). Gesenius and Tregelles (2003) say, “it is customary for women to call a son when he is circumcised, the bridegroom. Those who apply these words to Moses and not to the child seem to have made a great mistake” (p. 52). Howell (2010) masterfully highlights the importance of this statement being directed at Gershom,

The best way to understand Zipporah's statement is that she is simply making a comment about her relationship to Gershom as she understands it. In other words, now that Gershom is circumcised, he is in fact a relative by means of blood to Yahweh and to her. Zipporah's identity with the covenant community was wrapped up in her marriage to Moses. Moses was a blood relative because of genealogy and circumcision. Because Zipporah obviously could not be circumcised according to the Israelite custom of cutting the foreskin, her identity with Israel existed through her identity with Moses. Zipporah was considered a member of the people of Israel because of her marriage to a circumcised Israelite. Now that Gershom was circumcised, he too was a member of the people of Israel. Therefore, it is reasonable that Zipporah would say, you are a relative by means of blood to me. (pp. 73-74)

With Zipporah’s decisive act, she not only saves her son from certain death, but she also proclaims his newly found identity with Yahweh through the event of circumcision. 

The Narrator’s Intent

One thing to remember about the genre of narratives is they usually do not try to focus on every detail and event of the characters, but rather focus on communicating a theological truth or purpose (Vogt, 2009). One of the most significant truths about God in this passage is His sovereignty and the importance of one being truly identified in Him. God desires His people to be all in for His kingdom. He does not want people who are not willing to obey his commandments and think they have a better plan than what the Lord has laid out. As God’s people seek to carry out God’s plan, they need to trust Him with their lives and be completely identified with Him.

Furthermore, the narrator is undoubtedly communicating the importance of circumcision. Moses and all of Israel have been disconnected from God and the covenantal promises. The narrator is now connecting the promises back to Israel and sealing them with the sign of circumcision. Now that the narrator’s intent has been revealed, the interpreter can now look to recontextualize the passage.

Recontextualize the Passage

Recontextualizing a passage is a crucial final step when interpreting a passage. This process involves looking at what the passage meant for the intended people towards whom the passage is being directed but then taking those passages’ principles and applying them to our modern culture (Duvall & Hays, 2012). Not only was it necessary for Israel to identify themselves with God through the sign of circumcision, the New Covenant demands believers today to be identified to God through the sign of baptism (Ryken & Hughes, 2005). Believers today are circumcised at heart internally and externally identified in baptism (Col. 2:11, 12; Jer. 6:10; Rom. 2:28). Even though Christians are saved by grace alone, a manifestation of that grace that has taken over our lives is shown by our obedience (Jas. 2:17, 26). God does not change; He is concerned about our identity since it cost His only Son His life. Christians need to rest in the sovereignty of God and live their lives according to the Words of God. To be set apart from the culture of today is a vital part of our witness and participation in the Kingdom of God.

Another application that could be drawn out of the text is to warn Christians that after God commissions His people, it is usually followed by immediate trials and tests to prepare them for what is to come. God certainly did this in Moses’s life, but Scripture is also littered with such examples. (1) Noah is preserved through certain destruction and is tested after he left the ark (Gen. 9:1-20). (2) Jacob, who will be named Israel wrestles with the Lord and immediately goes out to meet his brother Esau (Gen. 32-33). (3) Moses again goes through a similar experience when he received the commandments from God but comes down the mountain to see the people participating in idolatry (Ex. 31-32). (4) Jesus, the Lord and King even experiences this once He is baptized and immediately is sent to the wilderness and is tempted by Satan (Luke 3-4:12; Matt. 3-4; Mark 1:9-12). (5) The great apostle Paul has an encounter with Jesus Christ Himself and is immediately blinded after the encounter (Acts 9:1-19). Other examples can be given, but the point that one should take home is after a divine encounter and commission from the Lord, one needs to be ready for trials and testing.

Conclusion

A proper exegesis has been presented of Ex. 4:18-31 by giving a brief overview of the Mosaic covenant and highlighting the importance of circumcision. Exodus 4:24-26 remains unique, and the context seems to be misplaced. By identifying the co-text, scenes, plot, and details of the text; this process helps illuminate the authors real intent of what the narrator was trying to communicate. In light of all the points given in the exegesis of the Exodus 4 passage, the highlight of the narrative flow of the passage pertaining to Gershom of whom God wanted to kill makes the most sense. As one continues in the narrative, the primary highlight of the Exodus 4 narrative is to focus on the firstborn son of Egypt being taken that prompts the release of God’s people out of slavery. This was predicted by God before Moses even went to Egypt (Ex. 4:21-23), and now with the near-death experience with Gershom, the connection is made obvious once death actually does take place with Egypt’s firstborn (Howell, 2010). Furthermore, the relationship between blood and circumcision point the reader forward to the grand event of the Passover (Howell, 2010). When interpreting the text in this manner being driven by the context, the narrator’s intent is easily relatable to our current culture. Just as it was thousands of years ago, believers today can rest in the sovereignty of God as they fold under all the covenant commandments left for them to read in His inspired Word.

References

Alexander, T. D. (2012). From paradise to the promised land: An introduction to the Pentateuch (Third Edition). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Arnold, B. T., & Beyer, B. E. (2015). Encountering the Old Testament: A Christian survey (3rd ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Childs, B. S. (1976). The Book of Exodus: A critical, theological commentary. Louisville: The Westminster Press.

Chisholm, R. B., Jr. (1996). Divine hardening in the Old Testament. Bibliotheca Sacra, 153(612), 410–434. Retrieved from https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0001014804&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Cole, R. A. (1973). Exodus: An introduction and commentary (Vol. 2). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Courson, J. (2005). Jon Courson’s application commentary: Volume one: Genesis–Job. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

DeMoss, M. S. (2001). In Pocket dictionary for the study of New Testament Greek. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Durham, J. I. (1987). Exodus (Vol. 3). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Duvall, J. S., & Hays, J. D. (2012). Grasping God’s Word: A hands-on approach to reading, interpreting, and applying the Bible (Third Edition). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Embry, B. (2010). The endangerment of Moses: Towards a new reading of Exodus 4:24-26. Vetus Testamentum, 60(2), 177–196. doi: https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rlh&AN=48779499&site=eds-live&scope=site

Gesenius, W., & Tregelles, S. P. (2003). Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

Howell, A. J. (2010). The firstborn son of Moses as the “relative of blood” in Exodus 4.24-26. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 35(1), 63–76. https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/0309089210378962

Klein, W. W., Blomberg, C., & Hubbard, R. L. (2004). Introduction to Biblical interpretation. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

Macedo, B. (2016). Covenant theology in the thought of John Calvin: From the Mosaic covenant to the new covenant. Fides Reformata, 21(1), 121-148. Retrieved from https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=120342111&site=eds-live&scope=site

Margaret, M. T. (2017). Tsipporah, her son, and the bridegroom of blood: Attending to the bodies in Exodus 4:24-26. Religions, 8(10), 205. doi: https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=125986624&site=eds-live&scope=site

Osborn, N. D., & Hatton, H. A. (1999). A handbook on Exodus. New York: United Bible Societies.

Plummer, R. L. (2010). 40 Questions about interpreting the Bible. (B. L. Merkle, Ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic & Professional.

Reis, P. T. (1991). The bridegroom of blood: A new reading. Judaism, 40(3), 324. Retrieved from https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9709292054&site=eds-live&scope=site

Ryken, P. G., & Hughes, R. K. (2005). Exodus: saved for God’s glory. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.

Sproul, R. C. (Ed.). (2005). The Reformation Study Bible: English Standard Version. Orlando, FL; Lake Mary, FL: Ligonier Ministries.

Stuart, D. K. (2006). Exodus (Vol. 2). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

Wright, C. J. H. (2013). Learning to love Leviticus: Even those passages about shellfish, mixed fibers, and animal sacrifices. Christianity Today, 57(6), 31–34.

The Abortion Dilemma

Church and Politics on the Idea of Abortion

Since the beginning of time, civilizations have been divided on whether a particular religious group or religion should dominate and govern state laws to their citizens. One can look to the Bible to see how a theocratic civilization operates which was a time in history where certain people were ruled and governed by God Himself. There are other countries like Saudi Arabia that are dominated by the religion Islam. These types of countries are built on and operated by Sharia Law which is derived solely from the Quran. Then one can look at the United States and see that even though the beginning law and governance were built through a Biblical lens; as time has passed, the country is now divided on how religion should influence the states and its citizens. 

One of the biggest questions in an American society today is should religion have any part in dictating state laws? The slogan of keeping Church separate from the state is a famous mantra that one frequently hears when the debates arise regarding certain ethical or moral issues. Can the Church separate from the state at the core level? Is the Church supposed to let the world dictate what is right and wrong? What is permissible and what is allowed? This article will address these critical issues, especially when it comes to the influence both parties have regarding the specific ethical issue of abortion. Arguments will be made to show how a balance of religious influence is necessary to dictate proper ethical laws. In addition, arguments will also be made for the position of pro-life through the lens of Christianity, and how that viewpoint is lived out through the people of the Church today.

Abortion in the Eyes of the Government

As one looks to the ethical idea of abortion, sadly some people are completely divided on the morality of this great issue. Abortion is defined as terminating a pregnancy or ending the life of an unborn child (Davidson, 2016; Sproul, 2010). This practice has been around sadly for thousands of years. Ancient Near Eastern (A.N.E.) civilizations practiced abortion. It was legal in the Roman Empire for some time, and even became a permissible law in the United States after Roe vs. Wade in 1973 (Davidson, 2016; Sivak, 2018). There are inscriptions and ancient writings that have been discovered by archeologists showing how most abortions were administered through herbal chemistry thousands of years ago (Davidson, 2016). Sadly, the abortion dilemma is on the rise all over the world. Governments are more concerned with the choice of the women, the impact babies have financially on a person, the emotional distraught that a child can bring, the limitations of one’s social life and many other excuses to advocate for the position of pro-choice (McQuilkin & Copan, 2014).  

There are even people who promote the idea of abortion because they say that aborting a child is a guaranteed entrance for the child into the presence of God and lets them “experience the joys of heaven without the temptations of Earth” (Thomas, 2016, p. 518). According to Christian theology and eschatology, a baby or unborn child is declared innocent in the eyes of the Lord and thereby makes the babies who are victims of an abortion the most fortunate of all humans. They do not have to suffer the pains of this world and struggle with volition which may hinder their entrance to heaven (Thomas, 2016). Thomas (2016), throws the conviction back on people that advocate for preserving their life that these same people (pro-life people), are letting the child experience life on this sinful planet instead of letting them experience immediate eternal Life with a capital l, with their creator. Thomas (2016), even calls the doctors and abortion practitioners “the most effective evangelists” (p. 538). What a crazy way to justify the murder of babies! Despite the scientific evidence of how the unborn can feel pain, the unborn can distinguish their mother’s voice and music from other noises, and the unborn can learn words and sounds and remember them after they are born; the government still errs on the side of choice (Grudem, 2018; Hopson, 2016; Partanen, 2013; Skwarecki, 2013; “The University of Florida,” 2004).

Three Arguments from the Pro-Choice Side

When it comes to the subject of abortion, there are some pretty basic arguments that exist out there. 

• Interaction and Survival - Some people advocate for abortion and say that killing the unborn is morally acceptable since the unborn are unable to interact with others and are unable to survive and maintain their own life on their own. One can easily counter this argument and say that their conditions would also include certain disabled people, the elderly, or someone who is perhaps in a coma. Does this mean that we should just line up these people and murder them? Absolutely not! Ones interaction with society and dependency on others does not disqualify a person from the right to live.

• Birth Defects – Some people argue that it is morally acceptable to abort a baby if the baby is diagnosed with certain birth defects. This argument again breaks down since there are studies that show that a diagnosis is not 100% accurate. Furthermore, there are also studies that have been proven to show that people with down syndrome for example, are some of the happiest people on Earth and that the people who end up caring for such life, end up seeing the beauty of life in a whole other lens (Grudem, 2018; McQuilkin & Copan, 2014). Lastly, it is the Lord who creates these beautiful children with a purpose, to bring Him glory (Ex. 4:11; John 9:2-3). Randy Alcorn (1992) proposes a beautiful example to this exact scenario in which a child had the potential of being born with a disability,

The father had syphilis and the mother had tuberculosis. Of four previous children, the first was blind, the second died, the third was both deaf and dumb, and the fourth had tuberculosis. What would you advise the woman to do when she finds she is pregnant again? One student answered, ‘I would advise an abortion.’ Then the professor said, ‘Congratulations.… You have just killed Beethoven.’ (p. 175)

• Rape or Incest – The majority of people would perhaps agree that this particular scenario should be fit to be declared morally acceptable. Would it be morally acceptable to murder the child though once the baby is born? If not, why then the change of heart weeks before the birth? A child should not have to suffer the consequences of the fathers and mother’s crime, should they? God doesn’t seem to agree with this type of thinking (Deut. 24:16; Ezek. 18:20). Again, there are examples of children who become incredible people even though they were the product of a rape or incest incident (Alcorn, 1992). Mcquilkin and Copan (2014) put it this way,

A second act of violence cannot correct the first. The mother’s lack of responsibility for the conception does not remove the child’s God-given right to life. The unborn child is not the attacker but is, in fact, a second victim, who should not receive capital punishment for its father’s crime. (p. 438)

Abortion in the Eyes of the Church

What about the Church? What has been the teaching of Christians about this ethical issue of abortion? When it comes to the subject of ethics, Christians must always look to the Word of God to get the final answer. For subjects such as abortion, which is not explicitly spoken of in Scripture, one should also look at the early church fathers and the historical tradition that was passed down to get an idea of what the Church has always believed and taught on a particular issue. When it comes to the subject of abortion, the Bible indirectly makes it clear that this practice is immorally wrong. In Scripture, we find the opening pages of how God created people in His image (Gen. 1:26). Human beings are God’s crowning jewel of creation and no matter what type of life that person is meant to have, the only person who should be able to take a life is God Himself (Dt. 32:39; Jas. 4:12; Matt. 10:28). We get an idea of how abortion is wrong just by looking at the Ten Commandments; thou shall not murder (Ex. 20:13). Another key example of how the Bible shows that life in the womb is valuable is when God pronounces death for the person who causes a baby in the womb to die, even if it is accidental (Grudem, 2018). Grudem provides valuable insight in his commentary on the famous passage in Exodus 21,

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. God established for Israel a law code that placed a higher value on protecting the life of a pregnant woman and her unborn child than the life of anyone else in Israelite society. Far from treating the death of an unborn child as less significantthan the death of others in society, this law treated the death of an unborn child or its mother as more significantand therefore worthy of more severe punishment. And the law did not make any distinction about the number of months the woman had been pregnant. (p. 570; Ex. 21:22-25)

Another example given in scripture is when the Psalmist proclaims how much value an unborn child has in the eyes of God as found in Psalm 139:13-16,

For you formed my inward parts; you wove me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; wonderful are your works, and my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; your eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in your book were all written the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them.

Beauty, sacredness, and value are found for every life that God creates since they are all image bearers of God Himself. The Bible has always shown that life begins at conception which is why believers advocate and champion pro-life positions (Calvin & Anderson, 2010; Eph. 1:4; Gen. 4:1; 25:22-23; Jer. 1:5; Job 3:3; Luke 1:35, 44; Ps. 51:5).

Abortion in the Early Church Writings

Not only does scripture speak on the issue of abortion indirectly, but early church writings speak on the abortion dilemma directly.What is amazing about living in the present world is people today have much to reflect on as they gaze over history. It is essential to see what the people of God believed on the subject of abortion to get a complete and accurate picture on the subject, especially if the Bible never directly speaks on the issue. One astounding discovery that has been proven to be of significant value on church practice is called the Didache which “was a manual of church discipline and a codebook for Christian morality” (Sproul, 2010, p. 43). It is an early church document that dates back to the early first century (McQuilkin & Copan, 2014; Niederwimmer & Attridge, 1998). What is impressive about this document is that it directly speaks to the subject of abortion. It says, “you shall not murder a child, whether by abortion or by killing it once it is born” (Niederwimmer & Attridge, 1998, p. 88). This early church document gives us a monumental belief that the Church was and has been against the idea of abortion for thousands of years. 

As the church continued to become more influential and prominent, God would raise up men to write and leave behind foundational instruction from these early church fathers. People like John Chrysostom in the East and Jerome in the West help shape the faith of Christianity as we know it today. Both of these great men condemned the idea of abortion (Bakke, 2007). Other spiritual giants like Basil of Caesarea and Augustine of Hippo firmly spoke against the practice of abortion as well (Bakke, 2007; Davidson, 2016). Today, people can look back at the Church and see through the three main branches of Christianity (i.e., Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism), that the Church has always believed taking the life of the unborn is clearly a sin and a violation against God.

The Balancing Influence the Church Should Have with the State

So how involved should Christians be when it comes to influencing the government and the laws that pass for their citizen to adhere? First, Christians need to realize that we are living in two kingdoms: the kingdom of man and the Kingdom of God (Horton, 2008). In one kingdom people are obsessed with themselves, and in the other, people are driven by the love they have for their creator. These two kingdoms have different natures, goals, and influences (Calvin, 2011). Believers need to recognize that no matter what they do in this life, sin and the passions of the world will most assuredly dominate the collective mind and abortion may never be entirely eradicated until the King of King and Lord of Lords returns to make all things right (Rev. 19:11-21). Second, believers need to keep in mind that our first duty is to love God and others no matter the circumstance and to be salt and light to a perverse generation (Luke 10:27; McQuilkin & Copan, 2014). There have been countless examples of how Christians had moved the world just by radiating the type of love that Jesus displayed when He walked this Earth (Justin, Irenaeus, Roberts, Donaldson, & Coxe, 2007). This is one of the critical ways that Christians have had influence within the government.

Third, Christians need to remember taking over the government to have the dominant influence in society is not their primary goal. One only has to read history books to see what a lousy choice and effect that has had on the people of God. During the reign of Constantine in the Roman Empire, one can see how eventually the Church became the primary influence of the state and even though many good things were done (e.g., the murder of Christians stopped), the Church became prideful and was full of the lust for power (McQuilkin & Copan, 2014). This continued throughout the history of the Church and became even more polluted and corrupted for the love of power in what has become the Roman Catholic Church. Having a supreme position of power only has corrupted Christianity in the long run instead of making a Godly long-lasting impact on the people. Christians should remember the Reformers teaching of balancing the influence within the government instead of having the reign of power (McQuilkin & Copan, 2014).  

Lastly, Christians should put their talents, time, and money into legislation or institutions that began to limit the idea of abortion. It has been said that actual progress begins with incremental steps. This has been the idea behind proposed legislation for years. Trying to implement new laws that reduce or eliminate public funding of abortions, implement consent laws, provide ultrasounds before abortion, and make minors tell their parents about their decision to abort their babies has had a profound impact on women choosing not to abort their babies (Cohen, 2011; Jessen, 2016; Zylstra, 2011). Not only do these types of incremental laws have a profound impact on abortion, but pregnancy centers have also been proven to change people’s lives by making a conscious decision to keep their babies and even put them up for adoption (Zylstra, 2011). Christians need to be careful when engaging the kingdom of this world more than the Kingdom that God wants us to be partakers in instead.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Horton (2008), summarizes a Christians goal in their influence within the government, 

We need not “Christianize” culture in order to appreciate it and participate in it with the gifts that God has given us as well as our non-Christian neighbors. Though called to be faithful in our callings until Christ returns, with Abraham, we are “looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose architect and builder is God. (Heb. 11:10, p.5)

A Christian’s goal should not be to control the government but rather make deposits of love within the government. They should advocate for things like prohibiting late-term abortions, encourage legislation to be passed to improve our children’s education, requiring women to see their child on a sonogram, and encouraging the idea of adoption (McQuilkin & Copan, 2014). Since believers are stuck inside the kingdom of man until the Lord returns, they will never be able to eradicate death and murder fully. Instead, Christians today need to shine the light of Christ, love others unconditionally, and win others over by their works so that people would become hungry for the Gospel and that this would cause another great awakening to change the morality ideas of the government from within. The only way people will change is if they have an encounter with God. Let Christians be the tool that God uses to accomplish this mighty work!

References

Alcorn, R. (1992). Prolife answers to prochoice arguments. Portland, OR: Multnomah.

Bakke, O. M. (2007). When children became people: The birth of childhood in early Christianity. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Calvin, J., & Anderson, J. (2010). Commentary on the Book of Psalms. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

Calvin, J. (2011). Institutes of the Christian Religion 1 & 2. (J. T. McNeill, Ed., F. L. Battles, Trans.) (Vol. 1). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Cohen, A. (2011). The next abortion battleground: Fetal heartbeats. Time. Retrieved from http://ideas.time.com/2011/10/17/the-next-abortion-battleground-fetal-heartbeats/

Davidson, J. R. (2016). Abortion in antiquity. In J. D. Barry, D. Bomar, D. R. Brown, R. Klippenstein, D. Mangum, C. Sinclair Wolcott, … W. Widder (Eds.), The Lexham Bible dictionary. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

Grudem, W. (2018). Christian ethics: An introduction to Biblical moral reasoning. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.

Hopson, J. L. (2016). Fetal psychology. Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/199809/fetal-psychology

Horton, M. (2008). A tale of two kingdoms. Table Talk (9), 3-5. Retrieved from https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2008/09/tale-two-kingdoms/

Jessen, L. (2016). How this ultrasound program brought life to 358,000 babies. The Daily Signal. Retrieved from https://www.dailysignal.com/2016/01/07/how-this-ultrasound-program-brought-life-to-358000-babies/

Justin, Irenaeus, Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (2007). The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. New York, NY: Cosimo Classics.

McQuilkin, R., & Copan, P. (2014). An introduction to Biblical ethics: Walking in the way of wisdom (Third ed.). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. 

Niederwimmer, K., & Attridge, H. W. (1998). The Didache: A commentary. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Partanen, E. (2013). Learning-induced neural plasticity of speech processing before birth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Retrieved from https://www.pnas.org/content/110/37/15145.full

Sivak, D. (2018). Fact check: Have there been 60 million abortions since Roe vs. Wade? Retrieved from http://checkyourfact.com/2018/07/03/fact-check-60-million-abortions/

Skwarecki, B. (2013). Babies learn to recognize words in the womb. Science. Retrieved from https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/08/babies-learn-recognize-words-womb

Sproul, R. C. (2010). Abortion: A rational look at an emotional issue (20th anniversary ed.). Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing.

Thomas, D. (2016). Better never to have been born: Christian ethics, anti-abortion politics, and the pro-life paradox. The Journal of Religious Ethics, (3), 518. https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/jore.12152

University of Florida. (2004). University of Florida research adds to evidence that unborn children hear “melody” of speech. Science Daily. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/01/040123001433.htm

Zylstra, S. E. (2011). Abortion: The new pro-life surge. Christianity Today, 55(6), 17–19.