This is a theological review of the article “Why Biblical Arguments for Abortion Fail” by Calum Miller, published in “Christian Bioethics” critically examines and refutes claims that certain Biblical passages support a lesser moral status for the fetus. Miller focuses on three primary texts often cited in arguments for the permissibility of abortion: Genesis 2:7, Exodus 21:22-25, and Numbers 5:11-31. He argues that these interpretations are flawed and that a proper understanding of these passages aligns with a pro-life stance, emphasizing the moral and ethical significance of unborn life.
Outline #
The table below summarizes Miller’s arguments against using Biblical passages to support abortion, emphasizing the symbolic nature of key texts and the consistent historical opposition to abortion in Jewish and Christian traditions.
Genesis 2:7 – The Breath of Life #
Genesis 2:7 states, “Then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.” Some interpret this to mean that life begins at the first breath, implying fetuses are not “alive” until birth. Miller refutes this by clarifying that fetuses are biologically alive before birth, performing vital functions such as respiration through amniotic fluid. He argues that the passage should be understood symbolically rather than literally, as the early chapters of Genesis are rich in symbolism. This symbolic interpretation is consistent with other Biblical passages, such as Ecclesiastes 11:5, which describes God’s spirit entering a child in the womb, suggesting that life begins before birth.
Exodus 21:22-25 – Injury to a Pregnant Woman #
Exodus 21:22-25 discusses the penalties if two men fighting cause a pregnant woman to give birth prematurely. The passage has been interpreted in various ways throughout history, with some arguing it implies a lesser value for the fetus. Miller examines three primary interpretations:
-
- Harm refers to the woman: This interpretation suggests that only harm to the woman results in severe punishment, while harm to the fetus results in a fine.
- Harm refers to the formed/unformed baby: The Septuagint translates “harm” as referring to whether the fetus is “formed” or “unformed,” with differing penalties.
- Harm refers to the child being born prematurely but unharmed: The child is born alive, and the fine is for the trauma caused.
Miller argues that the third interpretation is the most plausible, as the Hebrew terms used for “come out” and “children” more likely refer to a live birth rather than a miscarriage. Additionally, even if the first interpretation were correct, it would not imply that abortion is permissible, as ancient Jewish tradition consistently opposed abortion.
Numbers 5:11-31 – The Ordeal of the Bitter Water #
Numbers 5:11-31 describes a ritual for a woman suspected of adultery, where drinking a mixture causes physical symptoms if she is guilty. Some suggest this passage implies divine endorsement of abortion if the woman miscarries. Miller counters this by highlighting the ambiguous and symbolic nature of the text. The terms used for “abdomen” and “thigh” in the passage do not clearly indicate miscarriage. Instead, they likely refer to a curse resulting in infertility rather than abortion. Even if the passage did imply miscarriage, it would not support the permissibility of abortion, as it describes a curse, not a moral endorsement.
Symbolic and Historical Context #
Miller emphasizes the importance of interpreting Biblical passages within their symbolic and historical contexts. Literal interpretations of metaphorical texts can lead to moral and exegetical contradictions. For example, interpreting Genesis 2:7 literally while accepting the symbolic nature of Ecclesiastes 11:5 would be inconsistent. Historical context also shows that the Jewish and Christian traditions have uniformly opposed abortion, further supporting a pro-life interpretation of these passages.
Conclusion #
Miller concludes that none of the examined Biblical passages support a lesser moral status for fetuses or the permissibility of abortion. Instead, these texts, when understood correctly, align with a pro-life stance that values and protects unborn life. The consistent historical and theological perspectives of Judaism and Christianity affirm the dignity of the unborn, making any Biblical justification for abortion unpersuasive.
Discussion Questions #
How do different translations of key Biblical passages, such as Exodus 21:22-25, affect the arguments for and against the moral status of the fetus?
What are the moral and ethical implications of interpreting Biblical texts in a literal versus symbolic manner concerning the beginning of life?
How does the historical consistency of Jewish and Christian opposition to abortion influence modern interpretations of Biblical texts?
How does modern science intersect with theological interpretations of when life begins, as discussed in the article?
How does the symbolic interpretation of Biblical texts, such as the “breath of life” in Genesis, influence the theological understanding of life and personhood?
What are the broader implications of striving for ethical consistency in religious teachings on bioethics?
References #
- Miller, C. (2023). Why Biblical Arguments for Abortion Fail. Christian Bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality, 29, 11-20. https://doi.org/10.1093/cb/cbad004
- Jones, D. (2004). The Soul of the Embryo. London, United Kingdom: Continuum.
- Walton, J. H. (2015). The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the Human Origins Debate. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
- Josephus, F. (2017). Antiquities of the Jews. Available: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2848/2848-h/2848-h.htm
