Christian Scholars Review (Fall, 1971) 42-58.
Copyright © 1971 by Christian Scholars Review.
Cited with permission.
In this essay, C. E. Cerling,
Jr., a United Methodist clergyman,
re-examines
abortion and contraception in the light of biblical
revelation.
Abortion and Contraception in Scripture
C. E. Cerling
THE PURPOSE of this paper is the
examination of the biblical
teaching relating to the problems of abortion and
contraception. This exam-
ination it is hoped will
provide a necessary foundation for discussions of the
problems in the ethical realm, particularly the
problem of whether abortion
is equivalent to murder. Before one can consider
the problems in terms of
specific situations it is necessary to establish
general principles that can be
applied to all situations.1 By
focusing attention on the problems of overpopula-
tion, poverty, and other
matters relating to these problems, one moves from the
area of theology to situation-dominated ethics.2
Is it fair to ask of documents as
old as the Bible questions concerning
abortion and contraception, questions that appear
to have such modern origins?
The
questions are fair, because they are not really questions unique to the
present age. Noonan,3
who gives the most thorough discussion of the early
Church's
attitude toward contraception as it developed historically,4
devotes
1 Helmut Thielicke,
The Ethics of Sex, trans. J. W. Doberstein (
Row
Publishers, 1964), p. 232 states that ethical principles may even present
situations
where a principle is more important than a life. But
he also affirms the importance of
difficult cases to test one's ethic (p. 199).
2 J. W.
(March 4, 1966), 9. William E. Hulme, "A Theological Approach to Birth Control,"
Pastoral
Psychology XI (April, 1960), 26-7. It should also be added
that these secondary considera-
tions may force re-examination
of one's original position because of factors not considered
in scripture because not applicable to the
biblical mileau.
3 J. T.
Noonan, Jr. Contraception: A History of
Its Treatment by the Catholic Theolo-
gians and Canonists (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965),
chapter one.
4 Noonan writes from the
Catholic perspective, but since much of the teaching of the
Church
is the teaching of the Catholic Church during the early years of development,
treatment from the Catholic perspective is valid.
See also Lloyd Kalland, "Views and
Positions
of the Christian Church--An Historical Review," Birth Control and the Christian,
eds. Walter 0. Spitzer and Carlyle L. Saylor
(Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 1969),
417.
42
Cerling: Abortion and
Contraception 43
much of his first chapter to a discussion of methods
of contraception and
abortion in the ancient world. Whole treatises
were written on the topics in
cultures having intimate contact with the
children of Israel.5
A paper on the biblical teaching on
birth control automatically excludes any
discussion of birth control for the unmarried. The
Bible never entertains the idea
that sexual intercourse apart from the marital
relationship is justified (Ex.
20:14;
I Cor. 6:13-20). For this reason the morality of
birth control for the
unmarried is like the question of whether a bank
robber should use a Ford or a
ever rob a bank. The question of birth control for
the unmarried is also a
question of protection in sin, a question never
raised.
The question of abortion for the
unmarried poses a different problem.
Abortion
for those involved in pregnancies induced by rape or forced incest and
those women whose health would be endangered or who
may produce a
genetically damaged child should be considered under
the sections dealing
generally with abortion. This discussion, though,
will also not consider the
problems involved in the pregnancies of women who
have co-operated in illicit
intercourse, except for cases covered by the
problems stated above. Unmarried
women involved in illicit intercourse are not a
subject for this study for the same
reasons as given in the preceding paragraph
concerning contraception and the
unmarried.
THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHRISTIAN POSITION
ON
CONTRACEPTION AND ABORTION6
One cannot discuss the biblical
teaching on contraception without consid-
ering at the same time the
teaching of the Church and its development.7
Traditional
teaching needs to be understood in the light of scripture (sometimes
misunderstood), the philosophical
climate, the religious climate, and current
medicinal practices.8 For example, Paul
writes in Romans 1:26-7 of "unnatural
5 See below pp. 48-49.
6 Noonan, Contraception .... ch. one, on whose work this
section is based, treats the
development of the Catholic Church's teaching from
the dawn of the Church age until the
modern era.
In this paper the patristic material is examined
first because it shows the source of many
present day attitudes. We can also see how and
to what the fathers reacted in forming their
teaching to see if our teaching should be formed
through the interaction of scripture and
ideas similar to those of the fathers.
Since
the I.U.D.'s status as contraceptive or abortifacient is still being debated, further
medical research needs to establish where it
should be included.
7 Generalizations about the
Church do not indicate that the author thinks all churchmen
agreed on a given position. What is assumed is that
the majority of people writing on a topic
agreed on a basic core of teaching that can be fairly
called the teaching of the Church.
8 Noonan, ch. two.
43
44 Christian
Scholar's Review
acts." The early Church fathers thought that
"natural" was the obvious function
of an act; they thought the function of sexual
relations that is most natural is
the procreation of children.9 This view
is now considered a misinterpretation,
but it was used to develop the view of sex that
dominated the Church for almost
two thousand years.
Current
medical practice also affected the development of early Church
teaching. Contraception and abortion were treated
together because of the
difficulty of differentiating them in the early
stages of pregnancy.10 Many of
the contraceptive methods used were powerful enough
to cause an abortion in
the early stages of pregnancy. By combining this
difficulty with the known fact
that abortion and contraception were frequently
connected with the work of
magicians,11 it is easier to
understand why the Church condemned such prac-
tices.
An interpretative principle that one can
occasionally see operating in the
Church
also played a part in the development of the early Church's teaching; this
is the principle of maximization. Maximization
occurs when a weak or easily
misunderstood passage is explained
and used as the basis for a strong stand on a
controversial subject. The
interpretation of Genesis 38 (Onanism) is an example.
A
passage that is not clear was used to condemn contraception.12
The patristic age generally had a pessimistic
view of marriage.13 It would
appear that the Church fathers took I Corinthians 7 to
heart without the
corrective of Ephesians 5. This low view of
marriage, combined with the above
interpretation of Romans 1:26-7,
resulted in a view of sex that was purely
functional; therefore intercourse is frequently
condemned if it is primarily for
pleasure. Since the act is functional, and
contraception would interfere with that
function, one would only use contraception if one
wanted to engage in sex
relations for pleasure--something strongly
condemned. And if pleasure were not
one's intention, covetousness could be the only other
reason for prohibiting
children, because limiting the size of one's
family would be economically
advantageous, and covetousness is
also wrong.
Abortion was equated with murder very early in
the patristic period. In its
explanation of the "
9 Ibid., pp. 74-5. This view was
held even through the 19th century. Herschel Wilson
Yates,
Jr. "American Protestantism and Birth Control," (unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation,
10 Noonan, p. 17.
11 Ibid.,
p. 17.
12 Other passages used in this
way are Romans 1:26-7 and I Thess. 4:4. An example
more
familiar to most people would be the maximization
that has taken place in the Roman
Catholic Church with regard to Jesus' statement
to Peter at Caesarea Philippi. This passage is
weak and easily misunderstood as support for papal infallability, but it is used to justify it.
13 Derrick Sherwin Bailey, Sexual Relation in Christian Thought (
Brothers,
1959), p. 24.
44
Cerling: Abortion and
Contraception 45
with the exposure of infants.14 This is
readily understandable if one reads the
septuagint translation (really
rewording) or the Hebrew of Exodus 21:22-2315
where accidental abortion is punished by the death penalty.
Naturally, if
accidental abortion deserves death, then
intentional abortion should deserve no
lesser punishment.
The Jewish understanding of the purpose of
intercourse may also have
influenced the Church fathers. The Halakah
consistently interprets Genesis 1:28
as a command to have children.16 A
functional understanding of intercourse is
also seen in Philo, who expressly condemns
intercourse that is not specifically
for procreation.17 With such an attitude
current in rabbinic and Philonic
Judaism
it is not surprising that the Church fathers (Clement, Justin, Origen,
Chrysostom,
Ambrose, and Jerome to name a few) similarly viewed intercourse.
Noonan,
speaking of the development of the early Church's understanding
of the purpose of intercourse, writes:
The
construction was not a purely theological enterprise. It was not undertaken in
a
vacuum, removed from other religious, philosophical,
and social strivings. The state of
medical knowledge was one factor in the
development of theory on marital intercourse.
The
predominant institutional modifications of monogamous marriage in Roman
society, namely, slave concubinage and easy divorce,
affected the values which Christians would
stress in marriage. Contemporary Jewish thought and
contemporary Stoic thought formed
other patterns limiting the impact of the Gospels.
Gnostic speculation created a current to
which Christians reacted.
Within the intellectual and social context of
the
selection, discrimination, emphasis, and
application of the Biblical texts were performed.
In
this collaboration between the Christian community and the written word, under
the
pressures generated by Roman life, the teaching on
contraception took place.18
Stoicism influenced the Christian view by
eliminating emotion as a legiti-
mate part of life.19 The rationale for
intercourse then, almost by necessity,
14 "Didache,"
The Apostolic Fathers, trans. and ed.
J. B. Lightfoot (
Book
House, 1956), p. 124.
15 Exodus 21:22-3 reads in the
RSV, "When men strive together, and hurt a woman with
child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no
harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be
fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay
upon him; and he shall pay as the judges
determine. If any harm follows (replaced in the
LXX by-'But if it be formed ... ') then
you shall give life for life."
16 Raphael Loewe,
The Position of Women in Judaism (London:
S.P.C.K., 1966), pp.
36-7.
17 Philo, De Josepho, 9.43 and De Abrahamo 137.
18 Noonan, pp. 45-6. Yates
attempts to show similar influences in the early 20th century
that helped change attitudes toward contraception.
19 Noonan, pp. 46-8. This
influence is directly tracable in extant writings of
both the
Church fathers and certain Stoic writers. Seneca writes that
"All love of another's wife is
shameful; so too, too much love of your own. A
wise man ought to love his wife with
judgment, not affection. Let him control his
impulses and not be borne headlong into
copulation. Nothing is fouler than to love a wife
like an adulteress. Certainly those who say
45
46 Christian
Scholar's Review
became procreation rather than love or pleasure. At
the same time the influence
of Gnosticism caused another reaction. Reacting to
the licentiousness of some
Gnostics
and the asceticism of others, the fathers took a middle ground. By
combining reaction and the overvaluation of
virginity, intercourse became under-
stood as simply a procreative act.20
Preceding the fourth century there is no
clear-cut condemnation of contra-
ception in any official manner,
although there are less clear references.21 The
view that came to dominate in the Church was formed
by Augustine in reaction
to the Manichees and as
a result of incidents in his personal life.22 Along with
his theology, his view became for a while the
teaching of the whole Church. No
official change in the attitude of the Church in
any of its major branches took
place until a Lambeth
conference of the Church of England in the early 1930s
declared contraception acceptable under certain
limited conditions.23
THE
OLD TESTAMENT
AND
THE PROBLEMS OF CONTRACEPTION AND ABORTION
It is difficult to deal with the problems of
abortion and contraception in the
Old Testament because of the nature of Old
Testament culture.
The children of
Grandchildren are the crown of the aged,
and the glory of sons is their fathers (Prov.
17:6).
Lo,
sons are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows
in
the hand of a warrior are the sons of one's youth.
Happy is the man who has his quiver full
of them! He shall not be put to shame when he
speaks with his enemies in the gate (Psalm
127:3-5).
Your
wife will be like a fruitful vine within your house; your children will be like
olive
shoots around your table. Lo, thus shall the man be
blessed who fears the Lord (Psalm
128:3-4).
...
and Sarai said to Abram, ‘Behold
now, the Lord has prevented me from bearing
children; ...’ (Genesis 16:2).
that they unite themselves to wives to produce
children for the sake of the state and the
human race ought, at any rate, to imitate the beasts,
and when their wife's belly swells not
destroy the offspring. Let them show themselves
to their wives not as lovers, but as
husbands." (Seneca, Fragments, ed. Friedrich G. Haase (
Jerome, Against
Jovinian 1.49).
20 Noonan, pp. 56-72.
21 Ibid.,
pp. 73, 95.
22 Ibid.,
ch. four.
23 Bailey, p. 257.
24 Might the fact that there is
no word for bachelor in the Old Testament be an indication
(although not proof) of the value placed on marriage and its
attendant relationships in Old
Testament times? Lucien LeGrand, The Biblical Doctrine
of Virginity (New Y6rk: Sheed
and Ward, 1963), p. 29.
46
Cerling: Abortion and Contraception 47
Jacob's anger was kindled against Rachel,
and he said, ‘Am I in the place of God who
has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?’
(Genesis 30:2).
...
and although he loved Hannah, he would give Hannah
only one portion, because the
Lord
had closed her womb (I Sam. 1:5).
Children
are a means of perpetuating the family name and the covenant
people.25 With attitudes such as
these being common in
imagine how contraception and abortion could
become problems. They may
have been rejected without even being seriously
considered.
PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE
Much of the discussion surrounding the
problem of contraception deals with
the creative intent for marriage. Was marriage
created by God for the purpose of
the procreation and education of children or was
the purpose of marriage
companionship? Genesis 1:28 and 2:18
seem to conflict at this point. It has
generally been the teaching of the Catholic Church
that the primary purpose for
marriage and intercourse is the procreation and
education of children. Until the
early years of this century Protestantism generally
concurred in this opinion.
Now
almost all Protestants would say that companionship is more important
than procreation.26 Piper writes,
"Although the Biblical writers are aware of the
intimate connection between sex and propagation
sex is not regarded primarily
as a means for procreation of children. The reason
that woman was created is
that God saw that it was not good for the man to be
alone (Gen. 2:18)."27 He
then goes on to state that Genesis 1:28 is not to be
taken as a command, but as a
blessing given to the original couple.28
Piper rightly states that "All that the
Bible
has to say concerning sexual life is incomprehensible if we try to under-
stand it as based on the will to propogate."29
The intent of the Creator then
appears to have been companionship, sex being an
important subordinate cre-
ative intent.30
25 Piper,
p. 33.
26 Thielicke,
pp. 204-5 states that procreation is a secondary reason for marriage. If the
primary purpose, companionship, will be
destroyed by the exercise of the secondary
purpose, then the secondary purpose may be ignored.
27 Piper,
p. 30.
28 Ibid.,
pp. 32-3.
29 Ibid.,
p. 32.
30 Charles Edward Cerling, Jr., "A Wife's Submission in Marriage,
(Unpublished master's
dissertation,
(Unpublished Th.D.
dissertation, Chicago Lutheran Theological Seminary, 1961), pp. 35-8.
Ebbie C. Smith, "The One-flesh Concept of
Marriage; A Biblical Study," (Unpublished
Th.D.
dissertation, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1961), pp. 15-39. Piper,
p.
137.
47
48 Christian
Scholar's Review
Genesis 1:28 does pose a problem. This verse,
usually understood as a
command, seems to suggest that all couples
should have three or more children.
(For
two to multiply they have to become three.) But is this verse a command?
It
is imperative in mood, but this mood is used for blessings along with the
indicative.31 There are eight other
places in Genesis32 where the introductory
formula, "blessed ... and said . . . "
is used with the imperative. Therefore it
would appear that Genesis 1:28 is a blessing rather
than a command; but it
would also appear from this verse that the Creator
intended that each couple
should produce children.33 The blessing
suggests one of the major purposes of
marriage, although procreation is not the purpose
of marriage. If it were, the
marriage of the sterile and aged would probably
have been condemned.
CONTRACEPTION
Leviticus 15:18 may have a bearing on the
question of contraception.
Waltke interprets the verse to mean that ejaculation
without procreative intent is
acceptable.34 If this passage refers
to coitus interruptus
his interpretation is
sound. Although the author agrees with Waltke35
other interpretations are
possible. The passage may be referring to sperm
that runs from or does not fully
enter the vagina and therefore soils either garments
or skins. It may also refer to
a nocturnal emission while one is sleeping with
his wife, since akhabh
will bear
either the rendering "sleep" or
"intercourse."
The single most misunderstood passage on the
whole topic of contraception
is Genesis 38. What was the sin of Onan for which he was killed by God? The
traditional interpretation of the Church has been
that Onan was condemned for
coitus interruptus. No modern commentator
supports this view. One must go to
19th
century works to find support for such a position.36
Onan's
sin is variously
31 W. J. Harrelson,
"Blessings and Cursings," The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible,
I,
(New York: Abingdon Press, 1962), 446.
32 9:1; 14:19; 24:60; 28:1;
35:9; 48:3; 48:15; 1:22 (slightly different).
33 See also Genesis 9:1,
7. Arguing from the meaning of Gen. 1:28 (although this is not
directly stated) Kenneth R. Kantzer,
"The Origin of the Soul as Related to the Abortion
Question,"
Birth Control and the Christian, eds.
Walter O. Spitzer and Carlyle L. Saylor
(Wheaton:
Tyndale, 1969), 553, argues that abortion is wrong
because it goes contrary to
the intent of the Creator as here revealed. If what
he says is true, it is equally an argument
against birth control, which also frustrates the
intent of the Creator for a short period of
time.
34 Waltke,
p. 19.
35 Waltke
errs in including vv. 16-7. The discussion should be limited to v. 18, since
vv.
16-7
refer only to nocturnal emissions. The inclusion of
vv. 16-7 clouds the issue under
discussion.
36 C. F. Keil,
and F. Delitzsch, Biblical
Commentary on the Old Testament, I, trans.
James
Martin (
48
Cerling: Abortion and Contraception 49
explained as mockery of the responsibilities of
levirate marriage,37 to a simple
statement that he was condemned not for
contraception but for an act (unde-
fined) which God condemned.38 Even the article in the
New Catholic Encyclo-
pedia states
that Onan's sin is unclear.39 The only fact
on which all commenta-
tors now agree is that Onan was not punished for practicing contraception per
se.
Except for the practice of coitus interruptus and anal intercourse
most
moderns would assume that few, if any, other
contraceptive means were
known.40 Noonan gives many
examples of methods of contraception found in
the ancient world.41 In particular he
refers to
spent some 400 years. Although the means range from
the exotic (a willow bark
potion mixed with the burned testicles of a castrated
ass) to quite simple devices
(a swab of wool coated with honey inserted into the vagina),
some must have
been effective in at least moderate degrees. Some of
these means (particularly
potions) have been tested on rats in modern
medical laboratories and found to
be effective in inducing temporary sterility. The
effectiveness of the methods
used is also demonstrated by occasional complaints
in official sources that the
poor are having more children than the wealthy and
educated because the poor
are not using contraceptive means. (Sounds rather modern!) From all this one
can conclude that the Israelities
knew of various means of contraception.
Whether
they used them is a question that will be treated below.
There are no passages in the Old Testament that
treat contraception explic-
itly. A few passages bear
indirectly on the topic and may provide some under-
standing of how the problem was faced. Continence
might appear to be a natural
form of contraception, but Exodus 21:10 shows that
regular intercourse is a
duty of marriage even if one has more than one wife,
which would suggest that
continence would be wrong.42
Furthermore, the prohibition of intercourse
during menstruation (Lev. 15:19-28; 20:18) would work
as a reverse contra-
ception. Because one would not
have intercourse for seven days after the onset
(possibly completion) of menstruation, by the time one could
have intercourse
again pregnancy would be more likely to occur. Not
only would one be closer to
the fertile period, but there would be a large
accumulation of semen from the
period of abstinence. Castration, whether voluntary or
involuntary, was grounds
37 Waltke,
p. 19.
38 J. T. Noonan, Jr.
"Authority, Usury, and Contraception," Cross Currents XVI (Winter,
1966), 57.
39 J. D. Fearon,
"Onanism," (New York, 1967), p. 696.
40 Waltke,
p. 9, errs in assuming no mechanical contraceptives.
41 Noonan, Contraception ....
ch. one.
42 Waltke,
p. 16.
49
50 Christian
Scholar's Review
for excommunication from the religious community (Dt. 23:1), which would
eliminate a rather gross form of contraception.43
Alongside of these negative indications
are other more positive indications of
the Old Testament attitude toward contraception. If
Leviticus 15:18 refers to
coitus interruptus44 then one form of contraception was practiced
without the
express condemnation of scripture. In various
places in the Old Testament sex
crimes of various sorts are condemned, but
contraception is never listed as one
of those crimes.45
In summary one can say that contraception was
either never an issue with
the children of
accepted practice not considered worth
mentioning. On the basis of our knowl-
edge of the methods of contraception used in the
ancient world one would be
inclined to conclude that Israelites not only
knew of contraceptive means, but
considered them so normal that no mention is ever
made of the topic. At the
same time one must add the proviso that with the
Israelite attitude toward
children, people must have had very strong
reasons for using them when they
did.
ABORTION
One faces the same problem in dealing with
abortion that one faces in
dealing with contraception: no passages deal
with the topic directly. The only
passage that is assumed by some to treat of
abortion is Exodus 21:22-24.46
Arguing
from the meaning of the word yeledh Keil states that the
passage deals
with a child, and has nothing to do with an
abortion.47 Other commentators
treat the passage as dealing only with a special
instance of involuntary abortion
that was induced by a second party.48
Waltke argues from this
passage (Ex. 21:22-24) in comparison with Leviti-
cus 24:18 that a fetus is
not a person.49 Since the death penalty is demanded
43 This passage should not force
one to conclude that sterilization is wrong. (Waltke, p.
22.)
There is a great deal of difference between sterilization and castration.
44 Above p. 49.
45 Lev. ch.
18; 20:18; 15:16-33; Ez. 18:6; Dr. 27:20-23.
46 Viktor Aptowitzer, "Observations on the Criminal Law of the
Jews," Jewish Quarterly
Review XV (1924), 65ff, shows
how this passage is used in Jewish thought to support both
a "murder" theory of abortion and a rather
lax approach. The differences appear to be
based on the version of scripture used. The MT
supports the lax position; the LXX supports
the "murder" theory. This may have a
bearing on the Church's position as it developed
through the use of the LXX.
47 C. F. Keil, and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament,
II, trans.
James
Martin (
48 U. Cassuto,
Genesis (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1960), pp. 275-6.
49 Waltke,
pp. 10-11.
50
Cerling: Abortion and Contraception 51
for murder, and only a fine is paid if the fetus
dies without injury to the mother,
the fetus is not considered human. He also states
that the use of nephesh
in the
second part of the passage shows that the mother is a
person while the fetus is
not. But the fact that a fetal death is not
punished by another fetal death also
shows that the fetus was highly regarded.50
Other passages may also have a positive,
although indirect, bearing on the
topic. In Leviticus 20:11-21 all sexual crimes
punishable by death are listed--no
mention is made of abortion. In Leviticus 18:21;
20:2 child-killing is condemned
in connection with the worship of Moloch. Abortion
is not mentioned here
either, although it could be argued that it has no
bearing here. Other passages
(Lev.
15:16-33; ch. 18; Dt.
27:20-3) dealing with sexual behavior make no
mention of abortion.
An Assyrian law states concerning the problem of
abortion:51
(If
a seignior) struck a(nother)
seignior's (wife) and caused her to have (a miscarriage),
they shall treat (the wife of the seignior), who
caused the (other) seignior's wife to (have a
miscarriage), as he treated her; he shall compensate
for her fetus with a life. However if
that woman died, they shall put the seignior to
death; he shall compensate for her fetus
with a life. But, when that woman's husband has no
son, if someone struck her so that she
had a miscarriage, they shall put the striker to
death; even if her fetus is a girl, he shall
compensate with a life.
Waltke argues from this law that the death penalty is
required in
inducing an abortion by striking a woman.52
That is true, if the woman also
dies, but the quotation may suggest that the death
of the fetus only calls for the
death of another fetus unless the man has no heir.
Considering the general attitude of the Church
through its history toward
the problem of abortion that it is equivalent to
murder, the failure of the Old
Testament
to mention it either explicitly or implicitly is significant. Again, it
may never have been a problem in a country that
desired children as strongly as
the Israelites appear to have,53 but if
others did it, which we know from
50 Ibid.,
p. 12. J. W. Montgomery, "The Christian View of the Fetus," Birth Control and
the Christian, eds. Walter 0. Spitzer and Carlyle L. Saylor (
1969),
pp. 88-9 argues that Ex. 21:22-24 does not distinguish the life of the mother
from
the life of the child in meting out punishment. The
injury may be to either mother or child,
and if either is injured, punishment equivalent to
the injury should follow. Waltke gives an
adequate answer to this interpretation when he
says that it is possible, but improbable, and
rejected by most translations and many
commentators. (p. 23, note.)
51 Pritchard, p. 184.
52 Waltke,
pp. 11-12.
53
Kantzer, p. 553, states that abortion is never
condemned because of the high value
placed on offspring. But even in a culture where
almost all hold such a value, some will not,
and a response would have been made to them.
51
52 Christian
Scholar's Review
Egyptian
writings,54 Israelites must have been aware
of the problem. If that is
true, then silence (although a notoriously weak
argument) would appear to
suggest acceptance of abortion as legitimate.
THE
NEW TESTAMENT
AND
THE PROBLEMS OF CONTRACEPTION AND ABORTION
As in the Old Testament, abortion and
contraception are never explicitly
mentioned in the New Testament.55 But
this does not mean that the authors
were ignorant of the problems. It has been shown
above that abortive and
contraceptive means have been known
from ancient times. Not only is that true,
but both the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas (although probably
dependent
on Didache) condemn abortion. The issue was live, but the New
Testament is
silent.
In a significant article on the New Testament
understanding of marriage
nor is mutual love the end of marriage. Christian
marital love is meaningful as a
reflection of Christ's love for the Church. Since
intercourse is the natural result
of marital love and children the result of
intercourse, contraception needs to be
justified in every case.56 He then goes
on to show various reasons that would
justify the use of contraceptives. The whole of
his argument turns on the idea of
marriage as a reflection of the relationship of
Christ to His Church.57 The Old
Testament
purpose of marriage as companionship is superceded by
a greater
concept for the Christian, the concept of
marriage as an image or analogy of the
relationship of Christ to His
Church. The analogical relationship then determines
what is right and wrong within a marriage.
Self-sacrificing love,58 such as Christ
had for the Church, would at times demand
contraception.59
54 Kahun
Papyrus, Ebers Papyrus, Ramasseum Papyrus IV,
Papyrus.
55 Noonan, Contraception ....
p. 45.
56
57 Cerling, ch. three. The
nature of marriage as an analogy of the relationship of Christ to
the Church is extensively discussed in its Biblical
setting.
58 The foremost example of such
love in action would be in a situation where a pregnancy
would impose hazards to the mother's health, either
physical or mental. A second example
would relate to the quality of life between the
parents to whom the child would be born.
(Quality
refers to more than simple economics, although they play a part.) This could
include a desire to postpone children for any of
a variety of reasons in order that the
relationship of husband and wife
would be deepened rather than destroyed or hindered by a
pregnancy. If the love of Ephesians 5 is to be revealed,
a pregnancy should be a means of
growth for the couple. If a pregnancy would appear to
do otherwise, it should be prevented.
59 Below, p. 54, it will be
shown why this same principle is insufficient by itself to justify
an abortion.
52
Cerling: Abortion and Contraception 53
First Corinthians 7:1-7 gives one element of the
New Testament attitude
toward marital intercourse. As in the Old Testament,
regular marital intercourse
is a right and obligation of the spouses to each
other. The Roman Catholic
Church
teaches that continence is the most natural means of preventing births.
This
passage suggests, contrary to Catholic teaching, that
continence is not
natural, since it violates a basic purpose for
marriage. That purpose as stated in I
Corinthians
7:2 is that marriage is a prophylactic against immorality. Continence
may only be for short periods of time, by mutual
agreement, for the sake of
prayer. Therefore continence would not be an
acceptable method of preventing
births, because regular marital intercourse is a right
and obligation of the
married.
A few passages that are occasionally brought to
bear on this topic are worth
mentioning. First Thessalonians 4:4, which refers
to a man possessing his vessel
in honor, is thought, and has been thought in
history, to refer to having only
natural means of intercourse with one's wife.60
Although the verse may be
interpreted in that way, even if it is true, the
reference is so general as to have
almost no meaning to the modern reader. Is anal or
oral intercourse being
condemned or is the reference generally to
contraception? The broadness of this
statement makes its helpfulness nil.
Matthew 19:10-12 is sometimes thought to suggest
that people castrate
themselves for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.
Again, if this interpretation is
true, and that is questionable,61 it
would have no bearing on the contraceptive
question because of Paul's injunction in I
Corinthians 7 to regular marital
intercourse. Self-castration could only be for
single people.
Because of the association of contraception and
abortion with magicians,
Noonan
suggests that the Greek pharmakeia
(magic or medicine) may refer to
medicine in Galatians 5:20; Revelation 9:21;
21:8,15; 18:23, but he then goes
on to state that although it may, there is little
basis for thinking that it does.62
60 Robert P. Meye,
"New Testament Texts Bearing on the Problem of the Control of
Human
Reproduction," Birth Control and the
Christian, eds. Walter O. Spitzer and Carlyle
L.
Saylor (Wheaton: Tyndale House Pub., 1969), pp. 35-6.
61 Q. Quesnell,
"Made Themselves Eunuchs for the
Biblical Quarterly, XXX (July, 1968),
335-58.
62 Noonan, Contraception.... p. 44. In a later publication on abortion Noonan,
"An
Almost Absolute Value in History," The Morality of Abortion, ed. J. T.
Noonan, Jr.
(Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1970), p. 23, he changes his position. As
justification
for the change he leans heavily on the attitude of
the early church fathers in condemning
abortion. The only problem with his argument is
that it can be turned either to support or
condemn abortion. The condemnation of the early
church fathers can suggest that they
reflect the thinking of the apostles, or one can
argue that their strong condemnations arose
out of the necessity of condemning something they
thought was a great evil apart from
scriptural support, and therefore had to use
exceptionally strong language, comparing
abortion to murder. One also wonders how Luke
would have felt as Paul condemned
medicine!
53
54 Christian
Scholar's Review
In summary, the New Testament has even less to
say directly or indirectly
on the topics of abortion and contraception, but
the principles derived from
Ephesians
5 give guidelines suggesting that contraception may be
acceptable. If a
fetus is neither a person nor an emerging entity of
high value, the same passage
may justify abortion. The complete silence of both
the New and Old Testaments
in explicit references to these topics suggests a
permissive attitude toward both
contraception and abortion.63
ABORTION
CONSIDERED THEOLOGICALLY64
Only one case in the whole of scripture mentions
the problem of abortion,
and that case has a very limited scope. From this
it might be assumed that
abortion is permissible under any circumstances.
But Thielicke and Piper both
raise the same argument against abortion:65
Children are a gift of God; therefore
abortion is wrong.
Before considering Thielicke's
argument it is well to give consideration to
the motivation of one seeking an abortion as this
has a bearing on the legitimacy
of abortion. The Old Testament attitude is that
children are a blessing given to
parents by God; therefore to reject a child is
to reject a gift of God. Therefore
even if abortions are considered acceptable, one
must have serious reasons to
justify an abortion. Many abortions are for
selfish reasons. The motives are
related to economic limitations, limitations on
one's time, unwillingness to
accept the responsibility for rearing another child--because
these are selfish
motives, abortion should be condemned in these
instances.66
But even after the proper motivation
exists serious questions must be raised:
Is
abortion murder? The Bible does not teach directly when a fetus becomes a
child.67
O'Donnel states categorically that abortion is murder,68 taking the
63 This conclusion is reached
recognizing the weaknesses of any argument from silence.
64 Paul Ramsey, "References
Points in Deciding About Abortion," The
Morality of
Abortion, ed. J. T. Noonan, Jr.
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970), pp. 64-100,
makes some important points concerning arguments for
abortion. (1) All arguments for
abortion must take into account the question of
when the fertilized ovum becomes a human
being. (2) Arguments for abortion must not also be arguments for infanticide by logical
extension. Under this point he mentions that birth
is hardly a line of demarcation for
modern medicine. The time when fertilized ova will be
placed in artificial wombs is not
remote. "There are no theoretical limits on man's
scientific ability to push back the time of
viability and to treat the patient in utero as a man alive." (87) (3) One
must also distinguish
between killing and allowing to die, which is
very important for point #2.
65 Piper,
p. 148. Thielicke, pp. 277, 279.
66 Rousas
J. Rushdoony, "Abortion," The Encyclopedia of Christianity, I, ed.
Edwin
Palmer (Wilmington: The National Foundation for
Christian Education, 1964), 21.
67 P. K. Jewett, "The
Relation of the Soul to the Fetus," Birth
Control and the Christian,
eds. Walter O. Spitzer and Carlyle L. Saylor
(Wheaton: Tyndale House Pub., 1969), p. 62.
68 O'Donnel,
p. 28.
54
Cerling: Abortion and Contraception 55
traditional position of both the Catholic and
Protestant churches. Thielicke
raises the problem of when a fetus becomes a human
being and then dismisses it
as mere casuistry.69 He takes the
position that a child is a gift of God and as
such to reject a child is to reject God. On that
ground he states that abortion is
wrong.
To bring the matter into sharp focus Thielicke treats the problem of a
woman who will die if her pregnancy is not
terminated. In this discussion he
gives the most enlightened treatment of the topic
available from a biblical or
theological perspective. Although he rejects
abortion because a child is a gift of
God,
he still accepts the "murder" theory of abortion. He asks the
question if
killing a person is ever right. We kill people
when we sentence a person to death
for a crime. We kill people when we engage in a
just war. Therefore killing is
sometimes right. Arguing further he asks whether
suicide is ever right, for a
mother who would not terminate a pregnancy that would
kill her is committing
suicide. He then shows that under certain
circumstances suicide is right. We
honor a mother who is killed saving her infant from
death. We honor a father
who saves his family by giving his life. Suicide is
sometimes right and even
honorable. He finally asks, if a mother does not
hesitate to save the life of her
child by giving her life, why does she hesitate in
giving her life to save her fetus?
He
concludes by stating that one can only do what he thinks right in this ticklish
situation realizing that we serve a God who will
forgive if we are wrong.70
Thielicke leaves one on the horns of a dilemma,
but his approach is basically
good, and shows the difficulty everyone faces with
this one extreme question.71
An important objection needs to be raised in
relation to Thielicke's ap-
proach. He equates murder and
killing. This faulty equation has led to innumber-
able arguments about taking human life. Exodus 20:13
prohibits murder, but
there are circumstances that justify killing another
person (self-defense, justice,
war). Therefore if abortion is murder,72 one must take the position of the
Roman
Catholic Church that abortion is never justifiable as a direct act no
matter how serious the danger to the mother nor what
the circumstances of her
impregnation.
69 Thielicke,
pp. 227-8.
70 Ibid., 232-247.
71 Noonan,
"Introduction," The Morality of
Abortion, ed. J. T. Noonan, Jr. (
Harvard
University Press, 1970), makes the point that modern medicine has almost eliminat-
ed the extreme problems mentioned most often as
justification for abortion. These prob-
lems are (1) the life of the
mother versus the life of the child; (2) pregnancy resulting from
forced intercourse because of the common practice of
performing a disinfecting procedure
to the vagina and uterus during immediate medical
treatment; (3) severe genetic malforma-
tions.
72 Kantzer,
p. 553, suggests that if abortion were murder Ex. 21:22-24 would demand the
death penalty for the one inducing an abortion.
55
56 Christian
Scholar's Review
Psalm 127:3 states "Lo, sons are a heritage
from the Lord, the fruit of the
womb a reward" (RSV). On the strength of this
statement alone one could argue
that God is directly involved in every pregnancy.
When this statement is
combined with Old Testament comments about God's
involvement in childless-
ness and pregnancy in old age, one is impressed by
the fact that the children of
ask, "Are children a gift of God, or were
children so important to the Israelite
society and their view of the world so
theologically oriented that they consider-
ed children a direct gift from God?" When one
adds to this the mystery
surrounding procreation before the advent of modern
medicine,73 one is placed
in a difficult position. No one who reads the Old
Testament will deny that the
children of
question one must ask is this: "Is this part
of the teaching of the Old Testament
or is it simply a part of the culture of the Old
Testament, such as levirate
marriage?" The only argument offerable is weak. If children were a direct gift
from God, one would expect to find the explicit
condemnation of abortion in
the Bible. At the same time one is greatly
impressed with the pervasiveness of
this view in the Old Testament, and its
pervasiveness may be a stronger argument
than the argument from silence given above.74
The conclusion of
lesser of two evils is a common position.75
It also can lead to the introduction
of factors that are more subjective than rational.
In the case of rape or incest is
the psychological health of the mother more
valuable than the life of the fetus?
Even
if one places a higher value on the mother's mental health, there is little
evidence that a rape- or incest-generated
pregnancy and birth will do more
permanent and severe psychological damage than the
simple fact of the forced
intercourse itself. Serious personal crises forced
on a person by factors beyond
control may be beneficial or detrimental. (This
is not to suggest the need for
such crises, but to suggest that crisis counseling
may have greater long range
benefits than abortion--we just do not know.) How
can one weigh the life of a
fetus against an unknown and presently unmeasurable psychological danger?
If abortion is justified as the lesser of two
evils, it may only be justified as
such by one whose position is that the fetus is not
fully human. If a person
73 Maurice Bear Gordon,
"Medicine Among the Ancient Hebrews," Isis XXXIII (Dec.,
1941),
465, writes, "Since the Israelites realized that intercourse was necessary
for but did
not invariably lead to pregnancy, they felt that
successful fertilization was in the hands of
God." This inference goes beyond the data, but
it is interesting.
74 Those dealing with the
problem of abortion usually treat the problem by asking one of
two questions: (1) When does a fetus become a human
being? (2) Is a child a gift of God?
By
treating these questions separately one gives the impression that they are not
related.
The
questions can and should be examined in combination as well as separately. The
resulting question is, "At what point in its
development, if he is, does a child become a gift
of God?"
75 Montgomery, "The
Christian View....,” pp. 83-6.
56
Cerling: Abortion and Contraception 57
considers the fetus human while claiming that
abortion may be justified as the
lesser of two evils he places himself in an untenable
position. Justification of
abortion under these circumstances logically
leads to justification for infanticide
and euthanasia of the senile or terminally ill. If
a fetus can be killed as the lesser
of two evils, badly deformed or severely retarded
newborns could also be killed.
And
they could be killed with greater justification because their defectiveness is
certain; whereas the defectiveness of a fetus is
often uncertain. The same
reasoning applies to the senile and those whose
life can be saved only at great
cost to their personality.
There are four positions on the question of when
a fetus becomes a human.
The
first is represented by traducianism where it is
thought that a fetus is a
person from the moment of conception. The second is
represented by creation-
ism that teaches that the fetus becomes a person
when God gives it a soul. (This
occurs anywhere from conception to viability.) The third
position is concerned
with the problem of viability.76 A fetus
becomes a person when it would be
viable outside the mother's womb. The final position
is the view that a fetus is
an emerging entity, immeasurably valuable from the
moment of conception and
becoming increasingly valuable as it approaches
birth.77 These positions are
integral to larger theological systems and
derived more by deduction from other
propositions than from direct
exposition of scripture. One is on far safer ground
when one contends that scripture does not give any
information on when a fetus
becomes a human being. The greatest direct
support from scripture appears to be
the application of Exodus 21:22-24 to the fourth
position. No position stands
on solid ground, but if degrees of solidity are
accepted, the fourth position
stands on ground that is least shaky.
CONCLUSIONS
The Bible says nothing directly and almost
nothing indirectly on the
problems of contraception and abortion. One
cannot emphasize this strongly
enough. If decisions are to be made on these questions
they must be made by
76 Viability as a term of
distinction is becoming increasingly meaningless. Even considered
from the viewpoint of primitive societies, the
newborn infant is not viable until he attains a
fair degree of maturity. Until the infant becomes a
child or even an older youth, he is not
viable without a great deal of parental care. Modern
medicine, which can save the life of
previously hopeless premature infants, makes the
use of viability as a term of distinction
almost meaningless. When medical science reaches the
point where it can place a fertilized
ovum in an artificial womb, this term will have lost
all meaning.
77 This is the position
described by Kantzer in "The Origin of the Soul
as Related to the
Abortion Question," Birth Control and the Christian, eds. Walter 0 Spitzer and Carlyle
L.
Saylor, (Wheaton: Tyndale
House Pub., 1969).
Here he also states "The exact moment or
point in development at which a fetus becomes fully human,
we cannot determine for this
lies in the freedom of God." (p. 557)
57
58 Christian
Scholar's Review
deduction from statements relating to the
purpose(s) of marriage, the place of
children in marriage, and the value of fetal
life.
The purpose of Christian marriage given in
Ephesians 5 suggests that
marital love could involve contraception under
certain justifiable conditions. But
contraception designed to prevent
conception through the whole course of a
marriage would go contrary to the intent of the
Creator as revealed in his blessing
to the first couple (Gen. 1:28).
With regard to abortion, if children are a gift
of God, abortion would appear
to be unjustifiable except under the most extreme
conditions. If one does not
accept the "gift-of-God" idea, one must then
answer the question as to when a
fetus becomes a human being. That a child is a gift
from God appears to the
author to have the support of the Old Testament. It
would also appear that the
fetus is an emerging entity, immeasurably valuable at
conception and becoming
increasingly valuable as the date of
its birth approaches.
58
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
David A. Hoekema (Publisher)
Christian Scholar's
Please report any errors to Ted
Hildebrandt at: thildebrandt@gordon.edu