Abortion in the Old Testament

[Redbandito]

BTW, what does the KJV say. All of a sudden that’s not the version quoted by most christians here?? Why is it that Jewish interpetition is not binding but the entire argument here relies on the meaning of the Hebrew text?

While it may not be reqauired to accept Jewish understanding of their scripture, the fact that for thousands of years, this is the understanding held by the people who were given the Torah, and that only recently, in the context of the political debate on abortion, has an alternative interpetation been pushed by conservative christians, should tell you something.

I assure you that the KJV (a Protestant translation) has never been the preferred Bible translation amongst the members of this CATHOLIC forum.

 

[Valke2]

Exactly! So what is the point of trying to debate “abortion in the Old Testament” by an appeal to this verse? Clearly the author had no intent to answer the question of abortion in this text, or it would have likely been used “prior to this century” to justify such a position.

I wasn’t trying to do that. I don’t think the verse can be used to say abortion is sanctioned in the Bible. I think it can be used, however, to show that the life of the fetus is not equal to the life of the mother in all circumstances.

There are other parts of the Bible where God makes no qualms about killing women and children. It is difficult to argue that all life is intrinsicaly valueable and use the Bible, standing on its own, to back that up.

 

[Redbandito]

I wasn’t trying to do that. I don’t think the verse can be used to say abortion is sanctioned in the Bible. I think it can be used, however, to show that the life of the fetus is not equal to the life of the mother in all circumstances.

There are other parts of the Bible where God makes no qualms about killing women and children. It is difficult to argue that all life is intrinsicaly valueable and use the Bible, standing on its own, to back that up.

I certainly don’t disagree with you completely on this point. It is a very important discussion to have. Sola Scriptura believing Protestants really do have a challenge to justify their Pro-Life and anti-abortion stances based on the Bible alone. Luckily, Jews and Catholics have always had reverence for oral traditions. While there are differences between the two views of tradition, there is a strong reliance on tradition all the same.

One thing I would point out is that the OT was full of Jewish laws that do not necessarily represent objective and absolute moral truths that span eternity. I believe this would be one of them. The consequences for these two distinct examples are put into legal, rather than moral, terms.

Also, keeping in mind that Ezekiel says, **“Also with uplifted hand I swore to them in the desert that I would disperse them among the nations and scatter them through the countries, 24 because they had not obeyed my laws but had rejected my decrees and desecrated my Sabbaths, and their eyes lusted after their fathers’ idols. 25 I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by; 26 I let them become defiled through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn a] —that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the LORD.”, **I think a valid argument can be made that this is a law that “they could not live by.” I believe this text represents the Jewish law that was made to address specific repayment for transgressions. Because of that, it is not a theological discourse on the intrisic value of man, but rather a comment on the utilitarian value of a person. In other words, a baby cannot produce what a grown adult can, therefore is less valuable monetarily. So, if that is what you are saying, I completely agree with you.

That being said, I would not try to use this text to support a pro-Life stance either. I think it is very difficult, as you previously stated, to prove abortion is evil simply by referencing the Bible.

 

[Valke2]

Also, keeping in mind that Ezekiel says, "Also with uplifted hand I swore to them in the desert that I would disperse them among the nations and scatter them through the countries, 24 because they had not obeyed my laws but had rejected my decrees and desecrated my Sabbaths, and their eyes lusted after their fathers’ idols. 25 I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by; 26 I let them become defiled through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn a] —that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the LORD.", I think a valid argument can be made that this is a law that “they could not live by.” I believe this text represents the Jewish law that was made to address specific repayment for transgressions. Because of that, it is not a theological discourse on the intrisic value of man, but rather a comment on the utilitarian value of a person. In other words, a baby cannot produce what a grown adult can, therefore is less valuable monetarily. So, if that is what you are saying, I completely agree with you.

Just on this pont, no Jew believes that the bad statutes referred to there have anything to do with Torah. But rather, laws that were passed by oppressive local empires on the Jews. While there are mitzvot (commandments) that are not necessarily applicable today, regarding treatment of slaves, for example, we don’t consider them to be bad statutes and there is still lessons/biblical truth to be found in these mitzvot

 

[Todd_Easton]

But Philo and the Septuagint have, “of a child unformed;” and ver. 23, “But if the child be formed, (exeikonismenon, animated and organized) he shall give soul for soul;” as if all were referred to the child

Here are the comments of Philo, the 1st-century Jewish Philosopher:

(108) But if any one has a contest with a woman who is pregnant, and strike her a blow on her belly, and she miscarry, if the child which was conceived within her is still unfashioned and unformed, he shall be punished by a fine, both for the assault which he committed and also because he has prevented nature, who was fashioning and preparing that most excellent of all creatures, a human being, from bringing him into existence. But if the child which was conceived had assumed a distinct Shape{7}{#ex 21:22.} in all its parts, having received all its proper connective and distinctive qualities, he shall die; (109) for such a creature as that is a man, whom he has slain while still in the workshop of nature, who had not thought it as yet a proper time to produce him to the light, but had kept him like a statue lying in a sculptor’s workshop, requiring nothing more than to be released and sent out into the world. Philo of Alexandria, Social Laws III, XIX. (108-109).

Philo seems to make a distinction between an “unfashioned and unformed” first trimester embryo, and a “distinct shape in all its parts, having received all its proper connective and distinctive qualities” second and third trimester fetus. To Philo, it seems, a fetus was considered a human being and those who injured a fetus were to give life for life, eye for eye, etc.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Does your brother believe that an abortionist should flee to a city of refuge?

Exodus 21:13

13And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.

Exodus 21:28-32

28If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit.

29But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.

30If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.

31Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him.

32If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.

Numbers 35:11-15

11Then ye shall appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for you; that the slayer may flee thither, which killeth any person at unawares.

12And they shall be unto you cities for refuge from the avenger; that the manslayer die not, until he stand before the congregation in judgment.

13And of these cities which ye shall give six cities shall ye have for refuge.

14Ye shall give three cities on this side Jordan, and three cities shall ye give in the land of Canaan, which shall be cities of refuge.

15These six cities shall be a refuge, both for the children of Israel, and for the stranger, and for the sojourner among them: that every one that killeth any person unawares may flee thither.

Numbers 35:22-28

22But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or have cast upon him any thing without laying of wait,

23Or with any stone, wherewith a man may die, seeing him not, and cast it upon him, that he die, and was not his enemy, neither sought his harm:

24Then the congregation shall judge between the slayer and the revenger of blood according to these judgments:

25And the congregation shall deliver the slayer out of the hand of the revenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to the city of his refuge, whither he was fled: and he shall abide in it unto the death of the high priest, which was anointed with the holy oil.

26But if the slayer shall at any time come without the border of the city of his refuge, whither he was fled;

27And the revenger of blood find him without the borders of the city of his refuge, and the revenger of blood kill the slayer; he shall not be guilty of blood:

28Because he should have remained in the city of his refuge until the death of the high priest: but after the death of the high priest the slayer shall return into the land of his possession.

Numbers 35:32

Listen to this passage
View commentary related to this passage

32And ye shall take no satisfaction for him that is fled to the city of his refuge, that he should come again to dwell in the land, until the death of the priest.

Deuteronomy 4:41-43

41Then Moses severed three cities on this side Jordan toward the sunrising;

42That the slayer might flee thither, which should kill his neighbour unawares, and hated him not in times past; and that fleeing unto one of these cities he might live:

43Namely, Bezer in the wilderness, in the plain country, of the Reubenites; and Ramoth in Gilead, of the Gadites; and Golan in Bashan, of the Manassites.

 

[Redbandito]

Just on this pont, no Jew believes that the bad statutes referred to there have anything to do with Torah. But rather, laws that were passed by oppressive local empires on the Jews. While there are mitzvot (commandments) that are not necessarily applicable today, regarding treatment of slaves, for example, we don’t consider them to be bad statutes and there is still lessons/biblical truth to be found in these mitzvot

Valke, I would point you to this post directly above mine, and ask you to respond. Whether you consider these the “bad laws” discussed in Ezekiel (btw, I found your position to be less than convincing on that issue) or not, you admit that there are Jewish laws that are not necessarily applicable today. Based on the way in which the verse in question is written, I submit that this topic would qualify.

The other question I have for you is by what OBJECTIVE means are Jews today to determine which of the laws are still applicable?

 

[Valke2]

Valke, I would point you to this post directly above mine, and ask you to respond. Whether you consider these the “bad laws” discussed in Ezekiel (btw, I found your position to be less than convincing on that issue) or not, you admit that there are Jewish laws that are not necessarily applicable today. Based on the way in which the verse in question is written, I submit that this topic would qualify.

The other question I have for you is by what OBJECTIVE means are Jews today to determine which of the laws are still applicable?

I would absolutely not consider those laws to be the ones referred to in Eziekel. As I posted, we believe that he was referring to the laws of local rulers, which oppressed the Jews. Not any of the laws set forth in the 5 books of Moses.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I wasn’t trying to do that. I don’t think the verse can be used to say abortion is sanctioned in the Bible. I think it can be used, however, to show that the life of the fetus is not equal to the life of the mother in all circumstances.

or that the life of the fetus is acknowledged by God.

There are other parts of the Bible where God makes no qualms about killing women and children. It is difficult to argue that all life is intrinsicaly valueable and use the Bible, standing on its own, to back that up.

Exactly, this is a major part of the reason we believe God visited the earth in human form to reshape these teachings/practices. It is not accidental Jesus was such a pacifist

 

[Redbandito]

I would absolutely not consider those laws to be the ones referred to in Eziekel. As I posted, we believe that he was referring to the laws of local rulers, which oppressed the Jews. Not any of the laws set forth in the 5 books of Moses.

Yes, I think we have already established this. My point was not to try to argue whether or not these are the laws discussed in Ezekiel or not. My point was that “you admit that there are Jewish laws that are not necessarily applicable today,” thus “based on the way in which the verse in question is written,” that it would be a law that is no longer applicable. Again, this is not a law that discusses the morality of the situation, but rather the financial compensation for it. Thus, my previous posts stand uncontested as yet. Now, can you address my question? Do you agree with this assessment?

 

[Eileen_T]

I wrote on this on the www.life.org.nz website
life.org.nz/abortionreligiouskeyissuesnonchristianreligions1.htm

*Traditional Jewish teaching on abortion held that protection for the unborn child - except when the pregnancy “definitely and without question endangered the life of the mother” (Maimonides) - was absolute.

The Talmud (Sanhedrin 57b) calls a baby in its mother’s womb “a man in a man”. It specifically says that abortion is a capital crime.

While not giving the unborn child the status of full personhood, Jewish law modified strict obligations in order to accomodate pregnant women while protecting the interests of the child.

The Sanhedrin allowed people to violate the Sabbath for the sake of the foetus, and no pregnant woman could be executed until after she had given birth.*

 

[Valke2]

I wrote on this on the www.life.org.nz website
life.org.nz/abortionreligiouskeyissuesnonchristianreligions1.htm

*Traditional Jewish teaching on abortion held that protection for the unborn child - except when the pregnancy “definitely and without question endangered the life of the mother” (Maimonides) - was absolute.

The Talmud (Sanhedrin 57b) calls a baby in its mother’s womb “a man in a man”. It specifically says that abortion is a capital crime.

While not giving the unborn child the status of full personhood, Jewish law modified strict obligations in order to accomodate pregnant women while protecting the interests of the child.

The Sanhedrin allowed people to violate the Sabbath for the sake of the foetus, and no pregnant woman could be executed until after she had given birth.*

Correct. As an aside, it is also permissible to violat the Sabbath if one is starving in order to eat. FOr example, harvesting food. It isn’t technically even violating the Sabbath, since such work is permitted if being done to save a life that is in imminent danger.

 

[Valke2]

or that the life of the fetus is acknowledged by God.
Exactly, this is a major part of the reason we believe God visited the earth in human form to reshape these teachings/practices. It is not accidental Jesus was such a pacifist

Ok. But Judaism had already instituted it’s own checks and balances regarding such laws. There was and is in place a mechanism within Judaism to ensure that the mitzvot promote life, ethical and moral behavior. The Oral Torah and subesquently, the Talmud.

 

[Valke2]

Yes, I think we have already established this. My point was not to try to argue whether or not these are the laws discussed in Ezekiel or not. My point was that “you admit that there are Jewish laws that are not necessarily applicable today,” thus “based on the way in which the verse in question is written,” that it would be a law that is no longer applicable. Again, this is not a law that discusses the morality of the situation, but rather the financial compensation for it. Thus, my previous posts stand uncontested as yet. Now, can you address my question? Do you agree with this assessment?

I’m sorry. I don’t understand your question. Are you asking me if the law in Exodus regarding compensation for the fetus is no longer applicable today? If that is the question, I think that answer is that it is still applicable. Because the commandment, interpeted in Judaism to mean, among other things, that the mother’s life takes precedence over the fetus when the fetus poses a direct threat to the mother’s life, is not (according to us) immoral or unethical.

If this wasn’t your question, I apologize.

 

[Valke2]

Valke, I would point you to this post directly above mine, and ask you to respond. Whether you consider these the “bad laws” discussed in Ezekiel (btw, I found your position to be less than convincing on that issue) or not, you admit that there are Jewish laws that are not necessarily applicable today. Based on the way in which the verse in question is written, I submit that this topic would qualify.

I’m not trying to convince you. I’m just stating the Jewish position. Many of the mitzvot are simply unable to be fullfilled these days. Such as sacrifices. Also, the death penalty provisions set forth throughout the Torah cannot be enforced since the disbanding of the Sanhedrin. Even when it was in place, it severely tempered the penalty provisions without negating the commandments. I think there was less than 8 instances of enforcing the death penalty in 400 years when the Sanhedrin was around.

I should probably clarify what I said earlier. It is not so much the mitzvot that should be changed if it is found to be contrary to moral/ethical behavior, but the halacha (the law) that is derived from such Mitzvot that needs to be changed.

The other question I have for you is by what OBJECTIVE means are Jews today to determine which of the laws are still applicable?

Well, laws regarding agriculture (first fruits, etc.) are objectively not applicable to those who are not farmers. Laws regarding Temple sacrifices are objectively not applicable without a Temple. As for how the Mitzvot are to be followed today, that varies somewhat by community and whether one is orthodox, conservative or reform. (or reconstructionist).

 

[Redbandito]

I’m not trying to convince you. I’m just stating the Jewish position. Many of the mitzvot are simply unable to be fullfilled these days. Such as sacrifices. Also, the death penalty provisions set forth throughout the Torah cannot be enforced since the disbanding of the Sanhedrin. Even when it was in place, it severely tempered the penalty provisions without negating the commandments. I think there was less than 8 instances of enforcing the death penalty in 400 years when the Sanhedrin was around.

I should probably clarify what I said earlier. It is not so much the mitzvot that should be changed if it is found to be contrary to moral/ethical behavior, but the halacha (the law) that is derived from such Mitzvot that needs to be changed.

Well, laws regarding agriculture (first fruits, etc.) are objectively not applicable to those who are not farmers. Laws regarding Temple sacrifices are objectively not applicable without a Temple. As for how the Mitzvot are to be followed today, that varies somewhat by community and whether one is orthodox, conservative or reform. (or reconstructionist).

Well, I believe this makes my earlier point about Ezekiel quite well then. God gave them laws “they could not live by.” If you are saying Jews cannot follow these laws, and thus can’t “live by” them, AND these laws come from the Torah, how is it that you reject that Ezekiel could have been speaking about these laws? Sorry to regress us to this point again after we had moved forward, but this confuses me.

 

[Redbandito]

As for how the Mitzvot are to be followed today, that varies somewhat by community and whether one is orthodox, conservative or reform. (or reconstructionist).

Thus, there is nothing objective. If it varies according to the community, it is subjective and relative. This is where I get into it with my Father. Judaism hasn’t had a prophet in 2000+ years to correct the errors and divisions. Don’t you think there is a little something funny about that? Don’t you find it interesting that the temple’s destruction just happened to coincide with the rise of Christianity and the fall of Biblical Judaism (which was based on Covenant and Sacrifice vs. Rabbinical Judaism which is focused on Law)? I love the Jews as much as most Jews do. Heck, half of my family is Jewish! However, this rejection of Jesus as the messiah remains unreasonable to me. Maybe we should start another thread for this. I just need some more help understanding. You seem like an intelligent, reasonable guy, so maybe you can help. Thanks in advance.

 

[Valke2]

Well, I believe this makes my earlier point about Ezekiel quite well then. God gave them laws “they could not live by.” If you are saying Jews cannot follow these laws, and thus can’t “live by” them, AND these laws come from the Torah, how is it that you reject that Ezekiel could have been speaking about these laws? Sorry to regress us to this point again after we had moved forward, but this confuses me.

No. That is not what I am saying. When Ezekiel discusses laws “they could not live by” he is not referring to any law set forth in Torah or Talmud. He is referring to laws set forth by local kingdoms that were oppressive to the Jews.

I’m not sure how I can be any clearer.

 

[Valke2]

Thus, there is nothing objective. If it varies according to the community, it is subjective and relative. This is where I get into it with my Father. Judaism hasn’t had a prophet in 2000+ years to correct the errors and divisions. Don’t you think there is a little something funny about that? Don’t you find it interesting that the temple’s destruction just happened to coincide with the rise of Christianity and the fall of Biblical Judaism (which was based on Covenant and Sacrifice vs. Rabbinical Judaism which is focused on Law)? I love the Jews as much as most Jews do. Heck, half of my family is Jewish! However, this rejection of Jesus as the messiah remains unreasonable to me. Maybe we should start another thread for this. I just need some more help understanding. You seem like an intelligent, reasonable guy, so maybe you can help. Thanks in advance.

But each community is bound by the laws in Torah and 3,000 years + of tradition. There is wiggle room, but to say it is purely subjective is not even close to correct. I don’t find it particulary interesting that the Temple was destroyed (again) around the same time as the birth of Christianity? So what? I can easliy go point to point with you as to why the Jews rejected and continue to reject Jesus as Messiah. Make another thread.

 

[Valke2]

Thus, there is nothing objective. If it varies according to the community, it is subjective and relative. This is where I get into it with my Father. Judaism hasn’t had a prophet in 2000+ years to correct the errors and divisions. Don’t you think there is a little something funny about that? Don’t you find it interesting that the temple’s destruction just happened to coincide with the rise of Christianity and the fall of Biblical Judaism (which was based on Covenant and Sacrifice vs. Rabbinical Judaism which is focused on Law)? I love the Jews as much as most Jews do. Heck, half of my family is Jewish! However, this rejection of Jesus as the messiah remains unreasonable to me. Maybe we should start another thread for this. I just need some more help understanding. You seem like an intelligent, reasonable guy, so maybe you can help. Thanks in advance.

But each community is bound by the laws in Torah and 3,000 years + of tradition. There is wiggle room, but to say it is purely subjective is not even close to correct. I don’t find it particulary interesting that the Temple was destroyed (again) around the same time as the birth of Christianity? So what? I can easliy go point to point with you as to why the Jews rejected and continue to reject Jesus as Messiah. Make another thread.