ONLY "LIVING SOULS" ARE PERSONS
I think it's time to be honest. Some time ago, in the weekly handout at my church, a nationwide publication titled, "Power for Living", the lead story described the trials of a Christian couple: "Ron and Jennifer Rathburn have at least seven children. Maybe eight or nine, but at least seven. They lost count". It goes on to say that the youngest is seen happily playing around the house, but none of the others. "You see, Bailey's siblings are already in heaven. Miscarriage after miscarriage placed them in God's arms before they took their first breath."
It's discouraging to admit it, but I'm certain that I was the only person in my particular congregation to be grieved by the belief implicitly accepted in the article - that the unborn, at whatever stage they were when Jennifer lost them, embryo or fetus, were just as much her children as her daughter Bailey. And that even now they are children with God in heaven. Most Christians today are not like the "noble Bereans" (Acts 17), who searched the scriptures to ascertain the truth when questions arose. They have accepted without question the idea, taught from almost all evangelical pulpits, that the Bible tells us 'personhood' begins the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg. And on that basis they do not hesitate to call abortion murder, plain and simple.
But there are scholars who know this answer is not so plain and simple. Only they are not speaking out, probably for the same reason I have not for so long; one may very likely find himself no longer welcome in Christian company. I was told early in my new Christian life that the Bible, the Word of God, had the answers to any of life's questions: if not chapter and verse, then at the least it would give the principles needed. Thirty years later I have still found that to be true. This includes the question, When does one become a person, a human being, in the sight of God? The answer is consistent from Genesis to Revelation. I will list a few verses, but anyone with access to a Concordance should be able to find more.
Genesis chapter 1. "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..."
This is remarkable in itself, that God would make an "image" of Himself. But the way He did it was also altogether unique. Genesis does not tell us that God spoke, as He did in the rest of creation, and said, "Let there be man. And there was man". Rather, chapter 2 informs us, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul". The Old Testament Hebrew uses the same two words interchangeably (phonetically here as "roo'agh" and "n'shamah" ) for "breath" and "spirit". The New Testament Greek uses one word ("pneuma") for both. There is something of a mystery in the way we humans are, "fearfully and wonderfully made"(Psalm 139), with a, "spirit, and soul, and body" (I Thess.5:23). And we see here that God has His own term to identify the creature he made. It is "living soul". Only man was "formed" out of earth itself as an "image" of God, then inbreathed directly by Him with a "spirit" or "breath of life", and as such "became a living soul". Zechariah was inspired to call this one of the three noteworthy things God did in creation: "The burden of the word of the Lord for Israel, saith the Lord, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundations of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him". (Zech. 12:1). The prophet Isaiah spoke for God in the same manner: "Thus sayeth God Jehovah, he that created the heavens, and stretched them forth; he that spread abroad the earth and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein." (42:5).
Scripture occasionally refers to all animals that breathe as having "the breath-spirit of life"; but only man was made in this exceptional way, having a body, soul, and spirit in order to bear God's "image".I am not here citing a dark riddle of scripture. The seminal verses in Genesis 1 & 2 go to the very heart of what it means to be human in God's eyes. And they are crucial to understanding the entire Bible. The scriptures don't teach that we are superior to the apes because we have evolved a higher intelligence, but because we alone have a spirit put in us by the living God: "But there is a spirit in man; and the breath of the Almighty giveth them understanding" (Job 32:8). This truth, that we are spiritual beings, cannot have been have been overlooked by the scholars.
Christians would have a better understanding of where we should be in the abortion controversy if we had left such terms as "viability", "meaningful life" etc. to the lawyers and scientists and stayed with the phrase which God Himself gave us to use. We are all "living souls". Until the early part of the last century it was common English usage to refer to persons as "souls", as in the headlines announcing the loss of lives on the Titanic. According to scripture when the spirit, the "breath of life" enters a body of "dust", one "becomes" a "living soul". When the spirit leaves the body there is no longer a living soul, only a dead body, as we can see from Jesus' dismissing his spirit on the cross (John 19), and Stephen, the first Christian martyr, doing the same (Acts 7). The apostle James reminds us, "..the body without the spirit is dead...." (James 2:26)
And this is true not only at death. If the Almighty chose to withdraw His mercy at any time: "If He only thought of Himself, and gathered unto Him His spirit and His breath ("roo'agh" and "n'shamah"), all flesh would expire together, and man would return to the dust". (Job 34:14,15). Doesn't it follow from these and many more scriptures that the unborn infant in the womb is not yet a "living soul" in God's eyes?
When Job "opened his mouth and cursed his day" (ch.3), he gave us this understanding:
"Why died I not from the womb? why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly?" In this lament we see Job speaking of an infant already born, having the spirit, the breath of life, and then losing it. The phrase "give up the ghost" comes from the Hebrew, "to breathe out" and is just answered by our word, "expire". The phrase "from the womb" means immediately after leaving the womb. After remarking that the dead at least have rest. Job again declares, 3:16: "Or as a hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants which never saw light." The King James is more accurate than some modern translations here; the phrase regarding the unborn infant, is literally "had not been" or "had not come to be". The word "hidden" means "to hide by covering", and may be a hint that in Job's day, as in our own, miscarriages were not given funerals. It might be objected that these words are the outcry of a man in an extremity. But despite his mistake of attributing unfairness to God during his sufferings, Job had a singular insight, among all the Old Testament characters, into God's mind about life and death and resurrection. And he was commended by Him for, "..speaking rightly of me" (ch. 42).
If we can accept this Biblical understanding of when one begins to be a "living soul" before God and when he ceases to be one, he will understand the way our heavenly Father treats the unborn in Exodus 21:22-26:
"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."
Here is a law governing harm ("mischief") resulting from men quarreling and coming to blows, and their women getting in the way somehow. This is not the case of a man attacking a woman. If she is hurt in a way which causes her to lose the infant by miscarriage, but herself recovers, the man must pay a fine as determined by the husband and agreed to by the judges of Israel. But if any harm continues to the woman, God's law decrees a just retribution, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc. ("tooth", "burning", and "stripe" show that this cannot refer to the infant in the womb). These verses are not in an obscure portion of God's Word. They were cited by our Lord as being well known to his countrymen: "Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth...."(Matthew 5:38).
This is one of the many laws from Mount Sinai which teaches us that we must treat each other with the same justice and dignity in which, God declares, He sees us. If ever there could have been a better opportunity in scripture to elevate the status of the unborn, I do not know it. Some Bible scholars actually have weighed in on these verses, but they have gone to some lengths to refuse the disagreeable truth of this passage, including translating "depart" (which is exactly what the verb means) as "give birth prematurely" and, worse, preferring the corrupt Greek Septuagint translation over the original Hebrew text, because it better suits their pro-life views. I would like to see at least one come out and admit that God makes a distinction here in demanding only a fine for the loss of the infant but exact retribution for injury to the woman, because an unborn infant is not yet a "living soul".
I tuned in to Hank Hanegraaff one day, when he was asked about abortion. He did at least use the term "living soul". In his usual authoritative way he pronounced that the moment the sperm met the egg, "that zygote" became "a living soul". He was asked by a caller about the case of identical twins: when the one egg split into two, which one then, got the soul? It was a rare occasion on which the Bible Answer Man did not seem to me to have an answer.
In the historical book of I Kings we have this example:
Chapter 17:17,21,22. "And it came to pass after these things, that the son of the woman, the mistress of the house, fell sick; and his sickness was so sore, that there was no breath left in him." vv.21,22. "And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the Lord, and said, O Lord my God, I pray thee, let this child's soul come into him again. And the Lord heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived."
The book of Ezekiel is instructive, for in it he was given a vision by God Himself of a valley of dry bones. Chapter 37 vv.7-10:
"And I prophesied as I was commanded; and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a rustling, and the bones came together, bone to its bone. And I looked, and behold, sinews and flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them over; but there was no breath in them. And He said unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord God; Come from the four winds O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live. So I prophesied as He commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army."
It might be objected that this did not really happen; it was only a vision. But this makes it all the more convincing, since God gave the vision, as an instance in which God Himself is definitely describing the moment at which one may be said to "live" before Him. It is the moment breath enters. This is the time the spirit of life enters and one becomes "a living soul" in the sight of God. The giving of a spirit to a newborn infant passes unnoticed (and not believed in) by the non-Christians. To them it simply shows that the lungs are working. But not to us. At that moment there is another living soul, and that soul is immortal. We do not believe, as do some atheist scientists, that humans are just more highly evolved cousins of the apes. We are spiritual beings. According to the Revelation, even the wicked, unbelieving dead are resurrected - they are given a new body for their soul and spirit - in which to stand before the Lord. And in that body they are sent into the "lake of fire". This astonishing fact would be unimaginable but for its being stated in the scriptures. So it is not a small matter, this scriptural understanding of human life.
The Lord Jesus entered the home of a family whose twelve year old daughter had died
and saw them "weeping and bewailing her" (Lk. 8). "He said, 'Weep not; for she is not dead, but sleepeth'. And they laughed him to scorn, knowing that she was dead. But he, taking her by the hand, called saying, 'Maiden, arise'. And her spirit returned, and she rose up immediately: and he commanded that something be given her to eat." Luke tells us her parents "were amazed", because they knew full well that she was dead.
In the eleventh chapter of the Revelation, the two witnesses are killed in the streets of Jerusalem by the Antichrist, who also forbids their burial. After three and a half days, "the spirit (or "breath") of life from God" enters them, and they stand upon their feet.
Also in the Revelation, the false prophet appears to animate an image of the Antichrist: "And it was given to it to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should also speak, and should cause that as many as should not do homage to the image of the beast should be killed." (Rev. 13:15). Today a computer can be made to think and, mechanically, to speak. But what will convince the future unbelieving world that the image of the beast (Antichrist) is alive is a miraculous inspiration of "breath" to it.
There are other scriptures, but these cited are enough to show that the Bible is consistent from Genesis to Revelation in defining a "living soul", or in modern language "a person", or a "human being" as coming into existence before God when the "breath of life" enters the body of "dust" and ceasing to be a person when the "spirit of life" leaves the body. There is such an exercise which Paul called, "..rightly dividing the word of truth" (II Tim.2:15). The same scriptures which teach us that abortion cannot be infanticide, because a "living soul" has not yet come into being, also teach us that euthanasia is homicide, because one remains a living soul until the spirit and soul leave the body. The Bible teaches us when one commences life as a person, in God's sight, and when that life ceases. If a Christian believes the Bible about the end of human life, he or she must also believe it concerning the beginning.
Because the testimony of scripture is so consistent regarding the human nature, from the Law, the Prophets, the Writings, the New Testament Gospels and Epistles, I cannot help but believe that most of the scholars know this truth. Perhaps they are silent because, though they may know that abortion cannot be murder according to the Bible, they still see it as morally wrong. And they do not want to give out any information which might be used to excuse it. And maybe this understanding is the reason for the reluctance of the preachers, who call abortion murder and our abortion record a "holocaust", to pursue all the women who have had one as murderesses and their doctors as hired assassins. Maybe the self-righteous are having an unspoken attack of conscience.
If a fetus, or "unborn child" is not yet a living soul, does that fact make abortion morally acceptable under any circumstances? I don't think so. But I do think the answer to that question will be different for people in various circumstances. I have told some of my Christian acquaintances that I believe abortion would be morally wrong under some circumstances. Not good enough! Unless you are ready to call abortion murder, in their view you're in the enemy's camp. I cannot say that. I also will say that those who insist that abortion is murder in God's eyes do not have the scriptures to back the claim. And further:
An exception, based on the health of the mother, or for rape or incest, to any law which might restrict abortion must be allowed if it is seen that a fetus is not yet a person and therefore not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
The complaint from women's groups, that men should not be allowed to legislate their reproductive rights, would be groundless if abortion were murder. But if it is not, then it must be considered to be a legitimate complaint.
The argument that people of good conscience do differ about abortion and must be allowed to do so, would also have no merit if abortion were murder. But if it is not, and the Bible does not make it murder as I see it; then we must at least talk to each other. We should see if there can be some agreement among our consciences.
I also believe an understanding, from scripture, of human life's beginning would allow for stem cell research. But a more fascinating (and perhaps frightening) question arises regarding human cloning. Since it is the living God, not biology, Who gives the "spirit of life" to humans, what kind of creation would a human clone come to be - a true "living soul" or a monster hominid with no spirit, only intelligence, will, and appetite? The answer to that question probably is, we shall soon see.
Who can look at a picture of even an early fetus without feeling some conviction? If left alone, barring some natural problem that fetus will eventually become a "living soul". Science informs us today that, within God's permissive will, about 65%, or roughly 2/3, of all fertilized eggs are naturally aborted, a fact that bears heavily against those who claim it is their faith, their sympathy with God's feelings, which moves them against abortion. Biologists also inform us that the only contraception allowed by the Church of Rome, the "rhythm method", also results in enormous numbers of embryo deaths worldwide. This is because it relies not just on the time when fertilization will least likely occur, but when the ovum, if conceived, will least likely survive. It is true, the fetus we can see is only a potential living soul. But under what circumstances do we have the right to foreclose that eventuality? Most people (but not the Christian right) would not normally, naturally feel convicted about taking the French "morning after" pill. This drug prevents the egg from attaching to the uterine wall; the woman cannot yet even know if she is pregnant. But as development progresses, human reluctance increases. I believe there is something of human nature in this. Ultimately, to abort a human fetus during labor, as in partial-birth abortions, is something almost everyone would feel convicted against doing.
The language of Roe v. Wade acknowledging that the state has, "an important and legitimate interest in potential life", seems to be vindicated by an accurate reading of the scriptures. I think it shows there was wisdom in that original ruling, which established a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy. And its judgment, increasing restrictions of that right with each succeeding trimester, appears to be in accord with our own human reluctance about abortion. Our nation might have already come to a consensus about this issue, had not so many Christian scholars kept quiet and Christian leaders decided, self-confidently, that they had the mind of God from the scriptures.
Aange32553@aol.com