There are huge questions here: social, cultural, psychological, not to mention economical, political, none of which yield to the “easy” answer.

As for me, the world of Scripture is mostly hostile to women and children – women and children are, of course, property.

Your point is well made – infanticide is one thing, abortion another.

Infanticide mostly aimed at girls – if the New Testament actually reflects a more “enlightened” take on women, and I think it does, then the notion of infanticide in Acts 15 has some merit. But, let’s face it, after 2000 years of Western Christianity, and 1500 years of Islam, and 3500 years of Jewish faith and practice, women still suffer terribly, and it’s always men who are making the decisions … and comfortable women who have little invested in the needs and challenges of others.

As for myself, science and reason, decency and kindness, all gifts from God, the Holy Spirit, and my years of ministry (ordained 1970), have led me to be pro-choice, which is, for me, pro-life. The life of the mother, the woman – so often “brought before Jesus” … to be shamed, and killed … when Jesus wrote in the dust, he might well have noted, “Where is the man?”

In a world where there are no easy answers, where dogma and proscription cause harm and sorrow, I think an exegetical effort to parse to the infinite the word “strangulation” is more akin to angels on the head of pin than the gospel of defended by Peter: “We believe we will be saved through the grace of our LORD Jesus, just as they will.”

As I said in the article, I find it more convincing that “blood” is a reference to bloodshed (murder) rather than eating blood, which is the conventional understanding. Just in the book of Acts, the word “blood” is used multiple times in reference to murder. See Acts 5:28 and 22:20 especially. Many times it is used this way in the gospels too.

Foreigners living among the Jewish people were not to eat blood. I am wondering if this is the precedent for the Acts 15 directive to the Gentiles about “blood.”

As far as sermons on infanticide, look in the article by Instone-Brewer. He quotes from several there – from Philo, Josephus, the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, etc.

1. Jesus, who expressed and interpreted Torah, emphasized its “maximums” i.e., its ultimate aims, whereas many others emphasize its “minimums” i.e., what regulations guarantee that one does not breach God’s commandments?

2. Even the Torah reveals a kind of evolution with regard to “maximum” righteousness. “Instead of transforming his people instantly, God started with what was familiar. Building on what they were accustomed to, he then movem them in a radically different direction. For example, offering sacrifices was common practice in…cultures on the ancient world… In contrast (to this) the God of Israel instucted his people to offer sacrifices, but he radically transformed the way they did it…”

Another example: Deuteronomy contains laws allowing slavery. Does this mean that slavery is OK?… Though the Torah didn’t outlaw slavery, which was widely practiced and accepted in the ancient world, it put humanitarian limits on it…”

Could it be that the “minimum” requirements in Torah which Nick cites actually point to a “maximum” which the God of Israel ultimately intended regarding the helpless, and those who have no voice?

Can you provide a couple of sources?

Thanks!

Very good question. You’re right – I was using the word “abortion” in a broad way, and Acts 15 doesn’t specifically say anything about anything else except infanticide.

One thing I see in the DIB article is that the early sources he quotes all prohibit abortion along with infanticide, mentioning both in the same sentence. My guess from that is that the Acts church would too.

But you’re right that in Jewish law, a fetus is considered a “part of the mother” until it’s born, rather than another human being. Abortion is still forbidden in Orthodox law, except if the life of a pregnant mother is in jeopardy. Then it is permitted because of Lev. 19:16, which says “You shall not stand idly when life is at stake.” Because the mother’s life is precious to God, it must be defended.

I don’t know the fine points and I’m sure there’s much more discussion. Here are a couple links where you can read more:

http://www.thatreligiousstudieswebsite.com/Ethics/Applied_Ethics/Abortion/abortion_judaism.php

http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/cavalier/Forum/abortion/background/judaism1.html

In the American legal system if a doctor destroys a fetus in utero accidentally he is not charged with destruction of property but charge with murder. I might be wrong on this.

But in the Torah it says if two men are fighting and one accidentally hits a woman nearby who is with child and the fetus is destroyed, them that man must pay restitution. He is not charge with murder and sentenced to death, as the Torah calls for in cases of murder, but he must pay fine. If all life is equal and a fetus is a living human being, them why is it not considered killing when when a fetus is destroyed in the Torah?

Also in the Talmud the rabbis seem very clear that early on in the pregnancy, it is not considered to be a human but fluid.

From the literature I’ve read it seems that abortion is against the Halacha, but a fetus is not considered to be a living human but is an incredibly valuable being that we have no right to destroy.

I’m very uncertain on this issues. Personally I am absolutely prolife and not pro choice. Legally, I don’t know. However my main point is just to note some of the troubling passages from the Torah and Talmud that make this a very complicated halachic issue, and when people try to use the Bible to prove that abortion is wrong, it’s not so simple.

The issue is too complex to address here, but one point I’d make is that capital punishment, biblically, is not murder. One is wanton, malicious violence, the other is a penalty demanded by God or by a society for a heinous crime. Human life is not so supreme that even justice cannot demand it.

In fact, biblical scholars point out that the criminal code of the Bible demanded death for murder because life is so precious in God’s eyes. In the surrounding societies, the wealthy could pay a fine to the family of a victim, allowing the murderer to go free. The less wealthy might substitute a child or wife — a form of “property” — for the culprit. The laws of the Torah regarded life to be of such supreme value that no monetary fine was sufficient – only the life of the murderer was enough to pay for the crime.