Pastoral Response: Abortion
- James Collazo
- May 17, 2022
- 16 min read
Updated: 6 hours ago
Introduction
Content warning: This article examines abortion in the Bible from historical and grammatical perspectives, emphasizing theological reflection rather than political debate. However, Scripture's moral vision remains clear: God commands his people to "choose life" (Deut. 30:19)—a charge that resonates throughout history, long before the formation of modern law. The Didachē (Greek for "Teaching," G1322)—an early Christian handbook of doctrine and practice—affirms this command without ambiguity: "Do not murder a child by abortion or kill a newborn infant" (Did. 2:2). From Israel's earliest Scriptures through the earliest Christian writings, God's people consistently affirmed the sanctity of human life.
Today, people around the world clash over abortion. Pro-life advocates insist that ending a child's life in the womb constitutes murder. Proponents of abortion claim that denying a woman this option restricts her freedom. The first-century Christian authors of the Didachē declare without compromise: "Do not murder a child by abortion or kill a newborn infant" (Did. 2:2). This statement expands on the commandment, "You shall not murder" (Exod. 20:13). The Law of Moses treated intentional murder as a capital offense. This principle remains the foundation of justice in most legal systems today (Lev. 24:17).
From the earliest days of church history, followers of Jesus recoiled at the pagan practices of abortion and the exposure of infants to the elements—infanticide. The Didachē, generally dated to the late first or early second century, reflects a community deeply shaped by Jewish ethical traditions that issued an explicit prohibition on abortion, thereby expanding the New Testament's moral teaching. The Didachē applies the command against murder to practices that had become common in Greco-Roman society, making explicit what early Christians understood to be implicit in the biblical command. The Jewish historian Josephus likewise reflects this Jewish moral tradition when he wrote, "The law, moreover, enjoins us to bring up all our offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child" (C. Ap. 2.24.1). Writing in the first century, Josephus provides evidence of how one influential Jewish interpreter understood the implications of the Law of Moses during the Second Temple period. Later, around AD 177, Athenagoras similarly argued, "We say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder" (Leg. 35).
The Jewish tradition also reflected a concern for life in the womb. The Mishnah states, "If a woman is having trouble giving birth, they cut up the child in her womb and bring it forth limb by limb, because her life comes before the life of [the child]. But if the greater part has come out, one may not touch it, for one may not set aside one person's life for that of another" (m. Oholot 7:6). While this passage addresses an exceptional circumstance involving the preservation of the mother's life, it nevertheless assumes that the unborn child is a living subject whose moral status must be considered.
Known Before Birth
Moses, the author of Genesis, declares, "So God created humankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them" (Gen. 1:27). Theologians refer to this doctrine as imago Dei, Latin for "image of God." In Hebrew, Genesis 1:27 describes humanity as created in God's tselem (H6754, "image") and demuth (H1823, "likeness"). God made human beings in his likeness to be stewards of creation—his crowning work (cf. Ps. 8:5–7; see "Humankind & Ancestral Sin"). Modern embryology confirms that a distinct living human organism begins at fertilization, possessing its own unique genetic identity and directing its own development from the earliest stages. Augustine argued that humanity's fall profoundly marred the image of God. Yet even after the fall, James affirms that human beings continue to bear God's likeness: "With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God's likeness" (James 3:9). If it is wrong to curse or abuse someone made in God's image, how much greater the crime to murder one? Whether the image of God is understood structurally, relationally, or functionally, Scripture never suggests that unborn children are excluded from humanity itself.
Scripture never grounds human worth in age, intelligence, physical ability, independence, or usefulness (cf. James 3:9). Human dignity rests solely upon bearing God's image (Gen. 1:26–27). Therefore, differences in development cannot determine whether someone possesses intrinsic value. Psalm 139 offers a strong affirmation of personhood in the womb. Personhood refers to the intrinsic moral status of a human being. Scripture grounds this status not in consciousness, viability, or independence but in humanity itself as God's image-bearer. David declares that God formed his inward parts and knit him together in his mother's womb, that every day of his life was written in God's book before one of them came to be. This psalm presents a profound theological vision of God's intimate knowledge and care for human life in the womb, already known, shaped, and cherished by the Creator. To intentionally destroy prenatal life is to oppose a work that Scripture attributes to God himself. See here:
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be (Ps. 139:13–16).
While Psalm 139 is not a legal prohibition against abortion, it establishes an important theological principle: God is personally involved in the formation of every human life before birth. The unborn child is never portrayed as anonymous tissue but as a person already known, formed, and cared for by God. To drive the point home, both the prophet Jeremiah and the apostle Paul testify that God appointed their lives and callings before they drew their first breath (Jer. 1:5; Gal. 1:15; Eph. 1:3–4). Jeremiah's calling was unique, but the theological assumption behind the passage is not. God's foreknowledge of Jeremiah presupposes that the unborn prophet already existed as the object of God's covenantal purpose. While the verse does not establish personhood on its own, it reinforces the broader biblical pattern that God's relationship with human beings begins before birth. The prophet Isaiah likewise speaks of being called from the womb (Isa. 49:1). Job likewise acknowledges God as the one who fashioned him in the womb, asking, "Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?" (Job 31:15; cf. Job 10:8–12). Unlike the prophetic callings of Jeremiah and Isaiah, Job's testimony reflects the ordinary human experience of being formed by God's creative hand before birth.
Although these passages speak specifically of Jeremiah's and Paul's callings, they illustrate the biblical pattern of God's sovereign knowledge of human life before birth. When Mary visited Elizabeth, the preborn John the Baptist leaped in the womb at the presence of the preborn Christ (Luke 1:41–44). Scripture does not treat life in the womb as an idea but as a living human being personally known by God. Luke deliberately uses the Greek noun brephos (G1025) for John before birth (Luke 1:41) and for newborn children elsewhere (Luke 2:12; 18:15), making no linguistic distinction between unborn and born infants. Luke's consistent use of brephos indicates that he viewed the unborn John and newborn infants as belonging to the same category of human life, differing only in developmental stage.
The eternal Son of God did not become human at his birth in Bethlehem but at his conception by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:35; John 1:14). From the moment of conception, Jesus possessed a complete human nature united to his divine person. Scripture dignifies life in the womb in the highest possible way: the Son of God himself entered the world as a preborn child. The incarnation demonstrates that prenatal human life is not a lesser stage of humanity but an authentic expression of it. The incarnation affirms not merely the sanctity of prenatal life but its full humanity. The early church recognized the theological significance of Christ's conception. Gregory of Nazianzus argued, "For that which [Christ] has not assumed he has not healed; but that which is united to his Godhead is also saved" (Ep. 101.32). Because Christ assumed a complete human nature, including human existence in the womb, the incarnation affirms the full reality of prenatal humanity.
Many who defend abortion appeal to bodily autonomy and independence, claiming a woman should have absolute control over her body. But Scripture answers both men and women with authority: "Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies" (1 Cor. 6:19–20). Our bodies are not our own; they belong to God, who created and redeemed them. Human beings possess free will, but always within the bounds God has set. Every choice carries weight, and every choice comes to account before the Lord of heaven and earth (see "God's Sovereignty & Human Freedom").
Some abortion proponents also argue that personhood is established at first breath, appealing to God's creation of Adam: "Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" (Gen. 2:7a–b; cf. Gen. 5:3). This interpretation misunderstands the uniqueness of Adam's creation. Adam was not conceived, carried in the womb, or born; he was fashioned directly from the dust of the earth. Eve likewise was uniquely formed from Adam's side rather than through ordinary human reproduction (Gen. 2:21–22). Genesis itself later distinguishes Adam's unique creation from ordinary human generation: "When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image" (Gen. 5:3a–b). Adam was created directly by God from dust; his descendants are generated through ordinary human reproduction in accordance with God's established pattern. Genesis 2:7 describes the miraculous creation of the first man, not the ordinary pattern by which human beings enter the world.
Throughout the rest of Scripture, human beings are consistently portrayed as being formed by God in the womb long before they draw their first breath (Ps. 139:13–16; Job 10:8–12; Jer. 1:5; Luke 1:41–44). The "breath of life" in Genesis marks God's animation of Adam's uniquely created body, not a universal definition of when personhood begins. The Hebrew phrase nephesh chayyah (H5315 / H2416, "living being") describes Adam as a living creature; it is not a technical term establishing that a person begins to exist at first breath or a universal rule by which human beings acquire moral status. Scripture frequently uses "breath" language to describe the life that God gives and sustains (Job 12:10; Eccl. 12:7), not as a biological threshold by which human beings acquire personhood. Adam was the first man, uniquely created from the dust of the earth. His experience is not presented as the normative pattern for human generation. If Genesis 2:7 established a universal rule for personhood, consistency would require treating Adam's entire creation account—including his formation from dust—as the normative pattern for all human beings. The text describes a unique act of creation; it does not prescribe the beginning of personhood for Adam's descendants. Genesis 2:7 is about origins, not obstetrics.
Cost of False Gods
The article "Netherworld: Down to Death" describes the pagan practice of sacrificing children to Molek in the Valley of Hinnom (pictured above). This abomination crept into Israel by cultural infusion, defiling God's people with the sins of the nations.
[The Israelites] mingled with the nations and adopted their customs. They worshiped their idols, which became a snare to them. They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to false gods. They shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was desecrated by their blood (Ps. 106:35–38).
Many abortion proponents deny that children in the womb possess full personhood and do not regard them as sons or daughters in the moral sense intended by Scripture. Many abortion proponents also appeal to bodily autonomy rather than fetal personhood. Yet the psalmist declares, "Children are a heritage from the LORD, offspring a reward from him" (Ps. 127:3). The children sacrificed to Molek were not rejected by God but by those who valued something else more highly. Scripture consistently condemns this inversion of values, treating the deliberate destruction of innocent children as one of humanity's greatest moral evils. Still, God has never commanded such a sacrifice. Even in Abraham's trial with Isaac, God's purpose was to forbid it (Gen. 22:1–19). Nor does Scripture allow abortion for disability: "Who gives human beings their mouths? Who makes them deaf or mute? Who gives them sight or makes them blind? Is it not I, the LORD?" (Exod. 4:11). To deny life for reasons of convenience is to deny the image of God in the vulnerable.
Later Christian writers continued this understanding. Tertullian wrote, "In our case, murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb" (Apol. 9), showing that second-century Christians applied the prohibition against murder to prenatal life.
Difficult Passages
Many proponents of elective abortion refer to Exodus 21:22 and Numbers 5:12–31, claiming Scripture allows it. The New International Version and the Orthodox Jewish Bible render the Hebrew phrase veyatzu yeladeyha (H3318 / H3206) in the Exodus verse similarly. Consider these translations:
If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [veyatzu yeladeyha], but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands, and the court allows (New International Version).
If men fight and hurt an isha harah [H802 / H2030, "pregnant woman"] so that she gives birth prematurely [veyatzu yeladeyha] but not with any injury; he shall be surely punished, according to the ba'al haisha [H1167 /H802, "wife's master"] will assess a fine upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine (Orthodox Jewish Bible).
The New International Version translators render the Hebrew phrase veyatzu yeladeyha to mean a woman giving birth prematurely due to injury. Phillip E. Goble, a Messianic Jewish translator fluent in Hebrew, argues that the grammar favors a premature live birth rather than a miscarriage. The translators of the Septuagint appear to have understood the verse similarly: "If two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born [Greek: exelthē, "come forth," G1831] imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay the penalty: as the woman's husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation. But if it is perfectly formed, he shall give life for life." The ordinary Hebrew verb yatsa (H3318, "to come out") typically refers to birth or emergence. In contrast, the standard Hebrew term for miscarriage is shakal (H7921, "to miscarry" or "to be bereaved"), which is not used in Exodus 21. This lexical distinction supports the interpretation that the passage may describe a premature live birth rather than a miscarriage.
Many proponents of abortion appeal to the miscarriage interpretation of Exodus 21:22 in support of their position. Several modern translations, including the Common English Bible and the New Revised Standard Version, favor this reading. However, the Messianic Jewish translators of the Tree of Life Version, fluent in Hebrew, maintain the original sense of premature birth, not abortion. It reads, "If men fight, and hit a pregnant woman so that her child is born early, yet no harm follows, the one who hit her is to be strictly fined, according to what the woman's husband demands of him. He must pay as the judges determine" (Exod. 21:22 TLV).
Even among scholars who interpret Exodus 21:22 as referring to miscarriage rather than premature birth, some reject the claim that the passage denies the humanity or value of the child in the womb. Russell T. Fuller, a professor of biblical Hebrew and Old Testament interpretation, argues that the miscarriage interpretation does not settle the question of fetal personhood and should not be used as proof that Scripture treats the child in the womb as less than human. A strong case can be made that the child, rather than the mother, is the primary subject of the sentence. Looking at the broader context, the passage focuses on compensation for harm done to the unborn child, particularly through the fine imposed for the loss of that life. The passage deals with reimbursement and compensation for crimes or accidents. The Law of Moses required compensation when a child in the womb was harmed through accidental violence. At the same time, the law draws a clear line between accidental death and deliberate murder. Exodus 21:22 answers the question: "Is the life of the child in the womb worth compensation?" The answer is yes, and the law expresses that value through financial compensation within its legal framework.
Ultimately, the theological argument does not depend upon resolving every lexical debate. If veyatzu yeladeyha ("her children come out") refers to a premature live birth, then the child in the womb is plainly treated as a legal person whose injury matters under the Law of Moses. If the phrase instead refers to miscarriage, the passage still addresses accidental injury resulting from a fight—not the intentional killing of an unborn child through elective abortion. Under either interpretation, Exodus 21:22–25 cannot reasonably be cited as biblical permission for abortion. Rather, the passage demonstrates that harm done to a child in the womb carries legal and moral significance within Israel's covenant law.
The second passage in question is Numbers 5:11–31, which deals with a man who suspects his wife of adultery. Nothing in the passage explicitly states that the woman is pregnant. Many scholars understand the judgment to involve infertility or future childbearing rather than the termination of an existing pregnancy. According to the Law of Moses, he brings her before the Levitical priests in the temple before God. The priests give her "bitter water" to drink. If she is innocent, she is free to go. But if she is guilty: "If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell, and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse" (Num. 5:27). Even if the woman were pregnant, the text portrays God—not the priest or the bitter water—as the direct agent of judgment. Abortion proponents claim this was a scriptural rite of abortion. The text itself does not identify the mixture as having an abortifacient property; rather, the outcome is presented as the result of divine judgment rather than the intrinsic properties of the water itself.
This consequence is similar to the time when the prophet Nathan told King David that his first son, conceived with Bathsheba, would die because David had disobeyed God (2 Sam. 12:14–16). Abortion proponents are wrong to assume any connection between modern abortion methods and the bitter-water rite in the Bible. A modern abortifacient, by contrast, harms a preborn child by design—it can only kill, not preserve. Elective abortion, understood as the intentional killing of an innocent child in the womb, opposes God's will. Conversely, the bitter-water rite sought God's judgment through sacred law. God wants us to choose life, especially by making moral choices. To justify abortion through Numbers 5:11–31 misreads the context of divine judgment.
Defending Life
The Bible affirms the value of every human life, showing that the preborn child's life is worth protection and compensation (Exod. 21:22–25). God's justice draws a clear line between accident and murder (Exod. 21:12–14). The Law of Moses and other passages make clear that harm to the innocent is serious, and sin carries natural consequences—but ritual or circumstance does not justify killing. Modern abortion, by contrast, intentionally kills a child in the womb and acts in opposition to God's will. Evildoers cannot twist a rite made necessary by sin to justify committing another sin.
God commands his people to "choose life" (Deut. 30:19). Every generation is called to honor and protect human life. Early Christians rejected abortion and infanticide, defending the most vulnerable. Modern abortion is not only a moral issue—abortion inevitably has political implications because laws determine whether vulnerable human beings receive legal protection. Laws and policies that allow abortion directly destroy innocent life. Ending a child's life in the womb is not a private choice—it is a rejection of justice, compassion, and the dignity of God's image (Gen. 1:27).
Christians defend both the child in the womb and the mother carrying that child, seeking to provide practical care, compassion, and hope in difficult pregnancies. The Christian defense of preborn life is ultimately rooted not in political ideology but in the gospel itself. However, we must defend the preborn through both moral witness and political action, upholding the sacred duty to protect life in law and society. Because governments exist to protect innocent human life, Paul writes, "They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer" (Rom. 13:4c). Christians naturally seek laws that reflect God's concern for justice. Defending life is not optional; it is an act of obedience to God. To tolerate the destruction of the innocent while claiming morality is to abandon justice itself. God calls his people to act, speak, and legislate in defense of those who cannot defend themselves—especially preborn children (Prov. 31:8–9).
The God who entered the world as a child in the womb bore our sins upon the cross and rose again to bring life to all who trust in him. Because Christ is Lord of life, his people are called to defend life, love their neighbors, care for mothers and children, and proclaim the forgiveness and hope found in him.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Athanasius. On the Incarnation of the Word. Translated by John Henry Newman. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, vol. 4. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892.
Athenagoras. A Plea for the Christians. Translated by B. P. Pratten. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.
Didache. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 7. Translated by James Donaldson. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886.
Gregory of Nazianzus. Epistles. Translated by Charles Gordon Browne and James Edward Swallow. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, vol. 7. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894.
Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged. Translated by William Whiston. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987.
Pietersma, Albert, and Benjamin G. Wright, eds. A New English Translation of the Septuagint. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Tertullian. Apology. Translated by S. Thelwall. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.
Commentaries
Bock, Darrell L. Luke 1:1–9:50. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1994.
Durham, John I. Exodus. Word Biblical Commentary 3. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987.
Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.
Stuart, Douglas K. Exodus. New American Commentary 2. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2006.
Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 1–15. Word Biblical Commentary 1. Dallas: Word, 1987.
Monographs
Beale, G. K. We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008.
Beckwith, Francis J. Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Frame, John M. The Doctrine of the Christian Life. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2008.
Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. Toward Old Testament Ethics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983.
Kilner, John F. Dignity and Destiny: Humanity in the Image of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015.
Middleton, J. Richard. The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2005.
Moore, Keith L., T. V. N. Persaud, and Mark G. Torchia. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. 12th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2023.
Sadler, T. W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 15th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer, 2024.
Wright, Christopher J. H. Old Testament Ethics for the People of God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004.
Reference Works
Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1907.
Danker, Frederick William, ed. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J. Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000.
Journal Articles
Fuller, Russell. "Exodus 21:22–23: The Miscarriage Interpretation and the Personhood of the Fetus."↗ Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37, no. 2 (1994): 169–84. PDF.
Smith, Henry B., Jr. "Canaanite Child Sacrifice, Abortion, and the Bible."↗ The Journal of Ministry and Theology 7, no. 2 (May 24, 2013): 90–125. PDF.
Sprinkle, Joe M. "The Interpretation of Exodus 21:22–25 (Lex Talonis) and Abortion."↗ Westminster Theological Journal 55 (1993): 233–53.
Online Resources
Koukl, Greg. "What Does Exodus 21:22 Say About Abortion?" Stand to Reason. January 1, 2010.
McDaniel, Thomas F. "The Septuagint Has the Correct Translation of Exodus 21:22–23."↗ Palmer Theological Seminary, 2012. PDF.
