Texas triumphs with new law banning abortsions after 6-weeks, child w/ heart beat

The Church of England currently allows remarriage after divorce. So do the Eastern Orthodox, as they have for centuries. So does the Roman Catholic Church (they just call it “annulment”). But, we aren’t talking about divorce; we’re talking about Exodus 21. And, as I noted above, I did cite the ecclesiastical context in my discussion of the latter. Beyond that, I don’t know what else to tell you. Evaluate the history on its merits, rather than raise Straw Man objections to even talking about it (which, so far, you’ve managed to avoid doing).

 

suppose you were living in the 1500s, and the Church of England stated that divorce forbidden, binding the conscience of the faithful.. does that have impact on the question of private judgment and church authority ?

 

It most certainly would. But, we aren’t talking about divorce on this thread. We’re talking about the new TX abortion law, and I’ve raised the issue of how the history of the interpretation of Exodus 21 might impact that discussion. You seem to be either unable or unwilling to address the substance of that history on its own terms, in that you keep raising irrelevant objections that have the effect of avoiding actually discussing it. If there is some magisterial Anglican ruling on Exodus 21 that’s binding on all Anglican consciences everywhere that somehow managed to slip past me all these years (which is possible), I’d love to see it. By all means cite it if you’re aware of it. Otherwise, I think the history I outlined deserves a more thoughtful and charitable response than a summary dismissal.

 

I don’t know
but then again I’m not an expert.. just saying that it is fully within the power of our church to make rulings on these and other issues as has been done in the past

 

If you don’t know of any such decree of the Church, then why raise the objection in the first place, rather than just address the facts as they are? Am I the only one that finds it more than a little intriguing that such a pivotal proof text could be interpreted so differently by the LXX as opposed to the MT and the Vulgate, that the latter two are in virtual agreement with one another, and that these differences found their way into competing exegetical traditions and systems of canon law? The texts don’t agree. So who’s right? The LXX, or the MT and the Vulgate, or none of the above? If the Vulgate was right, then so were the Rabbis. If the LXX is right, then we’re all using the wrong Bibles (except the Eastern Orthodox, who still use the LXX).

 

With respect, this seems to be a misunderstanding of the Anglican approach. The Anglican church is episcopal, it can make doctrines, it does have central authority figures elevated by the church. However, the Anglican church has no official doctrine on abortion, and so each member of the church is free to come to their own conclusions. How they choose to do that will of course be "private judgement", although giving weight to the opinions of the Church Fathers and the Divines when making their own judgement is sound.

This is what makes the Anglican Church so attractive. Unlike the Roman Church that litigates almost everything, the Anglican Church permits a broad diversity of views, just like the Early Church. The church tends to make rules on things that are clearly deduced from the bible, everything else is up for grabs. There is a consensus opinion on abortion held by most members of the church, both presently and historically, but it is not contrary to the Anglican tradition to make a break from the consensus if you have rational arguments for doing so. Further, respectful dissent in the consensus is baked into the very core of the Anglican tradition, as with most churches - that's how we evolve from no divorce, to no-fault divorce with remarriage whilst your ex is still alive.

 

I just think that we should start from there, rather than fighting back and relenting at the last minute when no other choice is possible… The church should be our first recourse rather than our self-imagined interpretations

we should be obedient and meek rather than intrasigent and incorrirgible, a lost virtue today!


anyway as for your Exodus 21 passage, the ESV renders it with remarkable clarity, such that it does not touch upon the question of abortion at all..:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21:22&version=ESV
“When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

Edit: actually if the grown man is to pay “life for life” for the death of the fetus, then this passage is a prooftext for the humanity of the fetus!

 

As I’ve pointed out several times, it all depends on the source of the translation. I cited the LXX, the MT, and Vulgate because these represent distinct manuscript traditions. That is why I chose to cite the NJPS rather than the NRSV for the translation of the MT. The ESV, like its predecessor the RSV, as well as the NRSV, employs an eclectic method rather than relying on the MT alone. In some places it may rely on the LXX, Aquila, or the Peshitta. Both the LXX and the Vulgate are derived from Hebrew originals that differ in some important respects from the MT. Go back and re-read the quotes I provided and you will see the problem.

The Bible does not directly address abortion (and says nothing in this passage about “humanity”), but there must be an approach that is consistent with laws which have already been revealed. It is a well established principle that the way to get at this is by analogy with a similar law. Jesus did this and so did the Rabbis. That’s why we’re discussing this passage.

 

now you're just being stubborn... the text says that if the grown human causes the death of the unborn fetus, then he must pay life for life

 

I’m being stubborn? Those are your words…

And in point of fact the passage does not address abortion at all, as you pointed out. It begins with the scenario of two men fighting, not with a woman intending to terminate a pregnancy. “Life for life” doesn’t necessarily mean the death penalty; go back and re-read Jesus’ statement from the Sermon on the Mount on the lex talionis as well as Rashi’s comments.

And again, you are relying on a translation of an eclectic text. That’s a significant point that you seem to be misunderstanding. My two “go-to” translations for overall accuracy and readability are the RSV and the NRSV, with some preference given to the latter because of its use in academia and because of research on the Dead Sea Scrolls that has been done since the RSV was produced along with additional manuscripts that have come to light. However, if I want a “pure” translation of the MT, I consult the NJPS first, and then either Rashi or a standard Chumash such as Soncino if there’s an obscure point. If I want to know what the TR said, I’ll consult the NKJV rather than the NRSV. The NRSV is great but no translation is the end-all-be-all. Hebrew scholars will tell you that the text of Exodus 21:22-23 is obscure; that’s why I cited the examples of the different traditions of translating/interpreting it. It’s not just a matter of looking up the passage in the ESV or the NIV or whatever translation one uses and then saying “well, that settles it.” It’s not that simple, as I’ve been laboring to explain.

 

Should you not at this point go to the church and the teachings of the Anglican divines on these points? I do not think that you will persuade anyone with your preferred Bible Translstion since it’s still your personal private preference at this point which cannot bind anyone, whereas a repeated centuries-long interpretation from the church would carry greater weight

 

The Amplified Bible rendition is also clear.
22 “If men fight with each other and injure a pregnant woman so that she gives birth prematurely [and the baby lives], yet there is no further injury, the one who hurt her must be punished with a fine [paid] to the woman’s husband, as much as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall require [as a penalty] life for life...

If the premature infant were to be born dead or die soon afterward, or if he were born with a malformation or some impediment attributable to the fight, that most certainly would be a "harm" or "injury" in keeping with the text. The penalty for such: life for life, body part for body part. Sounds really serious to me.

And that's for harm done to an unborn child by accident; how much more serious and heinous it must be when an unborn child is killed intentionally.

 

You have already stated above that you are aware of nothing decisive within Anglicanism regarding this particular passage. As ZachT has mentioned, there is no authoritatively Anglican interpretation of it. Even if there were, responsible exegesis would still be necessary for proper application in today’s context. I also have no interest in being told what to think by any authoritarian institution. We all have the gift of reason and I believe it’s meant to be used.

My point about about the NRSV was merely an example to demonstrate the necessity of consulting a variety of translations when one is not interacting directly with the texts in their original languages. I said “no translation is the end-all-be-all”. Obviously, I’m not trying to “persuade” or “bind” anyone with a “preferred Bible translation”. The most charitable conclusion I can make from a comment that inanely dismissive is that you either simply haven’t read what I’ve written, or you haven’t understood it, and have no desire to. Any further interaction will be a waste of time, I’m afraid.

 

Within Anglicanism, there may be diversity of opinions on many matters. Be that as it may, when it comes to the question of whether an unborn child is a living, "ensouled" human being in the eyes of God, there can be no differences of opinion, for with God it is not a matter of opinion. God knows for certain. God cares, absolutely. On an issue as weighty as that of life or death in the eyes of Almighty God, who are we to 'roll the dice' and gamble on our own reasoning that the unborn is not an ensouled human? Is it not the height of hubris and presumptuousness for a Christian to assume he knows that the unborn child is not yet a person in the sight of God?

For example, we can have differences of opinion on the full meaning of the Eucharist, a doctrinal issue. But we can't have opinions about God's Trinitarian nature and still be Christians, can we? Disbelieving the Trinity makes one a heretic, a non-Christian, and the reason is that God's Trinitarian nature is an absolute that goes to the essence of God and of our faith. Well, what about disbelieving that the living, dividing, genetically and chromosomally human organism forming and growing in the womb is a human being in God's eyes? The implications of getting this wrong are mind-numbingly devastating if we only get it wrong in one single instance, for our error has ended an innocent human life.

The beginning point of a new life is an absolute. There is a definite time when it starts, and that definite time is not up for debate even though we may not have complete understanding of it. We dare not get this wrong, or what will God say when we stand before Him if our words and actions enabled the taking of an innocent life?

 

I struggle with the notion of the 'absolute' and 'definite' being used in an area were 'we may not have complete understanding'.

1 Corinthians 13:12
For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. ​

I fear in the face of the immense mystery of life, we dare not speak with the legalism of the Pharisees of old lest we too fail to meet the mark.

I understand that Paul, in writing these words, was a man before his time, in that this represents almost pure philosophical pragmatism. None the less these are the words, and they are part of our canonical scriptures.

 

It is reasonable to assume that God is sufficiently merciful that we don’t have to resort to the One Percent Doctrine to avoid committing a hell-meriting infraction of a law that hasn’t been revealed. What hasn’t been revealed is left to us to figure out in good faith. We needn’t fear being condemned by making the best of the state God has assigned to us. Jesus’ statement in the Sermon on the Mount on the lex talionis goes in the exact opposite direction from a blind demand for vengeance for every infraction. And condemning people for murder when they’ve done no such thing is hardly a no-risk position if we take what Jesus had to say seriously.

 

I'm not sure I understand.

Let me present an example: "God exists." We Christians have no trouble stating this as an absolute. Yet who among us has seen God? Which of us has complete understanding of Him? However, God understands Himself perfectly well.

Although we humans lack a perfect understanding of exactly what point of the gestation period is the point when human life begins, that point is particular and specific and is defined by God Himself. One person might guess that a new life is ensouled at conception, another might guess it's at implantation, another might guess it's at the time of the first heartbeat, etc. But God does not need to guess; He knows. He ensouls an unborn child at a definite point of gestation, and in all likelihood it's the same point of gestation in every instance of human pregnancy. To God, this particular point is definite and absolute; any different perspective deriving from human reasoning is necessarily flawed due to incompleteness (seeing as in a mirror, dimly).

The thing is, if we don't know exactly whether an unborn child is ensouled at 'point X', does that give us license to take the chance that we might not be killing an ensouled human child?

Suppose you were a Christian doctor, and a healthy patient with a healthy pregnancy came in and asked for an abortion at, say, 5 weeks after insemination. If you assume incorrectly that the baby is not yet ensouled and you perform the abortion, you have killed an innocent child. And what of the mother? She has also participated in the killing of an innocent human being. Proverbs 6 says God hates the shedding of innocent blood. Is ignorance a good excuse for killing someone?

What of the Christians who advocate in favor of allowing elective abortions (not needed to save the mother's life or anything like that) and who speak out against legal efforts made to curb the number of such abortions? If they guessed incorrectly, aren't they enablers of killing innocents? Don't they participate indirectly in the deaths of the unborn?

I would not want to be one of the people who guessed incorrectly and, at the judgment, be informed of the deadly consequences of my assumption. God is not going to say, "Because you thought those unborn were not yet real people, they weren't real people." He doesn't time the ensoulment of the unborn based on what we think or hope. Far better if we assume that ensoulment occurs at the earliest stage of pregnancy (conception) than otherwise, because any other assumption gambles with human lives as if they were mere poker chips. No Christian should take the chance that he might be enabling the spilling of innocent blood by sticking up for abortion (other than for extreme extenuating circumstances).

 

I'd like to quote an excerpt from John A. Rasmussen, "Abortion: Historical and Biblical Perspectives," Covenant Theological Quarterly 43 (January 1979).

St. Paul describes the Christian way of life as something opposed to the way of the flesh. The works of the flesh include
lechery, idolatry, and pharmakeiu (Galatians 5:20). The word
pharmakeia refers to the use of drugs with occult associations
for a variety of purposes, among them effecting an abortion. l 4
Thus, the term surely includes the use of abortifacient drugs.
In Revelation 9:21 and 21:8 those who practice pharmakeiu are
classified with murderers and fornicators. Revelation 21:8 says
that murderers, fornicators, and pharmakoi shall be thrown into
"the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second
death." These pharmakoi like "fornicators, murderers,
idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood,"
cannot hope t o enter the heavenly city (Revelation 22:15).

Like the New Testament writers, the early church also
denounced abortion and its companion practice, infanticide. The
Didache laid down these demands: "thou shalt do no murder,
commit no adultery . . .thou shalt not procure an abortion, nor
commit infanticide." ' T h o s e who are "killers of the child, who
abort the mold (plasma) of God" are following the "Way of
Death." The Epistle of Barnabas stated, "thou shalt not
procure an abortion, thou shalt not commit infanticide." l6
Further, Barnabas 19:5 forbade anyone to slay a child by
abortion or kill what is generated. Tertullian wrote of abortion:
"to us it is parricidium," the worst murder, the murder of a
blood-relative. Athenagoras held that the embryo was already a
human being and an object of divine love and providence. This
principle contradicted the view expressed in Roman law that the
embryo was still a part of the body of the mother. l 7 Thus, while
contemporary Roman law saw life as dispensable, the early
Christians saw it, including the life of the embryo, as a divine
creation and hence inviolable.

The early fathers, therefore, severely censured those who
professed to be Christians and yet obtained abortions. Jerome
wrote in his Epistle 22, "To Eustochium," of his abhorrence of
abortion in the Christian community:
Some (Christian women) go so far as to take potions,
that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder
human beings almost before their conception. Some
when they find themselves with child through their sin,
use drugs to procure abortion, and when (as often
happens) they die with their offspring, they enter the
lower world laden with guilt not only of adultery
against Christ but also of suicide and child murder...

In the second century Athenagoras and Clement of Alexandria
attacked abortion with zeal. Two aprocryphal works, the
Apocalypse o f Peter and the Apocalypse of Paul testify to
popular abhorrence of the abortionist in the early Christian
church. In the third century abortion was vigorously condemned by Tertullian and Cyprian.
The fourth century compilation, the "Apostolic Constitutions," denounced the killing of
a fetus....This Christian rule remained certain for nineteen centuries.​

It doesn't look like those early Christian writers spent much time dithering over precisely when an abortion switched from "okay" to "wrong". They simply condemned abortions, period!

 

I am not sure I do want to make that statement, and certainly not without a deal of care in how I made it. I actually believe that God is before existence, so existence happens if the context of God, God does not happen in the context of existence.

Now, as it happens I have not advocated for abortion. I am just not sure I like some of the alternatives. The suffering and death of numerous women and unborn in the bad old days of the backyard abortionists did nothing to stop the spilling of blood, and criminalised the women, whilst happily thinking that 'boys will be boys'. Have you asked yourself why in the account of the woman caught in the very act of adultery was presented to Jesus without the man? What I do think is that simply outlawing abortion is not a good option. Sometime I think abortion may be the least bad option.

It would seem that we will not be especially well heard if we simply promote chastity unless you really want a child, so I think we should be more on board with promoting proper birth control and whatever that may include. In the west for a woman to be pregnant it should present either deliberation, carelessness, or a failure in technology.

I have however been quite strong in advocating for a stronger embrace of the holiness, mystery, and ineffability of the grace of life.

 

The difference between then and there, and now and here, is: pretty much everything. We live in a totally different world than they did. And if, on top of that, their understanding was flawed, then it should not be followed by us today anyway. Finding out if that’s true or not is what responsible exegesis is for. And I’ll take my chances with that over religious authoritarianism any day. We are not slaves to the prevailing opinions of any particular era.