Instead of beginning with the oldest scriptural references to ascertain the correct stance a “Christian” should take on the global issue and practice of abortion, it seems much more prudent to work backwards toward the earliest foundations of Christianity.
Contrary to what most would assume, abortion in the Roman Empire, was a common practice, prior to and during the 1st century, even through to the 4th and 5th, especially among the societal elite. Also, contrary to popular belief, the early followers of Jesus had much to say about the issue. Letters, teachings, and apocalyptic visions addressing abortion directly and explicitly were either written by or were attributed to the apostles themselves. The apostles did not consider their position on such issues to be that of a “Christian,” but the position of their king and subsequently that of all who comprised the citizenry of his kingdom.
Rather than work our way from what is considered the biblical “beginning”, we believe it is prudent to begin with the inauguration of the Kingdom of God, post life, death, resurrection, and ascension of its king, Jesus the Christ. We consider him to be the hermeneutical key that unlocks the truth of Scripture and the fundamental principle to understanding all that pertains to it. In this, we also consider him as the author and finisher of our faith. We would do well then, as those who have not seen him, yet believe in and love him, to look to the example of our ancient forerunners and the impact he had upon their moral and ethical stances, which determined the subsequent choices they made in keeping with these.
Cultural Similarities and Differences
One of the deceptions that has become unconsciously accepted in the collective mindset of contemporary society is that we are more civilized and enlightened than the cultures that came before us. Technological and scientific advancement has deluded modern humanity into considering itself superior in all ways to its ancestry. Yet what might surprise many who call themselves “Christians” are the striking similarities between the current practice of abortion and its 1st century Greco-Roman counterparts. While there are subtle differences between ancient and modern abortion, on the whole, the methodology, as well as the individual and societal logic surrounding it, are the same. In fact, the present-day sentiments toward abortion, while more informed, are far more dehumanizing. We will expound on this further in what follows.
The practice of abortion in the Greco-Roman world, as far as ancient practices go, is fairly well-documented. Michael J. Gorman in his book Abortion & the Early Church: Christian, Jewish, & Pagan Attitudes in the Greco-Roman World provides a thorough analysis of the available source material. Throughout the articles that follow, we will be interacting with the material he presents.
According to Gorman’s research, the motives for, and methods of, abortion in the Greco-Roman world were as varied then as they are today. He states that:
“From the earliest days of ancient Greece and Rome to the time of Augustine, abortion was practiced frequently by pagans and occasionally by Jews and Christians. It seems to have been more common among the wealthy than among the poor: Juvenal wrote of how seldom a “gilded bed” contained a pregnant woman because abortion was so readily available to the rich. But the poor aborted too, as did married and unmarried, chaste and prostitute. Other people besides pregnant women were involved in abortion. A husband or lover might force a woman to abort. Certain doctors performed nontherapeutic as well as therapeutic abortions. Amateur and paid abortionists and dealers in abortifacient drugs were available.”
One ought to immediately notice similarities between the motivation for abortion in antiquity and those of the 21st century from the above description. Gorman continues:
“By far the most frequent reason was to conceal illicit sexual activity. Rich women did not want to share their wealth with lower-class children fathered illegitimately. Another reason was to preserve “sex appeal,” for many women, especially the rich, did not enjoy the effects of pregnancy on their figures, preferring not to “get big and trouble the womb with bouncing babes.” As Chrysostom said of prostitutes, they had “a view of drawing more money by being agreeable and an object of longing to [their] lovers.” Both Plato and Aristotle recommended family limitation by abortion (if necessary), and the declines in population of the Roman Empire at the time of Augustus and again after Hadrian were probably due in part to such action by both rich and poor. The wealthy did not want to share their estates with many offspring, while the poor felt unable to support large families. Justinian’s Digest mentions a woman who aborted after a divorce in order not to have a child by the man she then hated. Abortion was also a corrective to the many inefficient means of contraception. Finally, abortions for therapeutic reasons were performed.”
If one replaces names and inserts minor linguistic updates, it would be difficult to decipher whether Gorman was describing the 1st century Greco-Roman world or the modern West. Along with the motivations, the methods of abortion in the ancient world were varied as well. Gorman explains, “women who wanted abortions, for whatever reason, had a great variety of means available to them. Most of the techniques can be classified as either chemical or mechanical.” He then goes on to list the different varieties of chemical and mechanical abortions available, all of which carried inherent danger to the life of the women who sought them, mechanical being the most perilous. [Insert footnote]
In Gorman’s estimation, “abortion two thousand years ago was more dangerous for the woman than it is in today’s well-equipped clinics, [however] it was nevertheless readily available and widely practiced at the time the Christian church was born.”
Anyone familiar with pro-abortion rhetoric will notice immediately the parallels between the motivations behind and methods of abortion in 1st century Greco-Roman society and those of today. The mantras shouted by contemporary pro-abortionists ring with a haunting echo of ancient predilections. The worries of the poor; the entitled narcissism of the elite; the fears and concerns of the adulterous and sexually indulgent; they all have their modern-day equivalents.
The methods, while much more scientifically sophisticated, do as well. Chemical and mechanical abortions are available at the touch of a button. Abortifacients such as mifepristone can be ordered online and delivered via mail. Mechanical abortions are available all over the West. Institutions such as Planned Parenthood and many other medical offices conduct at-will abortion procedures, regardless of motivation. The spread of abortion throughout Western society is due in no small part to scientific advancement in “medical” technology, as well as increased governmental and societal acceptance and promotion of it.
Near 1:1 Equation
With all of this in mind, abortion is among the few issues that constitute a near 1:1 equation between modern society and the ancient cultures that produced the texts comprising the Bible. However, as mentioned above, what makes present-day pro-abortion positions worse than that of the ancient world is also what makes it more readily available. Scientific understanding has conclusively determined that personhood, and therefore “life”, begins at conception. Many pro-abortionists attempt to debate or discard this fact, but it is a fact nonetheless.
The basic building blocks or “blueprint” of the human-being are contained in what Erwin Schrödinger calls the hereditary code-script. Schrödinger stated that chromosomes contain a code—an aperiodic solid—that dictates an organism’s development. His concept predicted that molecular, non-repetitive structures in genes store information controlling ontogenetic development, largely influencing the birth of molecular biology and the DNA structure discovery. Schrödinger explained that “…the chromosome structures are at the same time instrumental in bringing about the development they foreshadow. They are law-code and executive power – or, to use another simile, they are architect’s plan and builder’s craft – in one.”
What Schrödinger’s discovery, and those that followed it, proved was that at the moment of conception, the hereditary code-script/law begins to develop the human being. Conception, then, is the first stage of human development. This means that the developing human embryo must be alive for the code-script/law to activate and remain active. Life produces growth and growth requires life.
All of this knowledge is publicly available. Many are aware of it and choose to disregard it. Some are truly ignorant of it. However, all medical practitioners and most pro-abortion advocates know this to be true. Many have even stated that, though they know it is a baby, they still support the legality of abortion-on-demand. It is this societal attitude, shared sadly by many Christian and non-Christian alike, that makes the modern cultural position on abortion worse than its ancient comparative. In short, we know better.
Recontextualization
One of the biggest challenges when looking to ancient texts and cultures for relevant commentary on modern issues, is the subconscious impulse to re-contextulize the information to conform to contemporary understanding. Re-contextualization brings to the text all manner of interpretative anomalies that almost always have nothing to do with the original meaning.
New Testament scholar and forerunner of the integration of anthropology and sociology in biblical interpretation, Dr. Bruce Malina, in his social-science commentaries on the New Testament thoroughly defines this error:
“The mention of American readers reading ancient Mediterranean documents requires us to clarify the situation one step further. We have already suggested that each time a document is read by a new reader, the fields of reference tend to shift and multiply because of the reader’s rather different cultural location. Among some literary theorists, this latter phenomenon is called “re-contextualization.” This term refers to the multiple ways different readers may “complete” a document as a result of reading it from within their different social contexts. (Documents may also be “de-contextualized” when read ahistorically for their aesthetic or formal characteristics.)”
Malina continues:
“We insist that meanings realized through reading documents inevitably derive from a social system. Reading is always a social act. If both reader and writer share the same social system, the same experience, it is highly probable that reading will provide adequate communication. But if either reader or writer come from mutually alien social systems, then nonunderstanding, or at best misunderstanding, will be the rule.”
As we do not share the same social system or context as those present in the 1st century ancient Mediterranean world, it is of vital necessity to gather as much contextual data as we can to understand documents produced at that time. Otherwise, we run the risk of not only misunderstanding both explicit and implicit meaning, but also the theological messaging.
Theological Messaging
With regard to that last statement, it should be clarified that in cases where there is not a near 1:1 equation, questions of modern relevance arise. What do we make of passages of Scripture that have no direct cultural equivalent? Biblical scholar Dr. Michael Heiser, known for his supernaturalist approach to the scriptures, illustrate this point in his book Reversing Hermon: Enoch, the Watchers, and the Forgotten Mission of Jesus Christ draws attention to a misunderstood passage in 1 Corinthians 11.
To summarize, Heiser explains that the only interpretive option that aligns with ancient cultural and theological understanding is that Paul is addressing an issue of sexual impropriety with roots in Second Temple material that elaborates on Genesis 6:1-4, more commonly referred to as the Watchers/Sons of God story. Paul is concerned that the event described in this narrative is at risk of recurring due to the sexual immodesty of members of the Corinthian Ekklesia.
The instructions concerning hair length and head coverings have direct correlates to what was considered in the 1st century as medical science. Heiser quotes New Testament scholar Troy Martin who, using Euripides and Hippocrates as his sources, demonstrates that hair was thought to be part of the reproductive system. Martin states:
“Since peribolaion is contrasted with hair, which is part of the body, the physiological semantic domain of peribolaion in 1 Cor[inthians] 11:15b becomes particularly relevant. Euripides (Herc fur 1269) uses peribolaion in reference to a body part. He casts Hercules as complaining, “After I received [my] bags of flesh, which are the outward signs of puberty, [I received] labors about which I [shall] undertake to say what is necessary.”… A dynamic translation of the first clause would be: “After I received my testicles (peribolaia), which are the outward signs of puberty.” In this text from Euripides, the term peribolaion refers to a testicle.”
As Heiser makes clear, Martin “is suggesting that Paul is comparing a woman’s hair to a testicle.” A bold assertion. However, he then backs it up via a lengthy quote from the Hippocratic test for sterility found in Hippocrates Aphorisms. [Insert footnote]
Because of the great contextual distance between modern interpreters and ancient authors such as Paul, Martin’s interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is unique, as most have opted for re-contextulization as their hermeneutical approach. Yet even if we accept Martin’s premise—and there is no good reason not to—we are still left with the question of modern relevance. Since we know that hair is not a part of the reproductive system, there is no direct present-day equivalent. Herein is an instance where theological messaging becomes appropriate. Bear in mind, however, that this is only appropriate now that the original meaning has been ascertained.
As stated above, though shrouded in cosmological nuance, Paul is instructing the Corinthians with regard to sexual modesty. If hair was considered part of the reproductive/sexual system, comparative to a peribolaion, what is in view here is the standard for proper or modest attire among the early Ekklesias. What’s more, Paul appears to be correcting what was deliberate sexual immodesty, as the idea of hair as a reproductive/sexual component would have been common cultural knowledge. Paul’s emphasis, when understood in context, is clear: do not be deliberately sexually immodest.
The Myth of Amorality
Above we have shown that abortion was common within the 1st century period of the New Testament. We’ve shown that it is among the few issues where there is a cross-cultural near 1:1 equation. We’ve demonstrated the importance of context when seeking to address such topics in a modern setting using ancient material. We’ve also given an example of the importance of context with regard to interpretation and theological messaging.
What we will be exploring throughout the series of articles that follows is that the stance of the Christian regarding the issue of abortion is not only indirectly addressed via theological messaging, but is addressed both directly and specifically, as well. In a culture where abortion was rampant, the early Ekklesia was not silent on the matter. Working our way back from the documents produced by the early Christians, we’ll track both the direct and indirect references to the issue of abortion through the Post-apostolic writings, New Testament documents, Second Temple material, and Old Testament texts.
In so doing, what we will demonstrate is that a self-declared follower of Jesus Christ could not have taken an amoral stance with regard to abortion. The early apostles, disciples, and Ekklesias of Jesus were neither passive nor neutral when it came to societal injustice and immorality. They did not consider themselves an isolated subculture or a fringe political group within the greater Roman Empire. The gospel they believed and heralded stated that Jesus was king of the cosmos, so they proclaimed the standards of his universal kingdom throughout the ancient world.
Modern “Christianity” in the United States is a far cry from its ancient predecessors. Compromise with evil is celebrated as compassion and loving inclusion. Tolerance of injustice is encouraged as mercy. Worst of all, the murdering of the unborn en masse is viewed with passivity by many, and defended by a staggering majority. Yet no matter how eloquent the argument to the contrary may be, these positions are incongruous with that of the first four centuries of believers and the biblical witness as a whole.
With regard to authentic Christianity, amorality is at variance. It is a stance alien to the Kingdom of God.
—
Insert as Footnote 1
[Chemical or medicinal abortifacients of various compositions were common. Most common of all, according to the gynecologist Soranos of Ephesus, were pessaries, or substances introduced directly into the womb via the birth canal. Some of these destroyed the fetus, whereas others caused its expulsion from the womb. The physician Galen wrote that certain drugs could “destroy the embryo or rupture certain of its membranes” and lead to an abortion, perhaps alone or else by using additional chemical or physical means.
Besides using pessaries, women took oral drugs, or “poisons” as they were frequently labeled. Medical experts of the Roman Empire, like Soranos and Dioscorides, wrote of various plant potions used as abortifacients. For example, mixtures of wine with various combinations of wallflower seed, myrtle, myrrh, white pepper or cabbage blossoms were believed to be effective in the early stages of pregnancy. Celsus named “four grams of ammoniac salt,” “four grams of Cretan dittany in water” and “hedge mustard in tepid wine … on an empty stomach” as aids to expulsion of a dead fetus or to childbirth. These or similar compounds were certainly used also for later abortions. Also in the first century A.D. the learned Pliny listed certain potions which supposedly caused abortions, but his ideas must be examined closely; he also knew of abortifacient odors (such as the dragon plant or the smell of lamps being put out) and fumes (“from an ass’s house”) and items which caused abortion merely on sight (certain plants, animals and parts of reproductive systems). Since some of what this knowledgeable author said is pure myth, he shows that abortion with drugs was not a perfected science or skill. In fact, some supposed contraceptives were probably actually abortifacients (and vice versa), and some supposed abortifacients were undoubtedly useless. Nevertheless, it was the genius of one first-century B.C. poet, Eubius, to put prescriptions for abortive potions into verse. No more useful than some potions were the charms sold by magicians and the predictions made by astrologers about good and bad days for procuring an abortion.
Mechanical abortion techniques were often used instead of or as supplements to drugs. The crudest method, used most often by (probably desperate) women themselves, was to bind the body tightly around the womb or to strike it so as to expel the fetus. Another method required the use of abortive instruments. Two of these instruments were described by Tertullian. The first was a “copper needle or spike” such as those possessed by Hippocrates, Asclepiades, Erasistratus, Herophilus and Soranos. The second tool, more sophisticated but very dangerous, required a delicate surgical operation:
Among surgeons’ tools there is a certain instrument, which is formed with a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus first of all, and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade [anulocultro], by means of which the limbs within the womb are dissected with anxious but unfaltering care; its last appendage being a blunted or covered hook, wherewith the entire foetus is extracted by a violent delivery.
This surgical method of abortion is undoubtedly similar to the method of removing a dead fetus in the third trimester described by Celsus in De medicina:
An operation must be done, which may be counted among the most difficult; for it requires both extreme caution and neatness, and entails very great risk.… The surgeon … should first insert the index finger of his greased hand, and keep it there until the mouth is opened again, and then he should insert a second finger, and the other fingers on the like opportunity, until the whole hand can be put in.… But when the hand has reached the dead foetus its position is immediately felt.… If the head is nearest, a hook must be inserted which is completely smooth, with a short point, and this it is right to fix into an eye or ear or the mouth, even at times into the forehead, then this is pulled upon and extracts the foetus.… Now the right hand should pull the hook whilst the left is inserted within and pulls the foetus, and at the same time guides it.… But if the foetus is lying crosswise and cannot be turned straight, the hook is to be inserted into an armpit and traction slowly made; during this the neck is usually bent back, and the head turned backwards to the rest of the foetus. The remedy then is to cut through the neck, in order that the two parts may be extracted separately. This is done with a hook which resembles the one mentioned above, but has all its inner edge sharp. Then we must proceed to extract the head first, then the rest, for if the larger portion be extracted first, the head slips back into the cavity of the womb, and cannot be extracted without the greatest risk.… There are also other difficulties, which make it necessary to cut up and extract a foetus which does not come out whole.
The danger of these methods certainly contributed to the sensitivity of many writers to the practice of abortion. Nevertheless, a woman who wanted or was forced to abort had several options to choose from, and the medical technology of her day would be able, according to Pliny, to provide an abortion from the tenth day after conception into the seventh month of pregnancy, though abortions in that month were nearly always fatal to the mother.]
Insert as Footnote 2
[Ancient medical conceptions confirm this association. Hippocratic authors hold that hair is hollow and grows primarily from either male or female reproductive fluid or semen flowing into it and congealing (Hippocrates, Nat puer 20). Since hollow body parts create a vacuum and attract fluid, hair attracts semen…. Hair grows most prolifically from the head because the brain is the place where the semen is (78) produced or at least stored (Hippocrates, Genit. I). Hair grows only on the head of prepubescent humans because semen is stored in the brain and the channels of the body have not yet become large enough for reproductive fluid to travel throughout the body (Hippocrates, Nat. puer. 20; Genit. 2). At puberty, secondary hair growth in the pubic area marks the movement of reproductive fluid from the brain to the rest of the body (Hippocrates, Nat. puer. 20; Genit. I). Women have less body hair not only because they have less semen but also because their colder bodies do not froth the semen throughout their bodies but reduce semen evaporation at the ends of their hair (Hippocrates, Nat. puer. 20)
According to these medical authors, men have more hair because they have more semen and their hotter bodies froth this semen more readily throughout their whole bodies (Hippocrates, Nat. puer. 20). The nature (Greek: phusis) of men is to release or eject the semen…. A man with long hair retains much or all of his semen, and his long hollow hair draws the semen toward his head area but away from his genital area, where it should be ejected. Therefore, 1 Cor[inthians] 11:14 correctly states that it is a shame for a man to have long hair since the male nature (phusis) is to eject rather than retain semen. In contrast, the nature (phusis) of women is to draw up the semen and congeal (79) it into a fetus (Hippocrates, Genit. 5; Nat. puer. 12)
This conception of hair as part of the female genitalia explains the favorite Hippocratic test for sterility in women. A doctor places a scented suppository in a woman’s uterus and examines her mouth the next day to see if he can smell the scent of the suppository. If he smells the scent, he diagnoses her as fertile. If he does not smell the scent, he concludes she is sterile because the channels connecting her uterus to her head are blocked. The suction power of her hair cannot draw up the semen through the appropriate channels in her body. The male seed is therefore discharged rather than retained, and the woman cannot conceive.]