When the “Law of the Land” argument fails, the next argument attempted will be that morality cannot—and even should not—be legislated. The problem with this argument is two-fold.
The first problem with this argument is that it is a logical fallacy. Every law ever written is a form of legislated morality. That is, laws are put into place to delineate proper conduct in order to distinguish it from improper conduct. Put simply: to indicate right and wrong.
Since psychologists, anthropologists, and scholars alike cannot find agreement as to what constitutes and defines universal morality, to make the claim that morality, in general, ought not to be legislated is a vapid statement. Especially since what is intended by the proponent of this argument is that “Christian” or “Biblical” morality specifically cannot and should not be legislated.
The irony is that believers who advocate for legalizing abortion and employ this argument defend their stance with scripture that states the Law is unable to change the heart (Rom. 8:3). In other words, it is biblically moral (proper conduct) not to advocate for moral legislation. However, by that reasoning, advocacy of and voting for pro-abortion legislation on moral grounds, by definition, is an attempt to legislate morality. Don’t get dizzy.
The second aspect of the problematic nature of this argument is that the biblical reference to “the Law” that is being used is fundamentally misunderstood. What follows ought to clear up this misunderstanding.
“It is common to interpret Paul arguing here that the function of the Law is to cause, produce, or provoke transgressions. This interpretation is based on the preposition χάριν (“because of”) and Paul’s teaching about the Law elsewhere in his letters (esp. Rom[ans] 4:15; 5:20; also Rom[ans] 3:20; 5:13; 7:5, 7–24; 1 Cor[inthians] 15:56). While this meaning is not impossible, it has been rightly challenged. One of the stronger arguments against this interpretation is that ancient interpreters, including John Chrysostom and Clement of Alexandria, did not read Gal[atians] 3:19 describing the Law as causing transgression, but rather the prior condition that prompted God to give the law. In their interpretations the Law was given “because of transgressions,” meaning to restrain transgression. John Riches even indicates that interpreting the Law as producing transgression was an innovation of Luther. With so much attention given to this preposition, no one asks whose transgressions prompt the addition of the Law?
Apparently it is assumed without comment that the transgressions are Adam’s. This is not surprising since the dominant etiology of evil in contemporary Christian theology is the “Fall” of Gen[esis] 3. This is due in large part to Paul’s account of sin and death resulting from Adam’s transgression in Rom[ans] 5:12–21 (also 1 Cor[inthians] 15:21–22, 45–49). Surprisingly, however, apart from 4 Ezra (3:20–22; 7:116–126), 2 Baruch (54:13–22), and the Life of Adam and Eve (esp. Vit. Adae 12–17; GLAE 15–26), the story of Genesis 3 was not the primary text for explaining the origin of evil in Second Temple Judaism….
Certainly Paul makes explicit reference to Adam in Romans 5, but there is no indication that Paul is alluding to the Adam cycle in Galatians 3–4. Moreover, Romans specifies that the singular “transgression” belongs to the “one Adam” (5:14), whereas in Galatians it is “transgressions” in the plural that prompt the addition of the Law.
What if Paul is working from a different etiology of evil in Galatians 3–4? The key text in the Hebrew Bible for describing the origin and effects of evil in Second Temple Judaism was not Genesis 3, but Genesis 6:1–4…. This Enochic etiology of evil, namely that angelic “Sons of God” produced illegitimate offspring with human women and thereby altered the cosmos, was pervasive in Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity.”
-Tyler Stewart (New Testament Scholar)
The case that Stewart makes is that the Law was not given to provoke evil but to restrain it. Where most Christians get confused over this is Romans 6-8. The Law was powerless to change the heart of a person, that is, to remove their inclination toward evil. However, that did not mean it was powerless to restrain it. While the Scriptures detail the accounts of those who “did what was right in their own eyes”, there were also those who strove to keep the Law, as well as others who, out of either fear of penalty or disdain for evil, did not intentionally transgress.
Essentially, the Law was given to clearly define good from evil in the eyes of Yahweh. The irony is, the Law became more detailed (it was originally a Decalogue or Ten Commandments) as the attempts to find legal loopholes, or justifications for evil, grew.
While it is true that the legislation of morality does not change a person’s heart, it does set the parameters of what is considered acceptable and unacceptable societal and individual behavior. We would venture to say that any Christian employing this argument would not seek to change the laws against murder or theft, especially if it meant that they or someone they loved fell victim to these evils.
If the laws against such acts were erased, what would keep those who desire to commit them from doing so? What would restrain them? Do said laws change the heart of a person that desires to murder or to steal? No. But they delineate the serious consequences such actions produce. Consequences that have kept many a potential murderer or thief from becoming an actual one.
To put it frankly, to use the argument that morality cannot and should not be legislated is not only a foolish argument but an endorsement of evil. It is a promotion of Lawlessness. If a professing Christian, with the capacity to advocate for laws that align with the morality of the Kingdom does not do so, but instead chooses to advocate for evil, two hard truths must be faced.
This may seem rather firm, bordering on abrasive, but the case can be made that any “believer” who attempts to make an argument from scripture to justify the legality of abortion has believed a lie. They have been deceived. Such an argument cannot be scripturally made. Whether or not a moral law changes the heart of a person does not negate the value of that law or the need for it. In fact, that proves, as Paul said, “that the Law is good.” The potential evil actions of an immoral heart must be challenged by something. Otherwise evil will run rampant. That is the first hard truth.
The second is the reality that such a believer needs to repent… to reconsider… to think again. If one is found arguing in favor of abortion, they are already far, far adrift from the Truth. And, depending how far off course they are and how long they’ve been in that state, it is likely that either their conscience has been seared or, via deception, it has been manipulated. Either way, the conviction of the Holy Spirit has been ignored. Serious course-correction via repentance is the only prognosis for recovery.
We understand that may be difficult to read, but on this issue, like so many others, there is no middle ground. And, if we’re being honest, pointing out the black-and-white nature of an issue is usually considered harsh by those who would like it to be gray.
In conclusion, the argument that morality cannot and should not be legislated crumbles under its own illogical and unbiblical weight. It finds no support from either of the avenues through which it attempts to make its appeal. Why? Because there is no Scriptural prohibition against advocating for laws that reflect and uphold the morality of the Kingdom, especially those that protect the lives of preborn children.
Full stop.
