When we approach how the New Testament addresses certain topics and practices, it’s extremely important to recognize that the contextual matrix and theological worldview from which the writers were drawing is incredibly rich. This richness is due in no small part to the 400 years that preceded it, known as the Second Temple period. In this article, we will examine how the New Testament’s use of terms that were contextually linked to abortion are also linked to an important Second Temple text. This will provide a clearer picture of the stance the New Testament writers held regarding abortion.
The five instances where the New Testament uses terms associated with abortion are listed below:
“idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, factions,” -Galatians 5:20 LEB (φαρμακεία pharmakeia)
“and they did not repent of their murders or of their magic spells or of their sexual immorality or of their thefts.” –Revelation 9:21 LEB (φαρμάκων pharmakeia)
“And the light of a lamp will never shine in you again! And the sound of a bridegroom and bride will never be heard in you again! For your merchants were the most important people of the earth, because with your sorcery they deceived all the nations.” -Revelation 18:23 LEB (φαρμακείᾳ pharmakeia)
“But as for the cowards and unbelievers and detestable persons and murderers and sexually immoral people and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their share is in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.” -Revelation 21:8 LEB (φάρμακοι pharmarkos)
“Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the sexually immoral people and the murderers and the idolaters and everyone who loves and who practices falsehood.” -Revelation 22:15 LEB (φάρμακοι pharmarkos)
The root word common to each passage is the Greek term pharmakeia. With regard to the use of this term, Gorman [add footnote for Gorman] comments:
“The word pharmakeia (and its cognates) can be a neutral, generic term for the use of drugs, but more often it has the negative connotation of drugs and potions supplied by a sorcerer or magician. It is also used to refer to poisons and mind-disturbing drugs. In Soranus’s Gynecology, it refers specifically to the use of one type of evil drug, the abortifacient.”
As Gorman observes, this term can be neutral, depending upon context. However, concerning each New Testament use, he states:
“The contexts of the New Testament references to pharmakeia demand an understanding of the word in a negative sense. Vice lists and apocalyptic passages like those of Galatians and Revelation became standard literary settings in the early church for the denunciation of moral evils. Moreover, noncanonical condemnation of abortion before A.D. 125 is found in connection with the same related sins of fornication and murder which appear in the texts of Galatians and Revelation where pharmakeia is used. Thus, while a conclusive affirmation of explicit New Testament condemnation of abortion is impossible, the word pharmakeia and the contexts in which it is found suggest that Galatians and Revelation implicitly reject at least one major means of abortion in their rejection of magic, drugs, and poisons.”
Gorman then cites J.H. Waszink (add footnote of personal info Jan Hendrik Waszink (17 October 1908, Renswoude – 5 October 1990, Lugano) was a Dutch Latin scholar, Professor of Latin at Leiden University. Best known as an expert on Tertullian, he also edited the translation and commentary by Calcidius on Plato’s Timaeus.), who “states that it is ‘very likely’ that these texts include condemnation of abortion.”
One of the concerns Gorman addresses at the end of his book is the lack of historical evidence of Christians caring for the women who sought abortions or for their children born full-term, should they have decided against the procedure, but instead opted for exposure. There is, however, a possibility not considered by Gorman—at least, not in his book—that might satisfy this concern. It would also strengthen Waszink’s postulation mentioned above.
The author of the canonical Epistle of James makes a striking statement regarding true religion.
“Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” –James 1:27 LEB
The Greek term used here for orphan is ὀρφανός orphanos which translates to bereft, fatherless, or parentless. One of the practices, perpetrated predominately by the poor or those who experienced a failed abortion, was that of exposure: the leaving of the newborn exposed to the elements to experience “certain” death. We say “certain” for this reason: the term orphanos used in James 1 certainly has in view infants/children left to die via exposure.
When we take into consideration that abortion and exposure were common practices in the 1st Century Greco-Roman world, a world (as mentioned here) that was known as a high-context society, those who were considered “fatherless” or “parentless” were not determined to be so by their age, but rather by their circumstances. The death of parents/family would have obviously created the plight of orphanhood. The survival of abandonment to exposure would be another situation altogether, albeit rare. Yet even in the common cases of infant death via exposure, for the short time the child was alive, they were orphans.
What we have demonstrated throughout this study is that abortion and exposure were generally done discreetly. Therefore, it would be illogical to presume that believers were aware of the majority of exposed children, or were in contact with those intending to do so. (This detail alone allows for the lack of documented evidence of Christians taking in those left to die by exposure.) However, it is in keeping with both the Christian view against abortion and murder, along with the instructions from Jesus to care for “the least of these” and from James “to look after widows and orphans in their affliction”, that when confronted with such a scenario, the believing community was expected to take in those orphaned via exposure. If a believer were to find an exposed child, it would stand to reason that they would consider the care for that child to be in accordance with the command to “love your neighbor as yourself.”
When examined alongside the cultural context of the time, we are better able to ascertain what the New Testament writers were implying or inferring behind their use of certain terms. The instance in James 1:27 demonstrates that what is implicit to a text and/or term can be understood when placed within the correct contextual framework, rather than a re-contextualized one. That being said, when the instances wherein pharmakeia is used are also contextualized properly, we see that abortion, or rather the supplier of abortifacients and those that are seeking their product (the sexually immoral), are in a much greater focus. If the two were placed separately in the lists in which we find them, the connection would be a stretch. However, because they are listed together in the instances in which they are both included, and one after the other, it is reasonable to presume that the author intended them to be understood as connected.
What our study has shown to this point only strengthens the line of reasoning, as previously stated, that “sorcerers” who provided abortifacients were sought by those wishing to conceal the results of their sexual immorality. It is even further strengthened when we recall that the majority of such abortions—the procurement of abortifacients from sorcerers—were conducted by wealthy women. In light of this, Waszink’s statement that “it is very likely that these texts condemn abortion”, we would contend, should rightfully be amended to read “almost certainly.”
Although no definitive case can be made for an explicit—and we must stress explicit—comment on abortion in the New Testament, its historical and societal context elucidates the fact that the textual content carries implicit and negative connotations. When Soranus of Ephesus’ seminal treatise Gynaecia, composed in approximately 100 AD, is taken into account, the available evidence makes an implicitly intentional condemnation of abortion undoubtedly reasonable. This case is further strengthened when Second Temple material, which provides a significant amount of the contextual and cosmological framework for the New Testament, is considered. Most specifically the text of 1 Enoch.
1 Enoch and Pharmakeia
As stated above, Second Temple period texts provide insight as to why the early believers, composed of Israelites and Gentiles, took issue not only with the use of mind-altering substances, but also with abortifacients. It also offers illumination as to why the New Testament writers include the use and users of such products within lists of evil practices and practitioners. The knowledge that gave rise to pharmakeia in the negative sense was attributed to the rebellion of the Watchers described in the text of 1 Enoch.
The Watchers story elaborates on Genesis 6:1-4 and is the backdrop for the Flood narrative. The rebellious Watchers took wives for themselves from the daughters of men and fathered a race of giants which Genesis calls the Nephillim. The Watchers then disseminated knowledge to humanity and proliferated evil among them. 1 Enoch 8:1-4 describes the incident in this way:
“Asael taught men to make swords of iron and weapons and shields and breastplates and every instrument of war.
He showed them metals of the earth and how they should work gold to fashion it suitably, and concerning silver, to fashion it for bracelets and ornaments for women. And he showed them concerning antimony and eye paint and all manner of precious stones and dyes.
And the sons of men made them for themselves and for their daughters, and they transgressed and led the holy ones astray. And there was much godlessness on the earth, and they made their ways desolate.
Shemihazah taught spells and the cutting of roots. Hermani taught sorcery for the loosing of spells and magic and skill. Baraqel taught the signs of the lightning flashes. Kokabel taught the signs of the stars. Ziqel taught the signs of the shooting stars. Arteqoph taught the signs of the earth. Shamsiel taught the signs of the sun. Sahriel taught the signs of the moon. And they all began to reveal mysteries to their wives and to their children.
(And) as men were perishing, the cry went up to heaven.” -1 Enoch 8:1-4 HT
Sorcery in verse 3 is φαρμακείᾳ pharmakeia or φαρμακεύς pharmakeus and φαρμακειῶν pharmakon, and is connected with ῥιζοτομίας rhizotomías (root-cutting). What we have here is a direct link between pharmakeia and illicit knowledge given to humanity by the rebellious Watchers with the intent to enable and encourage evil practices. One practice in particular that would have its origins in the pharmakeia and rhizotomías taught by Shemihazah would be the development of abortifacients.
Conclusion
What we see from the New Testament’s implicit references to abortifacients via its use of the term pharmakeia, is not only the shadow of the Christian anti-abortion position we’ve tracked from the 4th and 5th century back to this point, but also a link to Second Temple material, specifically the text of 1 Enoch. This link will prove to be an intertestamental bridge between the Old and the New. In the next and final article, we will examine the pre-Christian roots of the anti-abortion position found in the Old Testament text entitled the Exodus.