When I wrote my series on Abortion, the Bible, and Us, I was not able to address every biblical text that has been wrangled into debates on abortion or personhood. In the intervening time, I’ve had the idea to post occasional updates and thoughts, but these went the way of so many good intentions and never materialized.
Last week, I received an email from a thoughtful reader with questions about texts that I hadn’t mentioned. I asked him if I could post the question and my response as a Q&A, and he graciously agreed.
Below are his email and my reply, lightly edited to maintain his anonymity and streamline the post.
[Photo credit איתן טל. License CC BY 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons]
Hi Eric,
I’ve really enjoyed reading your series: “Abortion, the Bible, and us.” I have been going through a pretty big transformation on this subject and your article has been very helpful. There are 2 verses in the Bible that your article doesn’t mention and I’m curious how you see them in the abortion debate – specifically when we look at the ability of a fetus to be in God’s image (which I think means the ability to reflect God and have a relationship with Him).
I was wondering if you would help me understand how you don’t see these as problems for the viewpoint that God doesn’t have a relationship with a fetus. And in case you are worried that I’m trying to engage in a debate with you please understand that it’s the exact opposite, I’m hoping you can help me figure out how to think of these verses in a context that is at peace with the views that you present in your article:
Psalm 51:6 –
Yet you desired faithfulness even in the womb;
you taught me wisdom in that secret place.
I see 51:5 a lot in the abortion debate but I’m surprised 51:6 rarely comes up. To me, this verse implies that God desires us to be faithful while in the womb. To me this passage should be coming up much more often than Psalm 139 or Jeremiah 1 and yet I almost never see it. When I do see it, it has only been on pro-life pages.
Psalm 22:10
From birth I was cast on you; from my mother’s womb you have been my God.
just curious about your thoughts on this one as well, since I think it implies a relationship between the unborn child and God.
Thanks,
_____
***
Hi _____,
I’m glad to hear my articles have been helpful as you reconsider your position on abortion. I am always encouraged when I learn that others are approaching the topic with openness and curiosity.
To your questions:
Both of these Psalms should be read as poetry. As compositions addressed to YHWH and written for the purpose of moving YHWH to action, they can’t be understood as straightforward statements about human or divine nature. The psalmists take many poetic liberties in service of their greater goals.
We can see this clearly in Psalm 22. Before the verse you quoted, the psalmist asserts “I am a worm, not a man” (Ps 22:6). We don’t ask, though, how the author was transformed from a human being into a worm, and how a worm was able to compose and write down such a sophisticated composition. We understand that the psalmist was using the hyperbolic image of a worm to communicate his abjection and debasement.
Every word in this Psalm serves its central purpose, which is to move YHWH to show compassion on the psalmist in his’ current plight.
Psalm 22 is what scholars often call a “Psalm of Individual Lament,” although the German term Klagepsalm captures the purpose better with its sense of being a “Plea-psalm.” The whole point of the Psalm is to motivate YHWH to intervene in an unpleasant situation. This basic purpose is expressed most directly in verses 11 and 19–21, but every other part of the Psalm feeds into it. When the psalmist describes his misery, appeals to a long history of relationship between YHWH and his own community, and promises praise and sacrifices in the event of rescue, all of it is intended to inspire pity and help.
The argument develops in the first half of the Psalm. The psalmist connects his misery to divine abandonment and neglect (vv.1–2), but implies that this is inconsistent with YHWH’s character as the Holy One of Israel (v. 3) and the rescuer of the psalmist’s ancestors (vv. 4–5). Though the psalmist insists he is lowly and despised (vv. 6–8), he reminds YHWH that he is YHWH’s responsibility and has been since birth (vv. 9–10).
Within this framework, I understand verses 9–10 to be asserting that YHWH has an obligation to act on behalf of the psalmist in the context of their lifelong relationship and the generations-long relationship between YHWH and his family.
I also think verse 9 sets the stage for verse 10. I prefer the NRSV translation here to the NIV:
9 Yet it was you who took me from the womb;
you kept me safe on my mother’s breast.
10 On you I was cast from my birth,
and since my mother bore me you have been my God.
Birth and breastfeeding are described first, and the next verse does not then move back to a time when the psalmist was in utero. Rather, the verses describe the initiation of a relationship at birth.
IF there is blurring here, it relates to the communitarian conceptualization of divine-human relationships in Hebrew biblical texts. The psalmist’s individual relationship with YHWH exists within and as a component of a larger, familial and/or national relationship. As such, his gestation and birth occurred within a context of already existing mutual obligations, even if he was not yet fully initiated into them as a member of the community.
The demonstration of YHWH’s presence in past generations and at the psalmist’s own birth serves to highlight the incongruity of YHWH’s absence in the current situation. This is not a statement of fetal personhood but a rhetorical plea for divine intervention based on shared history.
Psalm 51 comes with all the same cautions about taking poetic language too literally, but here there is also a fundamental issue of translation. You cited Ps 51:6 from the NIV:
NIV: Yet you desired faithfulness even in the womb; you taught me wisdom in that secret place.
This is an idiosyncratic rendering. Compare with these other popular translations:
NRSV: You desire truth in the inward being; therefore teach me wisdom in my secret heart.
JPS: Indeed You desire truth about that which is hidden; teach me wisdom about secret things.
KJV: Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.
ESV: Behold, you delight in truth in the inward being, and you teach me wisdom in the secret heart.
The NIV is notorious for being an evangelical translation and for embedding evangelical theology and politics in the text. In that regard, it’s noteworthy that the ESV—a translation that is even more hardline conservative evangelical than the NIV—does not back the NIV’s translation choice:
The Hebrew word at the end of the first clause is בַטֻּח֑וֹת (B̲aṭṭuḥôt̲), a rare word that is not well understood. In many translations, it has a footnote that says something like “Meaning of Hebrew uncertain.” Parallel as it is with the word וּ֝בְסָתֻ֗ם (ûb̲əsāt̲um) “in shut up/secret,” it likely has something to do with enclosed or hidden spaces.
In all likelihood, it doesn’t refer to the womb, though. If it did, the verse would be downright absurd. To say that YHWH desires faithfulness from fetuses implies that he would look unfavorably on their unfaithfulness. Faithfulness and wisdom are well beyond the capacity of fetuses, babies, and infants alike, and I doubt most ancient Israelites thought differently.
The Hebrew remains somewhat unclear, but if I had to guess I would say it means something to the effect that YHWH desires fidelity in private and even secret matters. That is, just because you can keep some wrongdoing hidden or keep it from having broad repercussions does not mean it is ok.
I would also note that the developing fetus need not have the same social, legal, or ethical status at every point in gestation. In line with the processual metaphors for fetal development I wrote about before, the social value of the fetus can change across the pregnancy. Would a 10-week fetus be considered identical, in a moral sense, to a 37-week baby who would likely thrive outside the womb?
You mentioned the “image of God” in your question, which may be a relevant concept here. Later interpretations of that phrase have understood it to describe something about human nature or essence, but the most straightforward understanding of it in its ancient context would be quite simply to refer to human form. The word צלם tselem, translated “image,” comes from a common root in Semitic languages, usually referring to statues or statuettes/figurines. This is what it means in other biblical texts, too, and is likely what is meant in the phrase “image of God” in Genesis. Humans are like statuettes of God, lesser versions with basically the same embodied form.
How does this relate to the personhood debate? Since human embryos begin to resemble the basic human form more and more as they develop into fetuses and babies, they may also grow into their personhood as the process goes on..
In the end, the Bible doesn’t give us enough information to judge whether there was an ancient Israelite consensus on when personhood began, or what it would have been if there was. However, most of the texts that hit upon the issue tangentially suggest a processual understanding with no clear dividing lines. Perhaps there was no binary conception of personhood switching from zero to one in an instant, but rather a gradual growth of social worth over time. The fetus grows into its personhood as it develops into more mature forms.
I hope this was helpful. I suspect it may not be entirely satisfying, but my point throughout the series has been that the Bible does not provide satisfying answers to this question. That is up to us.
Best wishes on the journey,
Eric
