THE OFFICIAL SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST POSITION ON ABORTION

The prevailing belief that man has an immortal soul has given rise to a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding. Some of the speculation that emanates from this falsehood is that since God predicted the birth and life of some persons, it is automatically assumed that they already exist somewhere other than on the earth. Hence, the non-biblical belief that when an "immortal soul" is infused into the fertilized egg, it has full standing as a person and abortion is tantamount to killing or, as some say, murder.

God predicted, through the prophet Isaiah, that an emperor by the name of Cyrus would someday make it possible for the Jews to return to their homeland and be freed from their Babylonian captivity. In the following passage, God likens Cyrus to a faithful shepherd who cares for his sheep:

"Who says of Cyrus, 'He is my shepherd, and he shall perform all My pleasure, saying to Jerusalem, 'You shall be built; and to the temple, 'Your foundation shall be laid: Thus says the Lord to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have held—to subdue nations before him and loose the armor of kings, to open before him the double doors, so that gates will not be shut."¹

Those who hold to the teaching of the natural immortality of the soul can easily draw the conclusion that since God foreknew Cyrus, that he was indeed a person prior to his birth. The question to be asked and answered is: Was Cyrus a person one and a half centuries before he was conceived, simply because God knew about him and his future life and activities? If one does not hold to the doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul, which originated in paganism and found its way into early Christianity, the answer would be simply and obviously, no.

Then how is it that God knew him before conception if Cryus did not yet exist? After all, God is omniscient—all-knowing. "Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning:' Human beings have plans for their children before they are born, even before they are conceived. Great plans are laid. Parents often even name their children before birth. In imagination, parents even conjecture up pictures and experiences they believe the future might hold. But we as humans are not all-knowing, so our plans do not materialize consistently.

The difference between God and a parental couple is that God is the Creator, and He can bring His plans to pass. A man and a woman are not creators but partners with God in procreation. Again, personhood cannot be assigned to the preconception period.

Another passage used by those supporting this premise of a pre-existing soul before birth is found in Jeremiah: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations:' Was Jeremiah a person before he was conceived and formed, simply because God knew him? Or was he a person because God sanctified him and ordained (assigned) him to be a prophet? The biblical answer is a resounding no.

God planned Jeremiah and his sanctification—that is his wholeness or holiness, and his future role as a prophet—before he was conceived, even as He did with Jesus, John the Baptist, Moses, Samson, Isaac, and others. But that did not make Jeremiah a living person before his conception or birth. Nor was that true of the others, except for Christ, who has lived from eternity with no beginning and no end.

Another text sometimes used is found in Hebrews. Levi was a great grandson of Abraham. In a picturesque manner, the passage in Hebrews states that Levi paid tithe before his birth. The ministry in the Old Testament was paid from the tithe given by the people, which represented 10 percent of their increase and was limited to sacred use. "Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizadek met him."' The phrase, "so to speak" reveals it is only a figure of speech, showing the Levitical priesthood was established by birth in the lineage of Levi, differing from the new priesthood of Christ.

Being in the loins of his great grandfather was the contemporary way of referring to hereditary genes passed on from one generation to the next. But to be in the genes does not equal the status of personhood. If that were the case, an abrasion of the skin containing DNA would be the same as killing countless babies, because the genes in the cells have the genetic code in them. That argument in favor of personhood is readily rejected by most people. In the book of Hebrews, the ancestry of Christ is traced back to Judah. "It is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood."'

Christians believe that Jesus Christ preexisted prior to His virgin birth through Mary. While true, His case was an exception. Jesus was a person prior to being incarnated. He was a descendent of Judah, another great grandson of Abraham. But simply because he would come on the scene as a member of the human race in the future didn't mean that He was literally in Judah's body. Christ could not have been in Judah's body more than fifteen centuries earlier. This is simply a picturesque way of writing to show that he descended from Judah genetically.

God predicted through King David that future generations would rise. David stated: "This will be written for the generation to come, that a people yet to be created may praise the Lord:'' Praise to God cannot take place until the creative process is complete, as with Adam, who began life as his nostrils were supplied with the breath of life, and he started breathing. The biblical record is most clear on the beginning of personhood at the point of independent breathing. "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."'

If an immortal soul existed prior to birth, then creation would be prior to birth, but the passage is clear that praise would come after creation, which would be after birth. It becomes complicated, confusing, and inconsistent to believe that an immortal, invisible, and intelligent soul is waiting to be implanted in the womb to become a human being, yet that it would be capable of praise before that time—the time of conception. All of God's creation praises Him. Thus we can safely and confidently conclude that there is no preexistent soul that is implanted in the womb to become a person at that point of conception, but rather, taking the obvious and clear meaning of Scripture, we conclude that personhood takes place when the breath of life enters the lungs and one begins to breathe independently. If there were a preexisting immortal soul, it would surely praise God, but that is rejected by the plain and obvious meaning of God's Word.

Most people are aware that King David of Israel planned to build a sanctuary to God. But because of his wars and the shedding of much blood, God revealed this to him:

"Whereas it was in your heart to build a temple for My name, you did well in that it was in your heart. Nevertheless you shall not build the temple, but your son who will come from your body, he shall build the temple for My name."⁸

If the entirety of Solomon—body, soul, and spirit—came from heaven and earth, it would be improper to state that Solomon would come from David's body. The only thing that comes from outside the parents' bodies and the body of the baby that is born is the air that is breathed, oxygen. No immortal soul comes from God in heaven to be placed into the fetus at conception or at any time. The body and the breath are the two components of the entire being—no more, no less. When breath comes to the baby at birth, it lives. When breath is removed, the person dies. . .

Anyone who has read some of the Bible will recall that often a phrase will read that a woman was "with child!' That is generally understood to mean she is expecting the birth of a child. If the Scripture calls it a child while it is being formed, then certainly it must be a child and hence, a person. But is that what the Scriptures really say, or is that simply a translation problem that reflects the personal theology of scholars?

Let us take a look at the original language. Since Sarah, wife of Abraham, could not conceive, she urged her husband to have a child, an heir, by her handmaid, Hagar. The angel of the Lord came to Hagar after she and Abraham were together and said to her, "Behold you are with child."' The term with child comes from the Hebrew word harah. But literally, the word means "to have conceived:" And the word is used five times. To be accurate, it should have been translated, "Behold you have conceived," or "you have become pregnant" The actual word child is not found in the original documents. For they all understood that one did not have a child until it was born. It was a developing child-to-be, but not yet a child. If it were to go to full term, then it would become a child.

"To be with child"—harah, hariyyah is the term in Hebrew—literally means "to conceive:' This term is used two times. For instance: "Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father" A more accurate translation is "Thus both the daughters of Lot conceived by their father."'

The phrase "to travail with child: or "labored with child: uses the Hebrew word chul, literally, "to be pained" Isaiah uses it: 'Sing, 0 barren, you who have not borne! Break forth into singing, and cry aloud, you who have not labored with child! For more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married woman: says the LORD:'²⁵ "You did not pain" is the better translation, for the word child does not appear in the original but was added by translators.

Another use of "to travail with child: uses the Hebrew word, yalad, literally, "to bring forth" "The woman with child"' is more accurately translated, "The woman that was bringing forth."

"Woman with child: comes from the Hebrew hariyyah, literally, "to conceive:' This term is found six times. "As a woman with child is in pain and cries out"²⁷ more correctly is, "As a woman who has conceived is in pain and cries out."

Seven times the phrase "travail with child" is found. The Greek word is echo, literally, "to have in the womb:' An example is the instance of the angel coming to Mary to announce that she was expecting: "She was found with child of the Holy Ghost:²⁸ A more accurate translation would be, "She was found to have in the womb, of the Holy Ghost:'

One can now better understand the status of the developing fetus prior to birth, as not being a child. If it were, God would have influenced the prophets to make that clear. They used God-inspired words. But the absence of the word child in connection with the growth prior to birth is indicative that it is not then a child or a person. As we have examined the usage of the term child prior to birth in the Scriptures, we've discovered that the original language, inspired by the Holy Spirit does not give the status of a child to the pre-born fetus but simply refers to it as a conception, or to be in pain in delivery, or to have in the womb. Remember, the Word of God is truth according to God, for all Scripture is inspired by God.²⁹ Then why the dilemma? Translators of the Bible were simply human beings who held a theological view that the soul was naturally immortal and that at conception the conceptus was indeed a child and a person.

This, the Scriptures simply deny by usage of unmistakably clear language. Emotionally, probably all human beings consider the fetus a child and talk fondly of it being their child, but according to God, it is not a child or a person until it is born and breathing independently, having achieved independent and not borrowed, life. At that point it advances to the status of a child and a person.

The New King James Version does translate it correctly in the book of Ruth. "So Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife; and when he went in to her, the LORD gave her conception, and she bore a son:'³° You will note the translator could have simply inserted the word child for conception, and most people would never know the difference, as they don't in other similar cases. But the truth is that it is a conceptus until it is born, and not a child until it is born. God gave Ruth a conception, and the next phrase is that she bore a son. . . (Underscored emphasis added.)

It is unlikely that Stevens is suggesting that non-emergency abortions after viability can be defended morally. This is not the logical conclusion of his exegesis.

The foregoing is more than enough to demonstrate the devastating effect of applying sound exegesis to the spurious use of the Scriptures to support a false religio-political ideology. There is much more, which is strongly recommended reading for its necessary educational value.