|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
All scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the New King James Version. Copyright 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Bible text from the New King James Version is not to be reproduced in copies or otherwise by any means except as permitted in writing by Thomas Nelson, Inc., Attn: Bible Rights and Permissions, P.O. Box 141000, Nashville, TN 37214-1000. (see text) |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Chapter Nine: |
|||||||||
|
Their Children To The Slayer The third chapter of I Kings relates the account of two women who came before King Solomon, each claiming to be the mother of a disputed infant. Unable to ascertain which woman is the true mother, Solomon puts the women to a test by ordering that a sword be brought to him. His judgment is that since the women cannot come to an agreement over the child, he will (quite literally) divide the child between the two of them. The woman who was not the infant’s true mother easily agreed to this; however, the infant’s true mother cried, “O my lord, give her the living child, and by no means kill him!” (I Kings 3:26). Solomon wisely determined that the true mother, rather than seeing her child slain before her eyes, would give him to another woman. Sadly, Solomon’s great wisdom would not work today, where millions of mothers willingly bring their children to be slain by a wicked, desensitized culture that embraces such a horrid and evil act. Had this volume been subtitled What I Think About Political-Correctness rather than What the Bible Thinks About Political Correctness, this chapter might've been somewhat lengthier. As it is, however, it numbers among the shortest chapters of this work -- the reason being: All chapter lengths are reflective of the amount of coverage the Bible actually gives to each topic covered (with the exception of the last chapter, which assuredly could've been lengthier than the whole rest of this volume). Had the word of God said more about this topic, this chapter's length would have increased accordingly. However, as the word of God actually says very little on this matter, I feel it would have been presumptuous of me -- particularly in a work subtitled What the Bible Says About... to attempt to add anything to that. As we shall see, the word of God's infrequent pronouncement of this offense by no means detracts from its seriousness in God's eyes. It merely implies that, unlike sexual immorality (chapter eight) or capital punishment (chapter fourteen), there are far fewer variables with this topic necessitating coverage. Indeed, with abortion, there is but one issue requiring deliberation -- the murder of the unborn child. It has been my observation that when people want to hide their wrong-doing or convince others of its rightness, they often rename or sugar-coat it to make it easier to swallow -- like the "reproductive freedom" and "freedom of choice" labels. What has abortion to do with reproduction? One involves the bringing of a new life into this world, and the other the taking it out. I have to admit, though, it has such a nice ring to it. It sounds like something that should've been included there in the Declaration of Independence right beside the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If one didn't know better, one could hear that term and never actually suspect the horrid reality of what it signifies. "Freedom of choice" is another. It sounds so wholesome and American; never mind that it has nothing whatsoever to do with choice -- as long as it sounds pleasant and projects a positive image it's entirely acceptable to mask the true nature of this utterly depraved and reprehensible crime. "Freedom of choice" -- as if women didn't have the right to choose an abortion prior to its legalization -- but, there is no connection between illegality and one's freedom to choose. Choice is an inherent freedom, regardless of legality. How does the law ever prohibit choice? Aren't we all free to choose whatever we please, regardless of the law, others or even God? Mankind has always been free to choose to obey or disobey. Murder is illegal -- at least it was in most states as of the writing of this chapter -- yet when or how has that illegality ever deprived anyone of their right to choose to murder someone? It hasn't and it never will. What the "freedom of choice", abortion proponents are actually advocating is a freedom from responsibility for choice. They seek the right to choose behavior, entirely free from responsibility for that behavior. No one is ever prohibited from exercising choice by any law, whether it's the law of man or the law of God. The right to choose is always ours. But, with every choice also comes a responsibility for that choice. The law never makes one's choice, nor does it, in any way, limit it. The only limitation where personal choice is concerned is the strength of one's convictions. If one's convictions are solid, one will choose what one believes to be right, regardless of any law. In the case of abortion, that choice is to whether or not one believes it is right to murder an unborn child. But, is abortion murder? Those on the right say that it is, while those on the left say that it isn't. Many insist that it is nothing more than optional surgery -- like a facelift or a rhinoplasty. Others are willing to defy the law of the land in defense of these lives they claim are being so cruelly extinguished within. Is abortion murder? To answer this question, one must first establish two primary principles: Is the unborn child considered a life, and if so, is a deliberate termination of that life murder? To begin with, does the word of God address the issue of life in the womb?
The Greek word translated above as "womb" is koilia, meaning cavity, i.e. the abdomen, belly or womb. There can be no doubt, the above passage is referring to an unborn, fetal John the Baptist. What, if anything, does this signify? Perhaps we need to ask the question: Would the Holy Spirit be sent to indwell a lifeless thing? I cannot answer that; only God can. Yet, I wonder -- why not wait until the birth? Why enter a fetal John the Baptist in the womb, particularly if he was still only a lifeless, soulless growth of tissue? Another interesting aspect of this issue is found in the forty-fourth verse of the same chapter from Luke.
How can this be? A lifeless, soulless growth of tissue leaping, much less expressing an emotion like joy?!?! Let's again look at the Greek to make sure we aren't missing anything here. "Perhaps the word womb has been improperly translated?" No, it's the same word koilia used in verse fifteen. "How about leaped? It could be the actual word implies nothing of the sort, and is merely the result of an over-zealous translator trying to forward his own agenda?" No, again. The Greek word translated here as leaped is skirtao, meaning just what it says: leap or jump. It's the same word used by Jesus a bit later in Luke 6:23, where He says: "Rejoice in that day and leap for joy!"(Luke 6:23) It definitely means leaped -- no doubt about it. "What about joy? Certainly fetuses can't express emotion?" Wrong, yet again. The word used here is the Greek word agalliasis, meaning exultation, welcome, gladness or joy. They certainly all seem like emotions to me. "Aha! Baby! That's it! The translation of baby is all wrong?!!" Alas, a fourth and final incorrect assertion. It's brephos, meaning infant, baby or young child -- and in accordance with the usage of the word womb, we're most definitely dealing with an unborn child. One can't fault the translation here. The passage means exactly what it says. The unborn John the Baptist -- still in his mother's womb -- leaped for joy at the greeting of the mother of his Savior. And, whereas it could be argued that many liberals might possibly be construed as masses of lifeless, soulless tissue -- indeed, throughout the entirety of their lives -- this fetal forerunner of the Messiah was not, but rather a living, emotional, soul-filled-with- the-Holy-Spirit being.
Here, the prophet Jeremiah complains to the LORD that, so great are his troubles, he wishes he'd never been born (chiefly verses 14-18). The word translated here as kill is the Hebrew word muwth, meaning kill, put to death, slay or destroy. Indicative of rather stressful times, it appears over eight hundred times in the Old Testament. Clearly, one cannot kill that which is not alive. And, clearly, Jeremiah here refers to being killed in his mother's womb. Nevertheless, as some will undoubtedly remain unconvinced from these passages, let's turn to the twenty-first chapter of Exodus.
Before anyone protests, let's check the Hebrew here to determine what's actually being said by the LORD God Almighty. What's the first word or phrase that might draw some debate from this passage? How about "woman with child"? After all, let's make sure we're dealing with the same issue here. The Hebrew word here translated as "with child" is the word harah, meaning pregnant, conceive or with child. It appears twelve times in the Old Testament, and is the same word found in Genesis 16:11, 38:24-25, I Samuel 4:19, II Samuel 11:5, II Kings 8:12, 15:16, Isaiah 26:17, Jeremiah 31:8, Hosea 13:16 and Amos 1:13. In not one of these passages does it mean anything but what the actual Hebrew word indicates: pregnant woman. On to the next phrase of possible contention, we look at that which the NKJV has translated as "gives birth prematurely". The Hebrew here comes from two words: yeled, meaning something born, offspring, fruit or young man; and yatsa, which may be translated many ways, including to go out, pull out or spring out. The former word appears ninety times in the Old Testament, nearly always indicative of a child or baby. (In Isaiah 2:6 the NIV translates it as pagans; both the KJV and the NKJV translate it as children.) The latter word appears over one thousand times in the Old Testament, and is diversely translated throughout. Here, the NIV implies birth, where the KJV translates it depart, as in "fruit depart from her"; the NKJV reads as "gives birth prematurely". Surely, these words indicate that this "pregnant woman" has miscarried, but not resulting in the child's death -- as "no harm follows". The Hebrew here translated as "harm" is the word 'acown, meaning hurt or mischief. It is only used five times in the entire word of God (elsewhere in Genesis 42:4,38; 44:29; and twice in the passage above). As there is no "harm" to the unborn child, the men are to be fined, and that is that. (It's curious to note here, too, that "he shall be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him". So much for "a woman's right to her own body".) However, in continuing down to verse twenty-three, should the woman miscarry and the child is dead, then the death of the man who caused it is also required, as "then you shall give life for life". The Hebrew word translated here as "life" is nephesh, meaning a breathing creature (contrast with the Hebrew word chay). It is clear from this passage, not only that the miscarried child is considered a "life", but that its death -- whether intentional or not -- is a capital offense. How much more are those who deliberately destroy such "life" today guilty and deserving of death, according to God's word? To answer our first question: Is the unborn child in the womb considered a "life"? According to God's word -- yes. To answer the second: Is the deliberate termination of that life "murder"?
Again, according to the word of God -- yes. What does all this say about those who today destroy the lives of their own children? That our age has come to this is a clearer indicator than most may wish to admit that our depravity knows no end, and that only by the grace of God can we even hope to see tomorrow. The unborn child is alive in God's eyes, and its deliberate termination is murder. Of this, there can be no doubt. The word of God stands clear and unchangeable. Those who choose to ignore it, do so at their own risk.
Those who choose to deny life to others should, themselves, be wary, lest they also be denied that right by God. |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
 |
||||||||
