WHEN DOES PERSONHOOD BEGIN?

The question of when true personhood begins is a complicated one, and I have to admit from the start that I do not really have any hard-and-fast answers to give or any preconceived (forgive the pun) position to defend. Nevertheless, I recently was asked to respond to a paper written by a knowledgeable Christian (whom I will only refer to as “the author”) who felt that the Bible supports the position that true human existence does not start at conception, but at some later point in the development of the fetus in the womb. The rather piecemeal discussion below addresses passages cited in that paper, basically arranged according to their appearance in the Bible.

Genesis 1:27: The author of that paper rightly discounts the first appearance of all physical features in the womb as having anything to say regarding the point at which a fetus becomes fully human, but then follows that up by stating that at one point sex can be determined by ultrasound. This is supposed to somehow relate to Genesis 1:27, saying that “sex is intrinsic to a person’s identity (notwithstanding intersex anomalies; cf. Gen. 1:27; Matt. 19:12).” He must, however, realize that even if his reasoning (or implication) is correct, that would mean that those with intersex anomalies are not fully human. In addition, scientists have shown that the sex of a baby is determined at the point of fertilization, not when it can be detected by ultrasound.

Genesis 2:7: There is no argument concerning this verse as teaching, in his words, that “formation precedes personhood.” However, this verse alone does not necessarily prove anything concerning subsequent human beings beyond the first human couple. Also, it leaves out that fact that Genesis 7:22 portrays the animals as possessing that same breath of life (ruah) as humans. Instead, Gen. 2:7 may be the Bible's poetic way of expressing the important, and still not entirely explainable in scientific terms, original transition from inorganic matter (clay) into biological material capable of containing and reproducing life after its own kind. Such a one-time, pre-biotic evolution in the history of the world really says nothing concerning the point at which an individual fetus today could be considered as fully human or even having human potential.

The only difference between the two Genesis passages is brought out by D.H. Johnson, who says that Genesis 2:7 has God personally breathing it into human beings, “a sign of great intimacy [which] may indicate an ontological distinction [between humans and animals] as well.”

Genesis 25:22-23 and Luke 1:13-45: The author of the paper first admits that these two examples appear to support the position that full personhood begins before birth, demonstrated by, respectively, Jacob and Esau wrestling while still in the womb (Gen. 25:22-23) and John the Baptist recognizing Jesus while both were still in the wombs of their mothers (Luke 1:13-45). But then he dismisses these two passages by stating, “However, the preponderance of Biblical testimony weighs against pre-existing souls and the personhood of zygotes and unformed embryos.”

1. In the first place, that argument commits the common fallacy, also present in areas such as textual criticism, of counting the evidence instead of weighing it. And the great importance of these two examples is seen in the following points.

2. It is always risky in practicing exegesis to place too much emphasis on poetic or semi-poetic passages in order to attempt to tie down a literal biblical truth or doctrine. And unfortunately almost all of the passages quoted in the paper fall more into the poetic than the prose category or are quotations from such (semi-)poetic passages. Thus, that leaves little unambiguous biblical evidence left on which to hang the case that personhood doesn't begin until sometime later than conception. By contrast, both the Genesis 25 and Luke 1 examples fall squarely in the literal and historical category and thus should be considered as having much greater weight.

3. Those two passages span the historical range from the early Patriarchal Age to the beginning of the Gospel Age.

4. Between the two passages, we can clearly see the presence of both soul and spirit in the developing fetus. The struggle in Genesis 25 demonstrates the three basic soulish properties of intellect, will and emotion, while Luke 1 shows that an unborn child like John the Baptist already possesses the spiritual ability of being able to recognize and relate directly to the Divine Presence.

Exodus 21:22-25: The author states that this legal passage cannot be used to support any position related to the question of the beginning of life due to textual problems (i.e. the different wording in the LXX). To some extent I agree with that conclusion, but for an entirely different reason. After all, if we were to throw out all Old Testament texts in which the Septuagint version happened to disagree with the Hebrew, we would end up having a much smaller book.

It is the ambiguity of the wording in the Hebrew which is more of an issue. As Hamilton puts it, it is not clear “whether what happens to the woman [lit.., 'her children come forth'] refers to a miscarriage, a premature but healthy birth, or term delivery. Possibly the law deals with both a premature but healthy birth (v. 22b), and with miscarriage (vv. 23-25).”

Another argument sometimes adduced is that the penalty for the offending party is far too lenient than that for murder. That may be true, but keep in mind that we are really talking about manslaughter here at most, not a premeditated homicide.

I would also have to agree with Cole, who says, “It has sometimes been claimed by those in favor of abortion that the unborn child is not really considered as an individual here: but that is not the point of this passage, which is primarily concerned with injury to the woman. The destruction of the unborn child was regarded by the Hebrews as an instance of the most barbarous cruelty, calling down God's judgment (2 Ki. 15:16).”

And Knight flatly states regarding the commandment not to kill, “Infanticide...comes under this Word, and by implication, abortion, [Exodus] 21:22.”

Finally, there is the view of Kaiser in his Toward Old Testament Ethics who first says that the case cited in these verses “raises some extremely difficult exegetical questions.” He admits that his view differs from that taken in the Septuagint and by Philo, both of whom treated it as “only a miscarriage of a partially formed fetus.” Then later in his book he also admits that his interpretation is not supported by at least eight prominent English translations as well as six commentaries (as of his writing in 1983). But to support his view that the fetus is a full human being, he cites Jeremiah 1:4-6; Galatians 1:15; Psalm 139:13-16; Job 3:11; and Luke 1:39-44. However, he feels that Exodus 21:22-25 “is even more definitive in its regard for the sanctity of unborn life.” I will refer you to pp. 170-173 for his detailed arguments.

Job 31:15: Similarly, Job only alludes poetically to the “fashioning” by God of each person in order to make the point of the brotherhood of mankind, whatever their economic status on earth might be. Thus, this passage should not be taken as any sort of proof text for personhood coming at some point later than conception.

Psalm 51:5: The author of the paper also states that this verse proves that “it is nonsensical to claim that humans are conceived in sin and yet in that moment bear the image of God.” But if that same reasoning is applied to the parallel thought in the other half of this verse (“I was born guilty”), then one would also have to say that even after humans are born, they do not bear the image of God. Kselman says that this verse is just “an expression of the guilt-prone nature of humanity.” And M'Caw & Motyer feel the Psalmist “expresses the true depth of his sinfulness as being the natural state of man from birth.”

Psalm 139:16: Hooks says that when texts such as Genesis 2:7 “are compared with Jer. 1:5 and Ps. 139:16, it becomes clear that when used to describe Yahweh's people or his agents, the potter motif signifies divine election.” Thus, he associates it only with cases where specific people such as David are chosen by God for a particular task or role. And Konkel says, “The translation of the verse is problematic, but the import is that the psalmist was the special object of God's care and purpose for all the days 'formed' for him.” Note that the only “formation” here refers not to God forming the fetus into a human being, but instead to the plan God had for the Psalmist's future.

“The word translated 'unshaped form' in v. 16 is the Hebrew golmi...To translate the word as 'embryo,' as does the Common English Bible translation, is probably overspecific and misleading. And while this verse cannot be used to solve questions such as 'When does life begin?', the whole of Psalm 139 affirms the sacredness and God-givenness of life.” (deClaisse-Walford)

Isaiah 29:16: The same applies to this poetic passage using the metaphor of the potter and the clay. “As the master potter, God has the unquestionably sovereign right to give each of his creations a specific shape and purpose according to his will (Is. 29:16; 45:9; Rom 9:21).” (The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery) But this passage does not really speak directly to the issue at hand either since it appears to refer more to God's forming and molding people to his will by their development throughout their lifetime. Witness even the example of the Incarnate Jesus, who according to Luke 2:52 after His birth further “increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man.” This touches on His subsequent “formation” after birth in all three areas of soul, body and spirit.

“God is depicted not only as imparting life but also as fashioning each human in the womb like a potter molding clay (Job 10:8-11; 31:15; Ps 139:13). God mysteriously creates distinctive forms of life, human or animal. The uniqueness of each human is the result not only of a particular genetic makeup but also of God's spirit and hand distinctively fashioning each human. The supernatural and the natural world are seen as seamlessly woven together.” (Pokrifka) And part of this mystery is the point in the process in which one can consider the developing fetus a human being from God's viewpoint.

Zechariah 12:1: The author also writes, “Humans are distinguished from other creatures by the spirit (rûaḥ) formed within them by God, who is Spirit (cf. Zech. 12:1).” Yet, as previously mentioned, the same ruah is said in Genesis 7:22 to be implanted in all mammals, birds, reptiles, and all animal life.

Also, commentators are in agreement that this verse primarily refers back to the Genesis story of the original shaping of Adam from the dust of the earth, from whom all inherited this same spirit of life. Thus, Boda says, “The reference to Yahweh shaping 'the spirit of the human' most likely has in view that principle of life which Yahweh placed within humanity in Gen. 2:7, after shaping (yasar) humanity from the dust of the ground.”

Myers and Myers write, “Although this verse draws upon the Eden tale, however, it also diverges significantly...The Zechariah author perhaps includes it [i.e. 'within him'] to emphasize the individuality of God's relationship with people...'Within' emphasizes that God breathed the first breath into the very corporeal existence of the first individual, who is the archetypal representative of all subsequent human beings.” Just how far one can push this “archetypal representation” is problematic.

Thus, I think it is unfair to prematurely deduce from this, as does the author, that “Scripture thus refutes the claim that 'all changes [a human embryo] will undergo are within its internal programming (its nature).'”

I Corinthians 15:4: Paul quotes the above verse, not to state anything regarding the process by which even the first human became a living being, but strictly to contrast it with the life-giving power of Christ.

I Thessalonians 5:23; I Corinthians 15:12-46: I agree for the most part with the author's contention that body, soul and spirit are all necessary for personhood in the likeness of God except to point out that biblical nomenclature at this point is notoriously ambiguous as to the meaning of the three terms. Thus, as the author says, “soul” often stands for the whole person in the Old Testament. But there are passages such as Matthew 10:28 in which “soul” is used to describe the non-material aspects of humanity or Hebrews 4:12 and I Thessalonians 5:23 which allude to a tripartite anthropology. And none of these passages indicates when all three become present.

What I am a little confused about is the author's conclusion that “quickening and delayed ‘ensoulment’ are not biblical criteria of personhood.” If that is true then it certainly does not support the thesis that full personhood appears at some point later than conception and could actually be used as proof, or at least a strong indication, of the reverse idea.

Early Church Writings: Several commentators I consulted pointed out that the actual concept of abortion does not really appear in the Bible. But the author quotes Thomas Aquinus' opinion that only the killing of a “quickened” fetus could be considered as murder as typical of the early Church. I would prefer to look at a much earlier document for guidance as to the view of the early Church, namely The Didache. It was a widely accepted writing dating to roughly AD 150, even if it obviously did not come from the hands of the Twelve Apostles as stated. In Didache 2.2 it roundly condemns those who would kill a newborn child or abort a fetus. And the Greek does not specify that it has to be to a quickened fetus.

Conclusion

It is perhaps best that I conclude this brief review with this thought from Gorman after he canvassed early Jewish and Christian writings on the subject: “The historical witness demonstrates that Scripture can have a key role in the abortion debate even if exegesis alone, still less prooftexting, is insufficient. A hermeneutic is needed that recognizes the difficulty of the issue, expresses pastoral sensitivity, and preserves the basic requirements of covenant faithfulness.”