![\"Marko](\"https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/Marko-Marina-Author-Bart-Ehrman.png\" "\\"Marko")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Written by Marko Marina, Ph.D.<\/a><\/p>\n Author | \u00a0Historian<\/p>\n Author |\u00a0 Historian | \u00a0BE Contributor<\/p>\n Verified! \u00a0See our guidelines<\/a><\/p>\n Verified! \u00a0See our editorial guidelines<\/a><\/p>\n\nDate written: May 6th, 2026\n\nDate written: May 6th, 2026\n Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. – Dr. Bart D. Ehrman<\/p>\n To talk about abortion in the Bible is to step into one of the most complex and emotionally charged debates<\/strong> of our time.<\/p>\n Questions about abortion raise not only ethical and political disagreements, but also deeply personal convictions, and, at times, regrettably, even social hostility and violence. Precisely because of this, the topic cannot simply be avoided or dismissed. It requires careful, informed, and respectful discussion.<\/p>\n As a historian writing for a broad audience through our blog, my aim here isn\u2019t to advocate for a particular position, but to examine what the biblical texts themselves do (and do not) say. The guiding questions for this inquiry are straightforward but significant: Is abortion in the Bible? And does the Bible say abortion is a sin?<\/p>\n These aren\u2019t easy questions, but they can be approached with clarity when we attend closely to the evidence.<\/p>\n A key challenge, however, lies in the fact that modern debates about abortion often assume categories, definitions, and moral frameworks that didn\u2019t necessarily exist in the ancient world.<\/p>\n The biblical writings emerged in historical contexts very different from our own<\/strong>, shaped by distinct social structures, legal systems, and understandings of the human body.<\/p>\n As a result, we shouldn\u2019t expect the Bible to address abortion in the direct and systematic way that contemporary discussions might demand. Instead, what we find are a range of passages (legal, narrative, and poetic) that touch on related issues such as pregnancy, fetal development, and the value of human life.<\/p>\n Interpreting these texts requires attention to their original context, language, and purpose.<\/p>\n In this article, we\u2019ll first situate the Bible within its ancient cultural and literary setting<\/strong>, highlighting why people cannot straightforwardly map its texts onto modern ethical debates.<\/p>\n We\u2019ll then examine several key passages from the Old Testament that are frequently cited in discussions about abortion, followed by a New Testament example that is sometimes brought into these conversations.<\/p>\n Throughout, the goal will be to present the material in a historically grounded and balanced way, allowing readers to see how different interpretations arise and why different people today come to a completely different conclusion while reading the same passages.<\/p>\n In their book The Abingdon Introduction to the Bible: Understanding Jewish and Christian Scriptures<\/a>, Joel S. Kaminsky, Mark Reasoner, and Joel N. Lohr note:<\/p>\n (Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!<\/em>)<\/p>\n The material in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocrypha, and the New Testament was written over more than a one thousand year span<\/strong>, likely between 950 BCE and 150 CE. From a narrative perspective, the Hebrew Bible begins at creation, thousands of years ago, and then tells the story of Abraham and his later descendants through Isaac and Jacob (that is, the people of Israel), focusing primarily on Israel\u2019s life in (and eventual exile from) what we today call the Holy Land. Later books in the Hebrew Bible, as well as most of the works in the Apocrypha, inform us about the Second Temple period… \u201cThe New Testament is set in the Hellenistic period, with the Jewish people now both in the land of Israel and in the wider Greco-Roman world.<\/p>\n This brief overview underscores a foundational point: the Bible isn\u2019t a single, unified work <\/strong>composed at one moment in time, but a diverse collection of writings that emerged across many centuries and in a wide range of historical settings.<\/p>\n Recognizing this diversity is essential for any historically responsible interpretation. The texts that make up the Bible were written by different authors, addressing different audiences, and shaped by distinct literary, theological, and social concerns.<\/p>\n Just as importantly, they belong to worlds that are profoundly different from our own: namely, the ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman contexts. These were societies with their own assumptions about family structure, law, the body, and reproduction.<\/p>\n Concepts that dominate modern ethical debates, including those surrounding abortion in the Bible, weren\u2019t framed in the same way in antiquity. As a result, it\u2019s methodologically problematic to expect biblical texts to speak directly and unambiguously to contemporary categories without first considering their original historical horizons.<\/p>\n This tension between ancient context and modern application has been perceptively captured by Paula Fredriksen<\/a>, who writes:<\/p>\n Theology<\/strong>\u2014even historically sensitive theology\u2014ends by expressing the traditions of its author\u2019s current, contemporary religious commitments and community. And that community lives in the present. True, it draws on texts, Old Testament and New Testament, bequeathed by the past; it generates meaning through scriptural exegesis. Theology is textual<\/strong>. But theology <\/strong>is itself also a kind of time machine<\/strong>. It updates these ancient texts, retrieving them from intellectual obscurity and ethical irrelevance, rendering them meaningful to the contemporary church… Current identity is contiguous thanks to the ligature of theology. Theology inscribes identity. History unsettles it.<\/strong> That is because, while biblical theology is primarily textual, history is contextual. Inscriptions, archaeological evidence, papyri, amulets, other contemporary writings of all sorts: these data points\u2014not creeds, councils, and church doctrines\u2014guide the critical reconstruction of the past.<\/p>\n Her observation highlights a crucial methodological distinction: while theology often seeks to make ancient texts speak to present concerns, historical inquiry aims first to understand those texts within their original settings.<\/p>\n In this article, that historical orientation will be decisive<\/strong>. Rather than beginning with modern assumptions about what the Bible must say, we\u2019ll examine how specific passages functioned within their own literary and cultural contexts.<\/p>\n At the same time, we will acknowledge that these texts have been read in different ways! Not surprisingly, some interpreters argue that they implicitly condemn abortion, others maintain that they do not address it in any direct or systematic sense.<\/p>\n A careful analysis requires that both perspectives be presented with precision and without caricature.<\/p>\n With these contextual considerations in place, we are now in a better position to turn to the biblical texts themselves. By situating each passage within its historical and literary framework, we can more clearly assess what they contribute (and what they do not) to the broader question of abortion.<\/p>\n This article will follow the conventional division of the Bible between the Old Testament<\/a> and the New Testament. Obviously, this division is a Christian one, but we can follow it structurally without necessarily accepting <\/strong>a particular Christian (traditional) interpretation.<\/p>\n We\u2019ll begin, therefore, with several key passages from the Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible)<\/a>, which contains most of the material relevant to this discussion. These texts provide the primary foundation for examining how issues related to abortion in the Bible have been interpreted.<\/p>\n Abortion wasn\u2019t unknown in the ancient world. Medical texts from Egypt and Mesopotamia attest to practices intended to terminate pregnancy. For example, the Ebers Papyrus<\/a> (16th century B.C.E.) includes a prescription \u201cto cause a woman to stop pregnancy,\u201d indicating that such procedures were part of the broader medical and social landscape of antiquity.<\/p>\n Against this background, it\u2019s interesting that the Hebrew Bible doesn\u2019t contain a direct legal prohibition<\/strong> or systematic discussion of abortion.<\/p>\n The passage most frequently cited in modern debates comes from Exodus 21:22\u201323, which reads: \u201cWhen people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined\u2026 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life.\u201d<\/p>\n This raises an immediate and pressing question: does this mean that abortion in the Bible is a sin?<\/p>\n Many Christian apologists would answer this question in the affirmative, though often by reinterpreting the passage in ways that challenge the standard reading.<\/p>\n For instance, Calum Miller, in his article<\/a>, argues that the text doesn\u2019t clearly describe a miscarriage at all. He notes that the Hebrew verb commonly translated as \u201cmiscarriage\u201d more often refers to live birth, and that this passage doesn\u2019t use a separate, more precise term for miscarriage.<\/p>\n On this reading, the scenario may involve a premature birth rather than fetal death. If so, the law would imply that if the child is harmed, the principle of \u201clife for life\u201d applies, suggesting that the unborn child is afforded legal protection comparable to that of any other person.<\/p>\n Miller further cautions that differences in legal penalties do not necessarily reflect differences in intrinsic value since factors such as intent and circumstance can affect sentencing.<\/p>\n However, many Hebrew Bible scholars would disagree with such a reading and instead emphasize both the linguistic and contextual limits of the passage.<\/p>\n John J. Collins, in his book What Are Biblical Values?<\/a>, presents what is widely regarded as the more straightforward interpretation<\/strong>: that the text refers to an accidental miscarriage resulting from injury.<\/p>\n In this case, the imposition of a fine (rather than the more severe \u201clife for life\u201d penalty) may suggest a legal distinction between the fetus and a fully born person.<\/p>\n At the same time, Collins is careful to stress that this law addresses an unintended injury<\/strong>, not a deliberate termination of pregnancy. As he puts it, \u201can accidental miscarriage is not the same thing as intentional abortion.\u201d<\/p>\n The passage, in this reading, doesn\u2019t directly legislate abortion, but rather reflects how ancient Israelite law handled cases of bodily harm involving pregnant women.<\/p>\n Collins also draws attention to the history of interpretation, particularly the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible known as the Septuagint<\/a>.<\/p>\n This version introduces a distinction between a \u201cformed\u201d and \u201cunformed\u201d fetus, assigning greater legal weight to the former.<\/p>\n Did You Know?<\/strong><\/p>\n From Interpretation to Justification: When the Bible Is Misused.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, a small number of extremist individuals and fringe groups in the United States carried out violent attacks on abortion clinics, including bombings and targeted killings.<\/em><\/p>\n Later interpreters, such as Philo of Alexandria, developed this idea further, suggesting that the moral status of the fetus might depend on its stage of development.<\/p>\n Such interpretations demonstrate that even in antiquity, readers didn\u2019t agree on how to understand the text, and that questions about fetal status were already subject to philosophical and cultural influence.<\/p>\n In the end, Exodus 21:22\u201323 doesn\u2019t yield a single, uncontested answer. Some interpreters see in it an implicit affirmation of the value of unborn life, while others view it as evidence of a legal distinction between the fetus and the mother.<\/p>\n What can be said with confidence is that the passage addresses a specific case of accidental injury<\/strong> rather than offering a general moral teaching about abortion. As with many issues related to abortion in the Bible, the interpretation depends largely on how one reads the text, leaving modern readers to weigh the evidence and draw their own conclusions.<\/p>\n DID PAUL AND JESUS HAVE THE SAME RELIGION?<\/p>\n Jesus taught a message of repentance to prepare for the Kingdom of God while Paul taught faith in Jesus. \u00a0Did they agree?\u00a0 Should they be considered the \u201cco-founders\u201d of Christianity?<\/p>\n __CONFIG_colors_palette__{“active_palette”:0,”config”:{“colors”:{“62516”:{“name”:”Main Accent”,”parent”:-1}},”gradients”:[]},”palettes”:[{“name”:”Default Palette”,”value”:{“colors”:{“62516”:{“val”:”rgb(255, 133, 34)”,”hsl”:{“h”:26,”s”:0.99,”l”:0.5667}}},”gradients”:[]}}]}__CONFIG_colors_palette__ LEARN MORE<\/strong> <\/a> The second example frequently used in discussions about the issue of abortion in the Bible comes from the Book of Numbers (5:11\u201331).<\/p>\n This passage describes a ritual ordeal administered to a woman<\/strong> suspected of adultery. If a husband becomes jealous but lacks evidence, the woman is brought before a priest, made to drink a concoction of water mixed with dust from the sanctuary floor, and subjected to a divine test.<\/p>\n If she is guilty, the text states that her body will undergo physical affliction (often described as a swelling abdomen and failing \u201cthigh\u201d) whereas if she is innocent, she will remain unharmed and retain her fertility.<\/p>\n While the text doesn\u2019t explicitly mention pregnancy at every point, many scholars understand the ritual<\/strong> to be closely connected to reproductive outcomes.<\/p>\n This passage is sometimes cited<\/a> in modern debates as evidence that the Bible explicitly condemns abortion.<\/p>\n The reasoning is relatively straightforward: if the ritual results in the loss of a fetus, and this outcome is portrayed negatively (as a curse or punishment) then it might be taken to imply that abortion itself is morally wrong.<\/p>\n In this reading, the text reinforces a broader biblical ethic that values unborn life and treats its destruction as a serious matter. As with the Exodus passage, however, the interpretation is far from straightforward and depends heavily on how one understands both the language and the broader cultural context.<\/p>\n A more nuanced perspective is offered by Baruch A. Levine in his Commentary on Numbers<\/a>. Levine argues that, in many cases, pregnancy likely formed the background of the ordeal, since suspicion of adultery could arise precisely from a woman\u2019s apparent conception.<\/p>\n He further suggests that the physical effects described in the text may indeed point to \u201cthe loss of her embryo\u201d and that, in certain circumstances, the ritual could \u201cterminate\u2026 pregnancy by what amounted to an induced miscarriage or abortion.\u201d<\/p>\n Importantly, however, Levine doesn\u2019t interpret this as a<\/strong> moral teaching about abortion. Instead, the termination of pregnancy appears as a byproduct of a ritual designed to resolve questions of marital fidelity and social order, not as an ethical judgment on abortion itself.<\/p>\n Levine\u2019s analysis goes even further in clarifying the text\u2019s underlying logic. While he acknowledges that the fetus is treated as having value (something also reflected in laws such as those in Exodus 21) he emphasizes that this value isn\u2019t absolute.<\/p>\n The ritual is carried out \u201cnotwithstanding the potential loss of the value-bearing fetus,\u201d indicating that other concerns (such as lineage, purity, and divine judgment) take precedence.<\/p>\n In fact, Levine concludes that what many modern readers would call a \u201cright to life\u201d isn\u2019t <\/strong>articulated <\/strong>in these legal materials in an absolute sense. To put it more bluntly, the passage, according to his interpretation, doesn\u2019t function as a prohibition of abortion, but rather reflects a world in which fetal life could be subordinated to broader social and religious priorities.<\/p>\n Similarly, in his course The Bible and Abortion<\/a>, Bart D. Ehrman argues that this passage is best understood as describing a divinely sanctioned induced abortion, a ritual procedure required under specific legal conditions and not presented as morally problematic within its own framework.<\/p>\n This interpretation reinforces the broader observation that biblical texts do not approach abortion as a standalone ethical issue<\/strong>, but rather address it indirectly, if at all, within other legal and ritualistic contexts.<\/p>\n Another verse that is sometimes brought into the debate about the issue of abortion in the Bible comes from Genesis.<\/p>\n In the second creation account, we read how the first human is formed: \u201cthen the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being\u201d (Genesis 2:7).<\/p>\n The context here isn\u2019t a legal or ethical discussion, but a theological narrative describing the origins of humanity. Unlike other passages that deal with laws or rituals, this text belongs to a broader reflection on what it means to be human in relation to God.<\/p>\n A key element of this verse is the idea that life begins with the divine breath<\/strong>. The human being, though formed from material substance (dust), doesn\u2019t become a \u201cliving being\u201d (nephesh) until God breathes life into him.<\/p>\n Most scholars understand this as a statement of theological anthropology. To put it more bluntly, it\u2019s a reflection on the nature of human life as dependent on God. As Bill T. Arnold notes in his Commentary on Genesis<\/a>, the phrase \u201cliving being\u201d doesn\u2019t refer to a separable \u201csoul\u201d within the body, but rather to the totality of the human person.<\/p>\n In other words, the text isn\u2019t attempting to define when biological life begins, but what it means for a human to be fully alive.<\/p>\n Even so, if one were to read the passage more literally, it would still suggest that life is associated with breath rather than conception.<\/p>\n As Dr. Ehrman explains in his course, the Hebrew Bible consistently portrays a living human being as a material body animated by breath. In that sense, life begins when a being is capable of breathing. Prior to that, it\u2019s not yet a \u201cliving being\u201d in the full sense.<\/p>\n Another passage frequently brought into discussions of abortion in the Bible comes from Psalm 139<\/strong>, a poetic reflection on God\u2019s intimate knowledge of the human person.<\/p>\n In verses 13\u201316, the psalmist declares: \u201cFor it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother\u2019s womb\u2026 My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret\u2026 Your eyes beheld my unformed substance\u201d.<\/p>\n These lines are often cited as evidence<\/strong> that the Bible affirms the full value of human life already in the womb. But does this passage really condemn abortion? Some interpreters would argue that it does, seeing here a powerful affirmation of divine involvement in prenatal life.<\/p>\n A closer look, however, suggests that the passage operates in a very different register. As Mitchell Dahood explains in his Commentary<\/a>, Psalm 139 is best understood as \u201ca psalm of innocence composed by a religious leader\u2026 who was accused of idol worship,\u201d structured as an appeal to God\u2019s all-encompassing knowledge to vindicate the speaker.<\/p>\n In other words, the psalm isn\u2019t a legal or ethical treatise, but a personal prayer rooted in a specific situation of accusation and self-defense.<\/p>\n Its central concern is the fact that God knows the speaker completely<\/strong> (his actions, intentions, and very existence), so thoroughly that no accusation can ultimately stand. This interpretation is reinforced by broader scholarly analysis of the psalm\u2019s genre and theology.<\/p>\n As Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger<\/a> argue, Psalm 139 is best classified as a wisdom meditation on the relationship between the human being and God. Its language of formation in the womb is part of a larger reflection on divine knowledge, presence, and creative power.<\/p>\n As Christian Frevel and Oda Wischmeyer put it in their study Menschsein: Perspektiven des Alten und Neuen Testaments<\/a> (Being Human: Perspectives From the Old and New Testaments):<\/p>\n \u201cThe psalm verse is not interested in the details of human origin, but in the reference to their beginning in time. In that light, the translation \u2018embryo\u2019 for the formless thing being developed is not at all wrong.\u201d (my translation)<\/p>\n The crucial point, however, is that the focus isn\u2019t the embryo itself<\/strong>, but its place within God\u2019s comprehensive knowledge and plan. The psalmist is affirming that God knows even the earliest, hidden stages of existence, not defining when personhood begins or making a moral claim about abortion.<\/p>\n Moreover, much of the imagery in this passage is highly poetic and symbolic rather than literal. The reference to being formed \u201cin the depths of the earth,\u201d for example, isn\u2019t a straightforward description of the womb, but part of a broader set of metaphors emphasizing hiddenness and divine creative activity beyond human perception.<\/p>\n As Hossfeld and Zenger note, such language reflects ancient cosmological imagination and underscores the mystery of human origins, not anatomical processes.<\/p>\n Taken together, these features suggest that Psalm 139 is concerned with theological anthropology <\/strong>(what it means to be a human known and sustained by God) rather than with biological development or ethical legislation.<\/p>\n In light of this, while Psalm 139 offers a profound reflection on divine knowledge and care extending even to prenatal existence, it doesn\u2019t directly address the moral question of abortion.<\/p>\n Like the other passages we have examined, its meaning depends heavily <\/strong>on how one interprets its genre, language, and purpose.<\/p>\n With this in mind, we can now turn briefly to a New Testament example, where the discussion takes yet another distinctive turn.<\/p>\n To talk about abortion in the Bible from the perspective of the New Testament, one question immediately arises: What did Jesus <\/strong>say about abortion? The simple answer is: nothing<\/strong>.<\/p>\n The historical Jesus<\/a> never spoke on abortion as far as we can tell. In this respect, a well-known observation by Bart D. Ehrman<\/a> captures the situation with particular clarity:<\/p>\n Jesus would not recognize himself <\/strong>in the preaching of most of his followers today. He knew nothing of our world. He was not a capitalist. He did not believe in free enterprise. He did not support the acquisition of wealth or the good things in life. He did not believe in massive education. He had never heard of democracy. He had nothing to do with going to church on Sunday. He knew nothing of social security, food stamps, welfare, American exceptionalism, unemployment numbers, or immigration. He had no views on tax reform, health care (apart from wanting to heal leprosy), or the welfare state. So far as we know, he expressed no opinion on <\/strong>the ethical issues that plague us today: abortion <\/strong>and reproductive rights, gay marriage, euthanasia, or bombing Iraq. His world was not ours, his concerns were not ours, and \u2013 most striking of all \u2013 his beliefs were not ours.<\/p>\n This perspective serves as an important reminder that modern attempts to reconstruct \u201cJesus on abortion\u201d must proceed with considerable historical caution.<\/p>\n That being said, some interpreters <\/strong>have argued that traces of a biblical perspective on abortion might still be found indirectly within the New Testament.<\/p>\n One passage that is sometimes brought into the discussion appears in the Gospel of Luke (1:41\u201344)<\/strong>, in the account of Mary\u2019s visit to Elizabeth.<\/p>\n The text describes how \u201cwhen Elizabeth heard Mary\u2019s greeting, the child leaped in her womb\u2026 For as soon as I heard the sound of your greeting, the child in my womb leaped for joy.\u201d At first glance, this scene (depicting an unborn child reacting within the womb) has been taken by some as evidence that the New Testament attributes a kind of personal or even spiritual awareness to the fetus.<\/p>\n A closer reading, however, suggests a more nuanced conclusion. In his Commentary on the Gospel of Luke<\/a>, Michael Wolter emphasizes that such interpretations misunderstand the literary and theological intention of the passage.<\/p>\n As he puts it:<\/p>\n The frequently encountered assumption that John, taking up his prophetic task already in the womb, points to Jesus as the Son of God and Messiah misses the intention of the text: Jesus is not present at all in this scene.<\/p>\n Rather than presenting a statement about fetal consciousness or moral status, Luke uses this episode as a narrative device: the movement of the unborn John functions as a sign of eschatological joy, signaling the unfolding of God\u2019s salvific plan.<\/p>\n The focus isn\u2019t on the fetus as such, but on the theological meaning <\/strong>assigned to the event within the broader story.<\/p>\n Moreover, the scene is carefully constructed to convey interpretation rather than biological observation. Elizabeth\u2019s response is explicitly attributed to the Holy Spirit, indicating that the significance of the event is revealed through divine inspiration rather than empirical description.<\/p>\n The \u201cleaping\u201d of the child, therefore, should be understood symbolically, as part of Luke\u2019s narrative strategy to highlight the significance of the moment.<\/p>\n Paula Fredriksen\u2019s already mentioned observation provides a fitting lens <\/strong>through which to draw all these threads together. Theology, as she notes, often functions as a kind of \u201ctime machine,\u201d retrieving ancient texts and making them speak to present concerns.<\/p>\n And that is precisely what we see in debates about abortion in the Bible. Readers who approach the text with a particular ethical framework will often find passages that appear to support their conclusions: whether by emphasizing the value of life in the womb or by pointing to texts that treat fetal life differently from that of a fully born person.<\/p>\n In that sense, the Bible has repeatedly been enlisted on multiple sides of the same debate<\/strong>, not because it speaks with one clear voice on the issue, but because its diverse materials can be interpreted in different ways depending on the questions we bring to it.<\/p>\n A historical-critical approach, however, pushes us in a different direction. Rather than asking what the Bible should say about modern ethical issues, it asks what these texts meant within their original cultural and social contexts.<\/p>\n And when we do that, a more restrained conclusion emerges: the biblical writings do not address abortion as a clearly defined moral problem in the way contemporary discussions do.<\/p>\n They speak instead to a range of related concerns (law, ritual, theology, and narrative) shaped by a world fundamentally different from our own. Recognizing this gap doesn\u2019t resolve the modern debate, but it does clarify what is at stake.<\/p>\n In the end, how one understands abortion in the Bible depends largely on how one approaches the text itself<\/strong>: as a source to be harmonized with present-day convictions, or as a collection of ancient documents whose primary meaning lies in the past before it\u2019s brought into conversation with the present.<\/p>\n NOW AVAILABLE!<\/p>\n In The Beginning\u2122 – History, Legend, & Myth in Genesis<\/b><\/strong><\/p>\n In Part One of Bart’s new “How Scholars Read the Bible” Series, dive into the stories of the first book of the Bible from a historical perspective.<\/p>\n __CONFIG_colors_palette__{“active_palette”:0,”config”:{“colors”:{“62516”:{“name”:”Main Accent”,”parent”:-1}},”gradients”:[]},”palettes”:[{“name”:”Default Palette”,”value”:{“colors”:{“62516”:{“val”:”rgb(255, 133, 34)”,”hsl”:{“h”:26,”s”:0.99,”l”:0.5667}}},”gradients”:[]}}]}__CONFIG_colors_palette__ LEARN MORE<\/strong> <\/a> Abortion in the Bible: Does the Bible Say It’s a Sin? Written by Marko Marina, Ph.D. Author | \u00a0Historian Author |\u00a0 Historian | \u00a0BE Contributor Verified! \u00a0See our guidelines Verified! \u00a0See our editorial guidelines Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. – […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":25005,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","tve_updated_post":" Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman<\/p><\/div> To talk about abortion in the Bible is to step into one of the most complex and emotionally charged debates<\/strong> of our time. <\/p> Questions about abortion raise not only ethical and political disagreements, but also deeply personal convictions, and, at times, regrettably, even social hostility and violence. Precisely because of this, the topic cannot simply be avoided or dismissed. It requires careful, informed, and respectful discussion. <\/p> As a historian writing for a broad audience through our blog, my aim here isn\u2019t to advocate for a particular position, but to examine what the biblical texts themselves do (and do not) say. The guiding questions for this inquiry are straightforward but significant: Is abortion in the Bible? And does the Bible say abortion is a sin? <\/p> These aren\u2019t easy questions, but they can be approached with clarity when we attend closely to the evidence.<\/p> A key challenge, however, lies in the fact that modern debates about abortion often assume categories, definitions, and moral frameworks that didn\u2019t necessarily exist in the ancient world. <\/p> The biblical writings emerged in historical contexts very different from our own<\/strong>, shaped by distinct social structures, legal systems, and understandings of the human body.<\/p> As a result, we shouldn\u2019t expect the Bible to address abortion in the direct and systematic way that contemporary discussions might demand. Instead, what we find are a range of passages (legal, narrative, and poetic) that touch on related issues such as pregnancy, fetal development, and the value of human life. <\/p> Interpreting these texts requires attention to their original context, language, and purpose.<\/p> In this article, we\u2019ll first situate the Bible within its ancient cultural and literary setting<\/strong>, highlighting why people cannot straightforwardly map its texts onto modern ethical debates. <\/p> We\u2019ll then examine several key passages from the Old Testament that are frequently cited in discussions about abortion, followed by a New Testament example that is sometimes brought into these conversations.<\/p> Throughout, the goal will be to present the material in a historically grounded and balanced way, allowing readers to see how different interpretations arise and why different people today come to a completely different conclusion while reading the same passages. <\/strong><\/p><\/div> In their book The Abingdon Introduction to the Bible: Understanding Jewish and Christian Scriptures<\/a>, Joel S. Kaminsky, Mark Reasoner, and Joel N. Lohr note:<\/p><\/div> (Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!<\/em>)<\/p><\/div> The material in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocrypha, and the New Testament was written over more than a one thousand year span<\/strong>, likely between 950 BCE and 150 CE. From a narrative perspective, the Hebrew Bible begins at creation, thousands of years ago, and then tells the story of Abraham and his later descendants through Isaac and Jacob (that is, the people of Israel), focusing primarily on Israel\u2019s life in (and eventual exile from) what we today call the Holy Land. Later books in the Hebrew Bible, as well as most of the works in the Apocrypha, inform us about the Second Temple period... \u201cThe New Testament is set in the Hellenistic period, with the Jewish people now both in the land of Israel and in the wider Greco-Roman world.<\/p><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div> This brief overview underscores a foundational point: the Bible isn\u2019t a single, unified work <\/strong>composed at one moment in time, but a diverse collection of writings that emerged across many centuries and in a wide range of historical settings.<\/p> Recognizing this diversity is essential for any historically responsible interpretation. The texts that make up the Bible were written by different authors, addressing different audiences, and shaped by distinct literary, theological, and social concerns.<\/p> Just as importantly, they belong to worlds that are profoundly different from our own: namely, the ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman contexts. These were societies with their own assumptions about family structure, law, the body, and reproduction. <\/p> Concepts that dominate modern ethical debates, including those surrounding abortion in the Bible, weren\u2019t framed in the same way in antiquity. As a result, it\u2019s methodologically problematic to expect biblical texts to speak directly and unambiguously to contemporary categories without first considering their original historical horizons.<\/p> This tension between ancient context and modern application has been perceptively captured by Paula Fredriksen<\/a>, who writes:<\/p><\/div> Theology<\/strong>\u2014even historically sensitive theology\u2014ends by expressing the traditions of its author\u2019s current, contemporary religious commitments and community. And that community lives in the present. True, it draws on texts, Old Testament and New Testament, bequeathed by the past; it generates meaning through scriptural exegesis. Theology is textual<\/strong>. But theology <\/strong>is itself also a kind of time machine<\/strong>. It updates these ancient texts, retrieving them from intellectual obscurity and ethical irrelevance, rendering them meaningful to the contemporary church... Current identity is contiguous thanks to the ligature of theology. Theology inscribes identity. History unsettles it.<\/strong> That is because, while biblical theology is primarily textual, history is contextual. Inscriptions, archaeological evidence, papyri, amulets, other contemporary writings of all sorts: these data points\u2014not creeds, councils, and church doctrines\u2014guide the critical reconstruction of the past.<\/p><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div> Her observation highlights a crucial methodological distinction: while theology often seeks to make ancient texts speak to present concerns, historical inquiry aims first to understand those texts within their original settings.<\/p> In this article, that historical orientation will be decisive<\/strong>. Rather than beginning with modern assumptions about what the Bible must say, we\u2019ll examine how specific passages functioned within their own literary and cultural contexts. <\/p> At the same time, we will acknowledge that these texts have been read in different ways! Not surprisingly, some interpreters argue that they implicitly condemn abortion, others maintain that they do not address it in any direct or systematic sense.<\/p> A careful analysis requires that both perspectives be presented with precision and without caricature.<\/p> With these contextual considerations in place, we are now in a better position to turn to the biblical texts themselves. By situating each passage within its historical and literary framework, we can more clearly assess what they contribute (and what they do not) to the broader question of abortion.<\/p><\/div> This article will follow the conventional division of the Bible between the Old Testament<\/a> and the New Testament. Obviously, this division is a Christian one, but we can follow it structurally without necessarily accepting <\/strong>a particular Christian (traditional) interpretation.<\/p> We\u2019ll begin, therefore, with several key passages from the Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible)<\/a>, which contains most of the material relevant to this discussion. These texts provide the primary foundation for examining how issues related to abortion in the Bible have been interpreted.<\/p><\/div> Abortion wasn\u2019t unknown in the ancient world. Medical texts from Egypt and Mesopotamia attest to practices intended to terminate pregnancy. For example, the Ebers Papyrus<\/a> (16th century B.C.E.) includes a prescription \u201cto cause a woman to stop pregnancy,\u201d indicating that such procedures were part of the broader medical and social landscape of antiquity. <\/p> Against this background, it\u2019s interesting that the Hebrew Bible doesn\u2019t contain a direct legal prohibition<\/strong> or systematic discussion of abortion. <\/p> The passage most frequently cited in modern debates comes from Exodus 21:22\u201323, which reads: \u201cWhen people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined\u2026 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life.\u201d<\/p> This raises an immediate and pressing question: does this mean that abortion in the Bible is a sin?<\/p> Many Christian apologists would answer this question in the affirmative, though often by reinterpreting the passage in ways that challenge the standard reading. <\/p> For instance, Calum Miller, in his article<\/a>, argues that the text doesn\u2019t clearly describe a miscarriage at all. He notes that the Hebrew verb commonly translated as \u201cmiscarriage\u201d more often refers to live birth, and that this passage doesn\u2019t use a separate, more precise term for miscarriage.<\/p> On this reading, the scenario may involve a premature birth rather than fetal death. If so, the law would imply that if the child is harmed, the principle of \u201clife for life\u201d applies, suggesting that the unborn child is afforded legal protection comparable to that of any other person. <\/p> Miller further cautions that differences in legal penalties do not necessarily reflect differences in intrinsic value since factors such as intent and circumstance can affect sentencing.<\/p> However, many Hebrew Bible scholars would disagree with such a reading and instead emphasize both the linguistic and contextual limits of the passage. <\/p> John J. Collins, in his book What Are Biblical Values?<\/a>, presents what is widely regarded as the more straightforward interpretation<\/strong>: that the text refers to an accidental miscarriage resulting from injury.<\/p> In this case, the imposition of a fine (rather than the more severe \u201clife for life\u201d penalty) may suggest a legal distinction between the fetus and a fully born person.<\/p> At the same time, Collins is careful to stress that this law addresses an unintended injury<\/strong>, not a deliberate termination of pregnancy. As he puts it, \u201can accidental miscarriage is not the same thing as intentional abortion.\u201d<\/p> The passage, in this reading, doesn\u2019t directly legislate abortion, but rather reflects how ancient Israelite law handled cases of bodily harm involving pregnant women.<\/p> Collins also draws attention to the history of interpretation, particularly the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible known as the Septuagint<\/a>.<\/p> This version introduces a distinction between a \u201cformed\u201d and \u201cunformed\u201d fetus, assigning greater legal weight to the former.<\/p><\/div>![\"abortion](\"https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/abortion-in-the-Bible.png\" "\\"abortion")
<\/p>\nThe Bible in Context: Ancient Documents, Not a Modern Rulebook<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/quote-down.png\" "\\"quote")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/quote-up.png\" "\\"quote")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nAbortion in the Bible: Key Old Testament Passages<\/h2>\n
Does the Bible Mention Abortion? Exodus 21:22\u201323<\/h3>\n
\nIn some of these cases, perpetrators explicitly appealed to religious language <\/strong>(and at times even to biblical imagery) to justify their actions, portraying themselves as defenders of innocent life acting under divine mandate.<\/em><\/p>\n
\nOne often-cited example is Eric Rudolph, responsible for the 1998 bombing of a women\u2019s clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, who described his actions in explicitly religious terms, framing them as a response to what he saw as a moral evil.<\/em><\/p>\n
\nIn the broader rhetoric of such extremist circles (for instance, within the so-called \u201cArmy of God\u201d), passages emphasizing the value of life in the womb (sometimes including texts such as Psalm 139, which we explore later in the article<\/strong>) have been invoked as part of a wider theological justification for violence.<\/em><\/p>\n
\nIt\u2019s crucial to stress, however, that such interpretations represent extreme and widely rejected distortions <\/strong>of both the Bible and the broader Christian tradition. The overwhelming majority of religious communities, including those opposed to abortion, unequivocally condemn violence of this kind.<\/em><\/p>\n
\nRather than reflecting the teachings of the biblical texts themselves, these acts illustrate the very danger highlighted throughout this article: when ancient writings are read without historical sensitivity, they can be made to support positions (and actions) that lie far outside their original meaning and intent.
\n<\/em><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/Jesus-and-Paul-PBS-4x3-1.jpg\" "\\"Jesus")
<\/a><\/p>\nDoes the Bible Say Abortion Is a Sin? Numbers 5:11\u201331<\/h3>\n
Is Abortion in the Bible? The Case of Genesis 2<\/h3>\n
Abortion in the Bible: Psalm 139:13\u201316<\/h3>\n
<\/p>\n![\"is](\"https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/is-abortion-in-the-Bible.png\" "\\"is")
<\/p>\nAbortion in the Bible: New Testament<\/h2>\n
<\/p>\n<\/p>\nConclusion<\/h2>\n
![\"In](\"https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/In-the-Beginning-Online-Course-by-Dr-Bart-Ehrman-768x576-1.png\" "\\"In")
<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"\n\t__CONFIG_colors_palette__{\"active_palette\":0,\"config\":{\"colors\":{\"62516\":{\"name\":\"Main Accent\",\"parent\":-1}},\"gradients\":[]},\"palettes\":[{\"name\":\"Default Palette\",\"value\":{\"colors\":{\"62516\":{\"val\":\"var(--tcb-skin-color-0)\"}},\"gradients\":[]}}]}__CONFIG_colors_palette__<\/div>\n\t\n\t\tBurning Questions<\/span><\/span>\n\t<\/a>\n<\/div><\/div>Abortion in the Bible: Does the Bible Say It's a Sin?<\/h2><\/div>
__CONFIG_post_symbol__{\"id\":\"17827\"}__CONFIG_post_symbol__<\/div><\/div>\t<\/span><\/div>The Bible in Context: Ancient Documents, Not a Modern Rulebook<\/h2><\/div>
\n\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<\/div>\n\t<\/span><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n\t<\/span><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\t\n\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<\/div>\n\t<\/span><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n\t<\/span><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\tAbortion in the Bible: Key Old Testament Passages<\/h2><\/div>
Does the Bible Mention Abortion? Exodus 21:22\u201323<\/h3><\/div>
\n\t<\/div>\n\t