Some Food for Thought on Things “Biblical”
The US Supreme Court ruled recently on the
contraception-abortion-healthcare issue citing that a person’s biblical
understanding of when life begins can be the measure of whether or not that
person, or a corporation defined as a person, must provide contraception
devices and medication as part of a health-care “package.” Somewhere buried in
their decision the justices who so found sided with a notion that the Bible
defines human life as beginning at conception. While such a notion may be
scientific, it does not appear to be biblical.
From the beginning in Genesis chapter 2, the second of two
creation stories in the Bible (the first being Genesis chapter 1), the first
human is given life, or a soul (Hebrew: nefesh) with God breathing into a
handful of moist dust (clay?): Then the
LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the
breath of life; and man became a living being.
Both the Bible and its earliest commentaries, the Talmud,
have asserted that the life or ensoulment of the fetus begins when one draw’s
one’s first breath outside the womb. The
act of birth changes the status of fetus from non-person to person. Indeed, throughout the Bible the association
of breath with life persists. In Job 33:4 we read, “The spirit of God has made
me, the breath of the Almighty has given me life.” Similarly the prophet Isaiah proclaims, “Thus
says God the LORD, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread
out the earth and its offspring, Who gives breath to the people on it And
spirit to those who walk in it…”
It is fair to say that the Bible knows nothing of modern
medical notions of fertilization, implantation, viability and so forth. To
argue a legal position supporting a “religious” held view based on the Bible,
the justices might have done well to research what the Biblical view of life and
when it begins. I have no illusions that this will convince anyone to change
their point of view, but rather to point out the difficulties that prevail when
one declares, “The Bible says….” Surely counter arguments will be made from
texts such as Psalm 139 (“…you knit me together in my mother’s womb…”),
although it is equally unclear whether it is an individual or the people Israel
that is being knit together in such texts.
Further complicating a biblical view is the undeniable fact
that although the Bible does not appear to have a view on contraception at all,
it does offer conditions under which inducing a miscarriage (abortion) is prescribed (Numbers chapter 5), and in
Exodus 21 suggests that if a pregnant woman gets entangled in a fight between
two men and accidentally miscarries the fetus, it is the life of the mother
that is at stake, not that of the fetus.
All of which is to say that perhaps it is inconvenient at
best to rely on there being “a biblical view” on either abortion or
contraception. Having wrestled with the
texts for decades, the view that life begins with breath outside the womb
appears to be what the Bible knows as when “life begins.”
Then there is immigration. It is undeniable that throughout
most of the Bible the majority of people addressed by and discussed by the
biblical texts are migratory people – Bedouin people who move with their flocks
and herds from place to place seeking water and food in a region of the world
that offers little of either. It appears that throughout most of human history
people have been inherently migratory until relatively recently.
In fact, the people of the Bible are so often on the move
that the language of the Hebrew texts is derived almost entirely from verb
forms – that is, biblical Hebrew seems to reflect the constant movement of the
people who become Israel – those who strive with God.
Further, looking at the current US crisis in immigration,
remembering a little US history may be instructive. Under President James Polk,
who was entranced by visions of “manifest destiny”, the US-Mexico war was
provoked, as we now know, as an
intentional land-grab – the US simply provoked a conflict and occupied, stole,
forced a settlement to take away much of the constitutional territory of Mexico
including present day Texas (annexed before the war, but with no agreement with
Mexico), Arizona, New Mexico, California, Utah, Nevada, parts of Colorado,
Oklahoma, Kansas and Wyoming!
All previously Spanish held territories that had been
liberated from the European colonizers and made an independent Mexico. Like all
of North America, the indigenous peoples had been pushed aside with notions of
Manifest Destiny and Progress while an independent Mexico represented an
attempt at reclaiming what had been natural migratory lands for peoples who had
roamed and lived on these lands for tens of thousands of years.
It seems not to occur to the parties debating “immigration
policy” that those of “us” determining who should be let across the borders
were all either a) immigrants ourselves, or b) enslaved people forced to come
to this continent against their will. And that the ancestors of those crossing
the borders illegally or otherwise roamed these lands for tens of thousands of
years before “we” even considered the idea that the Earth is round?
There is to be no question that the drug cartels manipulate
the situation in an attempt to distract the US from interdiction of illegal
drugs – which “business” is no-doubt threatened by the expanding legalization
and propagation efforts growing (literally) throughout the US.
But does any of this justify the kind of populist xenophobia
that is seeking to deny attempts to process and care for children, teens and
women who are being squeezed from both sides, and who, for all we know, have
some sort of DNA coding that hearkens back to a time, historically not so long
ago, when their people freely roamed what we call the southwest in search of
water and food for their herds and flocks?
The biblical view on such questions is clear and unequivocal:
like Abraham hosting the three visitors by the oaks at Mamre (Genesis 18): you
are to provide food, comfort and hospitality to the strangers in the land who
have no resources. Resident aliens are a specific class of people who are to be
welcomed and protected. Indeed, that is the original meaning of the Levitical
command to love your neighbor – a command expanded to include people utterly
unlike ourselves by Jesus in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10).
So, to sell more chicken or more hobby supplies and increase
the profit margin, we find persons (disguised as corporations!) hiding behind a
supposed “biblical view” of things to get away with providing the least amount
of health care possible to their employees, while at the same time we seek to
deny safe passage to people whose ancestors never believed that they
“possessed” the land, but that the land provided for them in direct proportion
to the degree to which they took care of the land, so that we can continue to
exploit the land’s natural resources to produce more widgets to sell to the
very people we seek to expel from our country. All in the name of being
“biblical” Christians!
Sure enough, the biblical view on things is terribly
inconvenient when one actually reads the Bible.
No comments:
Post a Comment