Are abortion bans the Christian thing to do?
A look at anger and murder

The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a near-total abortion ban from 1864 is enforceable. Some will question, it is constitutional? But my question goes to a higher level – are abortion bans the Christian thing to do?

The adjacent image is meant to show the tone of the arguments around the abortion issue.

The “X” is red, to indicate blood. Of course, the blood was shed during the abortion. Also any blood shed during protests on either side of the issue.

And let’s not forget, at least for Christians, the blood Jesus shed on the cross for our salvation. The blood of the One we promised to follow, and to become more like as we grow in our faith.

The white is to show the righteousness, whether it be self-righteous or not, of the people on both sides of the abortion issue.

And the black sky, filled with storm clouds shows the intensity of the participants on both sides.

Once again, let us also consider how God views us, including the Christians, on both sides of the argument.

Finally, the tattered banner shows the effect of all this on the people involved. And, once again for the Christians, what it does to our view of God.

Are abortion bans the Christian thing to do?

Are abortion bans the Christian thing to do? I know quite a few Christians who say absolutely yes. And they’ll vote for anyone who is anti-abortion. No matter what else they may be either in favor of or against, abortion is the only deciding factor when they vote.

So, let’s get it out right away. If God is love, as we claim to believe, is abortion such an important issue that it overrides everything else that may be happening in the world right now?

Put another way, does the Great Commission tell us to go out and make abortion bans, near-total or not, the law of the land?

Or, how about this – how many times did Jesus go to the Roman authorities to get His beliefs enshrined into Caesar’s law?

Are we really following Jesus’ teachings and example?

In the passage titled “Seven Woes” in Matthew’s Gospel, we read the following in the final verses:

Seven Woes

23:1-7 pp — Mk 12:38, 39; Lk 20:45, 46
23:37-39 pp — Lk 13:34, 35
…

Mt 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’’”

In this statement, Jesus told them, or today telling us, about something they knew, but maybe we don’t anymore. The mother hen protects her babies when there’s danger. Jesus wants to take on that role for us. He wants to protect us. Especially to protect our eternal souls. But we’re like the little baby chicks that don’t listen to their mother. They run away and put themselves in danger. In the same way, we run away from Jesus, from the things He taught us and modeled for us, and we put our souls in danger.

So the question here is – when we take an anti-abortion stance, passing extreme laws, are we running away from what Jesus taught? Yes, we might be protecting a life. But do we ever stop and consider that maybe the way we go about trying to protect a life could have devastating effects on many souls, including our own?

What’s the difference between calling someone a fill and murdering them?

Of course, there’s the old saying – “sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me”. And that’s fine, at a certain level. From a certain point of view.

We now have finally begun to realize that calling people names does cause pain. For instance, parents who call their children worthless bums who’ll never amount to anything cause all sorts of damage. Damage that lasts far longer than breaking a bone.

But what about the person who called someone else a name? Is there any damage to that person? Maybe you say no, of course not. After all, it’s only words. But Jesus said something very different.

Murder

5:25, 26 pp — Lk 12:58, 59

Mt 5:21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Mt 5:23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.

Mt 5:25 “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26 I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.”

Just in case you don’t know what “raca” means, here it is:

32.61 ῥακά (a borrowing from Aramaic): one who is totally lacking in understanding—‘numbskull, fool.’ ὃς δ̓ ἂν εἴπῃ τῷ α’δελφῷ αυ’τοῦ, Ρακά, ἔνοχος ἔσται τῷ συνεδρίῳ ‘whoever says to his brother, You fool, will be brought before the Council’ Mt 5:22.  ²Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). In Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition., Vol. 1, p. 387). United Bible Societies.

Now, think about what you call people who had an abortion, or even are just considering having an abortion. And don’t forget what you think about them in the “privacy” of your own head/mind. That’s a head/heart/mind that Jesus is totally aware of.

And now, in light of what Jesus said above, think about the difference between your thoughts/words about someone who has/had/will have an abortion – and the actual person. Both will be in danger of the fire of hell.

I know we often hear about raca and fool being the same thing. But Jesus’ words seem to indicate that raca is different from fool. If we go back to the root word from which raca comes, we see this:

7386 רֵיק [reyq, req /rake/] adj. From 7324; TWOT 2161a; GK 8199; 14 occurrences; AV translates as “empty” six times, “vain” five times, “emptied” once, “vain men” once, and “vain fellows” once. 1 empty, vain. 1A empty (of vessels). 1B empty, idle, worthless (ethically).  ³Strong, J. (1995). In Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.

There may be a difference between the two words, but is it that much of a difference?

And why is one of them answerable to the Sanhedrin and one of them in danger of the fire of hell? What’s really going on here?

Anger as Murder

Six times in verses 21–43 Jesus cites Scripture and then, like a good rabbi, explains it (5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43). The sort of wording he uses (especially “You have heard”) was used by other Jewish teachers to establish the fuller meaning of a text, although Jesus speaks with greater authority than Jewish teachers normally claimed.

While I was researching this topic, I came across an interesting thought from a Messianic Jewish commentary on why Jesus sometimes said, “you may have heard”. It begins along the lines of what this author said, but then expanded on it. I’ll add a link here after I write that up. You can either check back or subscribe using this link to get an email when new things are added: Subscribe to godversusreligion.com

5:21–22. “Raca” is *Aramaic for “empty-headed or worthless”; the insult is about the same as the one that follows it, “Fool!” The punishments are also roughly equal: the (day of God’s) judgment, the heavenly Sanhedrin or supreme court, and hell. (Jewish literature described God’s heavenly tribunal as a supreme court, or sanhedrin, parallel to the earthly one.) “The hell of fire” is literally “the *Gehenna of fire.” Teachers envisioned Gehinnom as the opposite of paradise; in Gehinnom the wicked would be burned up (according to some Jewish teachers) or eternally tortured (according to other Jewish teachers). Here the addition of “fire” makes Gehinnom’s fiery character all the more emphatic. Some other Jewish teachers would have agreed that not only the outward act of murder but also the inward choice of anger that generates such acts violates the spirit of God’s *law against murder.

I could add so much to just this one paragraph. For instance, what is the “heavenly Sanhedrin”? Or, what’s the difference between raca and fool? Plus, what’s the correct word in between the statements Jesus made about using the terms raca and fool? Is it “but” or “and”? It can make a huge difference. Also, what do the Greek words that we read as raca and fool actually mean? Finally, what’s the context of this claim Jesus made about using these words?

That’s a whole lot of stuff. I’ll add other posts to cover them, otherwise this’ll get way too long. Not to mention, there’s enough in each of them that they deserve to be analyzed on their own. So, I’ll add links here when they’re published.

For now, rather than provide nothing on this section, here’s a brief but fairly common way of looking at this portion:

Verses 21–26

The Jewish teachers had taught, that nothing except actual murder was forbidden by the sixth commandment. Thus they explained away its spiritual meaning. Christ showed the full meaning of this commandment; according to which we must be judged hereafter, and therefore ought to be ruled now. All rash anger is heart murder. By our brother, here, we are to understand any person, though ever so much below us, for we are all made of one blood. “Raca,” is a scornful word, and comes from pride: “Thou fool,” is a spiteful word, and comes from hatred. Malicious slanders and censures are poison that kills secretly and slowly. Christ told them that how light soever they made of these sins, they would certainly be called into judgment for them. We ought carefully to preserve Christian love and peace with all our brethren; and if at any time there is a quarrel, we should confess our fault, humble ourselves to our brother, making or offering satisfaction for wrong done in word or deed: and we should do this quickly; because, till this is done, we are unfit for communion with God in holy ordinances. And when we are preparing for any religious exercises, it is good for us to make that an occasion of serious reflection and self-examination. What is here said is very applicable to our being reconciled to God through Christ. While we are alive, we are in the way to his judgement-seat; after death, it will be too late. When we consider the importance of the case, and the uncertainty of life, how needful it is to seek peace with God, without delay.  ⁴Henry, M., & Scott, T. (1997). Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary (Mt 5:21). Logos Research Systems.

5:23–24. Judaism stressed reconciliation between individuals; God would not accept an outward offering if one had oppressed or mistreated one’s neighbor and did not make it right. In the *Old Testament God accepted only sacrifices offered with a pure heart toward him and one’s neighbor (Gen 4:4–7; Prov 15:8; Is 1:10–15; Jer 6:20; Amos 5:21–24).

Verses 23-24 are messy, aren’t they? “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.”

It’s bad enough to realize we’re not supposed to get angry with people who want to have an abortion. Now, we find out that when we realize we were wrong, we’re supposed to go back and reconcile with them!

But, will we even be able to realize the anger was against God? That our anger gets in the way of our relationship with God? That we’ve sinned against God? And that we’ve sinned against the people we’re angry at?

Here we are, thinking we’re doing God’s work, and we find our we’re doing something God doesn’t even want us to do. And on top of that, we’re hindering God’s ability to work through us. How? Because while we’re busy being angry with people, we’re not listening to the Holy Spirit.

5:25–26. Again Jesus returns to the image of the heavenly court (5:22). Here he may use the custom of debt imprisonment as another image in the *parable; this was a non-Jewish custom, but Jewish hearers would have known about it among the *Gentiles. No mercy would be shown: the amount of money to be repaid extended to the last (literally) quadrans, almost the least valuable Roman coin, the equivalent of only a few minutes’ wages. (Details like the “officer” make the parable work as a story but do not symbolize anything in particular. Ancient storytellers did not invest meaning in every detail of their parables; see “parable” in the glossary.)  ⁵Keener, C. S. (2014). The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Second Edition, pp. 57–58). IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press.

While this example may have been about a non-Jewish custom, remember that Jesus did also tell another parable about debt that’s relevant to us today and fits in with this.

The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant

Mt 18:21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?”

Mt 18:22 Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.

Mt 18:23 “Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24 As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. 25 Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.

Mt 18:26 “The servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’ 27 The servant’s master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.

Mt 18:28 “But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. ‘Pay back what you owe me!’ he demanded.

Mt 18:29 “His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.’

Mt 18:30 “But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31 When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.

Mt 18:32 “Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33 Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ 34 In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.

Mt 18:35 “This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart.”

I think this is relatively clear. I don’t yet have anything written on this yet, but will add a link for that as well when it’s published.

What did Jesus tell us about taking our faith issues to the government?

The passage below comes from a specific example: taxes. And yet, because it was a narrow question used by the Pharisees to try and trap Jesus, Jesus turned it into a very broad question. It was no longer a question of only paying taxes. Instead, it became an issue of allegiance. Jesus raised the reality that in this world, we have to make decisions on whether our allegiance is to the government or to God.

Paying Taxes to Caesar

22:15-22 pp — Mk 12:13-17; Lk 20:20-26

Mt 22:15 Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16 They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”

Mt 22:18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?”

Mt 22:21 “Caesar’s,” they replied.
Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

Mt 22:22 When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

What we have with the abortion issue today, as was the case with the tax question ns Jesus’ time, is an attempt to mix politics and religion. Therefore, I chose the comments below to address today’s abortion crisis.

Which parts of the abortion issue go to God, and which go elsewhere?

The Tribute Question (22:15–22)

Christians concerned about political issues and church-state relations eagerly approach this passage, hoping to find a principle to guide them through the maze of contemporary controversies. We must be careful, however, not to draw from the passage more than it contains.

The warning about not drawing more from the passage than we should is likely to be claimed by all sides of the abortion issue today. But really, we need to look at both the original question and especially how Jesus chose to answer that question in order to determine what’s in or out of scope as far as conclusions we could draw. So let’s see where this goes.

Know where each part of the question truly comes from

According to Matthew and Mark, the question about paying the Roman tax is brought to Jesus by a coalition of Pharisees and Herodians. We know little about the latter, but their name suggests that they were a secular political party that supported the right of Herod the Great’s successors to rule Palestine. By necessity they were pro-Roman, since no one could rule any segment of the Mediterranean world without Rome’s approval. The Pharisees, on the other hand, tended to be quietists who resented the Roman occupation but accepted it as a necessary evil; they counseled submission as long as Rome did not interfere with the practice of religion. These diverse groups are brought together in this incident by their common opposition to Jesus. Their intention is to place Jesus on the horns of a dilemma. If he argues against paying the tax, they will be able to accuse him to Pilate of anti-Roman activity. On the other hand, if he supports the tax, he will be bound to lose some of his support in the general population, for whom the tribute was not only an economic burden but also a hated symbol of lost freedom.

This is background info for the players in the scene. The “trappers” – the Pharisees and Herodians, and the intended “trapee” – Jesus. Today, it’s the anti-abortion people vs the pro-abortion people. But the question still remains – is this a political issue or a religious issue? Or maybe some of both? And if it’s both, which parts belong to Caesar and which to God?

Is this about religion – government? About love – or hate?

It should be noted that the question, while profoundly political, is phrased in religious terms: “Is it permitted …?” (cf. 12:2). The question can be paraphrased: “Does it accord with Torah to pay tax to Caesar or not?” One facet of the legal question involves God’s ownership of the land of Israel: “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine” (Lev. 25:23). Since Caesar is a usurper, is it not an act of disobedience to God to pay a tax to this pagan ruler?

Did I mention, it was a trap? And that we had to be careful about conclusions drawn? That’s because those asking the question weren’t really looking for a real answer. Rather, they were looking to create a problem. A problem for Jesus, who was supposed to answer the question they intended. Instead, Jesus chose to answer something far beyond what was intended to have been asked.

Obviously, the tax question was meant to be simple. But Jesus made it complex. Some people want to make this question simple. Simple, as in killing a baby is illegal, and oh by the way a baby is a person as soon as, well as soon as whatever any given person or group wants it to be. There isn’t even agreement over that.

But it’s not really that simple, even if they could agree on when a baby is a person.

What do I mean by that? Did you know in the U.S., we have a hard time agreeing on what murder is when someone’s killed by a drunk driver.

Consider the adjacent image of a car crash. The state in which the accident took place could have an impact on whether the charges are murder or manslaughter if someone died and the driver was drunk. There are other considerations as well that impact whether or not murder charges might be forthcoming.

And yet, if some people have their way, abortion would always lead to murder charges, even for anyone complicit in pretty much any way. The mother. The doctor and maybe others in the clinic/hospital who performed the abortion. The person who drove the woman to the clinic. And more.

Below is a summary by MS Copilot AI, to my question: “are there any statutes related to murder specifically for drunk driving? Or, if a drunk driver kills a person, is it always some form of manslaughter?“, along with the relevant links to its sources.

If a drunk driver causes the death of another person, the legal consequences can vary based on the specific circumstances and the state’s laws. Here are the key distinctions:

Be prepared for the Holy Spirit to try to answer the real question – not the one you asked

Instead of taking the baited hook by discussing the legal niceties of the issue, Jesus calls for a Roman coin, knowing that the tax can be paid only in Roman currency. When a silver denarius is presented to him, he asks, “Whose image is this, and whose inscription?” Most probably the head of the coin showed the head of the reigning emperor, and the tail an inscription that identified him as “Tiberius Caesar, Son of the Divine Augustus, Pontifex Maximus,” that is, as high priest of the pagan Roman religion. Exodus 20:4 prohibits “graven images” of any kind. Yet here, in the most holy space in the holy land, Jesus’ adversaries promptly produce a coin that violates the dictates of their religion! The hypocrisy is obvious. They are happy to do business with Caesar’s coins. Why then should they raise a religious question about giving Caesar his due?

The image shows a denarius, but with Jesus’ image instead of the current Emperor.

I did this to show the situation they tried to set up for Jesus. The impossibility of this coin shows the hypocrisy of their question.

While that scenario was about money, there are all sorts of cases where things in this world conflict with the things of God. Our task, with the help of the Holy Spirit, is to discern, as Jesus pointed out, which ones go to Caesar and which to God.

Or, on a wider scale such as what we have with abortion, which go to the devil and which go to God. Many times, there aren’t easy answers.

To that end, yes, by all means, ask the Holy Spirit for guidance. However, be prepared to have other questions asked of you as well.

The answers, as well as the question, aren’t easy

Since the question posed by the opponents is sufficiently answered by the object lesson and the first half of Jesus’ epigram, special weight must be attached to the second half, “and to God the things that are God’s.” Perhaps we should imagine Jesus pausing in the middle of the sentence, so that the full force of the conclusion will be felt by his audience. Although there is strict parallelism between the two halves, they are by no means of equal significance, because Caesar’s role is so vastly inferior to God’s. That is, Jesus is not saying, “There is a secular realm and there is a religious realm, and equal respect must be paid to each.” The second half practically annuls the first by preempting it. In Jewish religious thought, foreign kings had power over Israel only by permission from God. Tax may be paid to Caesar because it is by God’s will that Caesar rules. When God chooses to liberate his people, Caesar’s power will avail him nothing.  ⁶Hare, D. R. A. (1993). Matthew (pp. 253–254). John Knox Press.

Notice, Jesus answered the unasked question about paying taxes. And if we, as Christians, honestly and with an open heart/mind ask the Holy Spirit for guidance, He’ll do the same thing.

The answer to the abortion question is hard

I used to think abortion was an easy issue. It’s wrong. It’s a sin. If only things were that simple.

I came to realize that they aren’t. That I was wrong about it being so easy. It’s not easy. Not if we take the time and effort to listen to what the Holy Spirit tries to tell us. No, He won’t break through the barriers we set up for Him. He is what we’re told He is in the Bible.

Do you remember when The LORD appeared to Elijah? Check out especially the highlighted portion.

The LORD Appears to Elijah

And the word of the LORD came to him: “What are you doing here, Elijah?”

1Ki 19:10 He replied, “I have been very zealous for the LORD God Almighty. The Israelites have rejected your covenant, broken down your altars, and put your prophets to death with the sword. I am the only one left, and now they are trying to kill me too.”

1Ki 19:11 The LORD said, “Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the LORD, for the LORD is about to pass by.”
Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake. 12 After the earthquake came a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper. 13 When Elijah heard it, he pulled his cloak over his face and went out and stood at the mouth of the cave.
Then a voice said to him, “What are you doing here, Elijah?”

1Ki 19:14 He replied, “I have been very zealous for the LORD God Almighty. The Israelites have rejected your covenant, broken down your altars, and put your prophets to death with the sword. I am the only one left, and now they are trying to kill me too.”

1Ki 19:15 The LORD said to him, “Go back the way you came, and go to the Desert of Damascus. When you get there, anoint Hazael king over Aram. 16 Also, anoint Jehu son of Nimshi king over Israel, and anoint Elisha son of Shaphat from Abel Meholah to succeed you as prophet. 17 Jehu will put to death any who escape the sword of Hazael, and Elisha will put to death any who escape the sword of Jehu. 18 Yet I reserve seven thousand in Israel—all whose knees have not bowed down to Baal and all whose mouths have not kissed him.”

Yes, the Lord was in the gentle whisper. What we call today, the still small voice of the Holy Spirit.

In order to hear that still small voice of the Holy Spirit, we must first learn to recognize Him.

Even after we recognize Him, we still need to take the time to listen.

The adjacent inset box leads to a more general case of practicing how to live out our Christian life.

This current topic on abortion is one of many times when it can be very difficult. Our first reaction isn’t to listen. It’s to assume we “know” what God wants, and just react.

The thing is, with abortion, as with so many other things, our own priorities often get in the way of realizing God’s priorities may be different.

Even when we’re 100% certain our thoughts align with God’s, we still have to check in with Him before we act.

Even when we think “sin” means we must punish the “sinner”, that may not be God’s first desire for us. We see this below:

Unbelief of the Jewish Leaders

…

[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53–8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]

Jn 7:53 Then each went to his own home.
Jn 8:1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
Jn 8:9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
Jn 8:11 “No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

Of course, that person wasn’t a murderer. However, it was still a capital offense according to Jewish law, as we see below:

Punishments for Sin

Lev 20:1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 “Say to the Israelites:
…

Lev 20:10 “ ‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
…

I know, many people today don’t even think adultery is s sin anymore. But that doesn’t mean God changed His mind. And even though the sin of adultery today doesn’t lead to a capital offense from a human court, there’s still punishment due from God. Whether the price is paid by us or by Jesus depends on us. But it’s still paid. And if it’s paid by us, because we refused God’s offer of salvation through Jesus, then the price is still death – the second death – eternity in Hell.

Check in with the Holy Spirit

Even if you choose to ignore the passage above, like if you think it doesn’t apply, there’s still this one, which always applies, regardless of the offense:

Judging Others – Matthew

Mt 7:1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Mt 7:3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”

Yes – before we judge anyone for anything, we really need to work on this one. Look in the mirror first. Then, maybe, we’ll get the point Jesus was trying to make with the woman accused of adultery. Before we accuse someone of murder by way of an abortion, we’d best better check out ourselves to see who all we’ve “murdered” in the sense that Jesus tells us to consider the word “murder”.

Conclusion – Are abortion bans the Christian thing to do?

Am I getting through yet? If not, I have one last thing. It’s something Jesus commanded all of His followers to do.

The Great Commission

Mt 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

What are you/we doing when trying to pass laws condemning abortions for Christian reasons? We hold up Christianity as the reason anyone involved in any way should be subject to trial for murder because of the sanctity of life. There’s no way around that – we’re using Christianity as our reasoning.

And yet, doesn’t that present a problem? How can we even begin to talk about the love of Jesus when we use the language and the tactics in use today against abortion? How can we begin to save the souls of people while we hate them so much and want to put them in jail for murder?

Yes, I believe abortion is a sin. But it’s not such an easy thing to solve. Think about this. Oftentimes the same “religious” conservatives are raging against abortion, they’re also cutting back on help for the pregnant poor women. And cutting back on assistance for them when they’re single.

Solving our economic problems in our countries by paying people less, having government regulators of the economy that ensure a certain percentage of people are unemployed, because if too many people are working, then inflation goes up.

And we make sure people don’t get paid too much, because inflation would go up even more. And if the lower rank people get paid more, then the higher ups will get paid less.

We’ve created, and we maintain, a system where a certain percentage of people cannot earn a living wage. And then we punish them for the failures that we’ve set them up for.

And then we call ourselves Christians.

I wonder what Jesus thinks of all this. Do you wonder?

Final thoughts on Are abortion bans the Christian thing to do?

Don’t get me wrong here – I do believe abortion is a sin. But is our task, as Christians, to get vengeance, or to save souls? There’s a lot of passion on both sides of this issue. But if everyone who uses God as their motivation for the actions they take focused on saving souls, then maybe things would be better all around.

Think about it. Jesus spent time with the sinners. He didn’t go to the Roman government or to the Jewish leaders to get the sinners punished. No, Jesus was more concerned about their eternal souls. As Jesus’ representatives on earth today, shouldn’t we do the same thing?

---

Images by MS Designer with DALLE-3 per my prompts

---

Footnotes

• 1
  Summary is a modified/corrected version of one generated by MS Copilot
• 2
  Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). In Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition., Vol. 1, p. 387). United Bible Societies.
• 3
  Strong, J. (1995). In Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.
• 4
  Henry, M., & Scott, T. (1997). Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary (Mt 5:21). Logos Research Systems.
• 5
  Keener, C. S. (2014). The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Second Edition, pp. 57–58). IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press.
• 6
  Hare, D. R. A. (1993). Matthew (pp. 253–254). John Knox Press.