The abomination of shedding innocent blood, especially the life of a child, was addressed last week. The current issue; however, is the shedding of blood of an unborn child. Is there a difference?
And once again, the Bible is not silent on the issue.
There is a great illustration in the Bible addressing the issue. The illustration features Abraham’s son Isaac and Isaac’s wife Rebekah. Isaac was frustrated that he and his wife were childless. Isaac pleaded for Rebekah to conceive and God responded.
“Now Isaac pleaded with the LORD for his wife, because she was barren; and the LORD granted his plea, and Rebekah his wife conceived.” Genesis 25:21
Not only was Rebekah with child, she was carrying twins. She was having complications with her pregnancy and she inquired to the LORD as to why.
“But the children struggled together within her; and she said, ‘If all is well, why am I like this?’ So she went to inquire of the LORD.” Genesis 25:22
The Hebrew for ‘children’ in the present context is exactly the same word used when the Israelites offered their children to Baal. It means a young one, or a youth.
God then explained to Rebekah that she was carrying the progenitors of two distinct nations. In other words, God had a plan for each of the twins before they were born. And God’s plan was totally contrary to the law regarding birth rights.
“Two nations are in your womb, two peoples shall be separated from your body; one people shall be stronger than the other, and the older shall serve the younger.” Genesis 25:23
Of course, the boys were Jacob and Esau.
This example was so significant that Paul wrote of it two thousand years later.
“…when Rebecca…had conceived by…our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, ‘The older shall serve the younger.’ As it is written, ‘Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.’” Romans 9:10-13
Paul confirmed that those in the womb are children just as those who are born and live outside of the womb. There is no difference in the eyes and mind of God.
God has a purpose for His chosen which has been established long before the birth of His children. Therefore, His purpose doesn’t depend on the actions of the children; it is preordained.
Is then the ‘age of accountability’ a Scriptural teaching or a church tradition?
Consider further the numerous times in the Bible when a person is called by name and their purpose revealed even centuries before their physical birth.
Perhaps King David said it best as he tried to express the majesty and sovereignty of God.
“My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret…Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them.” Psalm 139:15-16
David confirms that God’s purpose for His chosen was set in ages past and their days determined and outlined before they were even formed in their mother’s womb. Their days are already numbered and recorded in the Book of Life.
Roe v. Wade has legally allowed the murder of approximately 57 million children.
Such a law brings to mind the words of Jesus to the Pharisees.
“Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? …Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.” Matthew 15:3, 6
The current issue of murdering unborn children and harvesting their body parts for profit is clearly addressed in Scripture.
Does the early commandment given to Noah still apply? Everyone can decide for themselves.
“Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man.” Genesis 9:6
And remember, a child is a child whether running across the room into your protective arms or resting in peace within his/her mother’s protective womb awaiting birth.
Share your thoughts walt.thrun@gmail.com