So I’m studying Ezekiel this year and I have finally come to the famous thirty-seventh chapter, in which Ezekiel sees a vision of a valley of dry, dead bones. God tells the prophet to speak to the bones and promise a day of rejuvenation. When he does, the bones arrange themselves into skeletons, and then tendons and muscle and skin are formed around them, completing the design of human beings. The whole text is great, but here’s the verse relevant to this discussion…

And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them. 

(Ezekiel 37:8)

Just as God predicted, after the bones were arranged, the skeletons became linked by sinews, and covered with flesh and skin. The end result was a body, fully formed but still very much dead. It takes more than flesh and bone to make a life, in other words. After all, if death occurs when the soul leaves the body, then it stands to reason that it takes a living soul to give life to flesh and bone. In this case God will personally breathe the breath of life into these newly-made bodies.

Studying this earlier this week, I couldn’t help but reflect on the recent law that was passed in Texas, which limited abortion in that state to levels not seen since Roe v Wade was passed. A lot of debate has raged and, naturally, those debates have spilled over into the religious sector. For that I am glad: Religion should be the catalyst for cultural discussion and change, not the follower. Religion should be upstream from culture, not downstream. Whether the issue is abortion or taxes or any other aspect of our daily life, the first question we should ask is “What does God think about this?”

So, as we continue to debate abortion, various Bible verses and ideas ought, naturally, be considered. In the course of that, someone might use the text here to point out that life for these bodies did not begin until after they were fully formed. Is that a sound argument? Can we learn anything from this text about life or when life begins? Can this text be used in the debate regarding whether life begins at delivery or conception or at some point mid-pregnancy?

I say no.

For one thing, there is the old axiom: What proves too much proves nothing at all. If you’re going to argue that this verse teaches that life does not begin until the body is fully formed, then what you’re actually arguing is life does not begin until a person reaches adulthood! For another thing, this text cannot be used for to discuss something as particular as abortion (which is designed to terminate a pregnancy and destroy the fetus in the womb before it is naturally delivered) because, in this text, we’re not dealing with a naturally gestating life in the womb of a woman: We’re dealing with a supernatural vision where life is being made, layer by layer, from a pile of bones in the middle of an apocalyptic valley!

It’s the most “apples and oranges” argument you could make in this debate.

Life, in the traditional (natural) sense is procreated when two living people—and man and woman—combine sperm and egg, both of which, individually, are considered “alive” in the same sense that any other living cell in your body is alive. When combined, however, the result is something more than just “alive.” The result is a new “life” that is created. I’m not a scientist or a doctor and my conclusion isn’t based on my being an expert in those fields. I’ll freely admit that I don’t fully understand everything about it. I don’t have to understand it, however: Based on God’s discussion of the life of a child still in his mother’s womb (Exodus 21:22-23), it’s clear that God considers the unborn just as alive as the born. I trust that He understands the science and the medicine behind it and thus considers an unborn child to be a life worth protecting.

After all, He’s the one who breathes life into the unborn in the first place.

~ Matthew