Part I - September 14, 2022

As Christians, our regard for the unborn and born alike must surely be governed by our commitment to Jesus Christ, the incarnate Creator and Lord of every human being, who was conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary and born to be the brother and Redeemer of humankind.  

(Thomas F. Torrance, “The Being and Nature of the Unborn Child”) 

Part I: Man, the Image of God  

We begin with the beginning.  When God created humankind, God did so in a way that set man apart from the rest of creation. In the story of Genesis, this is communicated in many different ways. For every other creature, God spoke, and it was. God said, “Let there be …” And there was. But with the creation of man, God did not merely speak to nothingness. God spoke first amongst himself. God said, “Let us make man.” There was a beautiful divine conferral amongst the three persons of God. It is as if God is saying, “It is good that all things exist. But there is one thing amongst all creation that will have Our special concern from the beginning, and We will love this creation to the end. Even the end of Our own life.” And so God not only made man, but God made man in his image. Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Genesis 1:26). Only man was created in the image of God, in the imago Dei.   

What does it mean for man to be made in the image of God? Three answers have prevailed in the history of the church. I believe that all three are true, and must all be held together. The third we will leave for next week.  

The first, and far and away the most important, is given in the New Testament. Colossians 1 says,  

He [that is, Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.  

To be made in the image of God is to be made, even at the beginning, in Christ, who is himself the image of God. We were made in the image of God, he is the image of God. I have said many times before that often the Gospel is contained in the prepositions. This is one of those instances. From the beginning, adamkind was made in Christ. From the beginning, we were made through Christ and for Christ. We were made to be like him in ways that the rest of creation was not. Why did God wait many thousands of years after creating mankind for our prototype to appear? All we can say in response to this is what Saint Paul says in Galatians 4:  

4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. 

God waited for his human creatures to fall into sin and bondage, so that they could be redeemed from that sin, and that God would receive the glory for doing a work even greater than his initial creation. So for man to made in the image of God means that we were created in the one that would eventually save man. We were created, from the beginning, with God’s eye set toward his glorious redemption of his enemies.  

Each of the three aspects of being made in the image of God explain what is often called the dignity of man. In this first aspect, we see that the dignity of man is ineluctable and irreducibly bound up with God’s eternal purpose for man. That is, the dignity of man, from the beginning, looks beyond its mere earthly existence. C. S. Lewis describes this aspect of the dignity of man in a lovely way: 

It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree helping each other to one or the other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all of our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. 

Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations - these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit - immortal horrors or everlasting splendors. 1 

The dignity of man is that man was made for eternity with God. This sets man apart from all other creatures, rational and irrational, earthly and heavenly.  

Secondly, the image of God in man means that God not only can speak about man, and not can God speak to man, but God can speak to man and await a response. 2 Included in this are all of the rational faculties of man: the ability to think, the ability to abstract, the ability to think about the future, the ability to reflect upon the fact of one’s existence and rational faculties, etc. These all converge in man’s ability to communicate, and therefore to commune, to have fellowship and intimacy. This is clearly bound up with the first aspect of being created in the image of God. God spoke creation into existence. At the center of God’s relation to creation is God’s Word. Only man has been created in such a way that speak in response. We communicate, and in that communication, we know and are known. Not all communication is done through speaking, but all communication is yet verbal. Said another way, communication is never less than verbal, though it might be more than verbal.  

The final and cumulative purpose of all of man’s rational and verbal and communicative capacities is that man was created to give and receive love. We are the only creatures who have the capacity for love. We are not merely a number of atomic beings bouncing off of one another randomly and intermittently. We were made for lasting bonds of love. Indeed, everlasting bonds of love. We are ordered toward love of God, and love of neighbor. This is shown in Adam’s jubilant exclamation when he beholds the one that was clearly made for him, and for whom he was made, Eve: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of me flesh!” (Geneses 2:23). The dignity of man is that man was made to love one another, and to love God. Man was made in the image of the God who quite simply is love. 

As God’s image bearers, as the enfleshment of love on earth, man was to spread across the face of the earth, spreading the name and glory and love of God wherever they should go. Think again of the quote above from C. S. Lewis. There is quite literally nothing more beautiful and terrible than a human being. Everywhere that man would go, the stamp of God was to be there. And so God blessed man—and note that it is a blessing—saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, and subdue it” (Genesis 1:28). God’s purpose for man always included being reproductive, multiplying the instances of God’s image- and glorybearers on earth. Sharing in the mystery of divine love, their love proves life-giving. THe bearing of children is then a sign of God’s creative love.  

Part II: Personhood in God  

As surprising as it might sound, the concept of “personhood” was not known in any ancient culture. For instance, in ancient Greece and Rome, the same word that they used to identify particular people was also used to identify particular horses and cows. The concept of a person, as we know it today (though the world is somewhat losing the concept) was first worked out in the early church. Christian theology is then the source for the concept of “personhood.” It comes not from reflection on humanity, but on the doctrine of the trinity. How could it be that the church affirms, with Israel in the Shema, that “the LORD our God, the Lord is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4), and yet also affirms that Jesus is Lord and Son of God? And how is it that we can also worship the Spirit as God? The church’s answer, though it took a philosophical revolution of the highest order, was to distinguish between the nature of a thing, and the concretely existing instantiation of that nature. That is, the church made the distinction between natures and persons. There are three persons in one God. They each are equally God, and yet are not the same instantiation of their common nature.  

So what is it that distinguishes God the Father from both God the Son and also God the Holy Spirit? All that we can say is that God is the Father, and is not the Son or the Spirit. Their distinctions are how we identify them. So what is the Name of God? Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All three of these are names of relations (though admittedly the third is harder to see, and opens up lots of complicated theological discussions). That is, “the relations between human beings constitute what they are as persons.” 3 The three persons of God are not each God individually, but only in their relations to one another.  

Part III: Human Personhood  

This distinction between nature and person came to be extended also to human beings. This notion is radically opposed to most modern notions of personhood. We primarily think of persons as individuals. The Christian understanding of human being would say that there is no such thing as a human individual. There are particular persons, but they cannot be truly divided from one another. I do not know enough philosophy to exactly say where modern individualism has come from, but, at least in the United Kingdom and the United States, John Locke was one of the most influential in our understanding of men and women primarily as individuals. Perhaps this was necessary in a legal sphere, but we are far more than legal creatures.  

Part IV: Who is Human?  

Not only do we receive our physical existence from our parents, but we also receive our identity as persons from our parents. For, before we even have a name, we are already our parents’ son or daughter. Before they were even aware of our existence, we were already their child. Prior then to even our named existence, we exist in particular relations to others. In the womb, we are already relational beings—son, daughter, brother, sister, granddaughter, grandson, etc.  

But we exist in yet another relationship. We, from the moment of our conception, exist in a particular relationship to the persons of the Trinity. As God says to the prophet Jeremiah, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations” (Jeremiah 1:5). We can be known by God, and even be given a mission and purpose for life. And we can respond to this calling by God, as John the Baptist, Jesus’ cousin did.  

In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a town in Judah, 40 and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. 41 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. (Luke 1:39–41) 

And as we know that one cannot respond properly to Christ apart from faith, and neither can one have faith apart from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, it is therefore true that one can, while yet in the womb, be in a saving relationship with God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  

Part V: God the Embryo 

In the Nicene Creed, we confess that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. This affirmation is essential for our understanding of salvation. It is not through Christ’s birth that he became one of us. It had happened some nine months earlier: “And the angel answered [Mary], ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God’” (Luke 1:35).  

From the moment of the Annunciation, when “the Angel Gabriel from heaven came,” God had invaded this earth with his subversive plan to set all things right. The invasion had begun. It did not begin on a mountaintop. It did not come upon the clouds with thunder and lightning, with trumpets and fanfare. It began in the most hidden place in all the world—in the womb of a young maiden, a servant girl in Nazareth. In but the pairing of a few cells, God was enfleshed. God became a fetus 4, an embryonic life. One of the Trinity became an embryonic person. God the Son was a fetal person. This particular fetus was filled with the life of God. Indeed, in this embryo, “the whole fullness of Deity dwelt bodily” (Colossians 2:9).  

Christ, from the moment of his conception, was bringing about the salvation of humankind. He lived a fully human life, from the beginning of his human existence, to his crucifixion, death, and resurrection. Christ’s conception was necessary for our salvation, and is therefore part of God’s plan for redeeming all of humankind. As Saint Paul said in his First Epistle to Timothy, which we heard last Sunday, “This trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1 Timothy 1:15).  Our redemption begins in the womb of the Virgin Mary. “In becoming a human being for us, he also became an embryo for the sake of all embryos.” 5  

Part VI: Conclusion 

Therefore, it is the duty of Christians to give proper attention to the way that Christ saved us. And it is the duty of all people to recognize the being of the unborn child as precisely what they are: unborn persons, unborn children, unborn life, nascent humans. “As Christians, our regard for the unborn and born alike must surely be governed by our commitment to Jesus Christ, the incarnate Creator and Lord of every human being, who was conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary and born to be the brother and Redeemer of humankind.” 6 As such, unborn children must be recognized with all of the dignity and worth that we would accord to Jesus Christ himself.  

For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ (Matthew 25:35–40) 

Who is more vulnerable than an unborn child? Who is weaker? Who on earth is poorer? Who is more naked?  

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me. (Matthew 25:41–45) 

The early church, on account of their belief in Christ and their trust in him for salvation, came to regard the unborn fetus in a light that had never been considered before. One of the earliest Christian writings went by the name The Didache, which simply meant The Teaching, i.e., of the Apostles. It was likely written while the Apostle John was still alive. It teaches, as being a direct consequence of the fifth commandments, “You shall not kill an unborn child or murder a newborn infant.” 7 The Epistle of Barnabas, written about the same time and possibly earlier, gives similar instructions, “You shall not murder a child by abortion, nor again kill it after birth.” 8 

It is good and right for us to pay attention to what modern medicine and modern science have to say about the unborn. But, infinitely more important, we must hold before our mind’s eye God’s work of salvation and redemption.  

The way that the question has been construed, as to when life begins, has brought about much confusion. And I think that this confusion is often intentional, intended to obfuscate and cast doubt. People will often say that a clump of cells is clearly not a human being. Is that because the number of cells are too small? What is the number of cells that one must have in order to be considered a human being? Who will be the person who has the authority to say what the minimum number of cells is to qualify for human personhood?  

Is the embryo not a human person because it is incapable of doing anything meaningful? Is the severely disabled person then also not a human being?  

Is the embryo not a human person because it is incapable of rational activity? Is the person with no brain activity a human being? If being a human has to do with active brain activity, do we cease to be human when we are asleep? Such ways of thinking are demonically dangerous.  

We should rather ask the question, what is God’s desire and intention with this developing being? As Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, “Discussion of the question whether a human being is already present confuses the simple fact that, in any case, God wills to create a human being.” 9 This embryo is precisely what a human person looks like and is at this stage of its existence. To destroy the embryo is to destroy the developing human life that this embryo already is now. As modern science has shown, there is no additional genetic material that is needed for this embryo to develop into the fully developed human person.  

I will close with a reading from the NALC’s statement on unborn, or nascent, life: 

In the self-emptying (kenotic) movement of God in the incarnation, He was never more vulnerable, more helpless than when He was in utero, swaddled in amniotic fluid. He was also never more intimately protected, swaddled in the myriad layers of a mother’s love. It is the vision of this love that is ever so needed in this day—a death defying love, an eternal love, a fierce love, a sacrificing love. It is this vision that we are called to bear for the sake of generations to come. For in the disordered loving of a fallen world that removes sexual intercourse from the fidelity, trust, and delight of the marriage bed, there will continue to be the littlest among us, made in the image and likeness of God, who without a holy love, will be unprotected from the lies that say they are neither human nor of any value. In a time in human history when the laws of many nations sanction the destruction of new lives simply because they are an inconvenience, the North American Lutheran Church and Lutheran CORE, and all who belong to the Body of Christ, are called to teach and preach the message that the Lord who created the heavens and the earth, the Lord, who in the power of the Holy Spirit grew in His mother’s womb, the Lord, who in obedience gave His life for all, The Lord is with you. 10 

Part VII: Objections  

1. Bodily autonomy.  Probably the main argument that is now made against preserving the life of the unborn is the supposed claim to a right to bodily autonomy.  
2.  Making abortion illegal puts an undo burden on the poor.  
3.  People should be free to have families only when they want one.  
4.  People should get to choose the children that they have.  
5.  Children are a burden on an ecologically stressed world. 

Appendix I: Suggestions for further reading, thinking 

1. “‘The Lord Is with You’: A Word of Counsel to the Church,” by The Joint Commission on Theology and Doctrine of the North American Lutheran Church and Lutheran CORE 
2. Albert Mohler podcast, “The Briefing.” 
3. Anything written by National Review’s Alexandra DeSanctis.  

Appendix II: Historic Christian instructions on unborn life 

No woman should take drugs for the purposes of abortion, nor should she kill her children that have been conceived or are already born.  If anyone does this, she should know that before Christ's tribunal she will have to plead her case in the presence of those she has killed.  Moreover, women should not take diabolical draughts with the purpose of not being able to conceive children.  A woman who does this ought to realize that she will be guilty of as many murders as the number of children she might have borne.  I would like to know whether a woman of nobility who takes deadly drugs to prevent conception wants her maids or tenants to do so.  Just as every woman wants slaves born for her so that they may serve her, so she herself should nurse all the children she conceives, or entrust them to others for rearing.  Otherwise, she may refuse to conceive children or, what is more serious, be willing to kill souls which might have been good Christians. Now, with what kind of a conscience does she desire slaves to be born of her servants, when she herself refuses to bear children who might become Christians? 

--Saint Caesarius of Arles, Sermon 44.2. Caesarius was a disciple of Augustine. 

By an impious, murderous practice women take poisonous draughts to transmit incomplete life and premature death to their children through their generative organs.  By such an exigency they drink a cup of bereavement with the cruel drug.  O sad persuasion! They maintain that the poison which has been transmitted through their drinking is unconnected with them. Moreover, they do not realize that they conceive in sterility the child which they receive in death, because it was conceived in their flesh. ... Why unhappy mother--or, rather, not even the step-mother of a new-born child--why did you seek, form outside, remedies that would be harmful for eternity?   

--Caesarius, Sermon 52.4.  

_______________

1 C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory, 14–15.  

2 Robert W. Jenson, A Large Catechism.

3 Thomas F. Torrance, “The Being and Nature of the Unborn Child,” Theology Matters 6, no. 4 (Jul/Aug 2000):4.  

4 I know that sometimes people use the word “fetus” or “embryo” in order to avoid words that would connote a living person, or a living being. That is not what I am doing here. More on this below.  

5 Torrance, “Being and Nature,” 3.  

6 Torrance, “Being and Nature,” 5.  

7 Didache 2.2, trans. Francis X. Glimm, in The Apostolic Fathers, FOC 1 (New York: CIMA, 1947), 172.  

8 The Epistle of Barnabas 19.5, trans. Francis X. Glimm, in The Apostolic Fathers, 219–220.  

9 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics, trans. Reinhard Krauss, Charles C. West, and Doglas W. Stott, ed.  Clifford J. Green, vol. 6 in Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, ed. Wayne Whitson Floyd, Jr. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 206.  

10 “'The Lord Is with You’: A Word of Counsel to the Church,” by The Joint Commission on Theology and Doctrine of the North American Lutheran Church and Lutheran CORE.