The Anti-Defilement Covenant

In Garry Wills on Abortion Rights and Is the Bible Anti-Abortion?, I talked about a convincing argument I found in a recent book, Head and Heart: American Christianities by liberal Catholic historian Garry Wills, to the effect that an abortion in the first two trimesters of pregnancy does not amount to the murder of a human person.

A key part of Wills' line of reasoning was that the Bible doesn't really prohibit abortion, not specifically. In fact, the Old Testament book of Numbers (verses 5.11-27) has God telling Moses:

If any man's wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him,
And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken with the manner; And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled:
Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is an offering of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance ... and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse: And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse: But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband ... Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell; And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen ... And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.

Today, we would say the priest is coercing this hypothetically "defiled" woman to use a herbal abortifacient ("bitter water") to terminate her pregnancy! All because the woman's "defilement" has been cast as a "trespass" that has been committed against ... her husband!

In other words, the woman's sexuality, fertility, and reproductive capacity here belong to her husband, not to her. When she is "defiled" (actually, or according to her husband's suspicions) it is as if her (suspected) illicit lover has stolen property ... from the husband. This, the worst possible sort of transgression against the husband, demands that the woman (not the man she has supposedly "lain with") be punished in a most extreme way: "the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people."


The society in question was a patriarchal one in which a female's reproductive capacities are originally owned, when she is still a child, by her father. We still say, do we not, that when a woman is married, her father "gives her away" to her new husband.

In such a view of womanhood, the menfolk of the tribe or society participate in a sort of communal "anti-defilement covenant." Together, the men control each and every woman's sexuality from the cradle to the grave.

According to such a covenant, a woman's sexual chastity is a precious possession, to be guarded at all costs by its possessors: the men. The men collaborate to set up the rules of conduct and official ceremony by which this can reliably be done. In the case of the ancient Hebrews, the rules were said to have come to Moses from God.

The underlying notion is, again, that a woman's sexual and reproductive identity belongs to her husband, her father, her brothers (whose job it is to avenge any adultery or rape committed by or against her), and the tribe's menfolk in general (who are adjured, for the sake of domestic tranquility, to rein in their natural tendency to want to "lie with" this woman or that, and with the other as well).

Looked at in one way, this kind of anti-defilement covenant puts every woman on a pedestal. That doesn't sound so bad. But looked at another way, it makes her into a mere object, a container of fertility by means of which her legitimate husband can reliably secure his own posterity.

This patriarchal idea of womanhood is so crucial to the mores of the Bible that womanhood's "defilement" becomes perhaps the only imaginable God-sanctioned rationale for abortion. On the other hand, an undefiled woman who is pregnant by her husband presumably must never have an abortion, for in so doing she is robbing her husband of his posterity.


An interesting aspect of this patriarchal setup is that it may also explain why the Old Testament comes down so hard against homosexuality.

On the one hand, it might be thought that any man who prefers other men to women would be, as one who is not at all inclined to "defile" the womenfolk, welcomed.

But, as a moment's consideration shows, such a man cannot really be part of the covenant, for the covenant is all about the sacrificial obligations men undertake vis-à-vis other men. A man bound by the covenant is giving up something big: his chance to sow his wild oats. He's making a huge sacrifice. (Perhaps this is why circumcision, the painful sacrificing of foreskin tissue at the tip of the penis, betokens membership in the covenant.)

So a shared sacrifice is what binds the covenanters indissolubly together. A homosexual man is making no real sacrifice by agreeing not to "lie" indiscriminately with the womenfolk. That's not very strong glue, by any means.


We who are Christians or Jews today inherit the ideas about womanhood that were inherent in the original, patriarchal covenant of anti-defilement, and transmitted to us via our Bible and our religious doctrines. But these ideas aren't a good match with our own up-to-date, feminist-inspired notions of womanhood. Feminism and women's liberation have taught us that a woman's sexual and reproductive capacities are her own, to do with as she sees fit.

In a society such as ours, where abortion-on-demand has recently (1973) been made legal, is it any wonder that religious conservatives are absolutely opposed to Roe v. Wade? The idea that a woman can, on her own, choose to have an abortion — or not — is diametrically opposed to the ancient understanding of womanhood implicit in the anti-defilement covenant. According to that understanding, a woman's fertility belongs to the menfolk in her tribe. Only they can adjudicate when an abortion is necessary.

And it is likewise no surprise that religious conservatives are equally adamant that homosexuality will not be tolerated — much less blessed by allowing gays to marry.

It all goes back to ancient ideas about how a tribe or society ought to treat the generative capacity of women: as something belonging to, and in turn demanding costly sacrifice from, men.

Is the Bible Anti-Abortion?

As I detailed in Garry Wills on Abortion Rights, the recent book Head and Heart: American Christianities by liberal Catholic historian Garry Wills argues, in one important section, against the "pro-life" stance of today's Evangelical Protestants and conservative Catholics and Jews. After asserting that there is no authoritative text in the Bible in which God specifically forbids abortions, Wills makes a case that an abortion in the first two trimesters of pregnancy does not amount to the murder of a human person.

Absent definite scriptural guidance, we must fall back on philosophical reasoning about "natural law," Wills says. Given what we now know about fetal development, we can be certain a fetus possesses no high, cognitive brain function until neural synapses form in the brain, at a point twenty-five to thirty-two weeks into pregnancy. Before that juncture — which coincides with the onset of the ability of the fetus to survive outside the womb — the fetus is manifestly not "capable of thought, or of speech, of recognizing itself as a person, of assuming the responsibilities of a person" (p. 528).

Hence, a fetus during the first six months of pregnancy does not have the "intellectual soul" which Thomas Aquinas felt, writes Wills, "is directly created by God 'at the end of human generation' (in fine generationis humanae)" (p. 526).

In modern language, "personhood" as Aquinas defined it doesn't begin until late in pregnancy. Prior to the emergence of personhood, the fetus does not have a soul "directly created by God."


It's a convincing argument — one that I imagine (based on an endnote citation) comes from a book by Daniel A. Dombrowski and Robert Deltete called A Brief, Liberal, Catholic Defense of Abortion, which I intend to read.

But the argument depends on there not being a specific proscription of abortion in the Bible, which is a topic Wills expounds in what is perhaps his lengthiest endnote. I'm going to replicate that endnote here:

Though Jewish tradition did not draw any teaching on abortion from Scripture, modern Christians who believe in what they call the Old Testament try to dredge up something on the subject. Here are some of the desperate expedients.

Psalm 139.13-16 [actually, the verses cited are 13-15]:

For thou hast possessed my reins;
thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made:
marvellous are thy works;
and that my soul knoweth right well.
My substance was not hid from thee,
when I was made in secret,
and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

This says only that God foreknows everything, every stage of a thing's coming into existence — even its primordial patterning in the lowest parts of the earth (whatever that means). That this is not a statement of when a person actually comes into being is seen from Jeremiah 1.5: "before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee."

Exodus 21.22: "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."

The penalty is not for murder (which calls for the death penalty), but a mere fine to the husband for the possibility of losing an heir. This says nothing of the present status of the fetus, only of the future profit to the male. The woman is not treated as having any stake in the matter. Only the man.

Genesis 38.24-26:

[Wills does not actually give the quote, which is: "And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. When she was brought forth, she sent to her father in law, saying, By the man, whose these are, am I with child: and she said, Discern, I pray thee, whose are these, the signet, and bracelets, and staff. And Judah acknowledged them, and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more."]

[Wills paraphrases:] Tamar is brought to be executed, but she is pregnant and is spared. But she is not spared because she is pregnant — that was known when she was condemned to death. She is spared because she produces proof that the father is the head of the tribe, Jonah.

[Then Wills adds:] Actually there is one passage in the Jewish texts that shows God himself inducing an abortion, Numbers 5.11-26 (the Lord is speaking):

[Again, Wills omits the actual text, which (including verse 27) is:]

[And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man's wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him,
And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken with the manner;
And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled:
Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is an offering of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance.
And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD:
And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water:
And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:
And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse:
But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband:
Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell;
And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen.
And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water:
And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter.
Then the priest shall take the jealousy offering out of the woman's hand, and shall wave the offering before the LORD, and offer it upon the altar:
And the priest shall take an handful of the offering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman to drink the water.
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.]

[Wills does provide this interpretation:]

If a woman is suspected of infidelity, her husband must bring her before a priest, who will make her drink "bitter water" into which he has mingled cursed (23). "If she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people" (27).

I don't know whether to call this last example "God himself inducing an abortion," so much as God calling for the priest to induce one, using "bitter water" as an abortifacient. But never mind. It does seem to show that God in that period of history and among those people ordered an illicit fetus of a "defiled" woman to be aborted, does it not?

Garry Wills on Abortion Rights

Garry Wills' Head and Heart: American Christianities is a new book about the many strands of (mostly Protestant) religion in American history. Wills is a liberal Catholic historian with many popular books to his credit, including Why I Am a Catholic.

Head and Heart posits that there are two main strands of American Protestantism: Evangelical and Enlightened. Though at times they have overlapped and cross-pollinated, the former is characterized by a personal, passionate piety, and the latter by a reasoned, philosophical approach.

The two strands didn't really start to separate until the 18th century, during the pre-Revolutionary and then the Revolutionary eras. Going all the way back to the early 1600s, the New England colonies, especially Massachusetts, were home mostly to Puritans, who were Congregationalists officially and Calvinists theologically. Though many of their beliefs and practices sowed the seeds of Evangelical outlooks yet to come, the Puritans were by and large also highly educated and committed to an intellectual approach to religion.

So were the mainly Anglican (Church of England) denizens of Virginia, another leader among the original thirteen colonies. Though these Virginian forerunners of today's American Episcopalians had a different religious outlook from that of the Puritans, they too combined personal piety with reasoned discourse.

The Virginia Anglicans were, however, notably more "liberal" in their outlook than the original Puritans, who imagined that only certain human individuals were predestined to be saved — or "regenerated" — and thus find a heavenly reward. The Puritans feared that even the regenerate among them could be deceived by Satan's wiles and consequently fall away, so they spent a lot of time worrying about the Quakers, Baptists, and supposed "witches" who were their close neighbors and might be agents of the devil.

The Puritans' corporate piety was thus highly normative; dissenters were dealt with harshly. Though there was officially what we would today call "separation of church and state" in the original Puritan colonies, the good offices of local government more often than not functioned to allay the Puritans' religious fears. Unorthodox fellow Puritans and others who had radically different ideas were often silence, exiled, or executed.


Fast forward to the early 21st century. We now have Evangelical Christians pillorying not just atheists and "secular humanists" but also liberal Christians, whom Wills sees as the heirs of the Enlightenment Protestants of the America of the mid-19th century: the Transcendentalists, as represented in Wills' book mainly by Ralph Waldo Emerson.

The Transcendentalists equated their version of Protestant Christianity with a sort of "nature mysticism." Their God was a wonder-of-it-all Creator who did not need to reveal himself through Scripture, or to work miracles. To Emerson, the traditional, Biblical idea of "miracle" was "not one with the blowing clover and the falling rain," and so was a false notion. "Emerson had claimed that all the universe is the only real miracle ... " (p. 264).

Nor was the God of Emerson triune. The Transcendentalists jettisoned the doctrine of the Trinity — as did their intellectual forebears among the Founding Fathers: Jefferson, Madison, and John Adams, among others. The great minds who conceived America were mainly Deists and Unitarians, no matter their nominal (Protestant) denominations.

Those two terms, Deist and Unitarian, were originally synonyms, says Wills. They both referred to a Protestant outlook that was wedded to the notion that our One God has to be uniquely divine ... and so it is wrong to say that He is Three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and contemporary Unitarian/Deist children of the Enlightenment were responsible for that touchstone of religious freedom in America, the portion of the First Amendment that bars the government from "establishing" any one particular religion or denomination as supreme over all others, or from interfering with citizens' "free exercise" of personal conscience in choosing which religion, if any, to follow.

Jefferson in particular, Wills shows, felt that if the government carefully avoided channeling the religiosity of its citizenry, citizens would naturally gravitate to the sort of Unitarian Deism he espoused. But Jefferson was wrong about that. There had already been in America a "Great Awakening," which reversed some of the liberalizing trends of the early 1700s, and a "Second Great Awakening" would occur in the wake of the Emersonian liberalizing of religion in the 1800s. There were Culture Wars even then.


The Culture Wars today are, Wills says, about a lot of things: school prayer, stem cell research, homosexual marriage, sex education, Darwinism, pornography, and on and on. But the centerpiece of the Evangelicals' fight against — well, against the rest of the culture — concerns abortion.

A woman's right to choose an abortion during the first two trimesters of pregnancy was established by the Supreme Court in 1973, in the case of Roe v. Wade. The Court held that the states' erstwhile laws prohibiting abortion were unconstitutional because they violated a woman's "right to privacy," a right said to be latent in the language of the U.S. Constitution as duly amended.

Ever since the Roe decision made abortion legal, Evangelical Christians and many Catholics — together, they form the heart of the "pro-life" movement — have sought to roll Roe back, and to make it possible for the states to once again ban most or all abortions.

Wills shows that the political success of our current president, George W. Bush, was engineered by a close adviser, Karl Rove, by means of uniting Evangelical Protestants with pro-life Catholics, and also equally pro-life Jews, and getting them to vote for the candidate most likely, as president, to appoint Supreme Court justices who would reverse Roe.

As such, says Wills opposition to abortion rights has become "the ecumenical issue" that today suffuses American politics with one particular style of religion, the Evangelical style, writ large to include Catholics and Jews (see pp. 523ff.) Except, Wills demonstrates, abortion is not really a "religious" issue at all.

Wills' argument to this effect is a deft one — and one with which I mostly concur — and I would like to spend some time dissecting it in this post and posts to come.


One of the main points Wills makes in his argument in favor of legal abortion rights is that there is no authoritative passage either in Jewish Scripture (the Old Testament) or in the New Testament that conveys God's opposition to abortion. Though one of the Ten Commandments forbids killing, or the doing of murder, there is no purely scriptural reason to assume that abortion qualifies, in God's eyes, as murder.

After making this argument about Scripture, which I will go further into in a future post, Wills goes on to demonstrate that St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and the Christian Church in general have traditionally addressed abortion as a matter of "natural law," not revealed theology ... and so we today, to settle our disputes about the morality and legality of abortion, "must turn to reason and science, the realm of Enlightened religion" (p. 527).

Because the question is one of natural law, it is a "misconception" to say "that this is a religious issue, that the pro-life advocates are acting out of religious conviction" (p. 526; italics in the original).

Once Wills establishes that the question of abortion must be addressed as a matter of reason rather than scriptural revelation, he does just that. First, he shows it to be a misnomer to call the anti-abortion position "pro-life," since there is no principled way to show that the "life" of an embryo is any more sacred than the "life" of growing human hair or fingernails, semen, egg cells ... or, tellingly, the vast majority of fertilized eggs/human embryos! Most embryos naturally fail to get embedded in a womb wall, or, if they do, result in early miscarriages that are perceived to be no more significant than heavy menstrual flow:

Are these millions of embryos that fail to be embedded [in the wall of a womb] human persons? Then "intelligent design" [the doctrine about God's role in evolution supported by many pro-life Evangelicals] aborts far more persons than nay human abortioners can. God is responsible for this silent holocaust. (p. 528)

Then Wills addresses what he says the true question ought to be: not when human "life" begins, but when during the gestation period the human person emerges:

Is it when it is capable of thought, or of speech, of recognizing itself as a person, of assuming the responsibilities of a person? Is it when it has a functioning brain? Thomas Aquinas said that the fetus did not become a person until God infused the intellectual soul. A functioning brain is not present in the fetus until the end of the sixth month at the earliest (what Roe called the beginning of the third trimester). Only then can the cerebral cortex process information from the various senses. (p. 528)

Wills cites widespread medical opinion that it is only at about the point in gestation at which the fetus becomes viable outside the womb — roughly, the start of the third trimester of pregnancy — that the already abundant nerve cells present in the fetus' cerebral cortex become linked together through the formation of synapses: the gaps between nerve cells that impulses travel across during higher brain functioning.

Before that juncture, Wills argues, the life of the fetus — though the fetus does respond to external stimuli — is merely "vegetative," in the sense that Terri Schiavo was in a "persistent vegetative state" at the time she was taken off life support after fifteen years of never waking up.

Aquinas, intimates Wills, would have held that a soul in such a state was one of the "nutritive (vegetable)" variety, and not even of a "sensing (animal)" sort — much less an "intellectual soul" of the type God manifestly cherishes (see p. 526).

Even plants react to stimuli such as sunlight, etc. Animals have their own well-developed sensory lives. But only human persons have the full-fledged "intellectual soul" that was identified in Christian thought by Thomas Aquinas. And human fetuses, prior to the establishing of full brain function and the consequent onset of fetal viability outside the womb, presumably lack an "intellectual soul."

Hence, says Wills, abortion prior to the third trimester does not equal the killing of a human person.

Michael Shermer: "The Mind of the Market" | Scientific American

Michael Shermer writes "The Skeptic," a regular column in Scientific American. In February 2008's "The Mind of the Market," Shermer discusses why the seeming irrationality of our financial decision-making — we are anything but rational in any purely abstract sense — is really much more sensible than it is often given credit for being.

A scientist puts you in a game with another individual in which the scientist offers you alone $100 and tells you to offer any part of it to your counterpart in the game. If he or she accepts your offered amount, you will receive the $100 and dole out the agreed portion of it to your counterpart. But if he or she refuses your offer, neither of you gets a penny.

How do you decide how much to offer your counterpart?

You might think this way: my counterpart is surely a rational individual who should accordingly be satisfied with any pittance of a sum I'm willing to part with. After all, he (or she) would rather have a tiny amount of free money than no free money at all, right?

But, no. It turns out that most players in the counterpart role won't settle for less than, say, $30 of the original $100.

Why not? Because it offends their (and our own) built-in notion of fairness that the split should be any less than 70-30.

Why does it make sense to be fair, and to expect fairness in return? Because (a) we know we'll be dealing again and again with our various societal counterparts, not just on a one-shot basis, but continually, and also (b) a conscious awareness of the fairness imperative has been programmed into us by evolution.


The key thing here is that we humans actually have a built-in idea of fairness. It's not just a learned-through-culture add-on. Our primate relatives, experiments show, have one too! So we and our hairier cousins share a capacity for fairness, because evolution gave it to us. Shermer:

Just as it is a myth that evolution is driven solely by “selfish genes” and that organisms are exclusively greedy, selfish and competitive, it is a myth that the economy is driven by people who are exclusively greedy, selfish and competitive. The fact is, we are ... selfish and selfless, cooperative and competitive. There exists in both life and economies mutual struggle and mutual aid. In the main, however, the balance in our nature is heavily on the side of good over evil. Markets are moral, and modern economies are founded on our virtuous nature. The Gordon Gekko “Greed Is Good” model of business is the exception, and the Google Guys “Don’t Be Evil” model of business is the rule. If this were not the case, market capitalism would have imploded long ago. 

Here is an area, then, where science and religion chime together to challenge philosophical attitudes of the past which held that human beings are, at base, selfish and venal. Religion has long claimed that we are destined to have angels' wings. Now, evolution science can confirm that a sense of fairness and morality is our birthright. But much in the modern history of philosophy has claimed the opposite.

The 18th-century Scots philosopher David Hume, according to Arthur Herman's How the Scots Invented the Modern World: The True Story of How Western Europe's Poorest Nation Created Our World & Everything in It, was a religious skeptic who insisted that:

... self-interest is all there is ... [so] a secular Golden Rule: I won't disturb your self-interest, if you don't disturb mine [is] the best we can hope for ... [since] morality is largely a matter of convention and ingrained habit [,] the laws of nature offer nothing to help, and appeals to reason fall on deaf ears ... . (pp. 200-202)

Hume made no allowance for Darwin's theory of evolution, which was more than a century off when he published A Treatise on Human Nature in 1734, or for how that theory might be extended in the 21st century to show how the laws of nature are perfectly capable of generating a species (or more than one) with an inbuilt moral sense.

So much so, in fact, that our species can be criticized for not being perfectly rational when it comes to money matters. Our innate sense of fairness sometimes trumps our "reason."

(Another, similar article by Michael Shermer can be read here.)