Where God Attaches His Protection
DRAFT — awaiting editorial review.
Course outline — lesson 4 of 5
- 1. The Open Letter
- 2. Grace Before Argument
- 3. Human, Not Person
- 4. Where God Attaches His Protection
- 5. Six Requests to Shepherds
Ha’adam: the protection reaches as far as humanity reaches
“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image” (Genesis 9:6).
The Hebrew word is ha’adam — the man, the human being. The letter draws the consequence carefully: “God does not say the strong, or the conscious, or the wanted, or the person. He says the man. And He gives one reason: man is made in His image. The protection reaches exactly as far as our humanity reaches and no less.”
That is why the argument cannot be answered by pointing to what an embryo cannot yet do. The verse never grounds its protection in what a man does.
Read this part in full in the letter →
The image is a nature, not a capacity
The letter presses a distinction that decides most of the hard cases. Scripture never says the image is a level of intelligence, feeling or growth. It never says “the man who can reason” or “the man who can feel”. Those abilities may flow from the image; they are not the image.
“And what was never based on an ability can never be lost with or without one.”
Two further supports: the image is passed down rather than earned — as God made Adam in His likeness, so “Adam fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image” (Genesis 5:1, 3) — and the Fall did not remove it, since God grounds this post-flood law on the image man still bears. James argues the same way against cursing: men “are made in the likeness of God” (James 3:9).
The conclusion the letter draws reaches further than abortion: “What sin could not remove, no disability and no weakness can remove.”
Read this part in full in the letter →
The two passages raised against it
Exodus 21:22–25 is often cited to show that the death of an unborn child cost only a fine. The letter examines the Hebrew. The verb is yatsa, “to come out” — the ordinary word for a live birth. Hebrew has clear words for miscarriage, shakol and nephel, used elsewhere (Exodus 23:26; Job 3:16; Ecclesiastes 6:3), and Moses does not use them here. The text describes an early birth, then asks whether harm followed — and it does not say “harm to the mother”, it says, without limit, “if there is harm”. So: born early and both live, a fine; either one dies, life for life.
Calvin read it the same way, calling the foetus “already a human being” and its killing “almost a monstrous crime”.
Numbers 5:11–31 is now used the other way, as though God commanded an abortion. The letter answers that in the whole passage there is no word for child, foetus, pregnancy or miscarriage — every one must be supplied by a translator. And the blessing set against the curse is the power to conceive: if the woman is innocent, “she shall be free and shall conceive seed” (Numbers 5:28). The curse is therefore barrenness, not the loss of a child.
Read this part in full in the letter →
God Himself came by way of conception
The letter closes Part Two with an argument from the incarnation. Christ did not begin as a clump of cells that later turned into Christ; He took up humanity at conception, and Scripture calls that embryo the Lord.
Luke writes “He was conceived” (Luke 2:21) — not “it”, not “the pregnancy”. And when Mary came to Elizabeth days after that conception, Elizabeth, filled with the Spirit, cried out, “why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43). The conceived child was days old; Elizabeth called Him her Lord.
The letter then draws the doctrinal consequence: the Lord “had to be made like his brothers in every respect” (Hebrews 2:17). If there were a stage at which the embryo was not yet human, then there was a stage at which the Son of God, having taken our nature, was in Mary’s womb as something less than one of us. “To deny the humanity of the unborn is not first an error about man. It is an error about the incarnation of Christ.”
And a last observation about the shape of the thing: at the cross the strong One gave His life for the weak who could give Him nothing in return. Abortion is the strong taking the life of the weak for their own comfort. One is the pattern of Christ’s love; the other is its reverse.
Check yourself
One set of questions per section above. Open each to check your answer.
After section 1: What single reason does Genesis 9:6 give for the law against murder?
- That society requires order
- That the victim is conscious
- That God made man in his own image — correct
- That life is precious
It is the only ground given, and the letter builds on that: the protection reaches exactly as far as humanity reaches, and no less.
After section 1: What does the Hebrew *ha’adam* mean in this verse?
- The righteous man
- The man, the human being — correct
- The free man
- The firstborn
Not the strong, the conscious, the wanted or the person. The category God protects is the human as such.
After section 2: Why does it matter that the image of God is a nature rather than a capacity?
- It makes the image easier to define
- What was never based on an ability cannot be lost with or without one — correct
- It means only adults bear the image
- It makes the argument purely theological
This is what rules out every developmental or capacity-based test — and it protects the disabled and the dying by the same stroke as the embryo.
After section 2: What does the letter conclude from the fact that Genesis 9:6 was spoken after the fall?
- That the command was temporary
- That the image survives sin, or there would have been no image left to protect — correct
- That it applied only to Noah’s family
- That the flood changed human nature
God grounds the law on the image man still bears. James 3:9 argues from the same premise against cursing men.
After section 3: What does the Hebrew verb *yatsa* in Exodus 21:22 ordinarily describe?
- A miscarriage
- A live birth — correct
- An injury
- A legal penalty
Hebrew has its own words for miscarriage — *shakol* and *nephel* — and uses them elsewhere. Moses does not use them here, so the text describes an early birth, after which the law asks whether harm followed.
After section 3: Whose harm does Exodus 21:22–25 have in view when it asks "if there is harm"?
- The mother’s only
- The child’s only
- It is unlimited — either the mother or the child — correct
- The assailant’s
The text sets no limit, which is why the letter reads it as the one place in the law where the unborn are named on their own and the penalty is life for life.
After section 3: What does the letter say the curse in Numbers 5 actually is?
- The loss of a child
- Barrenness — since the blessing set against it is that she "shall conceive seed" — correct
- Death
- Exile from the camp
No word for child, foetus, pregnancy or miscarriage appears in the passage; each has to be added by a translator. The pro-abortion reading is recent and rests on those additions.
After section 4: What doctrinal consequence does the letter draw from Hebrews 2:17?
- That Christ was born under the law
- That if the embryo were not yet human, the incarnate Son was at some stage less than one of us — correct
- That Christ’s humanity began at birth
- That the incarnation is a mystery beyond argument
He "had to be made like his brothers in every respect". The letter concludes that denying the humanity of the unborn is, in the end, a heterodox view of the humanity of Christ.
After section 4: What did Elizabeth call the days-old conceived child?
- The promised one
- My Lord — correct
- The child of Mary
- The prophet
"Why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43), spoken filled with the Spirit, days after the conception.
Reflect
Your notes are saved on this device only — they never leave your browser.
Go deeper
Further material on this topic from allied abolitionist ministries (links open external sites):
- Abolitionists Rising — training and resources for abolitionist work (Abolitionists Rising)