Put together Sadat, Begin, and Jimmy Carter. Mix them with the leaders of the oil producing nations of the Middle East. Add the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Soviet Union. Stir briskly and you have quite a stew. Meanwhile, various Christians, using a series of full-page advertisements, are cooking up an interesting side dish. These ads were published in the New York Times or Washington Post and then in certain other newspapers.
So far as we can tell, the battle of the advertisements started with the one placed in the Times on November first; it was headlined “Evangelicals’ Concern for Israel” (see our November 18, 1977, issue, page 50). Editor Harold Lindsell and editor-elect Kenneth Kantzer were among the fifteen signers. They were speaking for themselves rather than for CHRISTIANITY TODAY. This ad was followed on November 15 by a statement in the Times by fifteen others, led by Carl McIntire, and headed “Fundamentalists Vote With Israel.”
More than thirty Americans of various theological views offered a different approach on December 29. Their ad was headed. “We Christians believe simplistic interpretations of the Holy Scriptures and simplistic answers to the complex questions involved will not bring peace to the Middle East.” It then expressed alarm and distress over “attempts on the part of some Western Christians to impose solutions on the problems of the Middle East by employing a few selected verses from the Bible, … to prove that a particular political or property right is willed by God.…”
The next salvo came in a February 3 ad headed “Catholics concerned for the future of Israel and its Arab neighbors.” Like the first two in the sequence, it came out unequivocally for the Israeli side in the Middle East conflict.
As we understand Scripture, God has an interest in all peoples, yet he has a distinguishable interest in the people of Israel. Moreover, the tragic history of the suffering of the children of Israel, most of it in recent centuries and inflicted by those who claim to be the followers of the Jewish Messiah, Jesus Christ, warrants our support of a homeland for the Israelis. There is no better place for such a state than on Palestinian soil. Obviously, if the Jews are to have a homeland it must be located somewhere. There are hardly any peoples today who are descended from the first groups ever to occupy their current territory. The American Indian tribes, for example, shoved each other around long before Europeans perfidiously dispossessed them.
Even if the Arab nations cannot acknowledge biblical grounds for doing so, we think that they should recognize Israel as a sovereign state. This is not to defend every action, law, or custom of the Israeli government or people. In particular, we strongly oppose the recently passed law, to take effect April first, that imposes up to five years in prison on any person who offers someone else any “material inducement” to change his or her religion, however vaguely designated (see News, February 10 issue, page 54). The law was pushed through by orthodox Jews and it was aimed at Christians. Since the number of Christian conversions to Judaism in Israel each year is many times that of Jewish professions of Jesus as Messiah, the action is basically symbolic. If such a law were passed somewhere with Judaism as the intended target, the cries of anti-Semitism would be deafening.
Nevertheless, we contend that a recognition of the sovereignty of Israel and its borders ought not to depend on Israel’s acceptance of a PLO-run neighboring state. Such a condition is not placed on other nations. “Spheres of influence” on their borders for China, the Soviet Union, and the United States are almost universally, even if unofficially, recognized. Based on their long experience, the Israelis are understandably convinced that their security is dependent on their ability to defend themselves militarily. In the words of an emphasized portion of the Catholic advertisement, “Why should Israel consent that part of the territory it holds be turned into a hostile state?” It is unrealistic to expect Israel to expose itself to continued military or terrorist attack, or to live with the threat of such attack, by returning every piece of land taken in the 1967 war. It has already relinquished some of it. The further delineation of temporary and permanent boundaries is a problem that requires patient and skillful negotiation and concessions from all sides.
Egypt is to be highly commended for its peace initiatives. But, in general, the Middle East nations have done virtually nothing to resolve the Palestinian refugee problem. After World War II, millions of Germans were removed from their ancestral homes and resettled further west. If the Arabs are one people, why can’t Palestinian refugees be relocated, with generous assistance from the oil-rich Arab countries, in other parts of the Arab world? Indeed, about one-seventh of some three-and-a-half million Palestinians already live outside of Israel and the countries adjoining it. It is senseless to argue for relocating all the refugees on much of their former land in Palestine, given their current attitude and indications that a substantial portion of them would do whatever they could to disrupt if not destroy the state of Israel.
We certainly agree with the signers of the “We Christians believe” ad that there should be serious dialogue among Christians from both the Eastern and Western traditions. We further agree that “such dialogue must be free from the pressures … for immediate political advantage or to impose predetermined solutions.” We confess that Christians who have long been living in the Middle East have too readily been overlooked by those in the West. But we see no basis for dialogue with those who cavalierly dismiss what the Bible says about God’s special concern for Israel as having no relevance to today’s world.
We hasten to add that, unlike the impression that some Christian defenders of Israel convey, we do not believe that God needs our initiatives in order to bring to pass what he has foretold will eventually happen. God’s word to us is to be obedient to his explicit commandments and to seek to apply the principles he has set forth in all of our relationships, whether or not such obedience seems to our limited understanding to hinder or help the fulfillment of divine predictions.
Among the principles we see in God’s Word are the promotion of justice for all peoples, together with special concern for the descendants of God’s ancient chosen people.
On the Panama Canal
The Bible sets a standard of justice for men and nations, but we have often been lax about applying that standard to national and international relations. The prophets make it clear—Amos is perhaps the strongest voice—that nations are judged by how they deal with their citizens, as well as by how they deal with each other.
Christian citizens in a democracy have a duty under God to keep our representatives informed about biblical principles. The Golden Rule may not be completely applicable to nations. Yet shouldn’t we ask if at some point “national self-interest” should yield to someone else’s cry for justice?
From a historical perspective, there is no doubt that the 1903 Panama Canal treaty has many deficiencies. The Republic of Panama “grants in perpetuity” rights, authorities, and use of facilities to the United States. The United States signer of the treaty, Secretary of State John Hay, said in a letter at the time to Senator Spooner, that the treaty was “very satisfactory, vastly advantageous to the United States, and we must confess, with what face we can muster, not so advantageous to Panama. You and I know too well how many points there are in this treaty to which a Panamanian patriot could object.” And object the Panamanians have.
Latin American evangelical leaders have been reluctant to speak publicly on the canal, thinking that it is a bilateral issue between the U.S. and Panama, but privately many of them favor the new treaty. Emilio Antonio Nuñez says that “my personal opinion as a Central American is that the new treaty is for the good of the Panamanians and also of the U.S.” Rejection, he adds, “will increase prejudice and give a banner to the anti-Americans. It will create an antagonistic climate in the area for mission work.” Evangelist Luis Palau says that the U.S. has “a lot to win, and very little to lose” with the new treaty. Peruvian writer Samuel Escobar observes that the great majority of thinking Latin Americans are in favor of the treaty.
With the new Panama Canal treaty, it seems possible to do some good by a relatively simple action. Whatever the justifications for the old treaty, from which Panama did benefit at the time, 1978 is not the same as 1903. Ironically, the leftists in Latin America are the severest critics of the new treaty. Its ratification will remove much of the steam from their blustering about North American imperialism. That American conservative evangelicals and Panamanian Marxists would unite to oppose the treaty proves that politics does indeed make strange bedfellows.
As two North American Christians who were born and raised in Latin America, and who live and minister there, we are concerned that the long-festering problem of the canal be settled in a manner that will be just and equitable to both parties, and will improve, or at least do nothing to worsen, the climate for the proclamation of the Gospel.—Guest editorial, STEPHEN R. SYWULKA and WILLIAM O. TAYLOR, Guatemala City, Guatemala.
Dr. Daniel R. Hinthorn, assistant professor of medicine, School of Medicine, University of Kansas, Kansas City
If there is a point in embryonic development at which the growing human embryo becomes a human being, it has been unrecognized by theologians and philosophers through the ages. However, if a point in embryonic development at which God recognizes a fetus as human could be fixed by authority from the Bible, many problems of abortion and birth control could be dealt with more easily and rationally by Christians.
Many evangelicals, without giving a Scriptual basis, consider the moment of fertilization of the ovum by the sperm to be the instant that God recognizes the first cell of a new human being. Let us look at some problems in accepting this view and then consider a biblical basis for an alternative view.
If the infusion of the soul were at the moment of fertilization of the ovum by the sperm, the case of identical twins poses a special problem. Identical twins originate as a single ovum fertilized by a single sperm. After the development of two or more cells from the initial fertilized ovum, there is a cleavage so that one or more cells from the original single ovum develop into one human being each. In this situation, if we believed the soul was given to the fertilized ovum, would we suggest a splitting of a soul, or did one twin not receive a soul, or did the second twin get his soul after the first twin?
The next two problems involve methods of contraception. If we could prove that infusion of the soul occurred at the fertilized ovum stage of development, both of the following might be questionable practices: the intrauterine device and the “morning after” pill.
The hormonal balance of each ovulating female changes with menstruation to prepare the endometrium, the cells lining the uterus, for implantation of the fertilized egg cell mass. One of the present methods of birth control, the intrauterine device (IUD), is believed to prevent implantation of the fertilized egg cell mass in the endometrium. That cell mass then passes from the body and dies. If we accept the fertilized egg as the point in time at which a new human being occurs, we would then logically conclude that using an IUD could result in “killings” of human beings at monthly intervals.
More recently has come the use of the “morning after” pill. In this situation, the woman, suspecting possible fertilization of the egg, uses a large dose of estrogenic substance, diethylstilbestral, soon after sexual intercourse. This hormone makes the endometrium unattractive to the fertilized egg cell mass, so that it passes from her body to die. Thus, using either the IUD or the “morning after” pill would be inappropriate if the Bible taught that a new human being was created at fertilization.
Life is certainly present after fertilization of the egg by the sperm when only one cell is present, but is this human life? Certainly the cell is living, growing, and multiplying, and since this cell has every potential of producing an adult human being, we recognize it as life. The cell is not plant life, nor is it animal life. Therefore, we conclude it is human life. However, the question of when God gives the fetus a soul, or when God looks upon an individual as a person, or when God inscribes a name in his book, is more difficult. For the answer we cannot look to science, but to the Bible in Psalms 139:15, 16: “My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being imperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.”
Embryonic development of each of us was strikingly similar to the sequence of events that are referred to in those verses. Let us trace the course of embryonic development, and then we will return to a further discussion of this passage.
Human life begins with the union of sperm with ovum. At that time a unique living cell is formed that begins progressive division and results in a solid ball of cells. The ball begins to become hollow in the center with cells at the outer edge. Finally, the ball flattens on one side. This side folds in on the other, resembling a deflated basketball with a fist pushed into it. This occurs approximately seven to eight days after conception, at the same time that the mass of cells becomes attached to the wall of the uterus. Rapid growth of cells follows with more folding. The placenta, the source of vital nourishment of the embryo, is then formed from cells of the embryonic cell mass. By three weeks, distinct blood cells and a primitive heart of the embryo have been formed. By four weeks, the sense organs, eyes, ears, and nose are apparent. The heart is pumping blood through the fetus. Even at this time in the embryonic development, the mother may not yet realize that she is pregnant.
The key to these two verses, Psalms 139:15–16, is in the words “my substance, yet being unperfect,” which is the translation of the single Hebrew word golem. This is the only place in Scripture where the noun golem is used. However, the verb form of the same word, galam, is found in Second Kings 2:8. Here Elijah took his mantle and galam—that is, he rolled or wrapped it up. So we see that the noun golem means rolled or folded together. Hence, this passage indicates that we are dealing with the embryo at the stage of its being folded together, which occurs at approximately seven to eight days after conception, which is about the time of implantation.
A composite translation will be used to illustrate the point: My bony skeleton was not hid from thee when I was made in the womb and my tendons, nerves, arteries, and veins were being woven together beyond the power of human observation. Thine eyes did see me as an embryo, rolled up and folded together; and in thy book all were written what days they should be fashioned, and not one among them was yet made.
We note some interesting points. God writes in his book at the folded embryo stage at the time of implantation in the wall of the uterus. This is of medical importance for several reasons. The cell mass may spontaneously fail to become implanted in the uterus. This is believed to occur frequently. Even if the cells do become implanted, the majority of the cells of the ball develop into the placenta and other non-human tissues that are normally destroyed after birth. Additionally, about the time of this folded stage, a pathologic process can occur and result in a cancer called a hydatidaform mole instead of a child.
We have shown that God really does consider a developing embryo in the uterus to be a human being. Yet the question of how soon after fertilization he first began to write in his Book, or when he first considers the cells a living soul is not established from this passage.
There is a point in embryonic development before which the soul of a man is definitely absent. According to the words of Christ, in response to the question of how a man can reenter the uterus and be born, he stated, “… unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit” (John 3:5,6; NIV).
Thus, unless a man is born of water, used to signify natural birth, he cannot enter. Can the fertilized ovum be “born of water”? I think not. It is quite interesting to note that the folding of the embryo produces the membranes that are responsible for the “bag of waters.” Thus, being born of water would be anatomically possible first at about the time of implantation. That is virtually the same time that the folding begins. Both passages then point to one time in embryologic development. The time when God begins writing and the point before which Christ says one cannot enter the Kingdom of God is implantation, about seven days after the fertilization of the ovum.
Now we are ready to consider when, if ever, it is right to abort pregnancy. We have no evidence that prior to implantation, the time when the folding begins, that God recognized the living mass of cells as a person. Certainly, it seems that it is at that time that he begins writing in his book. This means that prevention of attachment of the cells to the uterus by the IUD would be a permissible form of preventing or aborting pregnancy. Subsequent to implantation would not be a permissible time to abort pregnancy.
As we seek from the Bible the answers to these age-old questions of the origin of life, let us recall that true wisdom is knowing as God knows: “Open my eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law” (Ps. 119:18).
Nazis March On Skokie
Who has heard of Skokie, Illinois? If you aren’t aware that this Chicago suburb has a large Jewish population, you soon will be—for a very unpleasant reason. If it comes off, national media will take notice of a march in Skokie by a small band of American Nazis, perhaps on April 20, which is the anniversary of Adolph Hitler’s birth.
Needless to say, the Nazis represent the antithesis of what the American Constitution calls for. But they have used the Constitution to win court cases that defend their rights to have a parade permit issued by the village of Skokie. Along with almost all other Americans, we denounce this pathetic group of Hitler admirers, though we cannot agree with those who say they shouldn’t be taken seriously. Too many Germans didn’t bother to take Adolph Hitler seriously for a long while. And even when he did come to power, few if any countries bothered to take him and his published intentions seriously.
We wish the parade would not take place, but we agree with U.S. District Judge Bernard Decker that “the ability of American society to tolerate the advocacy of even hateful doctrines … is perhaps the best protection we have against the establishment of any Nazi-type regime in this country.”
It is important to remember that, unlike shouting “fire” in a crowded auditorium, a Nazi parade is constitutionally protected because no one is compelled to watch or listen. The parade route will be clearly specified in advance. Stores, offices, and houses along the route should consider hanging black crepe in mourning for the victims of Nazism. And, if no one attends the parade, television can show the absence of spectators.
While the parade is going on, in a quite different part of Skokie, or in a suitable site in Chicago itself, there should be a massive, non-violent demonstration. We need to remind ourselves and the watching world of the American principles of constitutional democracy and American opposition to invidious discrimination against anyone because of religion, race, sex, age, wealth, national origin, and the like.
