Truth Unites - Abortion in the Early Church: The Surprising Witness We Need Today

Episode Date: January 12, 2026

Gavin Ortlund explores the early church’s clear yet nuanced opposition to abortion and shows how its emphasis on human dignity and neighbor love can challenge Christians today toward a truly consistent pro-life ethic.Truth Unites (https://truthunites.org) exists to promote gospel assurance through theological depth. Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) is President of Truth Unites, Visiting Professor of Historical Theology at Phoenix Seminary, and Theologian-in-Residence at Immanuel Nashville.SUPPORT:Tax Deductible Support: https://truthunites.org/donate/Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/truthunitesFOLLOW:Website: https://truthunites.org/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/truth.unites/X: https://x.com/gavinortlundFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/TruthUnitesPage/

The early church articulated a beautiful vision of the value of human life, and their witness can challenge and help and sharpen Christians today on all sides of contemporary debates. In this video, let's walk through from the first century to the fourth century to explore the rationale for why Christians opposed the practice of abortion in particular. By the way, the goal here is not to create shame or condemnation for any person watching this based upon past behavior, especially what has been repented of. but rather to provide clarity for our future, for what it looks like for us to move forward as the church today. And historical accuracy on this topic can really help us. Please hang with me to the end where I'll give three applications for what it means to be consistently pro-life, valuing not just the unborn but the elderly, the marginalized, the poor, every single person made in God's image. First, this question, though, why should we consider the witness of the early church at all?

Why not just stick with scripture and philosophy and science and so forth? The early church can really help us because they have such a thrilling, full-orbed pro-life ethic. And that is because of two theological principles we're going to see reflected over and over as we go. First, the dignity of human beings as God's image bearers, made in God's image, and second, the call to neighbor love. Love your neighbor as yourself. Those two Christian values have changed human human beings. history for good in so many ways, and they can help us again today in our day. But still, someone might say, well, we already have that from the Bible, right? Arguably, we have the biblical material available

for making a pro-life case already from passages like Psalm 139, for example, where David prays, you knit me together in my mother's womb, or consider Job 3115, where Job recognizes that God is the creator, both of himself and his servant in the womb. God himself, says to Jeremiah, Jeremiah, I formed you in the womb, Jeremiah 1.5. So according to scripture, this process of growth happening in the womb, for example, from embryo to fetus, with all these organs developing and growing in size, this is God knitting. God is creating the liver and the kidneys and the heart and the brain and the lungs and every other

organ growing in the womb. That's God's knitting process. God's creating life. And that principle doesn't answer every biological and medical question. that comes up in this debate, of course. But within the context of other Christian commitments, it provides a foundation for a pro-life position. The appeal is simple. Don't disrupt what God himself is knitting together. And the values reflected in a pro-life position are arguably in other texts of scripture, for example, the Old Testament law, which offered a strict

punishment for damage done to an unborn fetus. Exodus 21 is on the screen there. We'll reference that later. So we can make a biblical case for a pro-life view, and I also think there are strong scientific and philosophical appeals that can be made for a pro-life position. Nonetheless, the record of church history is tremendously helpful to supplement these appeals. There's lots of reasons for that. One is that the record of the early church is particularly clear on this topic. And often in opposition to the prevailing wind of opinion in the Greco-Roman world, which was a pressure against them. Abortion was very common throughout the ancient world, including in the context of the early church. And there's a long and consistent tradition of opposition to abortion in Christian

thought and in Jewish thought as well. But a second reason is the way that Christians argued. There was sometimes anti-abortion sentiment in the surrounding non-Christian world, but it tended to be predicated on the rights of the father and or sometimes the mother, sometimes also the rights of the state or the rights of the gods, it was distinctive of Christian efforts to place emphasis on the value of the unborn child itself. According to Michael Gorman, whose great book on this topic helped me prepare for this video, concern for the fetus distinguishes the Christian position from all pagan approval of abortion. I'm quoting someone else when it's a stronger statement because I don't have the expertise to make that statement. I've not looked at all pagan thought.

I've looked at some of it. So he, so Gorman can help us here. This issue of abortion, therefore gives us an opportunity to reflect on something at the heart of the gospel itself, and that is God's care for the vulnerable. And that includes not just the unborn, but the poor, the marginalized, the elderly, the infirm, the disabled, the immigrant, the prisoner. Those on the social margins whom modern societies tend to overlook, think of it like this, to not put it in a silly way or to, I don't want to trivialize this, nonetheless. Think of the people who get picked last for kickball every time. And the world just tosses them to the side and say, they're not cool, they don't matter, they're not the important people, we overlook them, we shove them

over to the side. Those are the very people that the heart of God is drawn towards. You see that pattern all throughout scripture. And the unborn are included as one example of that principle. So we're going to see something of the heart of God reflected in the gospel as we explore this topic, Lord willing. And hopefully again, if it's a sensitive topic for you, may the Lord be near you and give you grace. May I just say right at the front end, God will forgive us of all sin when we repent of it. And I'm going to emphasize that over and over. Hope you'll feel that in your heart as you watch this as well. We want to be clear about what sin is, but also clear about the possibility of grace when we repent. Both must be very clear. We'll try to do both. Let's dive in. And to warn you,

Some of these passages are intense. Let's start with the didache, which probably dates back to the first century itself. In chapter two, you get a list of commandments against various sins. Murder, adultery, pederasty, fornication, stealing, magic, and witchcraft. And then before it goes on to coveting, it says, You shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten. Now, embedded in these words that I've emboldened on the screen, and I'll leave them up for a second.

In the Greek, it's just eight words. Already here is an important theme that's going to come up again and again in Christian teaching on this topic, but we could easily glide it over it, and that is the use of the word murder for abortion. I'll put up the Greek word in red there so you can see that. Now, this is the same Greek word used by our Lord when he quoted the sixth of the ten commandments in the sermon on the Mount, thou shalt not murder. That's the sixth commandment.

It's the same Greek word Paul uses also in Romans 139 when he quotes the Sixth Commandment. The assumption lying behind this language is that the fetus is a human neighbor, deserving of all the same protections as any other human being existing outside of the womb. The presupposition here is, look, you don't just suddenly become a worthy object of the protection of life, that value reflected in the Sixth Commandment, just because you're larger and outside of the womb, as opposed to small. and inside of the womb. Again, this would fit with the logic of Exodus 21-23, where damage done to a fetus is compensated proportionately by the adult responsible for damaging it, though I acknowledge there are disputes about that text I'm not getting into here. Now, this same Greek language from the didache that we just saw is repeated almost verbatim in the epistle of Barnabas, which probably dates to the first century or possibly early second. You can see on screen the same language, and here

abortion and infanticide are both condemned in one fell swoop. Infanticide was a common practice in the ancient world, for example, child exposure. You've probably heard of this where unwanted infants were simply left outside to die, exposed to the elements. Tragically, this practice was legally permitted in Roman society and culturally normalized, especially for girls, the disabled, and sometimes the poor. Thankfully, Christians opposed that practice and were sometimes known to take abandoned infants, and it's very significant that we have, I mean, just pause right here,

just from the Epistle of Barnabas and the Didiquay already. We have multiple direct condemnations of abortion during or near the first century, neither of which really gives an argument, but both seems to assume that the commandment will be intelligible and not needing supplementary argumentation. And from this, I think we can safely draw the inference that from the dawn of church history, abortion was considered by Christians to be a violation of the Sixth Commandment. I am aware of the significance of that. Again, we're going to ask the Lord to give grace to those who have, for whom this is a tough topic, but have a repentant heart before the Lord. But we're also going to try to be clear for historical accuracy to help mobilize us to social

action on this issue today. Another early reference to abortion comes in the apocalypse of Peter, which is another second century text. This text had a significant influence because it was included in some early canon lists, sometimes with qualifications. Some people thought Peter actually wrote it, though he didn't. But it provides a detailed and horrifying description of hell, and the punishments inflicted in hell, and it just talks about all kinds of different sin that are being punished in hell,

and one of those is those who conceived and caused abortion. in one longer textual tradition of this work, the Apocalypse of Peter, there's also a reference made to those who are being aborted as being safely delivered by an angel, presumably to heaven. And that idea influences Christians like Methodius of Olympus and Clement of Alexandria, and so you get this tradition of thought maintaining that all aborted babies go to heaven. Speaking of Clement, he also makes his own position clear on this topic with a vivid turn of phrase, quote, women who resort to some sort of deadly abortion drug kill not only the embryo, but along with it,

all human kindness. There were both chemical and mechanical abortions in the ancient world. Here, Clement is addressing those who use drugs to kill the embryo, which is a topic also addressed by Athenagoras, a second century apologist. He's responding to the accusation of murder against Christians and says, quote, and when we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being and therefore an object of God's care and when it has passed into life to kill it. And not to expose an infant because those who expose them are chargeable with child murder.

and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it. Hopefully you understand the logic of that defense. What he's saying is Christians would be inconsistent. He's basically saying Christians are consistent in opposing all taking of life, any expression of the sin of murder. And so, of course, he's saying logically, we're not going to accept one form and then reject another. And this again sets abortion in the context of the Sixth Commandment.

What is so significant about this text, though, is that Athenagic, is speaking on behalf of all Christians. He, this is not his own private view. He's giving a public defense of Christian belief, hence the word we. The same defense is made by Marcus Menusius Felix, another early Christian apologist. He's responding to a slanderous story being told of Christians supposedly drinking the blood of an infant that they had murdered. And his defense is, no, we oppose all murder. We oppose all bloodshed. And in the context of that, Some of the examples of murder, he mentions, include this. There are some women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future

man in their very bowels and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth. The Latin word translated parricide there, or in some other translations, translated infanticide, refers to the intentional murder of a close relative. So it's very significant that we have these early Christian apologists speaking on behalf of the Christian faith, defending the Christian faith, and making clear their advocacy for the value of life in the womb. However, early Christian opposition to abortion wasn't merely outward facing to the surrounding culture. It also occasionally needed to be articulated within the church. So we find this passage in Hippolytus. There's another similar passage to this in origins.

I won't quote. I'm trying not to be exhaustive and cover apostille. absolutely everything because then the video is so long. But Hippolytus condemns the practice of taking drugs to make themselves sterile and binding themselves to expel what was conceived. You can see this passage on screen and read it through if you'd like. Again, what's interesting at the end here is that Hippolytus situates this concern in the context of the Sixth Commandment. Let me just give one more example, like I say, we could cite others. I'll just give one more example from this anti-nicine period, before we're going to move on and note some changes, some wrinkles, some nuances,

some complexities that emerge as you move forward. But our final witness is Tertullian, who was a particularly striking opponent of abortion. And like these other Christians, he did categorize it as murder. This quote, among many others we could give, is worth reading. In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body. body for its sustenance, to hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing, nor does it matter, whether you take away a life that is born or destroy one that is coming to birth. So to destroy life in the womb for Tratollion is simply a speedier way to do the same thing

than destroying it once it is outside the womb for Trotullian. Interestingly, his rationale for this belief seems to be that a rational soul is present from the beginning of conception. In a very different context, for example, he writes, the flesh being conceived, formed, and generated along with the soul from its earliest existence in the womb. Now, granted, it's not totally clear how he understands that. And this is a point of contrast between some other Christians, especially later, like Augustine, who regard the status of an early embryo with more ambiguity, and I'll comment more on that in a moment. but hopefully, whenever I'm going through lots of information serially point by point, I want to pause and summarize and reflect on the significance of this.

Hopefully you can see from what we've already adduced here how vigorous early Christian opposition to abortion was. Christians in the first several hundred years of church history consistently associated this practice with a violation of the Sixth Commandment. However, on this topic and on so many others, the fourth century, represents a pivotal time of change. Following the conversion of the Roman Emperor Constantine in the early 4th century, Christianity becomes legal, and then later in the 4th century, Theodosius makes Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire. A lot of good things arguably come from this, but there is also a lot of worldliness that creeps into the church, because suddenly, for many

people, it's now socially advantageous to get baptized and be a Christian, or at least there's no pressure against you. And so in the fourth and fifth centuries, we see so many changes going on, some good, some bad, but one of them is you have Christian councils having to stipulate laws and discipline against the practice of abortion in the church to a greater degree. So already, as early as very early fourth century, even prior to Constantine's conversion, you have Canon 63 of the Synod of Elvira, which issues a very harsh penalty for a woman who has adultery and then has an abortion. and even if this passage is not speaking about abortion per se, but more about infanticide, as some have argued, it nonetheless was applied to abortion by later Christians.

I don't think they saw as much of a distinction between those two things. And furthermore, later counsels reduced the penalty a bit, but maintained this strict discipline against women who had an abortion in the church. For example, the Council of Ancira, also in the fourth century, you can see on the screen, gives such discipline. We also find in the apostolic constitutions, a collection of church orders, an expansion of the principle

that we started with from the didache and epistle of Barnabas, which repeats the same laws, but then adds a theological rationale, fascinatingly, namely, the conception of a fetal soul, which I've put emboldened on the screen here. I'll read this passage.

Too good not to read, or too helpful not to read. You shall not slay your child, by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten, for everything that is shaped and has received a soul from God, if it be slain, shall be avenged as being unjustly destroyed. I try to read passages whenever I can for the sake of those listening by podcast. God bless you, if you're not watching the video, listening by podcast. I know watching the videos, though, it does give you all these quotes on the screen. If you listen just by podcast, at least be aware, a lot of the things I'm saying are put on the screen, but I don't necessarily read all of them. among church leaders in the fourth century west, we find Ambrose maintaining opposition to the practice of abortion, as you can see on screen, as does Jerome, and his comments currently on screen,

raise the issue of contraception as well, which I'll return to later. Quote, some go so far as to take potions that they may ensure barrenness and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion. And when, as often happens, they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ, but also of suicide and child murder. Lots of commentary in the literature on the category of suicide being introduced for that as well. Tough passage. A lot of these passages are brutal.

We're going to talk about comfort and grace in the context of this as we get to the end as well. But first we need to talk through Augustine. Augustine deserves an entire video on his own, just for this. There's too many passages to cite, and there are too many wrinkles to work through. But let me just summarize the big picture, which is drawing from Gordon's summary of him, and that is simply this. Augustine accepts a distinction between a formed fetus and an unformed fetus, and he regards the destruction of the formed fetus as murder,

but of an unformed fetus as not murder because he's unsure about its status, but he still thinks both are immoral. So this is the most important qualification that must be honestly considered in this discussion of this issue in the early church. Some early Christians adopt this distinction between the unformed fetus and the formed fetus growing in the womb. This language may draw from Psalm 139, 16, where David says, your eyes saw my unformed substance. but the biological framework at work here is really from Aristotle, who taught that the embryo develops progressively and in the earlier stages does not yet have a rational human soul. Rather, Aristotle held that ensulment happens later, around 40 days for males, and around 80 to 90 days for females.

And Christians who adopted this framework, therefore sometimes spoke of the unformed fetus is not yet a fully human person, and the formed fetus as fully human person. and the formed fetus as fully human. Nonetheless, this did not mean that destroying the unformed fetus was acceptable. I am not able to locate any Christian in the early church that used this distinction between formed and unformed to say that abortion is morally permissible. So there's variation in the rationale for opposing abortion, since not all spoke of the rational human soul is present from the beginning at the moment of conception, but there is

relative unanimity in the opposition to abortion itself in the early church so far as I can tell. I'm trying to acknowledge this wrinkle so you're aware of this while also being clear on the broader social action and vision. In the fourth century east, Basel the Great references this distinction between formed and unformed fetus, but essentially neutralizes it for the purposes of abortion. The woman who purposely destroys her unborn child is guilty of murder. With us, there is no nice inquiry as to its being formed or unformed. In this case, it is not only the being about to be born who is vindicated, but the woman in her attack upon herself, because in most cases, women who make such attempts die. And then he says, the destruction of the embryos, an additional crime. He calls

it a second murder. So you see there, Basel's concern for both the woman and the child, because many women attempting abortion in the ancient world themselves died. John Chrysostom has a similar thundering opposition to the practice of abortion in one sermon, saying, why so where the ground makes its care to destroy the fruit? Where there are many efforts at abortion, where there is murder before the birth. For even the harlot, thou dost not let continue a mere harlot, but makeest her a murderous also. You see how drunkenness leads to hortem, hoardum to adultery, adultery to murder, or rather to a something even worse than murder, for I have no name to give it,

since it does not take it off the thing born, but prevent its being born. Why then do you abuse the gift of God and fight with his laws and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter? I told you some of these quotes were intense. I think we need to hear this.

I think we need to hear this language to help us really conceptualize what we're really talking about here. But again, may the Lord be near you if it's a difficult topic for you. Okay, what do we do with all this? Concluding remarks. I hope you see from that Chrysostin passage, the value. You know, we're saying, don't take this into a curse and into murder, but it should be a blessing. I want us to see the value of human life reflected in the early church. But let's make three comments to conclude this video.

Two of them are cautions, and then we'll have an application. Comment number one, the early church is not perfect. Although we're about to emphasize what we can learn from them, we need to also say at the front end that our goal in what I call theological retrieval is never mere repetition as though the past is this gold standard we simply uncritically adopt. There are oddities and eccentricities in the patristic era, as there are in every time in church history. And one particular question that I think is fair for us to ask is, did the early

church always make the forgiveness of the gospel clear enough in relation to this issue. Sometimes, sometimes, maybe not. For example, the Shepherd of Hermes, not just on this issue, but in general. I love the shepherd. But this is a early second century Christian text that seems to have taught that there is only one opportunity for repentance for certain kinds of post-baptismal sin. And while rightly taking sin with utmost seriousness, this severity may be shaped by pastoral anxiety more than by a fully developed theology of grace. Christians today should follow the

example of the early church and speaking boldly about sin, but we should also make clear the full and free forgiveness of the gospel. May I just say, I just have a pastoral sensitivity on issues like this for people who understand, and different people need to hear different things, but I'll say this to somebody, God does not hate you, he loves you, with an infinite, overflowing love. And if you are ever, wondering whether he could forgive even you, that wondering is the start of faith. The answer is yes. Yes, he will. He is more willing to forgive than you are to be forgiven. That is the heart of God. So we want to make that clear today, even while we're clear about the moral parameters. We also find other oddities in the early church that I think I would like to just draw attention to,

various ascetic tendencies creeping in, for example. Sometimes you get this idea that virginity is super holy. You know, sex within marriage is holy, but virginity is super holy, super exalted. It's like this, you know, it's like an A plus plus, not just an A plus. And arguably, many Christians may have had too negative a view of sex in the early church. The idea that sex is only for procreation was held by some stoics. That does not seem to be what Paul teaches in 1st Corinthians 7. And the song of Solomon in our Bible reminds us that sex within marriage is not just neutral or acceptable, but actually holy and sacred. So with Augustine, for example, sometimes you'll find language where he seems uncomfortable with the enjoyment of sex within marriage. And I don't think

we need to follow him in that. That is an oddity, to put it nicely. So we need to measure the early church by the superior light of Scripture, and the church fathers themselves would be the first ones to tell us that. Think of them like godly, trustworthy guides, but not an infallible voice from heaven. So treat the early church like you would treat a godly Christian who's way godlier than you, and you're going to learn, you're going to defer so much, but you're also going to say this person isn't God. Second caution, the early church is in its own context. The early Christians were operating in their own distinctive world. So even when they are right about things, their comments may not apply to contemporary questions directly. They may apply more indirectly or obliquely.

And there's a work of cultural translation here we need to be sensitive to so much. we could say about this. I talk about this all the time in using the early church for apologetics and this kind of thing, all kinds of dangers there. But just to say in this context, this is one reason why I am a bit cautious about making the exact same appeal to the early church on the issue of contraception. Some people may object to this and say, well, look, why don't you do the same thing with abortion and contraception learning from both issues? That's a fair concern. And I hope to say more about this some other time and also keep reflecting upon this, but just one brief comment on that in the meantime, where I think historical context is especially relevant on this point. When the early Christians

spoke about contraception, they were not typically discussing modern family planning within a marriage. They were usually addressing sexual immorality or the use of dangerous substances that functioned as an early abortifacient. And so to me, that makes the moral land. of their comments very different. From a practical standpoint, the moral distinction between natural family planning on the one hand and methods that do not endanger an embryo can feel somewhat subtle. And I would argue that it's more precarious to apply the Church Fathers to these questions that now have arisen because of modern technologies. I'm not saying they're not relevant, but just more caution. I don't see that as the same as abortion, where you have the intentional destruction of life

that already exists in the womb, and there the witness of the church is so clear and forceful and consistent. So I hope to address the issue of contraception more in the future. I at least wanted to flag that, and if that issue is one where you profoundly disagree with me, okay, let's keep talking, but hopefully that won't detract our broader agreement on some of the things we're talking about in this video, hopefully. And I also know, of course, some others will be disagreeing with everything I say in this video, and that's fine as well. We talk together on all these topics, because I'm still learning myself. Third and final comment, though, nonetheless, with these cautions in place, we can now say we should learn from the early church on this topic. They have so much to say that

can help us check our modern blind spots, precisely in the areas where we have under sensitivities, their courage and their resolve can inspire us and help us. Let me just conclude with one example. The early Christians can challenge us toward a consistent pro-life position, grounded in the dignity of every human person and the ethic of neighbor love. The early church didn't single out the issue of abortion at the expense of a broader care for the entire human person and for every human person. They also cared for exposed infants, for example, and the elderly. They elevated the status of women.

They built hospitals to care for the sick. They cared for the poor and those who lacked social standing. Read Christostim on the importance of that. I mean, he convicts us so much across these different issues. They had a holistic and expansive vision grounded in the value of human life. Care for the unborn was one piece of a larger vision of living out the golden rule for the early church. And the parable of the Good Samaritan teaches us, your neighbor means whoever is in your pathway, breaking through every prejudice. And in this way, the witness of the early church doesn't fit neatly into contemporary political parties or ideologies or

or even Christian denominations and traditions. May I just say, knowing this will poke at everybody in every direction a little bit and annoy everybody, the early church is different from all of us. And that is precisely why it is so valuable to challenge us and to help us learn. Lastly, let me leave you with this verse. Second Corinthians 517, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away. Behold, the new has come.

May I just say to somebody out there watching this video, if you made it to the end and you're hanging in there and this topic hangs over you like the sort of Damocles hanging over your head. If you trust in Jesus and turn away from your sin, what is most true about you is not your past or anything you have done, but now who you are in Christ and what he has done for you. Your new identity in Christ is now with the deepest thing about your life. That is how wonderful the gospel is, and therefore you can be forgiven of anything, but not just forgiven. The resurrection power of the Holy Spirit will flood into your heart to give you power to overcome sin and to become a slave of righteousness. That's true for you. So friends, as a fellow

sinner who's trusted in Christ, let's go forward now and live out our new identity in Christ, which means care for our neighbors who are made in the image of God, and that includes our unborn neighbors.