Mary, Law, and the Hypostatic Union: Two Questions for “Christians” Who Support Abortion

This post is specifically addressed to people who profess to be Christians but support abortion. Two important questions need to be asked:

  1. Which part of God’s revelation do you deny to support the practice abortion: the Trinity or the Law?
  2. Up to what point in her pregnancy could Mary have had a lawful abortion? 

In regards to question one, one of those two things must be rejected in order to support abortion for any reasons.

One route to take is to reject God’s clearly revealed Law. In order to support abortion, one must support murder. That means that what God gave to Moses (Exodus 20:13) was inappropriate and wrong for God to do. Then, it must also be said that Jesus’ establishment of this same law within the New Covenant was a bad idea (Matthew 5, 1 John 3).

Since there is no conceivable way to accuse the developing child in the womb of a capital crime, there is no possible justification for taking the life of the child. The crime of a father, the emotional or financial state of a mother, or physical defects of a child are all reasons that are not deemed worthy of killing someone outside the womb, and therefore don’t justify killing the person inside the womb. It’s murder.

Thus, to support abortion one must tell God His laws against murder are wrong and should be eradicated, and one must command God repent of His inappropriate hatred for the hands that shed innocent blood.

Option 2 is to deny the Trinity. More specifically, it’s to believe the infant in the womb is not a human being. Here is how a denial of the Trinity and the denial of the humanity of infants in the womb come together: the incarnation. Jesus was a child in the womb.

To say that a fetus (the Latin term for baby) is not a baby is to say that when Jesus first came to earth, He took on a flesh that wasn’t human. Thus, a third nature has been added to Jesus’ incarnation; Jesus was both God and fetus. The stage before a fetus is often called a “zygote” or a fertilized egg; a cell. Since this can’t be a person for the pro-abortion belief, it must be it’s own non-human, living cell. That means it’s another non-human flesh Jesus took on. Jesus was both God and Zygote, then changed and became both God and fetus, and then finally, Jesus became both God and man.

Obviously the Scriptures teach against this consistently. Philippians 2 teaches Jesus took on flesh to be found in the “likeness of man,” not fetus or zygote. The very next verse says He was found in “human form” (Phil 2: 4-8). Paul clearly knew that Jesus took on human flesh. Not something else.

It’s an incredible leap of logic to assume that, John for example, in John 1 meant “any physical thing” when he said “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” The illogicality can be seen by replacing fetus with any other living, non-human form.

“I believe Jesus was first both cow and God”.

“I believe Jesus was first fish and God”.

It’s lunacy. This is why Christian orthodoxy has always, through the centuries, recognized Jesus’ humanity and no other fleshly, non-human form. And to add multiple non-human natures into the Hypostatic Union (the union of God and Man in Jesus) is heresy.

Now that I have explained my original dichotomy, I return to it again: If you claim Christianity and support abortion, which route do you take? Do you ask God to repent of His misinformed views about murder, or do you deny the hypostatic union in Christ?

Second, when could Mary have had an abortion? When was Mary free to “terminate her pregnancy?” When could Mary have legally killed the Savior who came to fulfill the Scriptures, not by being aborted, but by atoning for sin on a cross?

These questions are important, for they expose that to get them wrong disqualifies a person from the Christian title they bear.

Author: Resisting the Winds

I am a sinner redeemed by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God. I am a local church expositor, living in the small but beautiful town of Alamosa, Colorado.

Leave a Reply