“Biblically Accurate” Angels are not Biblically Accurate

The following was adapted from an answer elsewhere on the web to a question presupposing that creatures in the vein of Ezekiel’s “living creatures” are the true, “biblically accurate” angels.

Let me be clear: the exact physical form of angels or other supernatural creatures in the Bible is of little practical import. My motivation for this analysis and explanation comes rather from a strong distaste for what I perceive as some atheists, self-identified Christians, and others acting derisively or dismissively toward more “serious” or “devout” Christians on the basis that the latter don’t know their Bibles, with the implication that much of their beliefs are, for example, invented out of whole cloth. Popular perceptions of angels even amongst more committed Christians are often quite inaccurate. And Biblical literacy is shockingly low even among those who self-identify as devout or practicing Christians. However, this issue of “biblically accurate” angels is generally more indicative of ignorance of the mockers rather than of the mocked. (I say all this fully aware that many such memes and references are made as light-hearted jokes not intended to belittle anyone; those are not what I am addressing.)

Introduction & Disclaimers

  1. I am not a true scholar, nor do I have any familiarity to speak of with biblical Greek or Hebrew. For reference, I will be using the English Standard Version here. This is purely for reasons of familiarity; it is not necessarily the best translation for this sort of discussion.
  2. This is not an attempt to summarize or explain the post-Bible history of popular perceptions of angels throughout history. Beyond mentioning that Renaissance artists contributed to the modern image of the winged human image of an angel, and a couple of references to statements by others more knowledgeable on the subject, I won’t address it. What I am doing is analyzing the biblical accuracy (or lack thereof) of various angelic imagery.

The short version is that winged humans are not entirely biblically accurate. Still, they are much, much closer than the terrifying eldritch creatures that have recently come to embody “biblically accurate angels” to the meme-smiths of the Internet. Terrifying chimeras are not described as “angels” in the Bible, though angels are often terrifying in other ways (usually in action, and sometimes in appearance). The eyeball-covered wheels aren’t even described as creatures per se. Angellic physical descriptions are somewhat limited, but generally indicate (wingless) humans, albeit often with something “special” about their appearance.

Let’s take a look at various passages where angels (or characters/creatures that might be angels) appear in the biblical narrative.

Old Testament


In Genesis, “the Lord” appears to Abraham:

And the Lord appeared to [Abraham] by the oaks of Mamre, […] three men were standing in front of [Abraham]. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth and said, “O Lord, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant. […] So they said, “Do as you have said.” And Abraham went quickly […] and set it before them. And he stood by them under the tree while they ate.


Then the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know.” So the men turned from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the Lord.

Genesis 18:20-22 ESV

The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom.

Genesis 19:1 ESV

The story of Sodom is too lengthy to recount here, but hopefully this is enough to demonstrate that these angels were hardly eyeball-festooned creatures of terror. If it is not, one need only consider this particular part of the story:

And [the men of Sodom] called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”

Genesis 19:5 ESV

Note that the Bible here is unsurprisingly using “know” in the “biblical” sense (as evidenced by Lot offering his daughters in their place in his response). In other words, the Sodomites wanted to sodomize the angels. Go figure.

These angels are consistently described as “men”. One can reasonably conclude that there was something not entirely normal about their appearance, but they are unlikely to have wings and certainly don’t resemble monstrous creatures.


During Israel’s wandering in the desert, a prophet known as Balaam is riding a donkey when an angel appears several times.

But God’s anger was kindled because [Balaam] went, and the angel of the Lord took his stand in the way as his adversary. Now he was riding on the donkey, and his two servants were with him. And the donkey saw the angel of the Lord standing in the road, with a drawn sword in his hand. And the donkey turned aside out of the road and went into the field. And Balaam struck the donkey, to turn her into the road. Then the angel of the Lord stood in a narrow path between the vineyards, with a wall on either side. And when the donkey saw the angel of the Lord, she pushed against the wall and pressed Balaam’s foot against the wall. So he struck her again. Then the angel of the Lord went ahead and stood in a narrow place, where there was no way to turn either to the right or to the left. When the donkey saw the angel of the Lord, she lay down under Balaam. And Balaam’s anger was kindled, and he struck the donkey with his staff. Then the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?” And Balaam said to the donkey, “Because you have made a fool of me. I wish I had a sword in my hand, for then I would kill you.” And the donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your donkey, on which you have ridden all your life long to this day? Is it my habit to treat you this way?” And he said, “No.”

Then the Lord opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing in the way, with his drawn sword in his hand. And he bowed down and fell on his face. And the angel of the Lord said to him, “Why have you struck your donkey these three times? Behold, I have come out to oppose you because your way is perverse before me. The donkey saw me and turned aside before me these three times. If she had not turned aside from me, surely just now I would have killed you and let her live.” Then Balaam said to the angel of the Lord, “I have sinned, for I did not know that you stood in the road against me. Now therefore, if it is evil in your sight, I will turn back.” And the angel of the Lord said to Balaam, “Go with the men, but speak only the word that I tell you.” So Balaam went on with the princes of Balak.

Numbers 22:22-35 ESV

The Bible is clear on this point: the donkey is female and therefore is unlikely to have the voice of Eddie Murphy.

More importantly, this depiction of an angel, as with Sodom, clearly indicates they are not to be trifled with, but neither are they monstrous creatures. This one is not quite called a “man”, but his behavior is more consistent with a human (or at least a humanoid) than, say, an eyeball-covered “wheel within a wheel” – he stands, he has hands, etc.


In Israel’s days of the judges before the institution of the monarchy, an angel appears to a young man named Gideon:

Now the angel of the Lord came and sat under the terebinth at Ophrah, which belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, while his son Gideon was beating out wheat in the winepress to hide it from the Midianites. And the angel of the Lord appeared to him and said to him, “The Lord is with you, O mighty man of valor.”

Judges 6:11-12 ESV

The angel and Gideon converse a bit and the angel charges Gideon with leading Israel against the oppressive Midianites. This part of the conversation ends with Gideon requesting a supernatural sign that the angel (or the Lord?) is who he says he is.

And the Lord said to him, “But I will be with you, and you shall strike the Midianites as one man.” And he said to him, “If now I have found favor in your eyes, then show me a sign that it is you who speak with me. Please do not depart from here until I come to you and bring out my present and set it before you.” And he said, “I will stay till you return.”

Judges 6:16-18 ESV

Gideon prepares some meat and “cakes” and then:

Then the angel of the Lord reached out the tip of the staff that was in his hand and touched the meat and the unleavened cakes. And fire sprang up from the rock and consumed the meat and the unleavened cakes. And the angel of the Lord vanished from his sight. Then Gideon perceived that he was the angel of the Lord.

Judges 6:21-22 ESV

Setting aside that “the Lord” and “angel of the Lord” seem to be used interchangeably here (a recurring theme in such passages), note that the text explicitly states that it was the supernatural events that convinced Gideon this was indeed an angel. That would be rather odd if he were conversing with a creature that was convincingly supernatural in its very physical appearance.

Samson’s Parents

Later on in the Judges period, an angel appears to a married couple and informs them that they will have a son (Samson), himself a future judge of Israel.

And the angel of the Lord appeared to [Samson’s mother] and said to her […] Then the woman came and told her husband, “A man of God came to me, and his appearance was like the appearance of the angel of God, very awesome.

[…] the angel of God came again to the woman as she sat in the field. But Manoah her husband was not with her. So the woman ran quickly and told her husband […] And Manoah arose and went after his wife and came to the man and said to him, “Are you the man who spoke to this woman?” And he said, “I am.”


And the angel of the Lord said to Manoah, “If you detain me, I will not eat of your food. But if you prepare a burnt offering, then offer it to the Lord.” (For Manoah did not know that he was the angel of the Lord.) And Manoah said to the angel of the Lord, “What is your name, so that, when your words come true, we may honor you?” And the angel of the Lord said to him, “Why do you ask my name, seeing it is wonderful?” So Manoah took the young goat with the grain offering, and offered it on the rock to the Lord, to the one who works wonders, and Manoah and his wife were watching. And when the flame went up toward heaven from the altar, the angel of the Lord went up in the flame of the altar. Now Manoah and his wife were watching, and they fell on their faces to the ground.

The angel of the Lord appeared no more to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the Lord. And Manoah said to his wife, “We shall surely die, for we have seen God.”

Judges 13:3-22 ESV

Again, there is something remarkable about the angel. But again, there is a large degree of uncertainty pending supernatural events. Manoah seems to think that the angel is a human man.

Early Monarchy

Angels make several appearances in the early days of the Israelite monarchy, particularly around Elijah the prophet. Suffice to say that when there is a physical description of some kind, it is consistent with what we’ve seen so far – humanoid, but often impressive, powerful, or even terrifying (in action, if not appearance). Here are a few relevant quotes from mostly unrelated events and passages.

And when the angel stretched out his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it, the Lord relented from the calamity and said to the angel who was working destruction among the people, “It is enough; now stay your hand.” And the angel of the Lord was by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.

2 Samuel 24:16 ESV

And behold, an angel touched [Elijah] and said to him, “Arise and eat.”

1 Kings 19:5 ESV

And that night the angel of the Lord went out and struck down 185,000 in the camp of the Assyrians.

2 Kings 19:35 ESV

Then the Lord commanded the angel, and he put his sword back into its sheath.

1 Chronicles 21:27 ESV

Old Testament Prophetic Literature

The book of Zechariah (not to be confused with the father of John the Baptist) describes some interactions between the eponymous prophet and angels. I am uncertain whether this is intended to be interpreted as a depiction of literal physical events or if, like Ezekiel, it is depicting a “vision” of some kind. Regardless, the narrative describes a dialogue between Zechariah and the angel but has virtually no physical descriptions. That said, the narrative is entirely consistent with a human or humanoid conception of angels. The closest I can find to a physical description is the final mention of angels in Zechariah, which merely reinforces that angels are strong or powerful in some way:

On that day the Lord will protect the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the feeblest among them on that day shall be like David, and the house of David shall be like God, like the angel of the Lord, going before them.

Zechariah 12:8 ESV

Now, it is important to note that the “biblically accurate” terrifying creatures are absolutely not invented out of whole cloth. They generally bear close resemblance to descriptions that are indeed found in the Bible. Here is perhaps the most relevant description, from Ezekiel:

And from the midst of it came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance: they had a human likeness, but each had four faces, and each of them had four wings. Their legs were straight, and the soles of their feet were like the sole of a calf’s foot. And they sparkled like burnished bronze. Under their wings on their four sides they had human hands. And the four had their faces and their wings thus: their wings touched one another. Each one of them went straight forward, without turning as they went. As for the likeness of their faces, each had a human face. The four had the face of a lion on the right side, the four had the face of an ox on the left side, and the four had the face of an eagle. Such were their faces. And their wings were spread out above. Each creature had two wings, each of which touched the wing of another, while two covered their bodies. And each went straight forward. Wherever the spirit would go, they went, without turning as they went. As for the likeness of the living creatures, their appearance was like burning coals of fire, like the appearance of torches moving to and fro among the living creatures. And the fire was bright, and out of the fire went forth lightning. And the living creatures darted to and fro, like the appearance of a flash of lightning.

Now as I looked at the living creatures, I saw a wheel on the earth beside the living creatures, one for each of the four of them. As for the appearance of the wheels and their construction: their appearance was like the gleaming of beryl. And the four had the same likeness, their appearance and construction being as it were a wheel within a wheel. When they went, they went in any of their four directions without turning as they went. And their rims were tall and awesome, and the rims of all four were full of eyes all around. And when the living creatures went, the wheels went beside them; and when the living creatures rose from the earth, the wheels rose. Wherever the spirit wanted to go, they went, and the wheels rose along with them, for the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels. When those went, these went; and when those stood, these stood; and when those rose from the earth, the wheels rose along with them, for the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels.

Ezekiel 1:5-21 ESV

There are a few things I’d like to point out about this passage. First, you’ll notice the word “angel” is never used. Instead, this is describing “חַיּ֑וֹת” (variously translated as “living creatures”, “living beings”, “Chayos”, “beasts”, or “creatures”). Ezekiel 10 names these creatures “cherubim”. (To quickly summarize: cherubim are not winged infant archers. Their limited physical descriptions elsewhere, such as in the descriptions of the Ark of the Covenant, are similar to Ezekiel’s, though there are variances. For example, the cherubim “decorations” of Solomon’s Temple as described in 2 Chronicles 3 and 1 Kings 6 have two wings each.) The Protestant Bible (and, to my knowledge, other Bible variants) never describes “living creatures” as “angels”. According to one historian of medieval and early modern Europe, classifying cherubim and seraphim as “angels” originated with early Church Fathers considering them to be “prophets” (i.e. messengers) and therefore “angels” (Biblical angels almost always fill the role of messenger, and one could argue that they always do, given a sufficiently broad definition of “messenger”), but this is a matter of later interpretation, and not strictly what the Bible states. And neither the Bible nor the Church Fathers made any claim that “living creature” descriptions in any way overrode the more common human form as the “true”, “biblically accurate” angelic form.

Second, even these outlandish descriptions more closely resemble humans than they do some of the eldritch depictions of angels in, for example, this meme. Though it need not be said they are still clearly terrifying and strange, they are vaguely humanoid, with faces, legs, feet, etc.

Third, these have wings (though four each).

Fourth, in this passage descriptions of wheels and eyes are not even in reference to the “living creatures”. So even if we take “living creature” to mean “angel”, the eye-covered wheels are described more like an accompanying construct of some kind than the “angels” themselves.

Fifth, this passage (along with similar descriptions in Isaiah and Revelation) is describing an apocalyptic vision. Regardless of how one views the veracity and historical accuracy of the various Biblical books, it would be inadvisable to prioritize apocalyptic visions over more mundane conventional narratives when determining how the authors intended to depict angels as physical beings.

New Testament

The New Testament also has several mentions of angels, most of which lack physical descriptions. They generally lend themselves well to being quoted more concisely than the Old Testament passages, so I will briefly mention the more salient ones here.

In Luke, the angel Gabriel who appears to Zechariah the father of John the Baptist (not to be confused with the Old Testament prophet), is described as “standing”:

And there appeared to him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense.

Luke 1:11 ESV

When Gabriel later appears to Mary, there is even less physical description, but it bears mentioning that Mary seems more bothered by Gabriel’s greeting and words than by his physical appearance:

In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to […] Mary. And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.”

Luke 1:26-30 ESV

Around the temptation of Jesus in Mark, angels are described as “ministering” to him.

And he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan. And he was with the wild animals, and the angels were ministering to him.

Mark 1:13 ESV

After the crucifixion and resurrection, an angel is described in Matthew as sitting on a stone. Similar descriptions appear in John.

And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it.

Matthew 28:20 ESV

Much later, the author of Acts describes the martyr Stephen’s face as being “like the face of an angel” (Acts 6:15).

In what might be the most interesting New Testament verse to someone analyzing the history of depictions and conceptions of angels by Christians, the author of Hebrews states in chapter 13 that, by showing hospitality to strangers, “some have entertained angels unawares.”


Revelation is another area where we get more of the descriptions in the vein of “terrifying abominations”. In particular, Revelation 4 describes some “living creatures”:

And around the throne, on each side of the throne, are four living creatures, full of eyes in front and behind: the first living creature like a lion, the second living creature like an ox, the third living creature with the face of a man, and the fourth living creature like an eagle in flight. And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all around and within

Revelation 4:6-8 ESV

In this case, the plethora of eyes is actually describing the living creatures. But generally, the observations in Ezekiel still apply here: this is a visionary description, “living creatures” is used instead of “angels”, etc.

Perhaps more importantly, Revelation (unlike Ezekiel) actually does contain the word “angel”. Many times, in fact.

In particular, Revelation mentions “living creatures”, “elders”, and “angels”, all as being distinct from each other:

Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands,

Revelation 5:11 ESV

This same distinction is made elsewhere:

one of the four living creatures gave to the seven angels seven golden bowls

Revelation 15:7 ESV

There is not much in the way of physical descriptions of angels in Revelation – and it’s still apocalyptic visionary writing – but what there is is more consistent with human-like angels than any of the permutations of the “terrifying abominations”. (Though they are not without causes for fear and awe themselves.) Revelation 8-9 mentions angels “standing”, using trumpets, and having hands. Revelation 10 describes an angel with a face “like the sun” and legs “like pillars of fire”. Revelation 14 describes an angel flying, for what that’s worth.


There are arguments (perhaps based on other ancient books such as Enoch), that there are different categories and types of angels – that “living creatures” are one type, humanoids another, etc. Aside from previously-mentioned “cherubim” and the “seraphim” of Isaiah, this is where words like “Thrones” and others come into play. I cannot speak to how consistent this view is with whichever texts it is based on, but if true, it would mean that “terrifying abominations” are not any more or less accurate than human-like depictions. Rather, it would mean that they are roughly equally accurate depictions of different types of “angels”. According to the same historian mentioned earlier, the idea of a hierarchy of angels (indeed, the origin even of the word hierarchy itself) and the classification of cherubim and seraphim as sub-categories (and high ranks) of angels comes from “Pseudo-Dionysius”, the author of On the Celestial Hierarchy.

Memes and comments around “biblically accurate” angels will sometimes belabor the point that biblical angels frequently say “be not afraid” or something similar. This is frequently true, but its prevalence amongst biblical incidents involving angels is often overstated (possibly due to a bias towards the relatively small New Testament, where these “be not afraid” statements are more prevalent). Such arguments also draw a typically false connection between such statements and the angel’s physical body (see Gabriel’s appearance to Mary as an example of an angel dispelling fear for reasons unrelated to his physical form). These pacifying remarks more often relate to the fear the person in question might have of (a) events that are going on or which are foretold by the angel, or of (b) the manner in which the angel supernaturally appears to them, but they do seem to sometimes relate to (c) the impressiveness of the angel’s physical appearance.

In conclusion, the image of an angel as being roughly equivalent to a human is more textually accurate than describing various permutations of eye-covered eldritch creatures as “angels”. Humans with two wings and certainly a halo are later inventions. And the modern perception of angels as pacific harp-strummers is rather… mild (to put it mildly) compared to much of biblical angelic activity. But ultimately humanoid depictions of angels have a firm basis in biblical texts, and more so than the eldritch creatures that are ostensibly more “biblically accurate.”

Race History

I’m known to generally favor the conservative side of most issues. This is particularly notable when it comes to issues that are in some way related to race. Not that I am especially conservative in racial issues. For the most part, I am actually more agnostic or liberal on such issues than other issues. However, this conservatism frequently makes me the target of assertions of racism or at least racial insensitivity (usually by white people). It is also often implied and occasionally stated outright that I have little to no experience and do not know what (usually) black Americans go through.

While it is true that while there is any racial discrimination in the world – or even demographic disparities – I’ll never know precisely what it is to be a black American, I’d like to dispel the myth that I’m a sheltered white boy with no knowledge or exposure to other races and cultures.

I know that this will open me to mocking references to “I can’t be racist; I have black friends!” But I don’t think that applies. First, because no amount of racial exposure necessarily means that one can’t be racist; that’s not what I’m going for here. Indeed, there are some who are racist against their own race, whether they be contemptuous black Americans or self-flagellating white Americans. Second, as you will see, this is far more than simply having a token friend who happens to be black.

I’ll attempt to make this a comprehensive list of significant interactions/relationships with black individuals, both good and bad.


While branches of my family tree stretch back to the Mayflower, my patrilineal line (the branch of the family tree with which I am most familiar and which has had the most impact on my life) emigrated to the southern United States from Germany in the mid-1800s. To the best of my knowledge, the family stayed largely in southern Mississippi until my grandparents moved to the DC/Maryland area for schooling and work, where my white father was born and raised. My white mother later moved to the area for university. In the intervening years of my father’s childhood, the schools were integrated. With the exception of a few years spent further North, my parents lived the rest of their pre-children years in the Maryland area.

I do recall once asking my dad as a child if my grandparents had black friends (I don’t recall why) and he said not many, but explained that it was circumstantial due to there not being many black people around them. Their openness and inclusiveness was very much confirmed much later when they profusely welcomed my adopted Indian brother to the family, and more recently in their adoration of his half-Indian, half-black daughters. And if I’d been able to use my brain a bit more as a child, it would have occurred to me that my uncle (their son-in-law at the time) was Indian and my cousins were very much visibly his children, to the point of strangers doubting my aunt’s claims of maternity.


My earliest memories are of years spent in the house my father purchased as a single man, courtesy of earning money through manual labor and not incurring debt with unnecessary (for him) schooling. These earliest memories are mostly black, because our 3-5 person white family spent a few of those years hosting two other families (at separate times) for reasons I’ve never fully understood. One white family with three girls lived with us for a period of about six months. While I remember the family well, I do not remember much of this time.

Much more prominent in my mind was the longer time that a black family of six spent living with us. Probably because they had four boys who ranged in age from slightly older than me to several years older. They are, with one possible exception, my oldest friends in the world. I still have occasional contact with one or two of them. But in those years they were the older brothers I never had. And though it happened later (ironically when they lived in the same house but we had moved), my only memory of receiving physical discipline from outside my blood family came from their oldest son. That shows you just how close our families were. For the sake of comparison with the rest of these recollections, I recall their family generally being a bit “poorer” than we were, though the accuracy of that perception is uncertain. If true, whether it was due to total income or the strain of four rambunctious young males running around, I do not know.

At the age of 5 or so, my family moved to another Maryland suburb. While a great many white people seemed to live in the subdivision beyond the woods behind our home, our only neighbors were a small black family with a boy maybe 5 years older than me. This boy, too, became an older brother to me. Though I cannot even recall his name now, he is the one who taught me how to ride a bike. He’s is also the one who taught me not to lend fragile toys to stronger older boys, so, you know. Ups and downs.

Sometime around then, my grandparents retired to Mississippi.

After a couple years, the woods on the other side of our house were partially cleared and a new home was built for a black family with three girls around the age of myself and my two younger sisters. At this point, it bears mentioning that any who look up my old street address here (which I will not give) will discover a mansion with a tennis court. That is not where we lived. We lived in the now-demolished three-bedroom single-story that could probably fit in the mansion’s garage.

However, the neighbor’s houses? While not mansions, they are impressive homes. Those are the same as when we lived there. In fact, I drove by during my honeymoon a few years ago, and happened to pass by as the father of the family with three girls was returning home – they’re still there twenty years later. I say all this to say that while I didn’t pay much attention to race as a kid, my general experience in these years was that the black people I knew – as with most people I knew – were wealthier than my family.

My closest secular friend during this time – indeed, the only male school friend who’s name I can recall – was a black boy. As an aside, I recall the older of my younger sisters had a crush on him for some time.

During all our years in Maryland, my family belonged to a particular church, the Maryland branch of which my parents had been members since they returned to Maryland six months after the planting (they had been members of the parent church up North). This is the family of churches to which we still belong, and they were particularly noteworthy then for having racial makeups that represented the areas in which they were located. (I say ‘then’ only because this is thankfully less unique now.) In this case, this had the result that the majority of my friends were black. In particular, I want to mention a Jamaican then-couple, now-family who have been lifelong friends of our family – I believe they have visited us in every house we’ve ever lived in, aside from one temporary situation. I always enjoyed how the father would always go out of his way to refer to me by my full name since his first name is my middle name.


When I was just turning 8, we moved to white people country. I’m not sure I saw a single non-white person in my school or “neighborhood” during the second half of second grade. For six months we lived on a farm while my father scouted locations for a new church summer camp. Even though we were in definitively white people country, somehow this church location was still very integrated; I assume because we drove some distance to maintain fellowship with the same church, one of the members of which owned the property we lived on.

That summer, we moved to a different part of rural northern Virginia. And should you or I ever meet, dear reader, I don’t want to hear any nonsense about you coming from a small town if your town had any commercial property or stoplights. We had two stop signs, a volunteer fire department that existed mostly to produce a haunted walk on Halloween, and a country store that was occasionally in business. And three separate campgrounds, including the tree farm my family moved to. I’ve since seen smaller towns, but I had to travel to the third world to do so!

This was certainly still white people country. The denser part of “town” had a mixed population, but the town’s side road on which we lived was mostly white. School, however, was still quite mixed. The county is mostly white by a modest majority and one-fifth black, so naturally there was a fair degree of diversity for a rural area. Something odd did happen here. While I had antagonistic relationships with only two or three classmates at all, my actual friendships in school seemed to shift to being almost entirely white, even while my (much closer) church friendships remained as diverse as the area.

The elementary school here was also the one time in my life that I’ve ever said the n-word. During a 4th grade discussion of a book we’d read for class which took place in the rural south shortly after the Civil War, I wanted to know the meaning of the one word I hadn’t understood and blurted out “What does n***** mean?” I got some of dirty looks and someone told me not to say that word, but no one answered. I eventually figured it out; I suppose I’m fortunate this occurred in a special class with a white teacher rather than in our normal class with the black teacher.

Anyways, I think we (along with the charity-based camp across the street) single-handedly shifted the demographics of town every summer when hundreds of children of all races flooded the cabins across the street and the tents of “our” property. The vast majority of my childhood memories stem from these summers. Imagine the strangeness of living a mile from your mailbox and even further from the nearest people for 9-10 months of the year, but to be surrounded by friends you potentially haven’t seen in years every summer, in a structured environment that produces new friends as well. Camping pro-tip: when you form teams for capture-the-flag, force the property resident to play on the side based around the house or you’re just asking for espionage. And when the son of the man who built the camp from nothing tells you something’s against the camp rules, maybe take him at his word.

It was a fine time for me. I learned to fence hike, to fight swim – anything anyone would teach me. Sorry, I tend to lapse into Morgenstern references at the slightest opportunity. I assume you wish me to return to the topic at hand? As you wish.

During this time we adopted my Indian brother from a New Delhi orphanage. I’ve often teased my brother about thinking he’s black, because he will actually tell people he’s black and can visually pull it off. I learned just this week that a very, very black (I am referring to skin tone) mutual friend of my brother and mine is of the opinion that my brother has earned that right, for reasons which mystify me.

North Carolina

After possibly the five most memorable years of my minority, major changes occurred in the leadership of our churches. This was mostly for the good, but it resulted in decentralization and a precipitous, somewhat temporary loss in membership, which meant a loss of income for the church, which meant the camp (owned by the church) was no longer feasible. Out of a job and disillusioned with much of the goings-on at the time, my parents sought a new home in a new region of the church, and we settled in North Carolina, and we’ve been here ever since. I want to note one standout memory of this move. When I told my three closest friends that I was moving, the one black friend (though this only stands out to me upon recollection) had by far the most intense reaction. It was at church, which was meeting in a high school. This stocky friend (in a jocular manner) grabbed me by the shirt, lifted my scrawny self up against the lockers and told me I wasn’t moving. Unsurprisingly, he’s the friend from those days I’ve kept up with the most, though he is decidedly not the one with whom I agree about things the most. He even incidentally introduced me to possibly my favorite modern Country song. While he and I disagree on many political points and have been on opposing “sides” of race-related controversies, I think it’s worth pointing out that he’s never been among those implying that I don’t talk to black people or have any understanding of their perspective.

My area of North Carolina is pretty diverse. My parents’ county has a small white majority, large black minority, and large populations of Hispanics/Latinos and various immigrants. My county has a white plurality somewhat more numerous than the black population, and a large Hispanic/Latino minority, which I am actively increasing.

Eighth Grade

Anyways, while the lower-middle-to-middle-class street I spent my teenage years on is entirely white and the neighboring street is populated by hicks, I still attended very diverse integrated schools and church. Several things about my one year of middle school are worth mentioning. First, my Virginia school system was more advanced mathematically. In the seventh grade, I was one in a classroom full of Algebra 1 students. In North Carolina eighth grade, I was one of only two students (to my knowledge) in the zone of my high school at that level. For this reason, I spent the first hour of every morning of the first semester taking Geometry at the high school. I mention this to point out that the only other student in that situation that I’m aware of was a young black man, who unsurprisingly also had an accountant mother. We got to spend about fifteen minutes each day on the short bus while he was taken to his middle school and I to mine. While he disappeared without warning after the fall break and I’ve not seen him since, he was undoubtedly my first secular friend in North Carolina, and possibly my only school friend in the eighth grade.

Due to scheduling, we were in a remedial Geometry class, so we were classmates with such geniuses as a senior seated next to me who asked to cheat off my test (the final exam, I think it was), when different rows were given different tests. On the flip side, high school operated on semesters and middle school didn’t, which meant I got to spend the spring of eighth grade sitting in a class full of Algebra 1 students who had no idea why I showed up halfway through the semester, spent the entire class reading Star Wars books, never did any homework, and aced every test. And this is completely unrelated to anything, but there was a nice girl I unseated from her position as academic leader of this algebra class (evidenced by the teacher announcing that only one unnamed student [me] had aced the first test I’d taken and the entire class said her name in unison). It turns out she was born perhaps 30 feet from me and a few months afterwards. This is North Carolina. I was born in the DC area. Just thought it was amusingly and mildly interesting.

Second, partway through the year a black boy moved down from New York and joined a couple of my classes. I made an effort to bond over having moved from a more Northern state. He laughed at the suggestion that Maryland was “north,” but seemed to appreciate the gesture. Later, at the beginning of gym class he asked if he could use my locker (since he did not yet have one) and I agreed. Later that day or the next day, I was shocked when he went out of his way to mock me in front of a group of classmates. The next day he showed up looking to use my locker. I declined rudely. I’m a bit ashamed of that; I was raised to repay evil with good.

Third, I was always a gifted student. It is not pride, but simple fact, to state that I am intelligent. Passing the PSAT & SAT with flying colors in the seventh and ninth grades is evidence in favor. Getting my first and last name mixed up on the SAT scantron and completely overlooking 15 PSAT math questions is evidence against. But moreover, I was raised in a disciplined household. As such, I never even considered the possibility that I might get a C in a class prior to college. It just wasn’t something that happened in my family (except to my brother who had to deal with English as a second language). For that matter, B’s hardly seemed to happen for my youngest sister (who probably has the greatest raw intelligence of the family, or at least intelligence of a scholastic bent). So imagine my surprise when in my easy-A trivial Health class, I seemed to always get sub-par grades without obvious reason. At the time, I merely assumed that I just didn’t do well. The assignments were different from the more concrete STEM or language-based classes in which I excelled. So perhaps it wasn’t my thing. Case in point, one assignment (which I don’t think it was fair to grade us on if we were indeed graded on it), was basically a marketing recognition test in which we had to match up about fifty slogans with their products/companies. I got two correct, one of which was McDonald’s “I’m Loving It.” No doubt this was a result of the absence of TV service of any kind other than VHS/DVD from our home throughout my childhood until that time (we later got Netflix before and during its streaming incarnation).

One thing I hadn’t really noticed was that I was one of very few white students in a mostly black class with a black teacher. My parents (much) later informed me that I received sub-par grades due to the teacher’s racial prejudice. Unbeknownst to me, they had had meetings with the principal (who was apparently a phenomenal administrator and went on to work in the high school) and the teacher. I don’t know precisely what occurred in these meetings, but I know that my parents and the principal were in agreement that I did not deserve the grades I received, but the teacher was adamant for reasons unknown to me. I don’t say this as a pity party or to portray myself as a victim. If this is the worst thing to happen to me (spoiler alert: it isn’t), then I’ve got a lucky life. I say this merely as an example of how it is foolish to assume that someone does not know what it’s like at all to be a local minority or to suffer prejudice based on their skin simply because they happen to be a member of the national majority. I am not equating my experiences with anyone else’s. I know full well how easy my life has been on the whole and how minor this particular incident is. I merely wish to discourage people from making categorical assumptions based on race.

Fourth, my black Spanish teacher hated me. I never knew why; I’d never been disliked by a teacher prior to the 8th grade. She was very sociable, so I suspect it had to do with me being the quiet kid. It certainly wasn’t related to schoolwork since I doubt we were assigned two days’ worth of work that entire semester. I sincerely doubt race had anything to do with it, as there were plenty of white students with whom she got along with well in the class. I say this to point out that there are situations where cross-racial animosity exists, but in which we should not assume racism until given cause. I believe she was replaced by a long-term substitute at some point for reasons I don’t know. He was also black. I don’t remember anything about him other than his involvement in the fifth event.

Fifth, I have only been in one altercation in my life that even approaches a real “fight.” Once, while leaving my Spanish class, a black kid whose name I knew but who I’d never interacted with before, shoved me for no reason whatsoever. I shoved him back. He punched me in the face, broke my glasses, and fled immediately when he heard the teacher coming. The teacher came. Unlike the later event I will recount, he handled things correctly. Brought me to the principal and I told the story. Because I shoved back, I got a couple days’ detention. But as a school-friendless bookworm who could do a day’s classwork in an hour or so, that was fine by me.

There was one more memory that was unrelated to anything but which I treasure too much not to share. The science teacher one day decided to walk along the classroom and point at each kid and declare their future profession. Most kids took a few seconds’ thought. He passed me by without even stopping and declared “Engineer” without hesitation. I suppose software “engineer” is close enough.

High School

I did not attend my base school, but when to a high school with a STEM focus in a predominantly black community. It was here that I first experienced any degree of racial tension. Nothing significant, but the nearly entirely-black students of the base school tended to attend the regular and remedial classes, and so tended to keep to themselves. Those like me who came from a different base school for scholastic purposes were more diverse in race and background (white, black, Hispanic, Pakistani, etc.). We tended to attend honors and AP classes and therefore kept to ourselves. Among fellow Star Wars nuts, gamers, bookworms, engineering enthusiasts, and generally funny people, I found school friends aplenty. While there was nothing serious, hints of racial differences could seep through. One of my friends throughout high school was a black man with whom I share a birthday. A very cheerful, smart, quick-witted individual. I don’t know the origin of this, but it actually took me a while to learn his actual name, because at school he went by “Whitey”.

There was one substitute teacher who bears mentioning. Mrs. Solomon was the high school boogeyman. She was unpleasant, strict, and never taught anything. She is most notorious for reportedly declaring to a class of impressionable freshmen that prison’s purpose is to be the modern slavery of black men.

But in general, high school passed without significant racial incidents. Though I feel compelled to mention one particular event. It’s not particularly racial, but the perpetrator did happen to be black. This individual, with whom I had a contentious relationship through a good part of high school, once came up behind me and jabbed his finger into my rectum (through my pants/shorts). As bad as that was, what really stood out to me about this was not that a jerk harassed me in a crude manner. But that when I was emotionally recounting events to the teacher who happened by shortly thereafter, I was not treated to any sympathy. No action was taken or even attempted against this coward who (again) ran instead of facing consequences. No, what stands out to me is that the teacher – who knew me as an excellent student in her class – became angry and yelled at me. Because I used the word “gay” to describe a male inserting his finger into my rectum. That was the only time in my entire thirty years of life that I have used the word “gay” in a derogatory manner, since I was raised with an emphasis on Ephesians 4’s prohibition on unwholesome talk. Yet I was berated for the one time I used it (with complete accuracy). Is it any wonder that I developed an aversion to political correctness?

I will mention another event more for the humor value than anything. I took a Digital Electronics course taught by a redneck Vietnam vet. The class was laid back, and one of the black students played a song or two of some music with which I am unfamiliar. The teacher kindly told him to turn it off. A few minutes later, I started playing some Brad Paisley. The boy asked why I could play music and he couldn’t. The teacher said in very typical fashion for him, “Be-cawz he’s plaaayin’ country/western.” But he did have me turn it 0ff which I was glad to do, having extracted the intended humor from the teacher’s clear preferences. The same teacher was in the habit of smacking me upside the head whenever he saw me wearing my motorcycle helmet. Good times.

During high school I also visited Guatemala for the first time. The group was very large, so we actually didn’t interact with the Guatemalans very much, other than the local schoolchildren.


I spent most of my college years with roommates. In terms of man-months, they were mostly black (meaning I had more white roommates in total, but most of the time had mostly black roommates). We got along splendidly, and I always hold up one of them as a shining example of how to have pleasant conversations about any subject imaginable, up to and including race. During this time, I was the “victim” of a couple of thefts. But what stands out to me is the one attempted robbery, where four or five black men once attempted to rob me. While I have no particular reason to suspect I was targeted for being white, this shows that I do indeed know what it’s like to be alone amongst a group of another race who are, shall we say, less than friendly. (Though I certainly am not implying that this is equivalent to a regular, daily experience of being a visible minority.) There was also the time when I was the only white person among about 200 black people at a recreational event, which was an odd experience. No one was threatening or unwelcoming, but I did happen to notice some inquisitive or mildly confused looks.

University was also when I first became aware just how fast and loose certain types of people will play with the race card. I had been aware that vague “liberal” types existed who might consider me racist for my opinions on immigration, affirmative action, or welfare. I had no idea I would personally be accused of racism by someone who actually sort of knew me simply for disapproving of a particular political candidate, or that the nation’s leaders would begin declaring any opposition to increased taxes “racist.”

During university I made a few additional trips to Guatemala and actually got to meet some of the people there, several of whom are still friends I keep in touch with.


There’s no delicate way to put this. I seem to work in a profession with few black people. Perhaps it’s just been the three companies I’ve worked for, but software engineering – while generally a racially diverse profession – just does not seem to attract that many black men (or women, though that’s another subject). I’ve worked with white men, white women, a single black man (who performed his job admirably; much more so than his white counterpart at a different job), many Indian men and women, Chinese men and women, and technically one white transsexual who I didn’t really work with, but shared a cubicle wall with.

While in my career, I briefly lived with a white family of five, and I lived alone for a few months. The rest of the time, up until my marriage, I always had roommates, and they were always black, except for one guy who is half-Chinese and half-White but for some reason looks so Hispanic that twice now native Spanish-speakers have begun speaking Spanish to his English-only self apropos of nothing while my fluent Spanish self sits or stands at his side, barely controlling laughter.

During this time of increased income and ability to travel, I made enough trips to Guatemala that I’ve completely lost count at this point. It’s how I met my wife (who I brought to the US on a fiance visa) and was adopted into a family of twenty or so Guatemalans and counting when a black man married us while a Dominican provided interpretation to Spanish. We now have a son who will grow up bilingual. During the same general time period, my Indian brother has entered into a long-term relationship with a black woman and produced two beautiful mixed daughters. (As a Christian, I must point out that we do not approve of the sequence of events here, but that doesn’t mean we love anyone involved any less.)

I have also been involved in small groups and specific structured relationships within the church with people of all manner of backgrounds – Dominican, Jamaican, Haitian, Ghanese, Kenyan, Dixie, Yankee, black American, Peruvian, Mexican, etc. And when I say “background” in this context I mean that they’re generally from those places (or in a few cases are children of immigrants). They speak the language, they have the culture, etc.

Oh, and by the way, if anyone – particularly any white people – reading this are offended by my avoidance of “African American” in favor of the word “black”, none of these black people I’ve known have ever taken offense. And several of them have some issue with the term “African American” themselves (though would not consider it offensive). As one brother wisely put it: “It’s all about intent.”


So, do I know precisely what it’s like to be this sort of person or that sort of person? No, of course not. But nor do they know exactly what it’s like to be me, specifically.

Should I be more sympathetic to peoples’ feelings? Perhaps.

Feelings don’t care about your facts

Brian Adams, personal friend

But I’ll stress that while feelings are valid, they are irrelevant to certain discussions of policy, practical solutions, and sometimes morality.

Facts don’t care about your feelings.

Ben Shapiro, political pundit

I just hope people will take a little more time to consider what they may not know about others they dislike or disagree with before they take the lazy, intellectually cowardly route of assuming malicious intent in general and racism in particular. And avoid ascribing characteristics of a group, real or perceived, to particular individuals. That is, after all, the core of racism. As Jordan Peterson has noted, the variances between groups pale in comparison to the variances between individuals.

Black Lives Matter™ vs Christianity

Let me start by saying that, to the best of my knowledge, I have never uttered nor propagated any of these phrases:

  • Black Lives Matter
  • Blue Lives Matter
  • All Lives Matter

This is not because I disagree with the content of any of those messages. However, I think the use of these slogans is counter-productive. Those who agree don’t need to hear it. Those who disagree will not be swayed. And most of all, those who may agree with the content may be affronted at the utterance. By saying “X lives matter” you are implying to a non-receptive audience that someone, namely the person you are speaking to, does not agree that those lives have value. It is only natural for anyone to be perturbed at such an implication, even if they really shouldn’t allow that offense to dictate their response.

But this rant is not aimed at the well-intentioned who use these phrases. Neither is it aimed at protestors criticizing a system for its flaws, real or perceived. No, this rant is aimed squarely at destroying the all-too widespread image of the Black Lives Matter organization proper as a force for good. Even so, this is not aimed even at (perhaps) most rank-and-file members of this organization, though I do hope that they receive it, that they might know the sort of bedfellows they are keeping. Most of all, I hope for this to be read by those who follow both Christ and the Black Lives Matter organization.

I am not going to expose any secrets or opine about ambiguities regarding funding or ulterior motives. I am writing this simply because I finally got around to reading the Black Lives Matter website.

Black Lives Matter is not interested in truth and is founded on misinformation, whether received or produced. The Black Lives Matter About page declares in no uncertain terms that the organization is founded on the supposition that (1) George Zimmerman was guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin and that (2) his acquittal was a miscarriage of justice. I will not opine on the motives of Zimmerman, nor the correctness of his or Martin’s actions.

But I want to make one thing abundantly clear: Even if Zimmerman did murder Trayvon Martin – which is doubtful – there was insufficient evidence to overcome the “reasonable doubt” burden. It is likely that Trayvon Martin initiated the violence, perhaps justifiably so (believing Zimmerman to be a pedophile). Eyewitness testimony is conflicted, and the most condemning witness testimony (much publicized, of course) comes from relatives of eyewitnesses rather than the actual witnesses themselves! The zeitgeist version of events was not helped by a media which forsook its duty as a propagator of truth. MSNBC actually edited the 911 phone call to make it appear as though Zimmerman volunteered racial information! Couple all this with other known facts, such as Zimmerman’s Hispanic heritage and black prom date, and the confident assertion that Zimmerman was an anti-black racist who murdered a boy for no reason is simply unsustainable.

This insidious’ organization’s What We Believe page cites their “search of justice” regarding Mike Brown’s death in Ferguson as one of the first major acts of the organization. Any true seeker of justice (among the general public, at least) must conclude that it would have been a miscarriage of justice to convict Darren Wilson. Whether he should have been indicted is beyond my level of expertise, but a conviction (based on publicly available information) would have been wronging a man for his actions minutes after he sought to assist a baby with breathing problems. While Brown’s death does have a number of characteristics that are cause for concern, it is simpleminded to conclude that when a giant man reaches into a cop’s vehicle and later charges the officer (supported by the testimony of black witnesses), that the resulting altercation and any deaths are simply the result of racism. Particularly when Brown was the suspect mentioned and described in detail in a “stealing in progress” minutes before. The slogan “Hands up, don’t shoot” and the like are based upon testimony that was “inconsistent, fabricated, or provably wrong” and ignores testimony by a black eyewitness that Wilson was “in the right” or that he “would have f****** shot that boy, too.” None of this is to say that anyone was right, per se, but that to convict Wilson would have been wrong (based on what we know as members of the general public).

But these are minor quibbles for the earnest Christian seeking to address injustice. Perhaps they are merely guilty of trusting the wrong sources (though at this point, heavily involved parties like BLM™ confidently invoking Mike Brown as an innocent victim is indicative of either willful ignorance or dishonesty). And in any case, there are undoubtedly cases of police brutality, some subset of which involve racism in one form or another.

So let’s look at their goals and beliefs. There are some which give pause, but none more so than their Marxist view on the quintessentially Christian institution of nuclear families:

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

Black Lives Matter “What We Believe” page

There, in black and white, they go beyond the admirable goal of mutual assistance in the rearing of families to explicitly criticizing the nuclear family structure itself – a structure mandated for Christians who choose to procreate. Any student of the Bible would do well to avoid alliance with such a group.

Again, this is not a mark against the use of the slogan “Black Lives Matter” or of those who earnestly protest perceived injustices in good faith. But this organization does not deserve your support.

“Women’s” Marches

(This regards the so-called Women’s Marches which took place on 2017-01-21.)

As Christians, we are called to love our neighbor (Matthew 22:39). In this Christian’s mind, this means that we should oppose (in love) the systematic slaughter of 1/6 of our neighbors (2013, source: CDC[1]), including 1/3 of our black neighbors. It means we should avoid giving our approval to any organization or movement which not only defends this practice, but actively celebrates it. (Secular side note: if a practice kills millions of women, it is dishonest to call supporting events “Women’s” anything.)

Similarly, the Bible is very clear on the distinction between a man and a woman. So to engage in activities which celebrate transexualism is also grossly un-biblical. (Secular side note: it is incongruous to call something a “Women’s March” when the supporters have no meaningful definition for the word “woman.”)

There are other examples, but these two are the more egregious incompatibilities between the “Women’s March” and Christianity. They are more than sufficient.

Now some might say that this is not about morals, but about people being free to live their lives how they choose. This is America, after all. Fair enough. That is adequate justification for homosexuals calling their unions “marriage” as long as private citizens aren’t forced to affirm this (etc. etc.). But there are two major problems with this argument.

First, abortion. The victims of abortion are not free to live their lives, thanks to movements, groups and events like these.

Second, these marches are not just about the alphabet soup[2] demographic being free to live their lives. They are about forcing affirmation of these lifestyles on private citizens (excluding the likes of Kim Davis) with serious moral/religious reservations. And, often, they’re about demanding public funds to subsidize these behaviors.

This is what you endorse when you participate in these events. That is not Christ-like.

If you’re not a Christian, fair enough. You certainly shouldn’t be held to a standard you never claimed to adhere to.

But if you call yourself a Christian and think such participation is compatible with that… read your Bible.

(Note: It’s possible someone participating is unaware what it is they are endorsing. Said participation should have been enough to change that. If not, just look for YouTube videos of the speeches given [and watch the total lack of media coverage at next week’s March for Life].)


1. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm

2. LGB…


As always, I welcome any criticisms or disagreements in the form of comments, messages, emails, or smoke signals. But be advised that (a) I may ignore or remove profanity or ad hominem attacks, and (b) the First Amendment does not in any way prevent me from doing this.


  1. 2017-03-03 09:19 EST – Added Engagement section.

Biblical Abortion

A man by the name of Curtis Fiers has written  an article titled “5 Verses that Prove the Bible Supports Abortion Rights.” As any amateur Biblical scholar might expect, it is very deceptive and lacks logical coherency. This post is a point-by-point response.


I cannot speak for Curtis, but my responses here directly relate only to the moral and religous question of abortion. The legal question is another subject – for another time – about which the Bible is less adamantly clear. In any case, this post is primarily aimed at debunking Curtis’ claims rather than making any  claims of my own.

Biblical Legality

It’s strange, though, that the Bible wouldn’t directly outlaw abortion if it was wrong. After all, each of the books of the New Testament were written in the Common Era (CE) — often referred to as A.D. Yet the earliest evidence of an induced abortion dates to 1550 BCE. This, of course, is around 1,545 years before Christ was even born.

It’s not at all strange that the Bible wouldn’t directly outlaw abortion. The New Testament doesn’t even “outlaw” conventional murder – or anything else for that matter. The only “outlawing” is in the Old Testament. This is primarily in Leviticus and other books of the Torah.

Joshua son of Nun lived around 1300 BCE[1]. This is a few hundred years after the “earliest evidence of induced abortion.” But proving that abortion existed during the Mosaic period and proving that it was practiced by Israelites (and, thus, needed to be addressed) are two completely different things.

Additionally, the Code of Assura provided for the death penalty if a woman got an abortion without her husband’s blessing. This was in 1075 BCE. It just seems weird, even with historical evidence that abortion was occurring over 1,500 years before Christ, that the Bible never specifically outlaws it.

Obviously, the Code of Assura was written hundreds of years after the Torah, and in any case every Bible novice knows that the Assyrians were dramatically different from the Israelites. It would be no surprise at all to find that abortion was partially outlawed in Assyria while God, Moses, David, or whoever saw no need to create a similar law in Israel. If it was not practiced, such a law would be comparable to a 2016 American law outlawing guillotine executions – it would not be ridiculous, but it would seem odd and unnecessary.

Biblical Silence

The main focus of the abortion debate is whether fetuses constitute living persons. If you believe that the Biblical authors thought so, then obviously abortion is prohibited by any verse prohibiting murder. It is only if you believe that the fetus is not a living person that you can make the case for Biblical silence. Even then, I personally find the utter lack of mention of abortions in the Bible to be indicative that it was not in practice (or at least was extremely rare).

The only instances where abortion could be considered to have been mentioned are verses like 2 Kings 8:12[2], where the death of the fetus is incidental to the death of the mother, or Hosea 13:16[3], where the fetus death is incidental and where a terrible judgement is being pronounced. These references invariably portray abortion as a horrible event and indicative of a time of great suffering. Beyond that, they usually portray it as evil [4].

Biblical Support

“When men have a fight and hurt a pregnant woman, so that she suffers a miscarriage, but no further injury, the guilty one shall be fined as much as the woman’s husband demands of him, and he shall pay in the presence of the judges. But if injury ensues, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

This Biblical verse lays out the penalty for accidentally causing a woman to miscarry, and it’s just a fine. If the woman herself is injured during the incident, however, the good old “eye for an eye” rule comes into play.

So if the mother dies, the person who caused the death dies. If only the unborn child dies, however, the at-fault party has to fork over a few shekels. If an unborn fetus is a human life, why is it not treated as such in this verse?

Here, Curtis takes Exodus 21:22-25 to mean that fetuses are not valued as human life. The core of his argument is that “eye for an eye” punishment applies to maternal injuries, but not the death of the fetus. There are a couple problems with this argument. First, how could “eye for an eye” possibly be applied to the man who caused the fetus to die? He is obviously not pregnant. Moreover, if the Bible supports the concept of fetal personhood, such a punishment would be unjust. Therefore, the fine is entirely consistent with pro-life sentiment.

Now some may argue that this verse’s failure to pronounce the death penalty implies that a fetus is not valued equal to an adult, since murder is a capital offense under Levitical law. But there are two glaring problems with this. The first is intentAccidental “murder” (i.e. manslaughter) is not a capital offense (a “perpetrator” may flee to a “city of refuge”). This verse deals with accidental fetal death.

The other, more crucial failure of this argument is that the verse does not relate to abortion. Curtis has cherry-picked the New American Bible version (the Bible used by American Catholics) which can be twisted to support his pro-abortion sentiments. Look at these translations:

  • American Standard Version: “hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow”
  • International Children’s Bible: “they might hit a pregnant woman so that the baby comes out”
  • English Standard Version: “hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out”
  • New International Version: “hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely”
  • New King James Version: “hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely”
  • New American Standard Bible: “strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely”

Clearly, this verse concerns itself primarily with premature birthnot abortion. Indeed, the “eye for an eye” punishment is concerning injuries suffered by the infant – or possibly both the infant and the mother –  not the mother alone. This means that if the fetus dies (i.e. is aborted), the offending man must be executed per “eye for an eye” sentencing! The very verse Curtis uses to support abortion actually partially bans the practice!

The only way to read this verse as supporting abortion is to [a] twist its meaning and [b] use a Catholic Bible. This is somewhat problematic, since the Catholic church is firmly anti-abortion. The current Pope Francis has changed the tone somewhat, yet he remains as morally opposed to abortion as his predecessors.

Unfulfilled Life

“If a man beget a hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he. For he cometh in with vanity, and departeth in darkness, and his name shall be covered with darkness. Moreover he hath not seen the sun, nor known any thing: this hath more rest than the other.”

This text says that it is better for a person to suffer an “untimely birth,” meaning to die from miscarriage, than to live an unhappy life. That’s right: the Bible literally says it’s better to die in the womb than live an unhappy life. This flies directly into the face of all anti-choice believers.

I refuse to deign his Ecclesiastical reference with a thorough analysis. It is an insult to literate people everywhere. Curtis probably thinks that murder is justified if the victim first says “I wish I’d never been born.”


“The total number of Levites counted at the Lord’s command by Moses and Aaron according to their clans, including every male a month old or more, was 22,000. The Lord said to Moses, ‘Count all the firstborn Israelite males who are a month old or more and make a list of their names.’”

In these verses, God tells Moses to conduct a census of all Levite males, but he only tells him to count those who are at least one month old. It’s almost as if those younger than a month don’t hold human value.

Curtis infers that fetuses do not “count” (ba-dum-tsh) as humans because one month was the age cutoff for the Levitical and Israelite censuses of Numbers 3. Ignoring the fact that these censuses were likely intended to aid logistics and planning, Curtis’ interpretation implies that the following groups are not human:

  • Levite infants less than a month old
  • Male Israelites who are not firstborn
  • All female Israelites

Creation of Adam

“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

This verse talks about the creation of Adam. It specifically states that God formed Adam from dust, but he wasn’t yet a living soul. Not until God breathed life into this inhuman form did it become alive. If Adam, the first human to ever exist, had to take a breath before being considered a living soul, why is the same not true for unborn fetuses?

Again, Curtis has chosen a cherry-picked version of Genesis 2:7 to suit his purposes. And again, he insults every literate person reading his article. Anyone can plainly see that this verse is not intended to describe life’s criteria. The poetic use of “breath of life” to refer to “life force” hardly means that “breath must come first.”

Moreover, we can add doctors and scientists to the list of offended parties, since fetuses do breath prior to birth. Sure, it’s amniotic fluid rather than air, but it certainly still qualifies as “the breath of life.” Even a pro-abortion radical cannot deny that at some point fetuses are living, if not persons. To quote Mike Adams, “dead things don’t grow.”


“If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.”

This is a fun one. Earlier in Numbers, it’s stated that, if a man suspects his wife of sleeping with another man, he may bring her to a priest who will create some sort of magic potion with water and dirt. The woman is then made to drink said magic potion. If she has not cheated on her husband, nothing will happen.

If the woman has cheated and is carrying another man’s child, though, the mystical dirt water — we can call it magic mud — will cause her to immediately miscarry. This is a directive coming straight from God himself to Moses. So even if pro-lifers can dodge all these other verses, they can’t deny that this one essentially says, “Abortion is okay as long as it’s forced upon a woman, against her will, for cheating on her husband.”

Here we finally come across something resembling a logical argument. Numbers 5 does indeed indicate that abortion is acceptable if performed on a unfaithful wife by means of what Curtis terms a “magic potion.” However, as religious liberals like Curtis are so fond of reminding us, Old Covenant law is no longer in effect. This means we can wear mismatched clothing and eat bacon; and it means that this exception no longer has true Biblical support.


Curtis’ mocking tone towards the end confirms the suspicion I had throughout the article – this is no pro-abortion “Christian” earnestly seeking God’s will. This is a leftist[6] pro-abortion activist (who’s probably atheist) incompetently abusing Biblical interpretation (and, indeed, literary interpretation as a whole) as a means of attacking the analyses and conclusions of those who actually understand and value the Bible.


As always, I welcome any criticisms or disagreements in the form of comments, messages, emails, or smoke signals. But be advised that (a) I may ignore or remove profanity or ad hominem attacks, and (b) the First Amendment does not in any way prevent me from doing this.


  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua
  2. 2 Kings 8:12 (NIV) – “‘Why is my lord weeping?’ asked Hazael. ‘Because I know the harm you will do to the Israelites,’ [Elisha] answered. ‘You will set fire to their fortified places, kill their young men with the sword, dash their little children to the ground, and rip open their pregnant women.'”
  3. Hosea 13:16 (NIV) – “The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.”
  4. Arguable exceptions being ‘wrath of God’ verses
  5. http://biblehub.com/exodus/21-22.htm
  6. https://www.facebook.com/CurtisFiersWriting/timeline


  1. 2016-05-12 13:27 EST – Added Disclaimer section.
  2. 2017-03-03 09:21 EST – Added Engagement section.
%d bloggers like this: