Who Owns our Bodies?

Status
Not open for further replies.

TylerRay

Puritan Board Graduate
As a spin-off to a recent thread about procreative ethics, I want to answer some questions and elaborate on a position that I put forth in that thread. There, I stated that we do not have the prerogative to take parts of one person's body and fuse them to another person's body. I hope to prove that as one of the necessary implications of a biblical view of God's ownership of our bodies.

The Bible teaches in no uncertain terms that God owns our bodies, both by nature, as our creator, and (for the Christian) by virtue of our being his by covenant. Paul makes this fact abundantly clear in I Corinthians 6, in which he writes, "the body ... [is] for the Lord," and, "glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's."

In Leviticus 19:28, the Lord deals with the subject of body ownership and prerogatives. He states, "Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD." Charles Ellicott comments on the passage:
The slave had impressed upon his body the initials of his master, the soldier those of his general, and the worshipper the image of his tutelar deity. To obviate this disfiguration of the body which bore the impress of God’s image, and yet to exhibit the emblem of his creed, the Mosaic Law enacted that the Hebrew should have phylacteries which he is to bind as “a sign” upon his hand, and as “a memorial” between his eyes “that the Lord’s law may be in his mouth”

Thus, the prohibition of tattooing was a prohibition of making a mark which dedicated the body (and thus the person) to another, whether it be a false God, or a man. It may be noted in passing that tattooing serves the same function in our society--a person dedicates his body to a person, idea, band, movement, or any number of things by giving a portion of his body to it.

So, we are prohibited from giving ourselves (body or soul) to others. We belong to God; our bodies aren't ours to give. This ought to be enough to settle the issue, but there is more that may be brought into consideration.

First, our bodies really are part of us. This cannot be stressed too strongly in a Christian culture that struggles with dualism. I have heard a dear Christian brother say, "I am not a body; I am a soul--I have a body." This is not the Biblical view, and it is not the Reformed view. The Bible teaches, and Reformed Christians have always confessed, that man has two parts--a material part (the body) and an immaterial part (the soul). God created man with both parts, both parts are affected by the fall, Christ redeemed both parts, and both parts will eventually be perfected. Our souls belong with our bodies, and our bodies belong with our souls. The horror of death is that it tears apart the two constituent parts of a man--it is highly unnatural.

So, if our bodies are part of us, and belong with our souls, then the individual parts of our bodies belong with our souls and with the other parts of our bodies. To separate any part of a man is highly unnatural.

Second, as I have already alluded to, our bodies are being redeemed. Westminster Shorter Catechism 37 says that our bodies are still united to Christ after we die, and Westminster Confession XXXII: ii says that "all the dead shall be raised up, with the selfsame bodies, and none other." So, my body, organs and all, will be united to Christ after I die; and my body, organs and all, will be raised on the last day. We will not be furnished with new organs in the resurrection any more than we will be furnished with new heads, hands, or feet. My kidneys are united to Christ, and I will continue to have them in the resurrection.

So, with all of this being said, if my body (including my organs) is not mine to give, and if my body (including my organs) is an integral part of me from conception to eternity, how can I possibly have the authority to donate my organs to anyone?
 
As a simple response, I will say that I have opted to be an organ donor on my driver's license. I reason that God makes whole those who have lost a limb, an eye, etc. So if I donate an organ after I am dead, I'm confident I too will be made whole (not trying to be presumptuous by the way), and it is better off serving another living person than rotting in the grave (an effect of the Fall). That living person may then be given the opportunity to be put faith in the One who gave His entire body for them.

I treat my body with respect but I'm not superstitious about God needing every atom to resurrect me, many (most?) of which have passed on through the soil to other bodies.

Edit: Also, if it is noble and loving to give our life (body) for another, why not a part of it even after we are dead?
 
John 10:18, "No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father."
 
Thus, the prohibition of tattooing was a prohibition of making a mark which dedicated the body (and thus the person) to another, whether it be a false God, or a man. It may be noted in passing that tattooing serves the same function in our society--a person dedicates his body to a person, idea, band, movement, or any number of things by giving a portion of his body to it.

I have shared this comment on Facebook.
 
Rev. Winzer, could you expand on your point? I'm not sure what you're trying to say beyond Jesus' authority over his own body.
 
Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.

If we can lay down our lives for another, then surely we can lay down our hair for a cancer victim or our kidneys for a needy person...especially after we are dead.
 
Logan and Perg,

The Bible is abundantly clear about the commendability of martyrdom in a just cause. However, it nowhere indicates that we are to seek martyrdom. That is, we are not to seek to give our lives/bodies for another. Instead, we ought to lend our person to every just cause, regardless of the cost. Again, it is a question of authority. We do not have authority over our lives like Jesus did, to lay it down and take it up.
 
Thus, the prohibition of tattooing was a prohibition of making a mark which dedicated the body (and thus the person) to another, whether it be a false God, or a man. It may be noted in passing that tattooing serves the same function in our society--a person dedicates his body to a person, idea, band, movement, or any number of things by giving a portion of his body to it.

I have shared this comment on Facebook.

I'm glad you found it useful. If anyone objects that he tattoos his body for God in order to show God's ownership of his person, you may note that the owner of our bodies has a right to choose his own mark of ownership; this he has done in baptism.
 
That is, we are not to seek to give our lives/bodies for another.
Tyler, I was not speaking of martyrdom.

Exo 32:32 "Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin—; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written." (which may be him inclusive or in the stead of).
Romans 5:7 "For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die." (Not as an unlawful thing, but as an unlikely one).
Romans 9:3 "For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh" (was this a sinful desire?)
Romans 16:4 "Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles."
Philippians 2:17 "Yea, and if I be offered upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy, and rejoice with you all."
John 15:13 "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (Is this a principle or speaking only of Christ?)
1 John 3:16 "Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren." (cf. Eph 5:2, 25).

The last one to which Poole says "We should never hesitate or make a difficulty, to lay down our lives for the Christian community, or even for the common good and welfare of men, being duly called thereto."
And Trapp says "If Pylades can offer to die for Orestes merely for a name, or out of carnal affection at the best; should not Christians lay down their own necks one for another, as Aquila and Priscilla did for Paul? Rom. 16:4"
And Henry says "[Christian love] must be, in the highest degree, so fervent as to make us willing to suffer even to death for the good of the church, for the safety and salvation of the dear brethren...How mortified should the Christian be to this life! How prepared to part with it!"

So at the very least, would you agree that Christians ought to lay down their bodies for other Christians?
 
What do those who have scruples about giving, e.g., a kidney to save a brother in the flesh and a brother in Christ, think about donating blood?

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk
 
That is, we are not to seek to give our lives/bodies for another.
Tyler, I was not speaking of martyrdom.

Exo 32:32 "Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin—; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written." (which may be him inclusive or in the stead of).
Romans 5:7 "For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die." (Not as an unlawful thing, but as an unlikely one).
Romans 9:3 "For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh" (was this a sinful desire?)
Romans 16:4 "Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles."
Philippians 2:17 "Yea, and if I be offered upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy, and rejoice with you all."
John 15:13 "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (Is this a principle or speaking only of Christ?)
1 John 3:16 "Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren." (cf. Eph 5:2, 25).

The last one to which Poole says "We should never hesitate or make a difficulty, to lay down our lives for the Christian community, or even for the common good and welfare of men, being duly called thereto."
And Trapp says "If Pylades can offer to die for Orestes merely for a name, or out of carnal affection at the best; should not Christians lay down their own necks one for another, as Aquila and Priscilla did for Paul? Rom. 16:4"
And Henry says "[Christian love] must be, in the highest degree, so fervent as to make us willing to suffer even to death for the good of the church, for the safety and salvation of the dear brethren...How mortified should the Christian be to this life! How prepared to part with it!"

So at the very least, would you agree that Christians ought to lay down their bodies for other Christians?

Logan,

What do you mean by "lay down their bodies?" 1 John 3:16 uses the situation of risking our lives for one another as an extreme example of brotherly love. In this, we see that we should lay down all of our rights and prerogatives for the good of others. The question is, do we have the prerogative to have parts of our bodies cut off and fused to someone else?

You haven't interacted with the crux of my argument, which is not about how we use our prerogatives, but what are prerogatives are.
 
What do those who have scruples about giving, e.g., a kidney to save a brother in the flesh and a brother in Christ, think about donating blood?

I'm personally undecided about it, since blood is not a permanent body part.
 
What do you mean by "lay down their bodies?"

You specifically said "we are not to seek to give our lives/bodies for another". But I believe that is directly contrary to the Christian's view in Scripture. Did you read Poole's comment? I thought it made it pretty clear what I meant.

You seem to be assuming that this "extreme" example of brotherly love is just being willing to risk our lives, and by your principles would seem to be only as long as it doesn't risk the destruction of our bodies. But it is certain that those like Priscilla and Aquilla "laid down their necks", for which they are praised! Is not the very laying down of one's life, a laying down of one's body? You seem to be thinking of them as two separate things.
 
Life is in the Blood

since blood is not a permanent body part

Are you sure? Don't you think that our blood will be included in our resurrection?

Maybe I don't understand you meaning, but couldn’t someone argue that the blood is a more integral part of the body than a kidney?

Leviticus 17:11,14
11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof:

Doesn’t 1 John argue the same thing?

1 John 5:8
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Is it not the blood of Christ brings us near to God?

Ephesians 2:13
But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
 
What do you mean by "lay down their bodies?"

You specifically said "we are not to seek to give our lives/bodies for another". But I believe that is directly contrary to the Christian's view in Scripture. Did you read Poole's comment? I thought it made it pretty clear what I meant.

You seem to be assuming that this "extreme" example of brotherly love is just being willing to risk our lives, and by your principles would seem to be only as long as it doesn't risk the destruction of our bodies. But it is certain that those like Priscilla and Aquilla "laid down their necks", for which they are praised! Is not the very laying down of one's life, a laying down of one's body? You seem to be thinking of them as two separate things.

Brother, you're either misunderstanding me or misrepresenting me. What I meant is that we are not to seek death. If we die as a consequence of fulfilling our moral duty to one another in love, then that's more than commendable, but we are not to seek death.
 
since blood is not a permanent body part

Are you sure? Don't you think that our blood will be included in our resurrection?

Maybe I don't understand you meaning, but couldn’t someone argue that the blood is a more integral part of the body than a kidney?

Leviticus 17:11,14
11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof:

Doesn’t 1 John argue the same thing?

1 John 5:8
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Is it not the blood of Christ brings us near to God?

Ephesians 2:13
But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Ed, note the comment I just made to Trent. I'm undecided about blood because it's a bodily fluid and not a body part per se. If I become persuaded one way or another about the blood being an "integral part of the body" as you so aptly put it, I'll make up my mind. For now, I abstain from giving blood.
 
Brother, you're either misunderstanding me or misrepresenting me. What I meant is that we are not to seek death. If we die as a consequence of fulfilling our moral duty to one another in love, then that's more than commendable, but we are not to seek death.

I don't think I'm misunderstanding you but I am trying to make you think about the implications and the consequences. No one is talking about seeking death.
 
Tyler,

Honestly, I've never heard your position before from a Reformed person.

Let's say that your wife needed a kidney and your genetics matched hers so that you were able to give her one of yours. Would you seriously say to her, "I am to be as Christ to you and lay down my life for you, but I am not willing to give you a kidney"?

Laying down our lives for another is not an "extreme" example. It is regarding another as more important than our own selves. Otherwise, a husband laying down his life for his wife (which could include physical death) would mostly be a command ignored by Christian men in the marriage relationship, since most of us don't physically die in her stead.

Christ gave His life for the church as He lived and died for her. If we reduce His sacrifice to His death itself, we don't truly understand what He suffered.

Your idea of a "permanent body part" which excludes blood is problematic. Is your definition of permanent something that can replentish itself (hair, finger nails, etc.)? I certainly hope that you would not join the JWs in prohibiting blood transfusions...

Yes, we will have our bodies resurrected one day, but a glorious body is beyond our comprehension. I would encourage you to put less stock in the physical parts of the body. The danger in your position is that you've essentially provided yourself a way out of laying down your life for another.

Rather, because your body is not your own, you should be ready to use it in the service of the God who made you a steward of your body and commanded you to expend yourself for others.

God will work out the details in the resurrection.
 
Recently, at a church attended by some close friends, a prayer request was brought up that a member's sister had failing kidneys. The lady with failing kidneys is not a member of the church. After prayer was offered, one of the young ladies scheduled tests so that she could determine if she was a viable doner to this woman she never met.

Was this young woman obeying or disobeying Christ and Christ's example? Was this young woman an example of someone who thought her body was her own or someone who thought that her body belonged to the Lord?
 
Brother, I want to gain some clarity on your argument, so bare with me. What's the premise that gets us from "God owns our bodies" and "our bodies (including their constituent parts, like kidneys) are united to Christ and redeemed by Him" to the conclusion "therefore, our kidneys are not ours to give?"

Surely, all things that we have belong to God and in that sense are not ours to give. Nevertheless, our God gives many good things over which we are to be wise stewards (e.g., our money). Though our financial resources belong to God, nothing precludes us from using or even giving it away for the good of our neighbor, correct?

Also, given the rate at which our organs regenerate, we never have, in some sense, the same organs, bones, etc. with which we were born with. Moreover, all of our bodies rot in the grave. Why cannot we give an organ to save our neighbor's life, which otherwise would rot in the ground? I think it is both loving God and our neighbor to do so. That being said, we do not have permission to give away, say, our heart and other vital organs while living. Such would be suicide and illicit.
 
Tyler,

Honestly, I've never heard your position before from a Reformed person.

Let's say that your wife needed a kidney and your genetics matched hers so that you were able to give her one of yours. Would you seriously say to her, "I am to be as Christ to you and lay down my life for you, but I am not willing to give you a kidney"?

Thank you for your response, brother. If my wife and I were in that situation, I would say, "We are in God's hands, and we commit ourselves to him. Others will try to convince us to do a transplant, but we have to honor God in this. We cannot sin that good may come."

Laying down our lives for another is not an "extreme" example. It is regarding another as more important than our own selves. Otherwise, a husband laying down his life for his wife (which could include physical death) would mostly be a command ignored by Christian men in the marriage relationship, since most of us don't physically die in her stead.

When I said that laying down one's life for another is an extreme example of brotherly love, I meant that dying for another is the very extremity of brotherly love. No man has greater love than this. The apostle uses it as a figure of speech, representing all brotherly love. Gill writes, "this is an argument for brotherly love, in the highest instance of it, taken from the example of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Christ gave His life for the church as He lived and died for her. If we reduce His sacrifice to His death itself, we don't truly understand what He suffered.

I wouldn't dream of it, brother.

Your idea of a "permanent body part" which excludes blood is problematic. Is your definition of permanent something that can replentish itself (hair, finger nails, etc.)? I certainly hope that you would not join the JWs in prohibiting blood transfusions...

The reason I say that blood is not permanent is because it is constantly being destroyed and replenished.

Frankly, it wouldn't bother me to agree with the JWs about blood transfusions any more than to agree with them on the authority of the Bible.

Yes, we will have our bodies resurrected one day, but a glorious body is beyond our comprehension. I would encourage you to put less stock in the physical parts of the body. The danger in your position is that you've essentially provided yourself a way out of laying down your life for another.

What would you have me focus on in terms of how to treat our bodies if not on the physical parts of the body? The body doesn't have any other kind of part. If the WCF is correct, and I think it is, then we will be raised with the same bodies we have now. If that doesn't mean that we will have the body parts that we have now, I don't know what it can mean.

Rather, because your body is not your own, you should be ready to use it in the service of the God who made you a steward of your body and commanded you to expend yourself for others.

Amen.

God will work out the details in the resurrection.

Amen.
 
On the difference between blood and organs, here are the thoughts of Ronald Hanko of the Protestant Reformed Churches:
[T]here is a very essential difference between blood donation and organ transplants- that is that blood is a renewable substance. If I give a pint of blood as a blood donor I do not spend the rest of my life going about with one pint less blood than others! It renews within my body. An analogy might be a nursing mother's milk; by feeding her baby and 'donating' milk she gives what her body will renew, so long as she continues lactating. Possibly hair and finger and toe nails also are analogous to blood in that sense. But organs are essentially different, in that they are not renewable by the body! No kidney donor grows a replacement kidney, no new liver or heart develops in a body from which they are taken. So, extremely unlike blood, organs are an essential part of an individual body, an essential and unalienable part of a whole created by God, and to be ultimately resurrected or changed by Him. Therein lies the essential difference and dividing line, and the reason why Christians can oppose organ transplants without any hint of the Jehovah's Witness nonsense about blood transfusions and the 'soul in the blood' etc."
 
I am trying to make you think about the implications and the consequences.

Have you considered that one of the conclusions of your opinion is that every Christian ought to be giving up as many organs as possible, since there are always people in need of transplants?
 
Thank you for your response, brother. If my wife and I were in that situation, I would say, "We are in God's hands, and we commit ourselves to him. Others will try to convince us to do a transplant, but we have to honor God in this. We cannot sin that good may come."

Brother,

I believe that Matt. 15:6 applies to your position. I speak gently-- but I believe it is a hypocritical position that effectively neglects God's commandment.

Would you put your hand into a machine to save someone else, even if it meant losing your hand? Also, when too much blood is lost, the body cannot recover. By your own definition, isn't blood then a permanent body part?
 
Thank you for your response, brother. If my wife and I were in that situation, I would say, "We are in God's hands, and we commit ourselves to him. Others will try to convince us to do a transplant, but we have to honor God in this. We cannot sin that good may come."

Brother,

I believe that Matt. 15:6 applies to your position. I speak gently-- but I believe it is a hypocritical position that effectively neglects God's commandment.

Would you put your hand into a machine to save someone else, even if it meant losing your hand? Also, when too much blood is lost, the body cannot recover. By your own definition, isn't blood then a permanent body part?

To be honest, your question about putting my hand into a machine is challenging--I'll have to think it over. My first thought was, Of course I would!, but I see your point. I'll think it over.

To make things clear, if the tables were turned, and I were the one with the failing kidney, I would turn it down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top