As traditional values (i.e., biblical values) continue
to be systematically extracted from American culture, moral and
spiritual confusion have been the inevitable result. While the
Bible does not speak directly to the practice of
abortion, it does provide enough relevant material to enable us
to know God’s will on the matter. One insightful passage from
the Old Testament is Exodus 21:22-25, which describes what
action is to be taken in a case of accidental, or at
least coincidental, injury to a pregnant woman:
If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she
gives birth prematurely, yet no lasting harm follows, he
shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband
imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
But if any lasting harm follows, then 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
(NKJV).
Several features of this passage require clarification.
First, the NKJV and
NIV rendering of the
underlying Hebrew as “she gives birth prematurely,” and the
KJV and
ASV rendering “so that her
fruit depart (from her)” are accurate reflections of the
original. “Fruit” in the KJV
is the noun form of a verb that means “to bring forth
(children)” (Schreiner, 1990, 6:76; Harris, et al., 1980,
1:378-379). Thus the noun form (yeled), used 89 times in
the Old Testament, refers to that which is brought forth, i.e.,
children, and is generally so translated (Gesenius, 1847, p.
349; Wigram, 1890, 530-531; cf. VanGemeren, 1997, 2:457). For
example, it is used to refer to Ishmael (Genesis 21:8), Moses
(Exodus 2:3), Obed, the child of Boaz and Ruth (Ruth 4:16), and
even to the Christ child (Isaiah 9:6). It is used in the same
context earlier in the chapter to refer to the children born to
a Hebrew servant whose wife was provided by his master (Exodus
21:4). There is nothing in the word itself that indicates the
physical condition of the child/children, whether dead or alive
(cf. 2 Samuel 12:14-23).
Second, the term translated “prematurely” or “depart” (yatsa)
is a Hebrew verb that has the broad meaning of “to go out, to go
forth” (Gesenius, p. 359). It is used in the Old Testament to
refer to everything from soldiers going forth to war (1 Samuel
8:20), or the sun going forth in its rising (Genesis 19:23), to
a flower blossoming (Job 14:2) or the birth of a child (Job
1:21). The Hebrew is as generic as the English words “to go out
or forth.” As with yeled, there is nothing in the word
itself that would imply the physical status of the child—whether
unharmed, injured, or dead (cf. Numbers 12:12; Deuteronomy
28:57). For example, referring to the births of Esau and Jacob,
the text reads: “And the first came out red…Afterward his
brother came out” (Genesis 25:25-26, emp. added). Only by
contextual details may one determine the condition of the child.
Consequently, in Exodus 21:22, those translations that render
the Hebrew as “miscarriage” (e.g.,
NASB, RSV,
NEB) have taken a
linguistically unwarranted and indefensible liberty with the
text. Hebrew lexicographers Brown, Driver, and Briggs were
accurate in their handling of the underlying Hebrew when they
listed Exodus 21:22 as an instance of “untimely birth” (1906, p.
423).
In contrast, the Hebrew had other words more suited to
pinpointing a miscarriage or stillbirth. For example, suffering
Job moaned: “Or why was I not hidden like a stillborn child,
like infants who never saw light?” (Job 3:16, emp. added). The
psalmist pronounces imprecation against unrighteous judges: “Let
them be like a snail which melts away as it goes, like a
stillborn child of a woman, that they may not see the sun”
(Psalm 58:8, emp. added). The word used in these verses (nephel),
occurring only three times in the Old Testament (cf.
Ecclesiastes 6:3-5), is defined by Gesenius as “a premature
birth, which falls from the womb, an abortion” (p. 558; cf.
Brown, et al., p. 658). In all three contexts, a miscarriage or
stillbirth is clearly under consideration.
Still another Hebrew term would have been more suitable to
identify deceased offspring. When Jacob protested his
father-in-law’s unkindness, he exclaimed, “These twenty years I
have been with you; your ewes and your female goats have not
miscarried their young” (Genesis 31:38, emp. added; cf. Job
21:10). Hosea called upon God to punish the nation: “Give them a
miscarrying womb and dry breasts!” (Hosea 9:14, emp.
added). In fact, just two chapters after the text in question,
God announced to the Israelites details regarding the conquest
of the Canaan and the blessings that they would enjoy: “No one
shall suffer miscarriage or be barren in your land; I
will fulfill the number of your days” (Exodus 23:26, emp.
added). The underlying Hebrew verb in these verses (shachol)
means “to cause abortion (in women, flocks, etc.)” or “to make
abortion, i.e., to suffer it” (Gesenius, p. 822; cf. Brown, et
al., p. 1013). Despite these more precise terms to pinpoint
miscarriage or stillbirth, Moses did not use them in Exodus
21:22.
Third, consider the next phrase in the verse in question:
“yet no lasting harm follows” (NKJV),
“but there is no serious injury” (NIV),
“and yet no harm follow” (ASV).
These English renderings capture the Hebrew accurately.
Absolutely no grammatical indication exists in the text by which
one could assume the recipient of the injury to be either the
mother or the child to the exclusion of the other. As Fishbane
observed: “it is syntactically and grammatically unclear whether
the object of the ‘calamity’ is the foetus or the pregnant
mother” (1985, p. 93). In order to allow Scripture to stand on
its own and speak for itself, one must conclude that to
understand “injury” to refer exclusively to the mother is to
narrow the meaning without textual justification.
Hence, one is forced to conclude that the absence of
specificity was deliberate on the part of the inspired writer
and that he intended for the reader to conclude that the
prescription applied to both mother and child. The
wording is, therefore, the most appropriate and economical if
the writer intended to convey all possible scenarios without
having to go into tedious elaboration—which would have included
at least the following eight combinations: (1) non-lethal injury
to the child but no injury to the mother; (2) non-lethal injury
to the mother but no injury to the child; (3) non-lethal injury
to both; (4) death to the child but no injury to the mother; (5)
death to the child with non-lethal injury to the mother; (6)
death to the mother with no injury to the child; (7) death to
the mother with non-lethal injury to the child; and (8) death to
both mother and child. Old Testament scholar Gleason Archer Jr.
summarized the point of the passage:
What is required is that if there should be an injury
either to the mother or to her children, the injury
shall be avenged by a like injury to the assailant. If it
involves the life (ne-pes’) of the premature baby,
then the assailant shall pay for it with his life. There is
no second-class status attached to the fetus under this rule
(1982, p. 248, emp. added).
Numerous commentators agree with this assessment of the text.
Responding to the poor translation of the Hebrew in the
Septuagint, and the corresponding misconception of the
Alexandrian Jew, Philo, Keil and Delitzsch correctly countered:
“But the arbitrary character of this explanation is apparent at
once; for yeled only denotes a child, as a fully
developed human being, and not the fruit of the womb before it
has assumed a human form” (1976, pp. 134-135). They also
insisted that the structure of the Hebrew phraseology
“apparently renders it impracticable to refer the words to
injury done to the woman alone” (p. 135). Walter Kaiser noted:
“For the accidental assault, the offender must still pay some
compensation, even though both mother and child
survived…. Should the pregnant woman or her child die,
the principle of talio is invoked, demanding ‘life for
life’ ” (1990, 2:434, emp. added). In view of this understanding
of the text, under Mosaic Law “the unborn child would be
considered viable in utero and entitled to legal
protection and benefits” (Fishbane, p. 93).
In his Treatise on the Soul (ch. 37), Tertullian (who
died c. A.D. 220) alluded to
this passage in Exodus 21: “The embryo therefore becomes a human
being in the womb from the moment that its form is completed
[i.e., at conception—DM]. The
law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who
shall cause abortion, inasmuch as there exists already the
rudiment of a human being, which has imputed to it even now the
condition of life and death” (1973, 3:217-218).
So Exodus 21 envisioned a situation in which two brawling men
accidentally injure a pregnant bystander. The injury causes the
woman to go into early labor, resulting in a premature birth of
her child. If neither the woman nor the child is harmed, then
the Law of Moses levied a fine against the one who caused the
premature birth. But if injury or even death resulted from the
brawl, then the law imposed a parallel punishment: if the
premature baby died, the one who caused the premature birth was
to be executed—life for life. To cause a pre-born infant’s death
was homicide under the Old Testament—homicide punishable by
death.
Notice that this Mosaic regulation had to do with injury
inflicted indirectly and accidentally: “The phrasing of
the case suggests that we are dealing with an instance of
unintentional battery involving culpability” (Fishbane, 1985, p.
92). Abortion, on the other hand, is a deliberate,
purposeful, intentional termination of a child’s life. If
God dealt severely with the accidental death of a
pre-born infant, how do you suppose He feels about the
deliberate murder of the unborn by an abortion doctor in
collusion with the mother? The Bible states explicitly how He
feels: “[D]o not kill the innocent and righteous. For I will not
justify the wicked” (Exodus 23:7). As a matter of fact, one of
the things that God hates is “hands that shed innocent
blood” (Proverbs 6:17; cf. 2 Kings 8:12; 15:16; Hosea 13:16;
Amos 1:13). Abortion is a serious matter with God. We absolutely
must base our views on God’s will—not the will of men.
The very heart and soul of this great nation is being ripped out
by unethical actions like abortion. We must return to the Bible
as our standard of behavior—before it is everlastingly too late.
REFERENCES
Archer, Gleason L. Jr. (1982), An Encyclopedia of Bible
Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Brown, Francis, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs (1906),
The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson, 2000 reprint).
Fishbane, Michael (1985), Biblical Interpretation in
Ancient Israel (New York: Oxford University Press).
Gesenius, William (1847), Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the
Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979 reprint).
Harris, R. Laird, Gleason Archer Jr., and Bruce Waltke, eds.
(1980), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
(Chicago, IL: Moody).
Kaiser, Walter (1990), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary:
Exodus, ed. Frank Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1976 reprint), Commentary on
the Old Testament: The Pentateuch (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans).
Schreiner, J. (1990), “yalad,” Theological
Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck
and Helmer Ringgren (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Tertullian (1973 reprint), The Ante-Nicene Fathers,
ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans).
VanGemeren, Willem, ed. (1997), New International
Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Wigram, George W. (1890), The Englishman’s Hebrew and
Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker, 1980 reprint).
Copyright © 2004 Apologetics Press,
Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the
"Scripturally Speaking" section to be reproduced in their
entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed:
(1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original
publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must
be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the
materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that
accompany the article must be included with any written
reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are
strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics,
quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in
the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g.,
running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as
the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in
a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part,
may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for
sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for
posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from
their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics
Press, including the web location from which the articles were
taken.
For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:
Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery,
Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org