Exodus 21: 22-25 – Does it deny the humanity of the unborn child?
By Dr. Norman R. Wise
JPS
Exodus 21:22 And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her
fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's
husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm
follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot
for foot, 25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
ESV
Exodus 21:22 "When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her
children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the
woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if
there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for
hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
NAU
Exodus 21:22 "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that
she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's
husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 "But if there is any
further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for
tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
NLT
Exodus 21:22 "Now suppose two people are fighting, and in the process, they hurt a
pregnant woman so her child is born prematurely. If no further harm results, then the
person responsible must pay damages in the amount the woman's husband demands and
the judges approve. 23 But if any harm results, then the offender must be punished
according to the injury. If the result is death, the offender must be executed. 24 If an eye is
injured, injure the eye of the person who did it. If a tooth gets knocked out, knock out the
tooth of the person who did it. Similarly, the payment must be hand for hand, foot for
foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Summary: It has been argued that this verse is talking about a miscarriage and that since
the punishment is only a fine then the unborn child in the womb was not considered to be
a human life. This is based on a wrong understanding of the ac'y" yatsa which
means to go or come out. What is pictured here is a child that is prematurely born and
survives and not one that dies. Therefore, this scripture supports the protection of the
right to life of the unborn child instead of denying it.
It has argued that the Hebrew Bible itself does not regard the child in the womb as a
human being and therefore those who work to defend the lives of unborn children based
on a biblical worldview are not consistent with what is actually written in the text of the
Hebrew Bible. Is this in fact the case?
First, the NAU and NLT rendering of the underlying Hebrew as “she gives birth
prematurely,” and the Jewish Publication Society’s translation “so that her fruit depart
(from her)” are accurate reflections of the original. “Fruit” in the JPS 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 Hebrew Bible and 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 promised Messiah (Isaiah 9:6). It is used in the same context earlier
in the chapter to make reference to the children born to a Hebrew servant whose wife was
provided by his master (Exodus 21:4). There is nothing in the term itself that indicates the
physical condition of the child/children, whether deceased or living (cf. 2 Samuel 12:1423).
Second, the term translated “prematurely” or “depart” (yatsa) is a Hebrew verb that has
the wide-ranging meaning of “to go out, to go forth” (Gesenius, p. 359). It is used in the
Hebrew Bible 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 emerging (Job 14:2) or the
birth of a child (Job 1:21).
The Hebrew is as common as the English words “to go out or forth.” As with “yeled,”
there is nothing in the word itself that would give us an indication of the physical status
of the child—whether safe and sound, wounded, or lifeless (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 related details may one conclude the condition of the child.
Accordingly, in Exodus 21:22, those translations that render the Hebrew as “miscarriage”
(e.g., NASB, RSV, NEB) have taken an unjustifiable and unjustified liberty with the the
meaning of the Hebrew 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).
The Hebrew does have a word for miscarriage or abortion which is lp,n< or
lp,nE
(nephel or nephel) and is used in Job 3:16 and Psalm 58:8 to refer to this. A
even more precise Hebrew word is lkov' or lk;v' (shakol or shakal)
which is used in Genesis 31:38 and Job 21:10 and other places to speak even to case an
abortion. The point is that the author of Exodus 21 had Hebrew words which would
have better described a miscarriage or abortion but did not use them because what he was
describing here was not a miscarriage but a premature birth.
So the actual meaning of the text would be:
Exodus 21:22 And if men are fighting, and hurt a woman with child, so that her child is
born prematurely , and yet no harm is caused to the child, the man who hurt the woman
will be fined, according as the woman's husband shall consider a fair compensation; and
he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if the child is harmed in any way due to the
man hitting the pregnant woman, then you will give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for
tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for
stripe as you would as just punishment for harming any other human life.
This interpretation is not new. The church father, Tertullian (who died c. A.D. 220) said:
“The embryo therefore becomes a human being in the womb from the moment
that its form is completed. 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, since it is already liable to the issues of both, although, by living still in the
mother, it for the most part shares its own state with the mother.’ (Treatise on the
Soul (ch. 37)
This has in fact been the historic understanding of the text. Therefore, this interpretation
is not being forced on the passage due to current political concerns. When correctly
translated it becomes clear that this passage strongly supports the idea that the Hebrew
Bible protected the life of an unborn child.
It is therefore not a failure on the part of those who oppose abortion and who believe the
Bible to believe that the Bible does in fact support a world view that would protect
unborn infants.
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 BrownDriver-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).
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2598
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0310.htm