Church Interpretation of Exodus 21:22-23

[tkelly]

I came across Exodus 21:22-23 and am wondering how the Church explains this given its long held position that life begins at conception. This passage would appear to refute this, clearly implying that causing the death of the fetus in miscarriage is not the taking of a “life,” (and hence not invoking the “life for a life” penalty)? Any information would be appreciated.

“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,” New American Bible.

 

[otm]

I am no expert, but aren’t you reading in a bit? If there was no life, why would the agressor be fined? No life, no harm, no foul.

And as for “life begins at conception”, I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that St. Thomas Aquinas did not hold that, but held that life began at quickening…

 

[tkelly]

Reading the passage, there was harm in the miscarriage, hence the monetary nature of the penalty. This penalty, (having to pay money damages) was the same as for other offenses to personal property, like injuring another’s cattle, (see the rest of this portion of Exodus). But the harm in causing the miscarriage was not considered as egregious as causing harm to the mother, which would require “a life for a life.” The implication is clear from this that the life of the mother is considered greater than the life of the miscarried fetus, which seems to be treated similarly to a loss of personal property.

Incidentally, regarding quickening, it is my understanding that quickening marks the begining of human life for the Jewish faith, and hence, elective abortions are allowed up to that point. l

 

[Todd_Easton]

Exodus 21:22-23 could mean pre-mature birth instead of miscarriage and the eye-for-an-eye passage could apply to harm done to the child.

However, if miscarriage is meant, Exodus 21:22-23 seems to present the miscarriage as an unintended consequence of the struggle between two men. Unintentional homocides are not treated the same in Mosaic Law as intentional homocides. Consider the following verses:
Exodus 21:20-21says, “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money [that is, his own property].”
Deuteronomy 19:4-6 says, “If any one kills his neighbor unintentionally without having been at enmity with him in time past … he may flee to one of these cities [of refuge] and save his life; lest the avenger of blood in hot anger pursue the manslayer and overtake him … and wound him mortally, though the man did not deserve to die, since he was not at enmity with his neighbor in time past.”

 

[rheins2000]

otm:

I am no expert, but aren’t you reading in a bit? If there was no life, why would the agressor be fined? No life, no harm, no foul.

And as for “life begins at conception”, I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that St. Thomas Aquinas did not hold that, but held that life began at quickening…

That is why you are commanded not to read and interpret the bible for yourselves. First, you should start your bible reading in Second Peter where he commands that you are not to read the Epistles of St. Paul and interpret it by yourselves, lest you misinterpret the difficult text and fall into heresy.

In light of this statement, you then need to find who has the authority to interpret the text, so that you do not have one billion different people translating it a billion different ways.

It is pretty vain in my view for us to claim that, although the bible is thousands of years old, written in ancient Greek and Hebrew, and translated into the vernacular by hundreds of different people in hundreds of different ways, that we think we know what it means.

The pillar and bullwork of the truth is what according to the scriptures?

 

[rheins2000]

And as for your reference to St. Thomas Aquinas…first of all, the Pope is the only unfallible teacher of the faith. The title Doctor of the Church does not mean that no error is to be found in his or any other Doctors teaching. It is, indeed, well known that the very greatest of them are not wholly immune from error. Many saints and mystics have related things, but all the while giving all discrepency in their words over to the truths of the Church which holds the keys to the kingdom, lest someone misuse their words to disagree with the Church… That is why these were St. Thomas’ last words at his receiving of the viaticum:

If in this world there be any knowledge of this sacrament stronger than that of faith, I wish now to use it in affirming that I firmly believe and know as certain that Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, Son of God and Son of the Virgin Mary, is in this Sacrament . . . I receive Thee, the price of my redemption, for Whose love I have watched, studied, and laboured. Thee have I preached; Thee have I taught. Never have I said anything against Thee: if anything was not well said, that is to be attributed to my ignorance. Neither do I wish to be obstinate in my opinions, but if I have written anything erroneous concerning this sacrament or other matters, I submit all to the judgment and correction of the Holy Roman Church, in whose obedience I now pass from this life.

Second of all, St. Thomas did not teach that life did not begin at conception and therefore abortion was permitted at certain times, and that’s why the CDF wrote:

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
November 18, 1974
In the course of history, the Fathers of the Church, her Pastors and her Doctors have taught the same doctrine–the various opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul did not introduce any doubt about the illicitness of abortion. It is true that in the Middle Ages, when the opinion was generally held that the spiritual soul was not present until after the first few weeks, a distinction was made in the evaluation of the sin and the gravity of penal sanctions. Excellent authors allowed for this first period more lenient case solutions which they rejected for following periods. But it was never denied at that time that procured abortion, even during the first days, was objectively grave fault.

 

[Skipssong]

Rheins2000,

Than you so very much. As someone trying to find his way back the interpretation question has laid heavy on my heart and mind (see the Bible Intrepretation thread).

It has suddenly become very clear.

I cannot thank you enough.

 

[mlchance]

Exodus 21:22-23 is an ancient criminal law code. It is not a scientific treatise on embryology. The idea that life begins at conception is not a religious doctrine. It is a scientific fact.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[tkelly]

rheins2000:

That is why you are commanded not to read and interpret the bible for yourselves. First, you should start your bible reading in Second Peter where he commands that you are not to read the Epistles of St. Paul and interpret it by yourselves, lest you misinterpret the difficult text and fall into heresy.

In light of this statement, you then need to find who has the authority to interpret the text, so that you do not have one billion different people translating it a billion different ways.

It is pretty vain in my view for us to claim that, although the bible is thousands of years old, written in ancient Greek and Hebrew, and translated into the vernacular by hundreds of different people in hundreds of different ways, that we think we know what it means.

The pillar and bullwork of the truth is what according to the scriptures?

 

[tkelly]

Your post does not answer my question: how does the Church interprete Ex 21:22-23?

 

[tkelly]

mlchance:

Exodus 21:22-23 is an ancient criminal law code. It is not a scientific treatise on embryology. The idea that life begins at conception is not a religious doctrine. It is a scientific fact.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[tkelly]

The question was how does the Church interpret Ex 21:22-23? This passage in Exodus, which is the inspired Word of God, implies (if not outright states) that causing the death of a fetus is less serious than causing the death of the mother, and that the latter requires taking a “life for a life,” but not the former.

 

[Bill_Rutland]

Hi All,

I find it interesting that pro-abortion advocates like to cite Exodus 21:22-23 as a justification of abortion. Before commenting on this, I would like to take a quick look at the text in question:

*When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. * (RSV)

First we must note that in the Hebrew the word “miscarriage” ( Hebrew shachol) is not in the text. Rather the text literally reads “*And if men strive together, and hurt a pregnant woman, so that her fruit [children] departs …” * The Hebrew *yasa * (depart or come out) is used here to describe an untimely birth, but never is it used of a miscarriage or abortion any where in the Bible. There is absolutely no indication that the child is still-born or miscarried. In fact the verse up to this point is completely neutral on the state of the child (or children since the word is in the plural).

The rest of this thought is never quoted by pro-abortion advocates:
*
If any 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. * (vs 23-24)

Taken in context this text teaches that if two men are fighting and a pregnant woman is hit causing her to give birth prematurely, but there is no injury to mother **or ** child, then a fine determined by the judge should be levied. But if mother or child or both are injured then the offender should be repaid, “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

Now to my opening comment. As I said it is interesting that abortion advocates isolate verses 22-23 from the rest of the chapter. While trumpeting verses 22-23 as a justification for abortion why then do they not also accept:

1. Slavery; verses 2-6.
2. The selling of women as slaves; verses 7-11.
3. The death penalty of a man who kills another, even if it is by accident; verses 8-14.
4. The death penalty for striking one’s father or mother; verse 15.
5. The death penalty for kidnapping; verse 16.
6. The death penalty for cursing one’s father or mother; verse 7.If one man injures another, he must support that man until he is well; verses 18-19.
7. If an man beats his slave, and the slave dies a few days later he will suffer no penalty for, “the slave is his money;” verses 20-21.

I could continue through the rest of the chapter, but I think that I have made my point. It is sheer hypocrisy to use Exodus 21:22-23 to justify abortion.

We must remember that the Law was given to people who lived in very barbaric times. As Christians we are not under Law but Grace, the Law of Love. As Catholics Christians the abortion question should be settled. We cannot claim to be a faithful Catholic and support abortion. End of story.

PAX CHRISTI

Bill

 

[rheins2000]

tkelly:

I came across Exodus 21:22-23 and am wondering how the Church explains this given its long held position that life begins at conception. This passage would appear to refute this, clearly implying that causing the death of the fetus in miscarriage is not the taking of a “life,” (and hence not invoking the “life for a life” penalty)? Any information would be appreciated.

“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,” New American Bible.

Well I thought I just did answer your initial post…but to make it clear, the Church definately does not translate it how you says it appears to be translating it(from your first paragraph)

The Church still holds its long standing claim that life begins at conception, and that will never change.

The above passage never says that he man purposely tried to kill the child in the mother. My understanding(not official teaching on this passage, which I wouldnt know where to find) is that if the man causes the childs death…not purposely trying to kill the child, but causes death nonetheless, than he is responsible in some part for the death, which he should repay as the father sees fit. This is the eye for an eye law under the old covenant, which, as Jesus came to earth established a new covenant that said it is even more honorable to turn the other cheek, etc.

The Church does not need to give us the “translation” for every verse…how would it “translate” Galatians 1:18…it doesnt, it’s just there…it has declared all of its translations in the Catechism. And it has especially declared how a verse is not to be translated…i.e. in any way that would contradict its teachings on faith and morals.

 

[rheins2000]

Wow, I just read Bills response and that is even better. Sorry for getting ahead of myself. Thank you Bill for teaching us ignorants a thing or 2…you see, I learn a lot too coming to these forums…and I thought I had all the answers.