How does one use Exodus 21:22-25 to advocate for the pro-life position?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Holly3278

Guest
Hello everyone. I use E-Sword and in there is a Catholic Bible Cheat Sheet. On the section for abortion, it mentions Exodus 21:22-25. Well, I don’t understand how to use this verse to defend the pro-life position. Could someone please explain it to me? For those of you who do not have immediate or convenient access to a Bible, here is the scripture passage in the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition translation. Thank you for helping me.

"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. 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.
(Exodus 21:22-25 RSV)
 
In the RSV-CE the punishments (life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc.) seem to refer to injuries done to the mother but in other versions, such as the Greek Septuagint, they refer to injuries done to the miscarried child.
 
How could you use it against abortion? It talks about hurting the woman, the miscarriage is not the intent, only the consequence. By contrast, abortion is intentional removal of a foetus. What this verse effectively says is that a foetus is not a human life, because it goes on to give a different punishment formula for causing harm to a “real human life”, the woman.

Numbers 3:15-16 tells us that infants less than one month old are not to be counted as people.

Hosea 9:16 tells us that god is prepared to cause abortion / miscarriage.

Genesis 38:24 tells us that god’s law might require the burning of foetuses in the womb.

Maybe you could think of some secular arguments against abortion. People might buy those. I can’t think of any good reason to be mindlessly anti-abortion myself.

Hope that is some help.

Stuart
 
Think the verses from Exodus demonstrate that even in early Old Testament times, there was a provision for (and protection for) unborn children in society. Even with the limited “eye-for-an-eye” regulation (which Christ later enhances and supersedes), there still is a fundamental and basic appreciation for all forms of human life. Human beings are made in the image and likeness of God.
 
The so-called miscarriage is not on purpose like abortion is.

Also, other translations translates miscarriage as premature birth. The Hebrew simply has the child comes out of the womb, it does not directly say if the child is alive or dead. Both sides simply read into this text what their bias is.

<< Exodus 21:22 >>

New International Version (©1984)
"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.

New Living Translation (©2007)
"Now suppose two men are fighting, and in the process they accidentally strike a pregnant woman so she gives birth prematurely. If no further injury results, the man who struck the woman must pay the amount of compensation the woman’s husband demands and the judges approve.

English Standard Version (©2001)
“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.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"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.

GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
"This is what you must do whenever men fight and injure a pregnant woman so that she gives birth prematurely. If there are no other injuries, the offender must pay whatever fine the court allows the woman’s husband to demand.

King James Bible
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

American King James Version
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

American Standard Version
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.

Bible in Basic English
If men, while fighting, do damage to a woman with child, causing the loss of the child, but no other evil comes to her, the man will have to make payment up to the amount fixed by her husband, in agreement with the decision of the judges.

Douay-Rheims Bible
If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child, and she miscarry indeed, but live herself: he shall be answerable for so much damage as the woman’s husband shall require, and as arbiters shall award.

Darby Bible Translation
And if men strive together, and strike a woman with child, so that she be delivered, and no mischief happen, he shall in any case be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and shall give it as the judges estimate.

English Revised Version
And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

Webster’s Bible Translation
If men shall contend, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit shall depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

World English Bible
"If men fight and hurt a pregnant woman so that she gives birth prematurely, and yet no harm follows, he shall be surely fined as much as the woman’s husband demands and the judges allow.

Young’s Literal Translation
'And when men strive, and have smitten a pregnant woman, and her children have come out, and there is no mischief, he is certainly fined, as the husband of the woman doth lay upon him, and he hath given through the judges;
 
Genesis 38:27-30
King James Version (KJV)

27And it came to pass in the time of her travail, that, behold, twins were in her womb.

28And it came to pass, when she travailed, that the one put out his hand: and the midwife took and bound upon his hand a scarlet thread, saying, This came out first.

29And it came to pass, as he drew back his hand, that, behold, his brother came out: and she said, How hast thou broken forth? this breach be upon thee: therefore his name was called Pharez.

30And afterward came out his brother, that had the scarlet thread upon his hand: and his name was called Zarah.

Genesis 25:23-26
King James Version (KJV)

23And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

24And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb.

25And the first came out red, all over like an hairy garment; and they called his name Esau.

26And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau’s heel; and his name was called Jacob: and Isaac was threescore years old when she bare them.

In short, there are two sets of twins in the bible where one is still in the womb and as such is giving equal value as a human being to the one already out of the womb.
 
Our story is written by God,He of course let’s adlibing to the extent,that we follow the ten commandments, these are the rules.:twocents:

God Bless
onenow1:)
 
Stuu said:
Numbers 3:15-16 tells us that infants less than one month old are not to be counted as people.

Stuart
Click to expand...
The logic behind this interpretation is faulty. This passage refers to instructions to count every male older than one month old as part of a census of the Levites, who were to serve as priests. Applying the above logic would lead to the conclusion that any female is also not a person.

rocketrob
 
Holly3278 said:
Hello everyone. I use E-Sword and in there is a Catholic Bible Cheat Sheet. On the section for abortion, it mentions Exodus 21:22-25. Well, I don’t understand how to use this verse to defend the pro-life position. Could someone please explain it to me? For those of you who do not have immediate or convenient access to a Bible, here is the scripture passage in the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition translation. Thank you for helping me.

"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. 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.
(Exodus 21:22-25 RSV)
Click to expand...
I don’t see this as a good proof-text either (in fact, I don’t think there are any good proof-texts for the prolife position in the Bible, and I think proof-texting is a bad way to use the Bible anyway).

Presumably the argument is resting on interpreting the phrase “wayatz’u yeladheyah” as “and her child is born prematurely” rather than “and she suffers a miscarriage.” The phrase most literally means “and her offspring departs from her,” so it could mean either. I think that most translators and interpreters understand it to refer to a miscarriage, and understand the following provisions to refer to harm to the mother. However, there are arguments on both sides. For that reason, I can’t see that the passage is a good proof-text for either side in the abortion debate. There just isn’t enough explanation given to allow us to be sure whether it’s saying
  1. A miscarriage in itself is to be punished with a fine, but harm to the mother is to be punished more severely; or
  2. A premature birth in which mother and child are OK is to be punished with a fine, but any harm to mother or child is to be punished more severely.
I think it’s much better for Catholics to take their stand on the undisputed fact that Christians have condemned abortion since the first century (the Didache), rather than looking for Biblical prooftexts. The only people who need the latter, anyway, are conservative Protestants, and while there are some conservative Protestants who take a moderately prochoice position (mostly, I’m ashamed to say, from my own Wesleyan heritage for some reason), there aren’t that many of them. And anyway, one can’t make a case that isn’t there. The sola scriptura case for abortion being murder just doesn’t exist. That’s a strong argument for Catholics to use in persuading prolife Protestants to consider the claims of Tradition, but admittedly it’s a problem when arguing with the relatively small number of conservative sola-scriptura prochoice Protestants (such as my great-uncle, who utterly baffles me by holding somewhat prochoice views even though on other social/moral issues he’s extremely conservative–to me the one point where the “Christian right” is clearly right is abortion, so we have very different perspectives. . . . .).

Edwin
 
Holly3278 said:
Hello everyone. I use E-Sword and in there is a Catholic Bible Cheat Sheet. On the section for abortion, it mentions Exodus 21:22-25. Well, I don’t understand how to use this verse to defend the pro-life position. Could someone please explain it to me? For those of you who do not have immediate or convenient access to a Bible, here is the scripture passage in the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition translation. Thank you for helping me.

"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. 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.
(Exodus 21:22-25 RSV)
Click to expand...
There have been many threads on this, and as others have observed, this text is not really helpful for the pro-life position. It’s quite difficult to discern what’s really happening in the Hebrew text–compounded by the fact that there is no “miscarriage” per se in the underlying Hebrew text, so there are significant translation problems here in the RSV. If you feel you must have a Bible verse to support your position, better to use a different one.
 
Dave_Noonan said:
There have been many threads on this, and as others have observed, this text is not really helpful for the pro-life position. It’s quite difficult to discern what’s really happening in the Hebrew text–compounded by the fact that there is no “miscarriage” per se in the underlying Hebrew text, so there are significant translation problems here in the RSV. If you feel you must have a Bible verse to support your position, better to use a different one.
Click to expand...
Hi, Dave, However it is quite apparent,God, is in love with life that He created, especially the life made in His image and likeness, and we must never forget this.

God Bless
:coffee:
 
The reason infants and very young children were not counted in taxes in the Ancient Near East was because many young children and infants did not live until adulthood, but died young. It was not because they were not considered to be of value, nor not consider to be human.
 
Big_Dummy said:
faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/02-exodus/Text/Articles/House-Exod21-WTJ.pdf

str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5700

google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDYQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffaculty.gordon.edu%2Fhu%2Fbi%2Fted_hildebrandt%2Fotesources%2F02-exodus%2FText%2FArticles%2FCongdon-Ex21-Abortion-BSac.pdf&ei=l7dKTr_kFIKtsAKFvJDCCA&usg=AFQjCNHPjthczJC_T4-qMaL3Gti42lYbnQ&sig2=i6IuYsZVezWgww1FwkOe5g
Click to expand...
I think this Stand to Reason article was discussed in a fairly recent thread. The problem with the Stand to Reason article is that it ignores completely the usual use of the plural in the verb and subject in 21:22. From the text the reader knows that multiple things (yes, perhaps the baby, whose life status we do not know–and what else?) are “coming out” from the woman…all very unclear. Seems to me that here ילדים could even conceivably mean any vaginal discharge “coming out,” comparable to the way the word for blood דם ,דמים is often stated in the plural. To me, the meaning of the text is just too uncertain to base any sort of general principle about abortion and the value of a fetus, either then or now.
 
Holly3278 said:
Hello everyone. I use E-Sword and in there is a Catholic Bible Cheat Sheet. On the section for abortion, it mentions Exodus 21:22-25. Well, I don’t understand how to use this verse to defend the pro-life position. Could someone please explain it to me? For those of you who do not have immediate or convenient access to a Bible, here is the scripture passage in the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition translation. Thank you for helping me.

"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. 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.
(Exodus 21:22-25 RSV)
Click to expand...
While this passage refers to retribution, it doesn’t really address the deeper moral argument- although it certainly supports a general argument that Scripture condemns any act resulting in abortion. The quoted passage focuses on compensation for accidental abortion, and based on this passage alone, we are left to infer what the penalties for deliberate, induced abortion might be- presumably much greater.

Alternatively, “two men striving together,” for example, could be a doctor and nurse, or a doctor and anesthesiologist, etc, although the passage suggests a physical altercation between two men, during which the mother is struck and the miscarriage occurs as collateral damage.

It’s interesting that even though deliberate abortion certainly existed in Old Testament times, it is not a more prominent topic in OT Scripture. In fact, I just did a search for the word “miscarriage” in the Kindle version of my NAB and the passage posted by the OP here was the only result, which completely surprises me. There are no results for the word abortion, which makes me wonder if the ancient Greeks even had an approximating word. Is “miscarriage” the closest we can get?

We don’t have statistics on how many abortions were committed back then, although we know that many of them were chemically induced or at least attempted through the use of potions, herbs,etc. It seems logical that prostitutes would have attempted abortion most often, due to the “down time” a full term pregnancy would have created in their “trade.”

At any rate, the relatively minor attention given directly to the subject in the Bible doesn’t weaken the case, as one can always fall back on the proscriptions against murder in any moral argument against abortion.
 
Contarini said:
I don’t see this as a good proof-text either (in fact, I don’t think there are any good proof-texts for the prolife position in the Bible, and I think proof-texting is a bad way to use the Bible anyway).

Presumably the argument is resting on interpreting the phrase “wayatz’u yeladheyah” as “and her child is born prematurely” rather than “and she suffers a miscarriage.” The phrase most literally means “and her offspring departs from her,” so it could mean either. I think that most translators and interpreters understand it to refer to a miscarriage, and understand the following provisions to refer to harm to the mother. However, there are arguments on both sides. For that reason, I can’t see that the passage is a good proof-text for either side in the abortion debate. There just isn’t enough explanation given to allow us to be sure whether it’s saying
  1. A miscarriage in itself is to be punished with a fine, but harm to the mother is to be punished more severely; or
  2. A premature birth in which mother and child are OK is to be punished with a fine, but any harm to mother or child is to be punished more severely.
I think it’s much better for Catholics to take their stand on the undisputed fact that Christians have condemned abortion since the first century (the Didache), rather than looking for Biblical prooftexts. The only people who need the latter, anyway, are conservative Protestants, and while there are some conservative Protestants who take a moderately prochoice position (mostly, I’m ashamed to say, from my own Wesleyan heritage for some reason), there aren’t that many of them. And anyway, one can’t make a case that isn’t there. The sola scriptura case for abortion being murder just doesn’t exist. That’s a strong argument for Catholics to use in persuading prolife Protestants to consider the claims of Tradition, but admittedly it’s a problem when arguing with the relatively small number of conservative sola-scriptura prochoice Protestants (such as my great-uncle, who utterly baffles me by holding somewhat prochoice views even though on other social/moral issues he’s extremely conservative–to me the one point where the “Christian right” is clearly right is abortion, so we have very different perspectives. . . . .).

Edwin
Click to expand...
Hi,
Whether it is a miscarriage or a premature birth, would it make any difference what
it’s called when “When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage…”? Men made it happen.
 
fred_conty said:
Hi,
Whether it is a miscarriage or a premature birth, would it make any difference what
it’s called when “When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage…”? Men made it happen.
Click to expand...
Not clear what you mean by that. The difference is that if the “offspring departing” is a miscarriage, then it follows that the miscarriage itself is not treated as the loss of a human life, because it’s punished only with a fine and distinguished from harm that is punished more severely (in that interpretation, obviously to the mother). But if it’s a premature birth, then the fine would apply only *if *the child was unharmed–harm to the child would result in a more severe punishment.

Edwin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top