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. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (Exo 21:22-25 ESV)Well now, what could be clearer than that? This law, they tell us, is only concerned about the woman's welfare (as we all should be) and not the unborn child's welfare. If the blow causes a miscarriage, but the woman isn't hurt, no harm, no foul. In today's terms, if the doctor pulls the baby out but the woman isn't hurt, it's all good. Right there in the pages of your Bible.
It actually takes some work to arrive at that conclusion. Admittedly, other translations might contribute to that conclusion. The ESV says the children "come out." The King James says "her fruit depart." Quite a few translations say something to the effect that she "gives birth prematurely." The NASB 1977 says "she has a miscarriage." Notice, then, that only one (the NASB 1995 switches to "gives birth prematurely") suggests miscarriage. That's because "miscarriage" isn't in there. The term is literally "to go."
The real question, then, is the question of "harm." That's the key criterion, isn't it? If there is "no harm", then there is a fine, but "if there is harm" it is "life for life." "The question," they tell us, "is about whether or not the mother is harmed." Maybe. Except it makes no sense. The question is clearly on the topic of the pregnant woman. If a woman, pregnant or not, is killed, the rule is "life for life." So what is the point of the text? Why mention pregnant women? Did someone think, "Well, it's a death penalty for killing a woman who isn't pregnant, but is it permissible if she is"? Of course not. So who is in view here in the question of "harm"? It seems patently obvious that the text is answering the question regarding the child, not the mother. If two guys are fighting and they hit a pregnant woman and the child "goes out" -- premature birth of any sort -- what is the rule? It is a ruling on the consequences of harming the child. If the fight causes a premature birth, but the child is not harmed, then there is a fine, but if the child is harmed or dies, there are harsh penalties. It's the only thing that makes sense of the text. (And it is telling that what comes out of the womb prematurely is "children".)
You can see, then, that the Old Testament considers the unborn as "life." If that baby comes early and is dead because of the event, the price is "life for life." The baby is regarded as "life." Killing it is regarded as murder. I don't think it's ambiguous or difficult to see. Otherwise you just have a text that repeats what we've already been told, that harming a person, whether it's a woman or a pregnant woman, has consequences. "And that whole 'pregnant' thing? Yeah, I just threw that in there to mix you up." That makes no sense.
11 comments:
If there is somebody out there that can explain to me in a reasonable fashion -- you know, calmly, without disdain or unkindness -- how the logic here is convoluted or unreasonable, I'm willing to entertain the possibility. I just don't see another way to interpret the text, so ...
from got questions "Human life is inherently precious to God. We are made in His image. Anything that cheapens human life, denies the image of God in humanity, or devalues God’s handiwork is sin. The shedding of innocent blood, including the blood of an unborn child, was punishable under the Old Testament law. The same standard of protecting the innocent should be reflected in today’s laws as well.
https://www.gotquestions.org/Exodus-21-22-23-abortion.html
It is only talking about harming the baby because you hold to an anti-choice position. If you were reset your base premise to pro-choice, you would clearly see that the tense of the verb harm is in reference to the woman and not the stuff that came out of her.
Yes, David, that's the kind of thing they might argue, but it isn't sensible. It's beside the point. It's ad hominem, attacking the "pro-life person" instead of telling me what's wrong with my interpretation. I obviously think my interpretation is not only correct, but the only reasonable way to read it and I want to know if there are equally reasonable arguments as to why it is not.
One thing I find interesting is that beyond the "Imago Dei" argument, very few pro life advocates really make exclusively or primarily Biblical arguments against abortion. Most have moved to the scientific arguments. I believe that there is an anti abortion argument that could be made exclusively from an Evolutionary point of view. Some may argue that abortion (at least in the US) is steeped in racism, which also has some validity. But I rarely hear people who rely on a Biblical argument beyond asserting that human life has value because it was created in God's image.
When pro aborts focus on these arguments, it's essentially setting up a straw man because dealing with the scientific arguments are more difficult.
Christians typically don't argue the Imago Dei to nonbelievers because they have no faith in the validity of Scripture. But every theologian I've heard speak about abortion to Christians, they immediately go to Imago Dei.
David,
I don't disagree, however it is still the only faith based argument I've heard used by Christians of late. I agree that most atheists won't find it convincing, but many cultural christians at least give lip service to humans being created by YHWH. Even though they likely don't really mean created in the sense that we do.
What other faith- based argument are you looking for?
I'm not necessarily looking for any. I hear too many pro abortion folks who respond by dismissing arguments as based on one's faith, yet I very hear anyone make faith based arguments. I do hear the "Imago Dei" position as a starting point, although it's obviously not going to persuade anyone who believes that Evolution renders life as being of little value. My point is that the battle right now is being fought based on arguments from science, not from faith.
And we argue that faith and science agree.
If one looks at those who are responsible for "modern science", I think they were quite clear that Christianity and science agreed. They'd have been clear that without a creator God as revealed in scripture, that there was no way to end up with a universe that operated by rules.
Post a Comment