by jimwalton » Wed Jul 10, 2019 7:21 pm
Exodus 21 doesn't speak directly to the issue of abortion, though it seems to lead in the direction that an unborn life was still considered life, not "tissue."
The text is more about personal liability in the event of injury than it is making a statement about the unborn or about what we know to be abortion. They are primarily concerned with legal status, not with personhood.
Let me offer some quotes.
Hays: The passage does not in any way deal with intentional abortion. The Septuagint’s translation puts a very different spin on the text, however. According to its rendering, the determining factor for liability is not whether the woman suffers injury but whether the miscarried children is “formed”—that is, whether it is sufficiently developed to bear the appearance of human form. If not, the monetary penalty applies; if so, the lex talionis. This gives the already “formed” unborn child the same legal protection as any other person. The deformed or not-yet-formed fetus, however, is not reckoned as possessing the legal status of personhood. The crucial factor, according to this interpretation, would be how far advanced the pregnancy was at the time of the miscarriage.
Copan: While OT laws place a much higher value on human life than their Near Eastern counterparts, it is still true that unborn life wasn’t as valuable as life outside the womb. This text, however, actually supports the value of unborn human life.
Russell Fuller: The argument that the fetus is not a human being or a person simply because of Ex. 21.22 is defective, since the passage envisions a negligent, unintentional assault on a pregnant woman, not an intentional assault on the fetus, as in a modern abortion. If the woman died, the ruling was not manslaughter but negligent homicide, and the assailant was executed. But if the mother survived and only the fetus died, a fine was levied, since the legal standing of the fetus differed from that of the mother.
From the general tenor of ancient Near Eastern and Biblical law, an intentional assault was penalized far more severely than an unintentional assault. What the punishment would be if someone intentionally struck a pregnant woman for the purpose of destroying the fetus is uncertain.
For further thought, the Hebrew term in Ex. 21.22 is from "yalad": "Come or go out or forth; give birth." In other words, the Hebrew says, "Her children proceed from her."
More quotes:
Copan: Is this “give birth prematurely” or “have a miscarriage”? It is always used[1]of normal birth, giving birth rather than miscarriage.[2]Furthermore, yaladis always used of a child that has recognizable human form or is capable of surviving outside the womb. The Hebrew word nepelis the typical word used of an unborn child, and the word golem(“fetus”) is used only once in the OT (Ps. 139.16).
Walton: The text does not make clear whether she has a miscarriage or delivers her baby prematurely. Furthermore, it is uncertain whether the injury referred to is injury to the woman or to the prematurely delivered baby. These uncertainties make it difficult to reconstruct what has happened with any confidence, which jeopardizes any attempts to derive a principle from the scenario.
Does that help, or does it confuse more? We can talk more, if you want. I don't want to just keep pasting stuff if (1) I've answered your question, or (2) this is not helpful.
[1]Gn. 25.26; 38.28-30; Job 3.11; 10.18; Jer. 1.5; 20.18
[2]The normal word for miscarriage is shakal/shekol.
Exodus 21 doesn't speak directly to the issue of abortion, though it seems to lead in the direction that an unborn life was still considered life, not "tissue."
The text is more about personal liability in the event of injury than it is making a statement about the unborn or about what we know to be abortion. They are primarily concerned with legal status, not with personhood.
Let me offer some quotes.
Hays: The passage does not in any way deal with intentional abortion. The Septuagint’s translation puts a very different spin on the text, however. According to its rendering, the determining factor for liability is not whether the woman suffers injury but whether the miscarried children is “formed”—that is, whether it is sufficiently developed to bear the appearance of human form. If not, the monetary penalty applies; if so, the lex talionis. This gives the already “formed” unborn child the same legal protection as any other person. The deformed or not-yet-formed fetus, however, is not reckoned as possessing the legal status of personhood. The crucial factor, according to this interpretation, would be how far advanced the pregnancy was at the time of the miscarriage.
Copan: While OT laws place a much higher value on human life than their Near Eastern counterparts, it is still true that unborn life wasn’t as valuable as life outside the womb. This text, however, actually supports the value of unborn human life.
Russell Fuller: The argument that the fetus is not a human being or a person simply because of Ex. 21.22 is defective, since the passage envisions a negligent, unintentional assault on a pregnant woman, not an intentional assault on the fetus, as in a modern abortion. If the woman died, the ruling was not manslaughter but negligent homicide, and the assailant was executed. But if the mother survived and only the fetus died, a fine was levied, since the legal standing of the fetus differed from that of the mother.
From the general tenor of ancient Near Eastern and Biblical law, an intentional assault was penalized far more severely than an unintentional assault. What the punishment would be if someone intentionally struck a pregnant woman for the purpose of destroying the fetus is uncertain.
For further thought, the Hebrew term in Ex. 21.22 is from "yalad": "Come or go out or forth; give birth." In other words, the Hebrew says, "Her children proceed from her."
More quotes:
Copan: Is this “give birth prematurely” or “have a miscarriage”? It is always used[1]of normal birth, giving birth rather than miscarriage.[2]Furthermore, yaladis always used of a child that has recognizable human form or is capable of surviving outside the womb. The Hebrew word nepelis the typical word used of an unborn child, and the word golem(“fetus”) is used only once in the OT (Ps. 139.16).
Walton: The text does not make clear whether she has a miscarriage or delivers her baby prematurely. Furthermore, it is uncertain whether the injury referred to is injury to the woman or to the prematurely delivered baby. These uncertainties make it difficult to reconstruct what has happened with any confidence, which jeopardizes any attempts to derive a principle from the scenario.
Does that help, or does it confuse more? We can talk more, if you want. I don't want to just keep pasting stuff if (1) I've answered your question, or (2) this is not helpful.
[1]Gn. 25.26; 38.28-30; Job 3.11; 10.18; Jer. 1.5; 20.18
[2]The normal word for miscarriage is shakal/shekol.