Today, January 23, 2022, is recognized as Sanctity of Human Life Sunday in the Southern Baptist calendar; and so, I’m going to be discussing the value of the unborn child and have us look at the abortion debate.
The abortion argument centers on human rights – namely the right of a person to make his or her own choice concerning one’s health and right to life. The pro-choice advocate will say, “It’s my body, my choice. It’s my health and my life. This fetus threatens my health and life; therefore, it must be aborted.” But this thinking assumes that the fetus has no rights; and thus, no “say so” in the matter. The woman has a choice and the right to life, but not the fetus. The only way to make this argument is to assume that the fetus is not yet human, and not yet alive. So, the crux of the argument revolves around something called “personhood.” Only a “person” has the right to choose. So, the real question is “When does a fetus become a person?” or “When does a baby become a person?”
The notion of personhood has to do with awareness. The pro-choice view says that a fetus or baby is a person only when it becomes aware of its surroundings and existence. At that point, it is a human life. The abortion advocate will argue that anything still inside the womb cannot be aware; and thus, cannot be alive. This is the reason why many who lean toward pro-choice are okay with late-term abortions; because the fetus is still inside the womb. And based on the notion of personhood and awareness, some will even say that a baby born alive is not yet a person, as it cannot yet speak or form complex thoughts. Be aware that this personhood idea is being used to support euthanasia. If you are lying in a hospital bed in a coma, then you are not a person; and thus, you have no rights.
In the book Moral Choices, author Scott Rae says, “The pro-life advocate must show that God attributes the same characteristics to the unborn in the womb as to a person outside of the womb. In other words, Scripture must indicate a continuity of personal identity when describing the unborn.”(1) The pro-life advocate will quote verses such as Jeremiah 1:5, which says, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.” This verse shows that God saw Jeremiah as a person and had a plan for his life even before his conception (see also Isaiah 49:1). Rae continues to tell us, “The general tenor of the Scripture appears to support the idea that the unborn is considered a person by God, being described with many of the same characteristics that apply to children and adults.”(2)
But, as pro-life advocates are using the Bible to show how God values the life of the unborn, pro-choice advocates are looking at the same passages of Scripture in an attempt to justify abortion; and today’s passage is one such example – one that is central to this debate. I want to take some time this morning and have us look at Exodus 21:22-25, and show both sides of the argument; but in the end – since I am not in favor of abortion – I am going to show how this passage is pro-life. In fact, it supports the life of both the mother and the child! So, let’s go ahead and get started by reading through our passage, and I want to invite you to stand in honor of God’s Word.
22 If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give 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 (KNJV).
So, here’s the scene. There is some kind of fight between two men, and a pregnant woman either intervenes or just gets caught up in the commotion. She is struck, and the blow is hard enough to induce labor, and she gives birth prematurely.(3) So, does this passage somehow relate to abortion? Does it say something to support the value of the child; and thus, the value of its life? Or, does it somehow support the value of the woman over the child? Well, let’s look at all the arguments and find out!
The Pro-Life Lens
The way we interpret this passage depends on the lens we use; or rather, our preconceptions. Pro-life advocates will view this passage with the life of the child in focus; the woman being somewhat lesser. Pro-choice advocates will view this passage with the life of the mother in focus; with the child being lesser. So, let’s begin by looking through the pro-life lens and seeing the pro-life point of view.
Verse 22 says, “If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.” When this verse speaks about giving birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, the pro-life advocate will take this to mean that the baby did not die. It remained alive. The word “harm” is taken to mean death. Since the baby suffered “no harm,” and thus, did not die, then the punishment would only be a penalty imposed by the husband and a fine determined by the judge.
Verses 23-25 state, “But 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.” When verse 23 speaks of harm following, the pro-life advocate will take this to mean that the baby did in fact die; and thus, the punishment for the one who struck the woman with child, and who thus caused the child’s death, would be that he too must die. He would face capital punishment. This passage would indicate that causing the premature birth and death of a child (which can be applied today to abortion) is so serious that the death penalty should be imposed on the offender.
The Neutral Lens
Now, before we look at this passage from the pro-choice view, let’s hear a somewhat neutral argument. Let’s approach this passage as one having no point to prove, no bone to pick, and no agenda. Rather than the word “harm” meaning death, it could simply mean “injury.” In the case of injury, the word harm could be applied to both the child and the mother. Perhaps the child who was born prematurely sustained an injury leading to a handicap instead of death. Well, that would be “harm” to the child. Or, perhaps the mother who was hit during the fight was bloody and bruised. Well, that would be “harm” to the mother. So, if the word “harm” is seen as causing injury, this means that any injury resulting in a handicap to the child would result in the death penalty. Also, any injury to the mother – including her death – would result in the death penalty. The neutral view sees value and worth ascribed to both the mother and child; not one over the other.
The Pro-Choice Lens
So, now, let’s look through the pro-choice lens and see the pro-choice point of view. In an article about this passage, writer Jesse Johnson says that most readers will see these verses through an anti-abortion lens, and may be wondering how someone could take it in a way that justified abortion.(4)
Well, first of all, we need to take a look at the phrase “yet no harm follows.” The pro-choice advocate will “read into” the passage like this: “If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows [to the woman], he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows [to the woman], then you shall give life for life” (vv. 22-23).
Let me say this again: “Pro-choice advocates will view this passage with the life of the mother in focus; with the child being lesser.” The pro-choice advocate, based on his or her preconception when approaching this passage, will mentally insert the phase “to the woman” after the statement “yet no harm follows,” so that it reads, “Yet no harm follows [to the woman]” (v. 22). The pro-choice advocate will also read this passage and assume that the word “harm” means injury or death; but to them, it’s not about harm to the child. It’s about injury or death to the woman. The child’s well-being is inconsequential. Rae says that pro-choice advocates conclude that since the penalty for causing harm to the mother is death, the fetus must not be deserving of the same level of protection as an adult person. It must have a different status, something less than full personhood.(5)
The pro-choice advocate will try to further emphasize the important of the mother over the child by relying on a faulty Bible translation; one which interprets the phrase “she gives birth prematurely,” as the child actually dying, rather than being born alive as a “preemie.” This faulty Bible translation renders the words “she gives birth prematurely” as something entirely different. Listen closely, as I read from this faulty version, which is the Revised Standard Version:
22 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. 23 If any harm follows, then you shall give 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 (RSV).
John Piper of “Desiring God Ministries” says, “The RSV assumes that a ‘miscarriage’ happens, and the fetus is born dead. This implies that the loss of the unborn is no ‘harm,’ because it says, ‘If there is a miscarriage and yet no harm follows.’ It is possible for the blow to cause a miscarriage and yet not count as ‘harm’ which would have to be recompensed life for life, eye for eye, etc. This translation seems to put the unborn in the category of a non-person with little value. The fine which must be paid may be for the loss of the child. Money suffices. Whereas if ‘harm follows’ (to the woman) then more than money must be given. In that case it is life for life, etc.”(6)
“There is a Hebrew verb [in the Old Testament] for ‘miscarry’ or ‘loss by abortion’ . . . namely, shakal. It is used nearby in Exodus 23:26, [which says], ‘None shall miscarry or be barren in your land.’ But this word is not used here in Exodus 21:22-25. Rather, the word for birth [used] here is ‘go forth’ (ytsa’) – ‘and if her children go forth.’ This verb never refers to a miscarriage or abortion. When it refers to a birth it refers to live children ‘going forth’ or ‘coming out’ from the womb.”(7) The New King James Version renders it as “she gives birth prematurely.” Piper says that “the natural way to take this is to say that [if] the child goes forth and there is no injury to the child or to the mother,”(8) then “he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine” (v. 22).
Many scholars have come to this same conclusion; that it speaks of injury to both the child and the mother. “For example, in the last century before the present debate over abortion was in sway, Keil and Delitzsch [in their commentary] say, ‘If men strove and thrust against a woman with child, who had come near or between them for the purpose of making peace, so that her children come out (come into the world), and no injury was done either to the woman or the child that was born, a . . . compensation was to be paid, such as the husband of the woman laid upon him, and he was to give it by arbitrators. . . But if injury occurs (to the mother or the child), thou shalt give soul for soul, eye for eye.”(9)
Piper says, “There is no miscarriage in this text. The child is born pre-maturely and is protected with the same sanctions as the mother. If the child is injured there is to be recompense as with the injury of the mother. Therefore, this text cannot be used by the pro-choice advocate to show that the Bible regards the unborn as less human or less worthy of protection than those who are born.”(10)
Some Final Thoughts
When viewed through a pro-life lens, the baby is the one whose life is important. When seen through a pro-choice lens, the mother is the one whose life is significant. But when we approach the Scripture, we need to put aside our preconceptions and let the Word of God speak. As I stated earlier, the neutral view sees value and worth ascribed to both the mother and the child, not one over the other; and this is the proper way to look at this passage – with the life of every human being in mind. You see, that’s what sanctity of life is all about; the importance of every human life – mother or fetus, black or white, poor or rich, male or female, young or old – for we are all valuable in the eyes of God (see Galatians 3:28).
This passage, being that it values the lives of both the mother and the child, is pro-life. Now, you might try to refute this observation, because capital punishment is introduced in the passage. But the threat of the death penalty made certain that more lives were saved in concern for the mother and child than were lost through capital punishment. The fines and penalties introduced in the Law were enacted to preserve life and deter capital offenses. This is a prolife passage, and it cannot rightly be used to say that the life of a mother is somehow more important than the fetus.
Allow me to share a couple more observations before we close. In striving to be sensitive, I have tried as often as possible to use the language of the pro-choice view. You probably noticed that most of the time I have referred to the baby as a fetus – minus a few occasions. But I think we should note that this is not how the Bible describes what’s inside the woman’s womb. Verse 22 says, “If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely.” The organism inside her womb is called a “child.” Johnson notes that “by using this word, Moses makes [it] clear that what came from the mother was not simply matter and blood. It was a child. It was not insignificant, but [it] is spoken of in human terms.”(11) It is a person; a full-fledged human being.
The second observation is this: This passage is helpful in determining the value of a child and assisting with the abortion debate; however, these verses have nothing to do with abortion. “Abortion differs at every single point from Exodus 21:22. [Abortion] is not a case of two men fighting. It is not a case of accidental death against the wishes of the parents. Instead, abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent child. It is worse than Exodus 21, because it is done by the parents, not to the parents.”(12) An embryo, a fetus, a baby, and a child are each seen as a human being in the eyes of God, and the intentional killing of innocent human life is prohibited in the Fifth Commandment in Exodus 20:13: “You shall not murder” (NKJV) or “Thou shalt not kill” (KJV).
Time of Reflection
So, when the rubber meets the road, whose life is more important? If a mother is advised by her doctor that giving birth could kill her, but that her child might live, what should she do? When God was faced with the death of His perfect and sinless Son versus dirty rotten and sinful people, how did He choose?
First of all, the Lord allowed love to guide Him, and love is sacrificial. But secondly, He considered who was the most vulnerable. Was it His Son or people? And the obvious answer is people, because we are all sinners, unable to help ourselves, and condemned to spiritual death. Jesus was God in the flesh. He was the lamb without blemish, and so He laid down His life to become the perfect sacrifice to pay for our sins. The most vulnerable between a mother and child would most certainly be the child. When it comes to preserving human life, the number one principle should be to allow love to guide us. In John 15:13, Jesus said, “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends” – and you could add “to lay down one’s life for her child.”
The Bible tells us, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), and, “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23). We also read in John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” Jesus laid down His life for each of us on the cross to pay the price for our sin; to save the vulnerable. He did this because of His amazing love. According to the Bible, the way that we receive the forgiveness of sins and eternal life is to confess Jesus as Savior and Lord. Romans 10:9 says, “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”
NOTES
(1) Scott B. Rae, Moral Choices, Second Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), p. 129.
(2) Ibid., p. 131.
(3) Jesse Johnson, “A Close Look at Exodus 21:22 and the Abortion Debate,” https://thecripplegate.com/a-closer-look-at-exodus-2122-and-the-abortion-debate/ (Accessed December 30, 2021).
(4) Ibid.
(5) Rae, p. 131.
(6) John Piper, “The Misuse of Exodus 21:22-25 by Pro-choice Advocates,” DesiringGod.org: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-misuse-of-exodus-21-22-25-by-pro-choice-advocates (December 30, 2021).
(7) Ibid.
(8) Ibid.
(9) Ibid; quoting Keil and Delitzsch, Pentateuch, vol. 2, pp. 134ff.
(10) Ibid.
(11) Johnson.
(12) Ibid.
