The Law is Just (Pt. 4): Exodus 21:22-27 - On abortion, miscarriages, and the treatment of slaves.

Thus far we have examined Exodus 21 on laws concerning servants and laws concerning violence. We have seen that when one considers the historical context and the genre of "law" in Hebrew, the Mosaic law turns out not to be the moral monstrosity that skeptics often claim it as being. As we wrap up our examination of laws pertaining to violence we come across a law which liberals and skeptics actually agree with, but only because they misunderstand it. And then finally we find a statement which again grants human rights and protection to slaves. Moses writes:

“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. 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. “If a man strikes the eye of his male or female servant, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye. And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth." (Exodus 21:22-27 NKJV)

Notice first, that the beginning of our text deals with injury to a woman that results in a "termination" of her pregnancy. As I mentioned above, this is a verse that many skeptics and liberals actually like. According to them these verses do not grant human rights to "fetuses." Now of course, many of them will claim this is because the Mosaic law only grants such rights to "male property owners," but still, they will argue that our own holy book expounds a view of human beings in utero similar to their own. But where do they get this idea? Well first, it comes from several translations that incorrectly render the phrase in the New King James "gives birth prematurely," as "miscarriage." The most famous example of this comes from the outdated Revised Standard Version, a favorite amongst liberals and secular academics. It says:

"When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage [...]" (Ex. 21:22a RSV)

Those who take the pro-abortion interpretation of this verse will then point to the fact that the death penalty is not required for this miscarriage, just merely a payment to the husband. When the text says, "But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life," by a process of elimination it is presumed that this therefore must refer to the life of the mother. In other words, the life of the mother is more valuable than the life of the child, and the lack of a death penalty for the murder of the child demonstrates that "it" is not a human.

In response to that we must first recognize that there is a problem with the RSV translation of this verse (which has been corrected in the NRSV). The Hebrew word used here is Yasa, which literally means "to depart." It is used throughout Scripture to refer to the normal event of a child leaving the womb. This is the word that God used in Jeremiah 1:5 when he told the prophet, "Before you were born (lit.: came forth out of the womb) I sanctified you." This is also used throughout Scripture for untimely birth that does not necessarily result in a death of the infant (Brown, Driver, & Briggs, Hebrew Lexicon, p. 423). This is exactly why every other translation of Scripture renders this as "give birth prematurely" or a variant of that meaning in English. Therefore, when a fine set by the father/husband is required by the law as a punishment, that is meant as a compensation for the difficulty/stress of the situation in light of the other man's carelessness. However, if "harm follows," whether it be to the child or the mother (which often happened), then punishment up-to-and-including the death penalty could be enforced in response to the level of harm. This verse does not support abortion, it supports the rights of a human being to grow in the womb unharmed.

Then finally in verse 26-27 we find further reinforcement to the argument I made in parts 1 and 2 of the series; that slavery was a temporary institution in ancient Israel which, while limiting a persons rights, did not absolutely void them. This can be clearly observed here at the end of this section on violence. If a man took disciplinary action, whether justly or unjustly, on one of his slaves and permanently injured any of their body parts, they were to be set free.

The Mosaic law, in setting down principles of justice in cases of violence, takes care to protect the most vulnerable in society; from the developing person in the womb, to slaves trying to pay off debts. The law is just.

Next we will move forward through Exodus and examine what the law says about property and property rights.