In this series, we are examining some of the many commandments which are contained in the Law of Moses.  It is our aim to understand them better, build faith, and answer critics.  We are considering them topically.

6.  Value of life.  The unborn appears to be valued, and even counted as life (Exodus 21:22-25).

This passage is fiercely debated in the abortion controversy.  There are two major questions concerning this passage.  (1) What does yahtzah mean?  Does it refer to premature birth or miscarriage?  It is translated “her fruit depart” (KJV, ASV); “she gives birth prematurely” (NKJV, NASB, NIV); “her children come” (ESV); “there is a miscarriage” (Douay-Rheims, RSV, NRSV); “her child is born imperfectly formed” (LXX).  (2) To whom does harm refer?  Does it refer to harm to the mother, harm to the child, or harm to the mother and/or the child?

The following positions emerge from how one answers these questions.  (1) Some believe that this refers to miscarriage.  A fine is to be paid.  Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, wound for wound, stripe for stripe refers to harm which occurs to the woman.  There are difficulties with this view.  First, the word yahtzah (or yatsa) means, “go out, forth” (BDBG).  “It is used in the Old Testament for everything from soldiers going forth to war (1 Samuel 8:20), or the sun going forth in its rising (Genesis 19:23), to a flower blossoming (Job 14:2), or the birth of a child (Job 1:21)” (Dave Miller, Abortion and Exodus 21, apologeticspress.org).  There is nothing in the word which demands that this refers to a miscarriage.  Second, there are other words in Hebrew which would more clearly suggest miscarriage (e.g. shakal, or sakal, Genesis 31:38; Job 21:10; Hosea 9:14; nehphel Job 3:16; Psalm 58:8; Ecclesiastes 6:3).  These words were not used.  Third, the word “fruit” (KJV, Hebrew yehled or yeled) is the ordinary word for a child born.  “There is nothing in the word itself that indicate the physical condition of the child/children whether dead or alive” (Dave Miller).

Kerry Duke points out that even if this refers to a miscarriage it in no way proves an unborn child is less than human.  He writes, “the mere fact that the offender was not capitally punished… fails to establish that a fetus was subhuman in value because the death portrayed was unintentional.  But if the mother’s death was also accidental, why did her death occasion a more severe penalty?… In terms of family roles, the death of the mother would be a greater loss than the death of the unborn infant.  If the fetus dies, the family will grieve; but if the mother dies, the husband and other children who may have been born into the family suffer the loss of inestimable needs provided by her” (Kerry Duke, Ox in the Ditch, p. 130).  This may be true.  However, on what basis should this be understood to refer to “life for life” to the mother alone? 

(2) Some believe that this is a premature birth.  A fine is to be paid.  However “life for a life” refers to harm to the mother.  There are problems with this view.  First, there is nothing grammatically or textually which restricts “life for life” to the mother alone.  Second, if this is the meaning, then there is nothing in the text which addresses any harm which follows the child that is born. 

(3) Some believe that this refers to the child.  “Life for life…” is understood to refer to the child alone.  There are difficulties with this view.  First, there is no good reason grammatically or textually to restrict these words to the child.  Second, if this is the meaning then there is nothing in the text which addresses any harm which follows the mother. 

Philo Judaeus (20 B.C. – 40 A.D.) understood this to refer to miscarriage.  He suggested that the fine was for the child still unformed and unfashioned.  The “life for life…” was for the child that had assumed a distinct shape in all its parts (The Special Laws Vol. 3, Chp. 19, #108).  There certainly is nothing in the text which supports this distinction between the unformed and formed child. 

(4) It seems to me that this is best understood to refer to harm which follows the mother and/or the child.  I agree with the comments of Dennis Prager.  He says, “It seems clear that the verses are saying: If the mother gives birth and there is no harm to either her or to the children, the husband goes to court, which fines the man who induced premature birth.  But if there is harm (ason) – whether injury or death – to either the children or the mother, then punishment is life for life, eye for eye, etc.” (The Rational Bible: Exodus, p. 297).   [For a review of each position, see Christian Ethics: Options and Issues by Norman L. Geisler, Chapter 8].

It is clear from ancient Jewish and Christian writings that it was believed that God valued unborn life.  Josephus (37-100 A.D.), “The law, moreover, enjoins us to bring up all our offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten or destroy it afterward; and if a woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child” (Against Apion Book 2, Section 25).  Tertullian (c. 150 – 220 A.D.), “But Christians now are so far from homicide, that with them it is utterly unlawful to take away a child in the womb… to kill a child before it is born is to commit murder by way of advance; and there is no difference whether you destroy a child in its formation, or after it is formed and delivered” (Apology, Chapter 9).  Many other examples could be provided. Even Maimonides (1138-1204) said, “A son of Noah who killed a person, even a fetus in its womb, is capitally liable” (Prager, Exodus, p. 298 quoting Hilkhot Melakkim 9:4; 10:11).