> And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

One summary often presented is as follows: 'Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence -- it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death.'

But this exegesis overlooks the distinction between accidental manslaughter and intentional murder. When the offending man was striking the woman, was he trying to kill the baby? Of course not -- for most of the 9 months of pregnancy he would have no sure sign that a baby was there, and even after that in the heat of a fight is hardly going to have the rational capability to take on such a distinction.

And even if he did, chances are he wasn't aiming for the baby anyway. It's akin to an accident where someone intends one thing but tragically causes another. In biblical law, an accidental death never earns the death penalty. On the other hand, the woman was quite visible and there was no such excuse for a direct, fatal strike against her. Any struggle that affects the woman to the point of inflicting serious fatal injury falls under a different category of culpability. Accidental deaths would also be covered by cities of refuge in the Deuteronomic code (Dt. 19).

Commenting on the Septuagint version of the biblical reference to this event in Exodus 21:22-23, the Alexandrian-Jewish philosopher Philo at the beginning of the Current Era declared that the attacker of a pregnant woman must die if the fruit he caused to be lost was already 'shaped and all the limbs had their proper qualities, for that which answers to this description is a human being . . . like a statue lying in a studio requiring nothing more than to be conveyed outside.' Christians have historically affirmed the sanctity of unborn life based on broader biblical theology and early Patristic consensus.

PROBLEM: According to some translations of the Bible, this text teaches that when fighting men cause a woman to have a “miscarriage” they “shall be fined” (v. 22, rsv). But, if the fighting men caused the death of the woman, the penalty was capital punishment (v. 23). Doesn’t this prove that the unborn was not considered a human being, as the mother was?

SOLUTION: First of all, this is a mistranslation of the verse. The great Hebrew scholar, Umberto Cassuto, translated the verse correctly as follows:

When men strive together and they hurt unintentionally a woman with child, and her children come forth but no mischief happens - that is, the woman and the children do not die - the one who hurts her shall surely be punished by a fine. But if any mischief happens, that is, if the woman dies or the children, then you shall give life for life. (Commentary on the Book of Exodus, Magnes Press, 1967)

This makes the meaning very clear. It is a strong passage against abortion, affirming that the unborn are of equal value to adult human beings.

Second, the Hebrew word (yatsa), mistranslated “miscarriage,” actually means to “come forth” or to “give birth” (as nkjv, niv). It is the Hebrew word regularly used for live birth in the OT. In fact, it is never used for a miscarriage, though it is used of a still birth. But, in this passage, as in virtually all OT texts, it refers to a live, though premature, birth.

Third, there is another Hebrew word for miscarriage (shakol), and it is not used here. Since this word for miscarriage was available and was not used, but the word for live birth was used, there is no reason to suppose it means anything else than a live birth of a fully human being.

Fourth, the word used for the mother’s offspring here is yeled which means “child.” It is the same word used of babies and young children in the Bible (Gen. 21:8; Ex. 2:3). Hence, the unborn is considered just as much a human as a young child is.

Fifth, if any harm happened to either the mother or the child, the same punishment was given, “life for life” (v. 23). This demonstrates that the unborn was considered of equal value with the mother.

Sixth, other OT passages teach the full humanity of an unborn child

Expanded from Ps. 51:5 and 139:13ff:
Psalm 51:5
—Does this verse support the position that an unborn fetus is only a potential human being?
Problem:
David claimed that he was “conceived” in sin in his mother’s womb. However, he could not have actually sinned at the moment of conception, since he had no moral consciousness or free will which are necessary for moral acts (see
Isa. 7:15
;
John 9:41
).
Solution:
This text does not support the view that a human embryo is merely a potential human being, as opposed to an actual human being. This is evident for several reasons. First, even if it were teaching that humans are potential
sinners
from conception, it does not follow that they are potential
humans.

Second, in whatever sense the unborn are declared sinners from the point of conception, it reveals, nevertheless, that they are human, that is, they are part of the fallen human race. For it is only by virtue of being part of the Adamic human race that we are conceived in sin .

. The NT affirms the same view (cf. Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:41, 44).