Abortion and the Exodus 21:22 Discrepancy

Many pro-life proponents have claimed that Exodus 21:22 is the place in the Bible where abortion is clearly equated with murder. Well, if you look at the different translations of this verse, as well as it's original meaning in Hebrew, the waters start to get a bit muddier than they may seem at first.

Read the following three translations of Exodus 21:22-23. What is the difference in meaning between each of these three versions? What impact does this have on the question of "when does life begin?"

• 22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine 23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life

(King James Version)

• 22 If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life

(New International Version)

• 22 When men fight, and if one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman's husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning. 23 But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life

(Jewish Publication Society)

So, you are asking, which of these translations is most common? There is quite obviously a difference between a pre-mature birth and a miscarriage, and "fruit departing" is ambiguous.

At least nine English language translations render the verse to mean a pre-mature birth. These translations include NLV, NASB, NKJV, HCSB, God's Word, Hebrew Names, World English, the Darby Translation and the NIV. Seven translations in English clearly make the meaning as "miscarriage." These translations include the NRSV, RSV, Good News ("loses child"), Douay Rheims, The Message, Complete Jewish Bible ("so badly her child dies"), and the JPS. At least six translations take the safer route and render an ambiguous translation where the reader in unsure whether the baby lives or dies. These include the KJV, Third Millenium, Webster, NCB, ASV, and Young's Literal.

It is interesting to note that the KJV gives an ambiguous translation, but the NKJV gives the "premature birth" translation. Our next question is, if there are several translations with each reading, what is the original word in Hebrew?

Yatsa' -to go forth, to come out, to depart

Not only can fruit yatsa' from a woman's body, but this same root is used earlier in Exodus when God is giving Moses his commission. Words that are underlined come from the Hebrew root yatsa'.

"And the LORD said unto Moses, Rise up early in the morning, and stand before Pharaoh; lo, he cometh forth to the water; and say unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Let my people go, that they may serve me." - Exodus 8: 20

The literal translation of "her fruit depart" seems to be an idiomatic expression. If it means the baby "came out" alive, we will have one interpretation of when personhood begins. If it means the baby "came out" dead, we have a completely different interpretation. Let us follow the logic for each of these possibilities.

If the baby is presumed to be alive, then the mother gives birth prematurely. This is not possible during the majority of the time she is pregnant, but since the phrase is ambiguous, let's ride out what it could mean. If the mother gives birth prematurely, then the "other misfortune" could be the death of the mother OR of the baby. In this case, the life of the unborn child is seen as equal to the mother. Personhood can be said to begin at conception, or at least at the point when the baby could function on its own outside the mothers' womb. Abortion would then be equated to murder.

On the other hand, if the baby is presumed to "come out" or "yatsa" from the mother and is already dead, the opposite conclusion can be made. The translation will certainly be rendered as "miscarried," and the other misfortune could only be equal to the death of the mother. The baby is already dead in this case. Here, the life of the unborn child is not seen as equal to the mother. Abortion is therefore not murder in the same way that killing a person who has already been born is considered murder.

My next train of thought was to wonder, if "miscarriage" was the word that was intended, why not just use the Hebrew word for miscarriage? The word nefel has been translated as miscarriage, but only by those translations that assume the baby is alive in Exodus 21:22-23. The JPS, which translates "her fruit depart" as a miscarriage, translates nefel as "stillbirth." Again, we are still left with an ambiguous answer.

How did the early rabbis, who were extremely learned in the Hebrew scriptures, interpret this verse? We look now to the Talmud, the collection of oral interpretations of the scriptures compiled in the first and second centuries A.D. These interpretations still hold today. The consensus among the rabbis seemed to be that conception does not equal full personhood. When most of the baby has come out of the womb, it is a person; until then it is not considered a person and does not have equal rights to the mother. Niddah 44b goes on to say that the newborn is not viable until thirty days after birth. It is then that it gains a soul. Up until thirty days, if a baby is killed the perpetrator cannot be executed for the crime because the baby's life is not considered equal to the murderer's life.¹

"If a woman is having difficulty giving birth, one cuts up the fetus within her and takes it out limb by limb, because her life takes precedence over its life. Once its greater part has emerged, you do not touch it, because you may not set aside one life for another."

Oholot 7:16

As you can see, Exodus 21:22 is not as clear cut as the NIV or other translations would lead you to believe. As Hebrew was not spoken as a living language consistently throughout history, it is impossible to interpret the meaning based on Modern Hebrew alone. Those would know the meaning of the passage best would be those who were alive at the time of writing, but the closest thing we have is the writings of the Rabbis in the first and second centuries A.D.

Does Exodus 21:22 make it clear that abortion is or is not equated with murder? If anything, the translation of "comes out" is the most literal translation available for the English language, which leads the reader to assume that the chid is dead. It is not clear in the passage what month of pregnancy the woman was in, as it was a hypothetical situation. Since a premature birth would only be possible at the very late stages, it is probably safer to assume that the better English translation would be "miscarriage," but that is up to you to decide.

Sources:

1) Biale, Rachel. Women & Jewish Law. Shocken Books Inc. New York. 1995.

*The author used various translations on Crosswalk.com's Bible Study Tools coupled with a big ol' Hebrew Lexicon. She has studied both Arabic and Biblical Hebrew.

Further Reading:

When Does Life Begin?

Jewish Law & The Beginning of Life