Puzzling Passage: Exodus 21:22-25 (NRSV vs ESV)
NRSV –
22 “When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much 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.
ESV –
22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay 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.
Looking at the Hebrew:
V22: When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman,
and her child (yeladeyha) יְלָדֶ֔יהָ [Strong’s 3206: Something born, a lad, offspring]
go forth (weyatse’u) וְיָצְא֣וּ [Strong’s 3318: To go, bring, out, direct and proxim]
Why it is Puzzling:
NRSV and ESV interpret v22 very differently. One situation is that of miscarriage while the other situation is that of premature birth. These two different interpretations greatly affect how we ought to view the worth and value of the unborn.
If miscarriage/death of an unborn is considered to be: “no harm follows” [note that the word ‘further’ in v22 of NRSV is not in the original and should be ignored] and then it merely warrants a fine, then it follows that the unborn does not worth so much. But if it is a premature birth, then the baby is also afforded the eye for eye protection and so it follows that the unborn also has the worth and value of a human life.
Below is a list of factors one should consider when determining which translation is the more accurate one.
>> Majority of authoritative translations are aligned with ESV rather than NRSV.
>> There is a proper Hebrew word for miscarry and yet it is not used by the author here. In fact, the word is used just nearby in Exodus 23:26, “None shall miscarry (meshakelah) or be barren in your land.” But yet this word is not used here.
>> Weyatse’u never refers to miscarry in the Bible, and whenever it is used in the context of birth, it always refers to live birth in the Bible. E.g. birth of Esau (Gen. 25:25)
>> There are words in the OT for embryo (Psalm 139:16) or stillborn (Job 3:16) yet such words are not used, instead, the word yeladeyha is used and it is an ordinary word for children and never refers to miscarried children.
>> V22 “but there is no harm” should refer to no harm to both mother and child. If the author only wished to refer to the mother (no harm to the mother and not including the baby), he could have easily indicated it in the Hebrew but yet it was left in a general manner, so it makes more sense to view it as referring to both mother and baby. Same for v23 “But if there is harm”.
The Point:
Verse 22 paints the picture of a baby born prematurely 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 pro-choice advocates to show that the Bible regards the unborn as less human or less worthy of protection than those who are born.
Furthermore:
Luke 1:13-15; 39-45.
Birth of John the Baptist Foretold
13 But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. 14 And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth, 15 for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.
Mary Visits Elizabeth
39 In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a town in Judah, 40 and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. 41 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, 42 and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45 And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.”
These verses show that the unborn is a person because…
>> In the NT, only persons are filled with the Spirit.
>> In Luke 2:16, the exact word for “baby” (v41) is used to refer to baby Jesus in a manger. The author did not use any special word for the unborn in the womb but an ordinary word for living babies.
>> In v44 – the unborn can respond to their environment and can feel emotions (joy) even inside the womb.