The key passage in the hotly contested debate over the destruction of the human embryo or fetus is Exodus 21:22-25. Even in the early church it is possible to cite contrary opinions on the issue of abortion. Thus Norman Anderson will appeal to Gregory of Nyssa, a fourth-century church father, who remarked, "It would not be possible to style the unformed embryo a human being, but only a potential one¾assuming that it is completed so as to come forth to human birth, while as long as it is in this unformed state it is something other than a human being." [S1] On the other hand, the church condemned abortion in the first part of the second century in the
Didache (ii.2). The Apostolic Constitutions warned, "Thou shalt not slay the child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten; for everything that is shaped, and has received a soul from God, if it be slain shall be avenged as being unjustly destroyed, Ex. 21:23" (8, 3). Tertullian in his
Apologeticum (9) concurred: "To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed." [S2]
Is the fetus a human being or is it not? There is the key question¾and there are not a great many biblical texts to help us. Traditionally, biblical scholars have pointed to such evidences as both Jeremiah and Paul being known and called by God for their life's work while they were still in the womb (Jer. 1:4-6; Gal. 1:15); and God personally fashioning each individual in the womb as Job and the psalmist contend.
"Your hands shaped me and made me. Will you now turn and destroy me? Remember that you molded me like clay. Will you now turn me to dust again? Did you not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese, clothe me with skin and flesh and knit me together with bones and sinews? You gave me life and showed me kindness, and in your providence watched over my spirit." (Job 10:8-12)
David, in agreement with Job, sang:
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praised you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. (Ps. 139:13-16) [S3]
These texts, along with Job 3:11 and Luke 1:39-44 may be cited to indicate that God considers the fetus fully human. But Exodus 21:22-25 is even more definitive in its regard for the sanctity of unborn life.
How is the fetus regarded in the covenant code law? In the two cases presented in the Exodus 21:22-25 law. Case A in verse 22 has been widely held as being nothing more than a miscarriage for which an appropriate compensation is sought. Case B in verses 22 and 23, on the other hand, involves not only the loss of the fetus, but of the mother also and is therefore a capital case with the
talion formula of "life for life."
But this construction of the law will not stand up to the scrutiny of the text. In the first place, "there is absolutely no linguistic justification for translating verse 22 to refer to a miscarriage." [S4] The Revised Standard Version, Berkley Version, New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible, Amplified Bible, Douay-Rheims, Moffatt and Goodspeed translations and numerous commentaries such as the Broadman, Wesleyan, Wycliffe, New Bible Commentary, Beacon Bible Commentary, and Interpreter's Bible Commentary are all in gross error in referring to a miscarriage here. [S5] The text literally reads "so that her children go [or come] out." The New American Standard Version says "so that her fruit depart." The verb is
, meaning "to go (or) come out" and the noun is the regular word for "child" (
) with the only irregularity being that the noun (and hence, by agreement, the verb) is in the plural. The use of the term "child" makes it clear that a human being is in view here; the plural is generic to cover the contingency of multiple births or either sex. [S6] In fact, the Hebrew does have a word for miscarriage that is not used in Exodus 21:22-25, namely
, "to be bereaved [of children], or to be childless." This root in the
piel participle is used as a substantive meaning "abortion" (
, 2 Kings 2:21). Not only is this verb used of the sterile land and vines (2 Kings 2:19; Mal. 3:11) and animals which are caused to abort or experience an abortion (Gen. 31:38; Job 21:10), but it is also used of women who miscarry in Exodus 23:26: "And none will miscarry or be barren in your land"; and Hosea 9:14:
"Give them, O Lord what will you give them? Give them wombs that miscarry and breasts that are dry."
Moreover, the verb "to come out" is used in every case except one (Num. 12:12, it is used for a stillborn child) for the birth of an ordinary child. [S7]
Most of this evidence is now being conceded by those who previously had adopted the case for miscarriage. But the penalty clauses is another source of misunderstanding, for some interpret Case A as necessitating only a pecuniary penalty while Case B calls for the
talion principle. This would seem, then, to suggest to some that the fetus of Case A is less human!
Meredith Kline, however, has argued that
does not denote a process of assessment based, as in extrabiblical legislation, on the age of the fetus. Rather, he notes that in every context [S8] where, what he takes to be an adjectival form (
with an enclitic
),
is used, it deals with "an offense of a most serious nature. In fact, the meaning could well be liability to death." [S9] The preposition
is the
bêth of equivalence that, interestingly enough, is also used in the
talion formula in Deuteronmy 19:21 to replace the more usual
: "a life as an equivalent of a life." Kline concludes, "Hence,
bpllym in Exod. 21:22 may be regarded as an archaic legal formula expressing the same principle of ransoming a forfeited life that is more fully expressed in Exod. 21:30." [S10] The suggested translation for verse 22 according to Kline would be "he must pay for his forfeited life" or "he must pay as one deserving of death (or retribution)."
Feticide, we conclude, is indeed murder, and only when the fetus presents a danger to the life of the mother should abortion be considered at all. The
lex talionis refers to both cases: when harm (
) is done to either the child or the mother. But, in spite of Kline's moving discussion of
, the contrast in verses 22-23 would appear to be between those instances when no damage has come to either mother or child (v. 22) and where damage has come to mother, child, or both (v. 23). The contrast is:
"And no harm occurs" (v. 22)
and
"And if harm occurs" (v. 23)
The value that God sets on the fetus can be seen from the text we quoted earlier from Psalm 139:16. The clause is "your eye saw my unformed body (i.e., my embryo)"
. [S11] God, it was then, who "knit me together in my mother's womb" (Ps. 139:13; cf. Job 10:18 ) and knew me in my prenatal state (Jer. 1:4-5). The value and worth of the forming child is clearly established.
Footnotes: ------------------------------------------------------------S1. Anderson,
Issues of Life, 76-77, citing from "Adversus Macedonianos," trans. from Library of Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series 2, ed. H. Wace and P. Schaff (Oxford, 1839) 5:320.
S2. All three of these quotes were cited by Rushdoony,
Biblical Law, 265. See his footnote 6 on p. 265 for six other church fathers on this same question who concur with the judgments expressed in these three.
S3. On these verses, see Donald R. Glenn, "An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Psalm 139," in
Tradition and Testament: Essays in Honor of Charles Lee Feinberg, ed. John S. and Paul D. Feinberg (Chicago: Moody, 1981), 170, 174-78.
S4. Cottrell, "Abortion," 604.
S5. Cottrell, "Abortion," 603.
S6. Kline, "Lex Talionis," 198-99.
S7. Cottrell, "Abortion," 604.
S8. See besides Exod. 21:22; Job 31:11, 28; Deut. 32:31.
S9. Kline, "Lex Talionis," 195.
S10. Kline, "Lex Talionis," 195-96.
S11. Cf. the Armaic word "shapeless mass." See Glenn, "Exposition of Psalm 139," 186, n. 99.
Reply
