A CASE OF INDUCED ABORTION  
IN THE OLD TESTAMENT  
EXODUS 21:22-23 

Stephen M. Reynolds, Ph.D.

hr'h' hV'ai Wpg>n"w> ~yvin"a] WcN"yI-ykiw>

tyviy" rv,a]K; vnE['yE vAn[' !Asa' hy<h.yI al{w> h'yd,l'y> Wac.y"w>

`~ylilip.Bi !t;n"w> hV'aih' l[;B; wyl'['`vp,n" tx;T; vp,n< hT't;n"w> 

`vp,n" tx;T; vp,n< hT't;n"w> hy<h.yI !Asa'-~aiw>

Ex. 21:22 When men fight and hurt a pregnant woman so that her children come forth [or come out] and no harm follows, the one responsible shall surely be fined what the woman's husband demands, the payment being based on reckonings [or, as the judges shall determine]. 23 And if [any] harm follows, then thou shalt give life for life. 

The key to the understanding of this passage is the word h'yd,l'y, a word which normally would be translated her children or, if the gender of the noun d,l'y is considered to be determinative of how it should be translated, it would be her boys. Yet translators have throughout the ages avoided this normal translation. The reason is easy to understand. Translators imagine that Biblical laws were formulated without regard to a particular incident, but this is not true. For example, a judgment concerning the punishment for Sabbath breaking was decreed by God as the result of a particular incident (Num. 15:32). Translators and commentators have apparently thought of the case which brought about the stated punishment in Exodus 21:22 as though it were a hypothetical case and not an actual incident. Therefore, as they assume most injuries to pregnant women are not to those who are carrying more than one unborn child, the word  h'yd,l'y they assume could not mean her children, and so they refuse to translate it in the plain sense. The result of this misunderstanding has been that a piece of legislation providing for the death penalty for one who kills a child in the womb (an abortionist) has been obscured. 

Verse 22 of this passage should be translated as follows:
"When men fight and hurt a pregnant woman so that her children come forth [or come out] and no harm follows, the one responsible shall surely be fined what the woman's husband demands, the payment being based on reckonings."¹ 

The Lorine L. Reynolds Foundation calls for accuracy and charges that previous translations are inaccurate. The Foundation translates accurately that the woman's children come forth (or come out) and there is no justification to translate that she has a miscarriage or an abortion, which faulty translation is found in the. Vulgate, the New English Bible, the TANAKH (the Jewish Publication Society Version of 1985) and the New Revised Standard Version as well as others. 

Biblical Hebrew had a word for a miscarriage or stillbirth, lp,nE which is found in Job 3:16, Psalm 58:8 and Ecclesiastes 6:3. It is unacceptable to translate that the injured woman in this case as set forth in verse 22 miscarries, that is, that stillborn children come out of her womb. If stillbirths had been the meaning the word ~ylp,n  would surely have been used. 

Although the Foundation makes a case for homographs in places where previous translators have translated as though none existed—even though their renderings result in intolerable disharmonies in matters of faith and practice—in Exodus 21:22 previous translators faultily see a homograph where none exists. They see in the word children the meaning aborted fetuses. By so doing they destroy a powerful argument against modern abortions as practiced by professional abortionists who destroy children (~yrly. ) in the womb. 

The Hebrew text of Exodus 2:22 says that children come forth and no further harm follows as far as the verse is concerned. This is not an abortion. This means the children and the mother survive. 

Verse 23 says that if harm (!Asa') occurs, you (Moses) shall give life for life. Translators following an old and faulty tradition, assuming that verse 22 refers to stillbirths, and that this is treated as though it was not harm (the prebom children being considered as less than human beings) the harm which may occur can refer only to harm which the woman may suffer. 

When the Bible says in verse 22 that children come forth, this can only mean live children that can be recognized as such. Luther and the King James Version say that the woman is injured "so that her fruit depart." The word fruit suggests the product of conception before it has a human form, whereas the word d,l'y is a child capable of living outside the womb. 

Verse 23 presents another case, this one hypothetical. Damage follows. The woman may die as a result of her injury and/or human life may be destroyed in the womb. For any life that is lost the guilty person is to be put to death. Bias by translators may have caused the faulty renderings. The idea that a full grown man should be put to death for destroying the life of an unborn child may have been so repugnant to translators and commentators, ancient and modern, that they did violence to the Word of God. They do this in spite of the fact that God puts in the record (the Bible) that it is offensive to Him to tamper with the revealed word. 

Mosaic law is not now in force. The principle lying behind this Mosaic case law is, however, worthy of study. Verse 23 shows that persons engaged in the abortion industry of today who kill prebom babies in late term may with justice be put to death. This is not likely to happen. A recent Surgeon General of the United States of America spoke scornfully of those who are "in love with the human fetus." God is not of her opinion. The abortion industry has causes which are complex, combining at least two evil things. It destroys a human life which is not wanted by the baby's mother. Perhaps she is influenced by the child's father, her parents or advisors such as representatives of Planned Parenthood. Another factor in the power of the abortionists is the greed of those who are in this business. They acquire great wealth in this unholy work and are able to use a part of it in buying influence with politicians and the news and entertainment media. 

The Scriptures indicate that if lawful authority empowered to execute justice were to exercise their God­ given right to put abortionists to death, God would be well pleased. However, the Scriptures also tell us that persons not governing authorities who kill abortionists are themselves guilty of sin (Rom 13:1-7). 

Although the unborn children of Exodus 21:22 were near full term or had already reached it or were overdue, there are other passages in the Bible that prove that children from conception on have the right to life. 

If anyone suggests that the expression if harm occurs refers only to the woman, his opinion can be disproved by noting that the children and the woman are all mentioned in the preceding verse. The harm must of necessity include all who are put in danger by the blow of the fighting man. 

Verse 22 tells that a woman was hurt while carrying more than one child in her womb. The children were born immediately following this incident and were able to develop without harm The one who injured her must be fined for his violent act against a pregnant woman. 

There appears to be a common opinion that the Bible says nothing specific in opposition to induced abortion. Those who oppose this notorious modern industry of abortion rightly insist that a prebom infant in the womb is a human being and that the Bible condemns murder. But this is not specific enough in condemning the destroying of a preborn child in the womb as murder. This passage in verse 23 specifically calls for the death penalty for one who causes an abortion. It is true that the case has nothing to do with the modern abortion industry; but, if the life of an unborn child is destroyed, it is a criminal abortion all the same. The case may have been that two men were fighting and one of them might be killed. A woman, probably the wife of the one who seemed to be in danger, went between them to save her husband's life. The other man cruelly struck a violent blow to the woman's abdomen. She fell in pain and labor pains began, the result being that she gave birth to two (or possibly more) children. 

The Foundation should produce a Purified Bible which can be read with good effect without comment. But as some passages may be misunderstood if they are presented without explanation and as it is necessary to mount a polemic against faulty translations, it shall also be the aim of the Foundation to publish a whole Bible with a commentary. Concerning the law of Exodus 21:22-25 the comments should aid in defending the right to life of the preborn. 

Standards to which many Reformed Christians adhere, namely the Westminster Standards, uphold the right of private citizens to take human life in necessary defense.² By this rule if a pregnant woman's life can only be saved by taking the life of her unborn child she should be free to defend her own life in this way. Yet modern science has devised ways of saving the woman's life, and the necessity of killing a prebom child should hardly ever arise. 

The Bible, and the Westminster Standards interpreting it, prohibit a private person. or an unauthorized assembly of private persons, from killing a human being no matter how horrible his alleged crime may be. Therefore private persons should not kill abortionists. But precisely whom may a private citizen kill in necessary defense? It is certain he may kill in defense of his own life if there is no other way he can protect it. It also follows that he can do so to protect his immediate family, but if he proposes to extend this right to kill to protect strangers he becomes an anarchist and passes beyond any soundly based Biblical permission to kill. Therefore Christians should refuse to approve of the actions of persons who kill abortionists in an unlawful manner, although we may sympathize with them as deluded brethren in Christ if they give evidence of being Christians except for this one very serious delusion. We should not hate either the abortionists or the abortionists' killers, although we must hate their sin. We should love people on both sides in the sense the Bible means when it speaks of love. 

1. Or, as the judges determine.

2. Westminster Larger Catechism, Question 136.