God. Real. Right.

Here’s an e-mail I received from a listener troubled by a particular passage in the Old Testament. He says “Leviticus” but means “Exodus”. It’s an interesting e-mail because a slight shift in how one phrase is understood completely changes the implications of the passage for the issue of life in the womb. He takes it a way I have heard it taken on other occasions as well. However, as I mention below the letter, I believe both the context and wording itself point in a different direction.

Hi, Dr. Creamer:
I listen to your show almost every day on my way home, and really enjoyed the Christian perspective on various issues of our time. One of the most frequent topics that have been discussed is abortion. While I am staunchly pro-life, I have doubts whether abortion is tantamount to murder. Here is the verse that causes my doubt:

Leviticus 21:22-25 And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow; he shall be surely fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (ASB)

A couple of things I observe from these few verses:

1. If a man commits murder, he will receive capital punishment.
2. If a man kills a pregnant woman, he will receive capital punishment.
3. If a man kills only the fetus without killing the pregnant woman, he only needs to pay a fine.

So the only conclusion I can draw from these verses is: while killing an unborn baby is a crime, it does not equal murder. Am I misinterpreting these verses? I am eager to hear your perspective on this. Thank you.
Chris

And here is my reply:

Chris,
If the phrase “so that her fruit depart” means “miscarriage (resulting in the death of the child)” (and I do not believe it does, as I will indicate below) then your conclusion is correct, but does not lead to the further conclusion that the unborn child is somehow less worthy of protection than its mother or any other more mature, human life. Rather, it may just as well indicate the less direct nature of the harm to the pregnancy than of the harm to the woman. There are other cases in the Old Testament in which the measure of a man’s harmful activity is mitigated either by its unintentional or indirect nature. Verses 12-14 in the same chapter make the point.

12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.  13 And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.  14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.

However, as I parenthetically mentioned above, I do not believe verse 21 refers to a miscarriage. There is a Hebrew word for a miscarriage, “nephel”, and it is not used here. It is translated in the KJV for example in Psalm 58 as “untimely birth”. Again, that word is not used here. Instead, he uses the word for child or offspring, “yeled”, translated as “fruit” in the ASV which you quoted. And the “yeled” simply departs. Again, the word neither means nor implies harm. It’s simply the generic word for “going forth”, as a person might “go forth” from a city, “yatsa”. All that’s left then, for a clear idea of how I understand the passage, is the contingent harm done in verse 23 (“and if any harm follow”). But it is my contention, because of the phrase at the end of verse 22, that the harm that follows is to the “yeled”, the child, not to the woman. Suddenly, the passage turns out to be one of the clearest in the Old Testament to make the point that life in the womb deserves equal protection under the law. “If men fight and cause a premature delivery, and the baby is unhurt, then there is no problem. The premature delivery is not inherently punishable. But if the result of the premature delivery is that the child is harmed, then the child’s life is to be valued equally with the life of the one who did the harm.”
Thanks for your well-stated and important question. I hope the reply is helpful.
bkc

Share on Facebook

Tags: Abortion

This entry was posted on Friday, June 19th, 2009 at 8:22 am and is filed under Culture, Ethics, Exegesis and Interpretation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.