Does Exodus 21:22-25 Support Abortion? A Biblical and Hebrew Analysis That Challenges the Pro-Choice Interpretation

Does the Bible support abortion? We are continuing our series of articles answering this question (spoiler alert: it does not). In our last article, we showed why Numbers 5:11-31 does not support abortion (you can read that article HERE).

One of the other passages most often cited as evidence that the Bible supports abortion is Exodus 21:22-25. However, as we will show below, this passage supports the conclusion that abortion is impermissible when it is read properly. Exodus 21:22-25 describes two men fighting, during which a pregnant woman is accidentally injured:

If people are fighting and 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. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. (‭‭Exodus‬ ‭21‬:‭22‬-‭25‬ ‭NIV‬‬)

The argument from this passage is that the unborn are not fully human, or at least not as valuable as the mother, because the penalty for accidentally killing the fetus is less than the penalty for killing the mother. However, this interpretation has several problems.

First, even if their interpretation is correct and the punishment for killing the fetus is lighter, it does not follow that the fetus is any less human than the mother. A few verses earlier (verses 20–21), a slave is unintentionally killed by his master, and the master escapes without penalty. Surely one would not assume the slave is any less human than the master.

Second, the passage should not be treated as analogous to abortion. Abortion, by contrast, involves intentionally killing an innocent human being. The passage does not depict any such intentional act. Instead, the penalties for harming the mother and the fetus differ in degree, but both appear to be cases of accidental harm.

Lastly, the pro-choice interpretation that the accidental death of the fetus carries a lesser penalty than the accidental death of the mother rests on questionable translations. A close reading of the passage in its original Hebrew shows that both the child and the mother are included under the law of retribution (lex talionis).[1] According to Hebrew scholar Gleason Archer, “There is no second-class status attached to the fetus under this rule. The fetus is just as valuable as the mother.”[2]

Moreover, it would be mistaken to presume the child in this passage was killed by the fighting men, as would be the case in an abortion. The ESV renders verse 22 as “so that her children come out,” whereas the NIV has “she gives birth prematurely.” Pro-choice advocates are depending on the NIV translation implying a miscarriage, though it is believed by many that the translation “the child comes forth,” or something similar, is the most accurate to the original Hebrew.[3]

The Hebrew word translated “child” in this verse, yeled, refers to a fully human child rather than a stillborn child. Additionally, yāsā’, the Hebrew term translated as “come out,” describes the ordinary birth of a live child rather than a miscarriage. In fact, the specific Hebrew term for “miscarriage” is šākāl, and it appears just two chapters later in the same book.[4] Therefore, had Moses intended to indicate a miscarriage, he would have used a different Hebrew word entirely.

The original Hebrew indicates that this passage refers to a child born prematurely, not to a miscarriage. On this reading, the passage seems to endorse the view that abortion is impermissible rather than permissible. This follows because when a premature birth causes no harm, the law requires only a fine. However, when either the mother or the child is harmed, the law of retribution applies. Thus, as Jack Cortell concluded, “Thus there seems to be no warrant for interpreting Exodus 21:22 to mean ‘the destruction of a fetus.’”[5]

Therefore, the passage does not teach that the unborn are less valuable than the mother; it is not analogous to modern abortions, nor does it override the clear teachings presented above.

This content is contained within a chapter in my upcoming book titled Sacred or Secular: The Pro-Life Case for Grounding Human Value in the Image of God, foreword by J.P. Moreland and releasing September 18th. If you're interested in learning more about the book, you can learn more HERE.

Footnotes:

[1] Klusendorf, The Case for Life, 201.

[2] John Ankerberg and John Weldom, When Does Life Begin? (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1989), 195-96.

[3] Moreland and Rae, Body and Soul, 235.

[4] Richard M. Davidson, Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2007), 494-495.

[5] Jack W. Cottrell, “Abortion and the Mosaic Law,” Christianity Today, March 16, 1973, 8.