So much stuff in today's passage!
One of my favourite passage is in this OT text because it, more than any other passage in the Bible, is explicit in it's condemnation of abortion.
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
From John MacArthur's two part series on abortion.....
I am convinced that the fury of God will someday fall on the murderers of His creatures who have not sought His forgiveness. God is the protector of the innocent. Now to illustrate this Biblically; go back to Exodus 21. This is one of the really important passages about abortion, Exodus 21:22; and here in this section of Scripture following the Ten Commandments, God gives a number of laws that regard life and all of its myriad of circumstances. In Exodus 21 we have a very interesting account; it says to us in verse 22,
If men struggle with each other (now you follow carefully) and strike a woman with child (I don't know what you version says; some say "so she has a miscarriage," some say, "So she has an untimely birth"), yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Now what is this saying? One of the unfortunate translations in the New American Standard is the translation "miscarriage." I don't know why they translated the Hebrew term here "miscarriage." There is no reason, at least in my mind, to believe that verse 22 refers to a miscarriage. There is a contextual support for that as well as linguistic. The literal Hebrew reading is simply this, "And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child (here's the Hebrew) so that her children come out." That's what it says. In other words, it causes the child to come out. "Yet there is no further injury, then he shall surely be fined as the husband (or the woman's husband) may demand of him; and be paid as whatever the judges or the courts allow." Yalad is the common Hebrew word for child. The only irregularity here in that word is that it is plural. And it is unlikely that it means a developing fetus that has been miscarried.
The verb (Hebrew, yasa) often refers to ordinary childbirth, and so it says the struggle happens: two men are fighting, one gets involved in this fight; and probably a woman steps in (you know, the wife to try to stop the fight) and she gets struck so that her children come out (just looking at it on the plural sense); that is, an ordinary childbirth takes place. By the way, that term (Hebrew, yasa) referring to ordinary childbirth is used in Genesis 15:4 and Isaiah 39:7 of a childbirth generated from the loins of the father and also in Genesis 25 and 26, and Jeremiah 1, about a birth that comes out of the womb of the mother. So from the father's side and the mother's side the term is used to express a child that is born.
In no case does that term (Hebrew, yasa) refer to a miscarriage. Numbers 12:12 uses it but it refers to a still birth—not a miscarriage. The Hebrew word for miscarriage (shakal) used in Exodus 23:26, Hosea 9:14, is not used in this verse. So what you have here is a premature birth.
Now, follow the thought: two men are fighting, the woman probably steps in; she gets hit in the process and consequently the trauma causes a premature birth. If all that happens is that the child comes out and there is no further injury, then there should be a fine for the discomfort, for the problems that might come to take care of the child, and to take care of the woman because of whatever trauma she suffered. If there is any debate about it, then the judges can discern what that should be. "But if there is any further injury. . . ." What would "any further injury" be? Well, it would have to mean something more severe, including the loss of life; "then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life."
What's the point? The point is: if you are responsible for killing an unborn child you pay with your life. That's the point. It is constituted as murder.
"No further injury," then in verse 22, has been incorrectly taken to mean that there has been some kind of a miscarriage. The equivalent of "further" doesn't appear in the Hebrew text. It simply says (you'll notice probably that "further" is in italics), it just says "if there is no injury." If the child is born and there is no injury—fine. Settle whatever be the medical costs, if there are any, but if there is more than that, if there is injury to the child, if there is injury to the mother then "lex talionis" [Latin], that is, "tit for tat" takes place. If the child has suffered in one area—the penalty is the same. If the child dies then the penalty is life. It is just the idea of appropriate punishment, but what it points out is: if the child comes out and his eye is injured—you lose your eye. If he comes out and his hand is injured—your lose your hand. If his foot—his foot, and so forth, and so forth. Wound for wound—that's justice, but if the child dies you pay with your life. "Lex talionis" the law of retaliation.
So Scripture teaches us then very, very clearly that conception is an act of God; that every person conceived is conceived in the image of God, and that each person is the special care of God. Nothing illustrates that more than if you injure a child that is untimely born and you have inflicted that injury—you pay a just punishment including, if you kill that child—you pay with your life. God has special care for those who are helpless. (emphasis mine)
Another one of my favourite sections is in here - it's amazingly powerful and rich with meaning.
And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people. Matthew 27:51-53
Previously Matthew mentioned the incredible darkness that covered the earth - a physical and spiritual darkness.
The temple curtain was torn in two eradicating the barrier between God and humanity forevermore!!
There was an earthquake - nature reacting against the death of its Creator.
And dead people rose from the dead!
I'd love to look into that particular portion a bit more. How amazing was that? I wonder how many were raised to life? They must have had quite the story to tell. Some of the very few that have tasted death (and, therefore, paradise!) and lived to tell about it. (I'm assuming these were believers).
Incredible signs - the death of our Lord could not have gone unnoticed by anyone.
Tomorrow's passage: Exodus 23-24, Matthew 28
5 comments:
Matthew specifically says, "the bodies of many HOLY people... were raised," so I take that to mean they were, indeed, believers. I said this last year, and I'll say it again ~ I find it curious that Matthew is the only book that mentions this and even so, it's just a cursory mention. People coming back to life and going back into the city to be seen by many seems like a big deal to me!! But maybe in light of what happened to their beloved Rabbi those three days, it didn't seem important. I sure would like to know what everyone's reactions were to seeing people who'd been previously dead!
One thing that really stuck out for me in this passage is the first eleven verses of Exodus 21. It really doesn't seem like God is treating women "equally" here at all. Not only that, it appears the terms 'female servant' and 'wife' are almost used interchangeably here!! I found that really odd.
Thanks Tammy!! Great post - sorry for the mix-up!! :)
Tammi - I actually think the opposite about the women here.
My guess is that female slaves were treated as less than human at that time.
I'm not thrilled about the man's wife and children remaining with the master if the man did not have them before becoming a slave. But at least there is an out for the man to stay with his wife and children.
Vs 7-11 though are actually giving a servant the title of wife and protecting her, should her master take another wife after her.
And farther along in Exodus the penalty for killing or hurting a woman is the same as a man. I'm sure that was not the norm beforehand!
I never thought of it as giving a female servant the same treatment as a wife, even if she isn't necessarily the wife. That definitely changes the perspective! Good point.
I thought, too, the wife and kids remaining the property of the owner while the husband could go free wasn't quite right. What if the master was a horrible man? Then the whole family is doomed to life there if the man doesn't want to leave his family! That's almost like entrapment!!
Interesting that the comment about the raising from the dead was so fleeting that I don't know if I ever really gave it much thought before. You'd think it would be worth more than such a small mention.
I enjoyed reading the commentary about ending the life of a person by premature birth/abortion is punishable by death. I am so sad by the thousands of babies who never had the chance. So sad.
Post a Comment