> / / / / / Exodus 21:22-24. If men struggle with each other, and strike a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her [i.e. a miscarriage results], and yet no mischief follows: he shall surely be fined, according as the woman's husband may impose upon him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if any mischief [further injury] follow, then you shall appoint as penalty life for life,
>
>
> Okay, I can see how Exodus 21:22 might pose a big problem in that a deliberate miscarriage is defined by God as "no damage"(!), one that is not even worth the life-for-a-life penalty of retribution. Is that about right?

I think the issue here is one of translation. I have now had a chance to look at four different translations of the Bible and between varying choices of words and some study notes which expand upon the meanings, I think I have found the reasons why these passages do NOT stand as problem passages.

In the passage in Exodus, the phrase "that her fruit depart from her" is translated in some cases as "premature birth" and in others as "miscarriage". There does seem to be an implication in the terms (as listed in Strong's Concordance) that the phrase involves live birth. However, the mischief or further injury is identified in a study note in the NIV Study Bible to mean further injury to the mother OR the child. If the child were already dead, there could be no further injury. This would indicate clearly that the "premature birth" translation is the more correct, and so the first case (no further injury) involves no loss of life, and accordingly has a lesser penalty associated with it.

Going one step further here, verse 22 talks about men (plural) fighting (striving, struggling) with one another. The implication is that the injury to the woman is accidental. To the best of my recollection, there are no cases in Jewish law where accidental killings were subject to the life for a life penalty. Thus, in the case where the child is born live and further harm comes to the child or the mother (and life for a life is extracted) the punishment is MORE harsh than in similar cases of accidental killings. If we assume that the NIV study note and its implication are wrong and that the translation should be "miscarriage" (and thus that the child is born dead and the further harm applies only to the mother) then the penalty without further harm is comparable to other accidental killings, and the penalty with further harm is again more severe than what would normally be handed down in an accidental killing. In either case, this passage actually seems to show that the Jewish law placed a higher value on the life of an unborn fetus than it did on any other life.

> The other chapter in Numbers 5 is a little harder for me to understand in terms of its consequences. Would the correct interpretation imply that not only the possibly-adulterous woman AND her child in her womb are being judged and cursed, *regardless* of whether she was faithful or not? Moreover, doesn't the passage say that God is commanding the people to utterly revile and reject the woman AND the unborn child if it turns out she *is* unfaithful and she "bears [gives birth to?] the consequence of her sin." It would seem, then, that the life of an illegitimate fetus is not valued as that of an "innocent," and God himself will cause her to abort? She then becomes barren thereafter.

The issue here is actually not very relevant to abortion. First of all, I disagree with your assessment that the woman and child are being cursed regardless of her faithfulness; the passage says quite clearly that the water will not harm her if she has been faithful. This does seem a bit mystical, but the passage does talk about God being involved in the process, and if you're accepting the truth and accuracy of the Bible as a whole, I sure hope you believe enough in God to believe that if she has been faithful, the water will not harm her. ;-) In any case, what is happening here is that if the woman has been unfaithful, she is being punished for her unfaithfulness. The punishment is barreness, which, to the Jewish women of the time, is a terrible punishment. IF the woman happens to be pregnant at the time, then she will miscarry as a consequence of becoming barren; however, nowhere does the passage state that she is known to be with child.

Because of these things, the relevance of this passage to abortion is essentially non-existent. In this case, a punishment inflicted on a woman for adultery will cause the miscarriage of a fetus IF it exists; in the case of abortion, the woman voluntarily decides to destroy the fetus that she KNOWS to exist. I cannot deny that in this case, the law allows for the possibility of the death of an unborn child; however, allowing a hypothetical fetus to die is far removed from condemning an existing fetus to death.

All of this, of course, does not touch upon the issue of when life begins. All I wanted to do here is point out that these two passages of Scripture do not serve as problems for the pro-life stance, and that one of them actually appears to support it.

> Wolf "sigh" spirit

Don "Hours of Bible study went into this post--but still, my roommate and I would like to hear from Nyperold or someone equally knowledgeable to confirm some of the translations and assertions I have made here." Monkey