|
(The Value of an Unborn Baby)
(Exodus 21:22-25)
Text:
Exodus 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit
depart [from her], and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished,
according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as
the judges [determine]. 23 And if [any] mischief follow, then thou
shalt give life for life, 24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for
hand, foot for foot, 25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for
stripe.
Some Initial Remarks
The cause of this short study is a sermon my pastor preached. It
was wonderful and very instructional on the matters of what the scriptures
say about life. I will not rehearse his sermon, my only goal is to
deal with this text here in Exodus. We live in a day when untold
thousands of babies are being slaughtered everyday! The blood of
American children is crying for judgment. The church needs to be
very vocal on this matter, it is not a choice, it is a child. It
is not your right, it is murder. Life doesn't begin at nine months,
it begins at conception. It is at this very point the church has
failed! Having failed to prove even among professing Christians that
God says life begins at conception, the whole argument has degenerated
into what "he says" and what "she says". Today I will not address
the first question, but instead deal with what God says about an unborn
child, here God is clear, and we must accept what He says.
I read from many versions of the Bible, but my study and private devotion
is normally with the King James. I have friends who use the King
James only. I say this now as it will be important in a moment.
What is being talked about in context?
Here we find a text in the word of God that answers the question: How does
God view an unborn child? For the Christian that should settle the
whole matter, if God values the life of an unborn child it is valuable
and if not, then it is not, regardless of when you think life begins.
Here in (verse 22) we find that if men should be arguing, disputing, fighting
over a matter, and through this fighting they hurt a woman with child,
and cause her fruit (that child) to "depart" [from her], yet no other mischief
follows, that man is to be fined what the husband desires and the judges
allow. But if mischief follows then God's demand of a wound for a
wound and an eye for an eye comes into affect. At face value it seems
to be saying that if the child should die "depart" that is just a fine,
but if the woman should die, that is "an eye for an eye". Here's
the problem; in this case the King James, does not clearly portray the
meaning of the text. I would like to show a couple of other versions
and then make some additional comments.
New King James
Exod 21:22 "If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that
she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished
accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as
the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follows, then you
shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth,
hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 "burn for burn, wound for
wound, stripe for stripe."
New International Version
Exod 21:22 "If men who are fighting 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 courts allow.
23 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, 25 burn
for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
Modern King James
Exod 21:22 "If men strive and strike a pregnant woman, so that
her child comes out, and there is no injury, he shall surely be punished,
according as the woman's husband will lay upon him. And he shall pay as
the judges say 23 And if any injury occurs, then you shall
give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand,
foot for foot, 25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for
stripe."
You see these versions make the meaning crystal clear. If these
men cause an early child birth, then the man is to be fined, but if any
hurt (to the woman or the child occurs) then it is an eye for an eye.
I know many will blast me for this, but I say it anyway, the King James
missed it here, the RSV missed it here, the ASV missed it here.
Now let's look briefly at the Hebrew to prove that God meant not by
departure, a miscarriage, or death of the child, warranted only a fine.
But an early birth, where in all else the child and mom were fine warranted
a fine. The word translated depart is the hebrew word, (yatsa) it
means to go forth, to depart, or to exit. It is used 1069 times in
our Bible, when being used in reference to a child it is never used to
describe one that is a miscarriage, or still born, but one that is born
alive. Two chapters over in the book of Exodus in chapter 23 we find
this verse:
Exod 23:26 "There shall nothing cast their young, nor be barren, in
thy land: the number of thy days I will fulfil."
Here in context a wonderful promise of God's blessings if Israel is
obedient. Notice one of the promises. "There shall nothing
cast their young" or as the New King James puts it "no one shall
suffer miscarriage". Here we find the Hebrew word that would refer
to a child being born dead (shakol). The word meaning is clear, it
means to make barren, to make childless, to miscarry. It is often
used as of making childless even when the children are grown up.
Application
God places the same exact value on an unborn child as He does on the
mother. If an early child birth is caused, that was a fine, but if
either were killed, that was an eye for an eye, if either were hurt, that
was wound for wound. If you are a Christian, you can now put aside
trying to prove that life does not begin until birth (like our President
believes and uses as the reason for why he approves of abortion).
We must realize that God placed the same penalty on hurting that unborn
child as He did on hurting the mother. So should America.
|