discussion on exodus 21:22-24
Monday, April 21st, 2008Exodus 21:22-24 (NIV)
22 “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot…”
Footnotes:
1. Exodus 21:22 Or she has a miscarriage
husband: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021:22-24;&version=31;
me:hmmm
husband: it seems to be saying a mother’s life and the unborn child’s are not equal in value
me: i dont understand, in what way?
husband: because if you cause a miscarriage, you pay a fine. if you kill the mother, you’re executed
me: oh, i didnt realise that was miscarriage, but i see that now in the footnotes
me: i thought it was saying if you injured the baby, pay fine, if you kill the baby, you’re executed
husband: yeah, the translation’s ambiguous
husband: new jeruselam bible translates it as miscarriage, no footnote
me: because it says “if there is no serious injury”, but i guess that means to the woman
me: hmmm, now i doubt the translations lol
husband: esv says “so that her children come out”
me: hmmm
husband: aha, the message with its “thoughts” lol
husband: When there’s a fight and in the fight a pregnant woman is hit so that she miscarries but is not otherwise hurt
husband: found the verse from stumbling to this http://www.angelfire.com/ut/indigo/murder.html
me: these are all being read wrong
me: im looking at the lexicon
me: its not saying “eye for eye” as in a human life for a human life
me: but an animal sacrifice for an animal sacrifice
me: aka.. blood was spilt, so have an animal sacrifice
husband: really
husband: so if she dies, you kill an animal
me: thats what it looks like
me: because blood was spilled
husband: if she’s injured you hurt a sheep?
me: i might be wrong
husband: doesn’t seem like much of a punishment for the offender
me: well, this is in exodus right, so it sounds like a huge part of all the animal sacrificing laws and things
husband: true
me: its not supposed to be, i think it’s supposed to be a sacrifice to god, because there was blood spilled, but let me look closer
husband: ok
me: thats just what i see at first glance
me: the word used is “nephesh” and it means: a breathing creature, i.e. animal of abstractly vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative sense bodily or mental
me: most of these translations say “a life for life” instead of all that eye for eye and tooth for tooth junk
me: and the word is “nephesh’.. for life
husband: hmm
me: and it actually says “if any mischief follow, then life for life”
me: and mischief is translated as “hurt”
me: i need to look at the first half
me: this is interesting, i think this is all too ambiguous to be used for any sort of pro-life or pro-choice arguments though, if thats the point
husband: that was the point, and interesting to me
husband: it was on a pro-choice debate page thing
me: ill do more research though
me: i think the original hebrew, i think it is hebrew, is the important part here
me: and WHY they’re demanding the life for life
husband: yeah, should be hebrew
me: *snickers* it also says this..
me: “If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. “If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.
husband: wow
husband: : When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye.
me: okay, the first part is a miscarriage
me: saying that, if a woman is pregnant and her fruit departs from her
husband: right
husband: ok
me: okay im gonna do some more looking at this word nephesh
me: and see where else its used in scripture and in what way and what other words could have been used
me: im actually getting pretty good at this, hehe
me: ok, its definitely used a lot, and it looks like its used for human life, as well, but also animal. hmm.
me: yeah, it looks like it probably does mean human life
me: even so, i still dont think it could be used for a pro-choice argument, because when christ came, most of these laws and such were taken to a higher level.. these were laws of the land, not of god. these were the milk, and he brought a higher standard
me: hmm. .wait.. is the serious injury for the woman or the man..
me: now im back to being confused lol
me: because it actually says “and if there is further hurt”, then take life for life
husband: hmm
me: the geneva study bible has an interesting thing to say
me: If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no {q} 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.
{q} Or, death: of the mother or child in the event she miscarries. Also the death on the unborn infant.
me: the {q} is the part the study bible says
me: it sounds like they’re saying that “so that her fruits depart from her” isnt death yet
me: just might mean that the child is born early, but might or might not live
husband: hmmm, interesting.
me: and then if the child does die, or the mother dies, then the life for life is taken
me: but.. can a blow to a mom cause premature birth that ends in life? like biologically
husband: i could see it inducing labor in like the 8th month
husband: at a point when the baby has a chance of living
me: see the word “depart” is ambiguous
me: depart
yatsa’ (yaw-tsaw’)
to go (causatively, bring) out, in a great variety of applications, literally and figuratively, direct and proxim.
me: to go out, come out, exit, go forth
1. (Qal)
1. to go or come out or forth, depart
2. to go forth (to a place)
3. to go forward, proceed to (to or toward something)
4. to come or go forth (with purpose or for result)
5. to come out of
2. (Hiphil)
1. to cause to go or come out, bring out, lead out
2. to bring out of
3. to lead out
4. to deliver
3. (Hophal) to be brought out or forth
me: it looks like the geneva study bible could be right.
me: so, it looks like it’s saying, if men fight, and cause the pregnant mom to have her baby early, then there is a fine, but if more injury occurs, such as the baby dying, or the mom dying, then a life is taken for a life
me: oh, and btw, these are laws that the government does.. so the life thats taken is taken by someone else.. and its not a law of revenge.. like the people in the NT thought it was.
me: so its not giving permission for revenge
me: but instead god is giving out justice through his appointed gov
husband: right
me: and then when jesus comes and says that “an eye for eye” is bad, hes addressing the fact that the people thought the old testament laws were giving permission for revenge
me: so hes not canceling out the death penalty
husband: ok
me: i thought you might be interested in that fact
husband: i am
me: when he says turn the other cheek, he’s speaking of specifically don’t get revenge
me: and forgive
me: but the gov laws still may give out justice
husband: yeah
me: haha, remember that, so when i get in into a death penalty argument i can use it
me: hahaha
husband: lol
—
In the end, I feel fairly confident about what the Geneva Study Bible says, and I’m irked at the assumption that it should be immediately translated as “miscarriage”, when that is not the case. Yes, it is an issue of miscarriage, but the translation is incorrect and too assuming. It’s another reason why I dislike the NIV, and another instance of its bias. Ultimately, using this verse for proof-text for pro-life or pro-choice arguments is a bad idea, all the way around. (Well, any proof-texting is.)