The Bible's Misunderstood "Abortion" Law: Exodus

[@TabletsAndTemples]

One thing I didn't include in the video is the vast majority of the ancient commentaries favor the miscarriage interpretations. Rabbinic commentaries assume that the harm was done to the mother. Christian commentaries for the most part adopt the Septuagint interpretation (Augustine, Thomas Aquinas etc). I have only found one Rabbinic commentary (Chizkuni) which *might* discuss premature birth (it's unclear). In the Christian tradition, the premature birth interpretation doesn't appear until John Calvin in the 1500s. If you've read this comment and you aren't subscribed, what are you doing? Get on that.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

That’s actually not true most translations say cause her to give birth prematurely, and even if that’s true that the translation didn’t show up until then it wouldn’t really matter.

[@TabletsAndTemples]

Just want to make something very clear as this is a controversial topic: This is primarily an academic biblical studies channel. The question is always, what did the text mean in its ancient context? While an intersection with religious beliefs and doctrines is somtimes inevetiable when looking at certain topics/passages, I do my best to approach these topics/passages from a critical perspective. No doctrine or dogma. The meaning of the text in its ancient context is completely irrespective of 21st Century debates.

[@rosdavis8792]

I always assumed that the christian view of the soul and of abortion was based on psalm 139. I have nver heard reference to these other laws in the debate

[@fksthn3235]

why would God want us to abort if He is life

[@alrenobenjamin6566]

Really well done video. Loved it✨

[@TabletsAndTemples]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@mustachemac5229]

Wow, so my sister didn't get her soul until about 80 Days? How did they know that? Anywho, I always find it interesting that people are willing to use these ancient texts in order to decide how to deal with these issues. Personally, I don't think it's a good idea, but I did enjoy your breakdown of scripture and comparing it to others. Thank you for the video, bro. 👍👍👍

[@TabletsAndTemples]

Yes well hopefully this helps illustrate why trying to use ancient texts in modern debates is fraught with problems, the same text can be used to argue completely different points. How did they know? Good question, I think Aristotle based it purely on the appearance of the fetus (when it started to look like a baby I guess). I guess he thought male developed faster (which I'm not sure, but I think male fetuses do grow faster?).

[@mustachemac5229]

@@TabletsAndTemples I appreciate that you do the dirty work for me. It always seems that in order to understand something like the Bible, we should learn how to read Hebrew, but then if we want to read the New Testament we also need to learn how to read Greek, but you can't really know what the Greek means until you can learn Aramaic, but then you also must learn a little bit of Latin because we got that too. It gets a little ridiculous.

[@TabletsAndTemples]

​@@mustachemac5229 Haha it does. One probably doesn't need to know Aramaic to understand the Greek NT (though to read Daniel you would). You'd only need Latin if you were interested in the history of interpretation, even then most of the interesting stuff has been translated into english. But yes, Greek and Hebrew are certainly useful. Probably takes about 3 years to get to a basic reading level.

[@mustachemac5229]

@@Id8570 Good luck on your endeavors. I hear Greek is a fairly hard language to learn.

[@kvelez]

6:11 Excellent.

[@BlackTeaNews]

It's relevant to note this is all the result of an accident, not a deliberate premeditated killing, which is what an abortion is.

[@TabletsAndTemples]

That's not entirely true. It's not clear whether this situation arises from a deliberate strike, or wa accidental. In the comparative ancient laws which are similar to this one show it can be deliberate. The man striking the woman deliberately is entirely possible in the Exodus text.

[@MikeWinger]

I see a problem with the way "come out" was described in this video. You claimed "come out" can be used to describe a miscarriage but this is muddy and appeared to be used in a way that is inaccurate as far as how you leveraged it in interpretation later on when you said the "Hebrew" indicates miscarriage. "Come out" in the Numbers passage is used to describe the coming out. It is not actually used to INDICATE that what came out was dead. This is a significant point. Other words in the context of that passage clearly indicate stillborn. Whereas the Exodus passage does not have those words. In 1000 uses of the term in the Old Testament we don't have any that show the term implies the death of what "comes out." Linguistically, you have added a meaning to the term that was not present in the passage you quoted and then transferred that meaning onto another, dissimilar passage that most notably lacks the specific indicators of death that were present in the first passage.

[@TabletsAndTemples]

You've misunderstood. My point is that yatsa does not inherently carry any meaning regarding a successful or unsuccessful childbirth. Its meaning as a directional verb is determined by context. That's how language works, meaning is determined by context. When I say yatsa can be used to describe a miscarriage, I'm referring to its use in context - not that yatsa itself means "miscarriage." The context clearly indicates a miscarriage: 1) The predominant view in antiquity was that a premature birth could not survive 2) The Exodus law is clearly drawing on a preexisting legal tradition that assumed miscarriage 3) Historically intepreters assumed it referred to miscarriage. In the Christian tradition it's not until the 1500s in Calvin that you get a premature birth interpretation. This is not my opinion, it's the mainstream scholarly position of people like Tigay, Friedman and Dolansky, C. Meyers, David Wright, Sprinkle, Durham and more. Even a conservative scholar like Sarna adopts miscarriage as his translation. Evangelicals like Bruce Waltke adopt the miscarriage view. And the main source in the description is an article in a journal run by the Evangelical Theological Society - it explains why the miscarriage view is preferred. That is to say, there is not a misreading of the Hebrew in this video. I have not added meaning to the term. If I say the phrase "red can be used to describe a firetruck" I'm not saying the word red means firetruck. So with yatsa, I'm saying it can be used to describe miscarriage, not that the word itself means miscarriage. The meaning of the word and it's use in the overall picture of what is being described are separate. It's one of the words in the phrase that contributes to the gloss of the two words as "miscarriage" (see HALOT).

[@desertshadow72]

One major point left unsaid: In the bible, accidental (unintentional killing) was not given the death penalty. Exodus 21:13

[@TabletsAndTemples]

Who said it was unintentional? The men were fighting. As in all the similar law codes, none of them mention the strike being accidental. It would seem plausible that the man has hit the woman to intentionally cause harm.

[@kimwalky5644]

Perhaps except in the case of women and the baby they carry. In that case it is an exceptional harsh punishment, which I think shows how God feels about causing the death of these!

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

Great video as a pro-life Christian I honestly don’t know what to make of this verse anymore it’s ambiguous enough to go either way. But the evidence seems to be stronger for the miscarriage argument.

[@kimwalky5644]

The over thousand times the word yatsa is used, it is never translated as miscarry. The earth did not miscarry living creatures in Gen 1;24, the ark did not abort Noah and his family in Gen 8:17. In the case of numbers 12:12, that the child is already is dead it not incurred from the verb itself. Just as in exodus 21, there is nothing there to incur that the child is dead when it is 'brought forth'. The Hebrew has words for miscarriage and abortion, such as "nepel" as used in Job 3:16 and Psalms 58:8. Another word is sakal which means to bereave of, and is translated sometimes as abort, such as in Job 21;10 and Hosea 9:14. If the Exodus passage really means abort or miscarry, why wouldn't the proper word for it be used? Why presume the child is dead?

[@TabletsAndTemples]

I'm just going to paste my answer to @MikeWinger's comment My point is that yatsa does not inherently carry any meaning regarding a successful or unsuccessful childbirth. Its meaning as a directional verb is determined by context. That's how language works, meaning is determined by context. When I say yatsa can be used to describe a miscarriage, I'm referring to its use in context - not that yatsa itself means "miscarriage." The context clearly indicates a miscarriage: 1) The predominant view in antiquity was that a premature birth could not survive 2) The Exodus law is clearly drawing on a preexisting legal tradition that assumed miscarriage 3) Historically intepreters assumed it referred to miscarriage. In the Christian tradition it's not until the 1500s in Calvin that you get a premature birth interpretation. This is not my opinion, it's the mainstream scholarly position of people like Tigay, Friedman and Dolansky, C. Meyers, David Wright, Sprinkle, Durham and more. Even a conservative scholar like Sarna adopts miscarriage as his translation. Evangelicals like Bruce Waltke adopt the miscarriage view. And the main source in the description is an article in a journal run by the Evangelical Theological Society - it explains why the miscarriage view is preferred. So with yatsa, I'm saying it can be used to describe miscarriage, not that the word itself means miscarriage. The meaning of the word and it's use in the overall picture of what is being described are separate. It's one of the words in the phrase that contributes to the gloss of the two words as "miscarriage" (see HALOT).

[@margaretcarter1288]

Why is it that we are always trying to find a way around what the Bible very clearly states! To me it’s very clear what the verses says. Now, instead of trying to find loopholes, we just need to obey!

[@TabletsAndTemples]

Not really sure what's not clear here. No ancient commentator thought this passage referred to a premature birth that survived.

[@temporarilyimmortal795]

It's only clear if you're not trying to understand the meaning in earnest.

[@tomb9202]

But the word isn’t miscarriage and premature births could have survived. Not a convincing pr impartial video. Inconsistent translation

[@ThatElephantSeal]

Regardless of Exodus, we are ultimately Christians, influenced by the rulings of our church fathers who wisely concluded that irrespective of outcome, intentional abortion (drinking of poisons in the good ol days or cutting up and pulling out in modern times) is to be considered murder. Period. Any christian who appeals to modern (post-christ) jewish law is being foolish, as they are no longer of Gods Covenant. While looking at old testament law is acceptable it is important to remember that Christ made a new and eternal covenant with us and some of those expectations and standards were greatly raised. Many of the early saints were very much active in fighting abortion in their time and its darkly amusing to realize that we have regressed back to such a situation.

[@mustachemac5229]

There are also claims that women didn't get their souls until 80 Days compared to men at 40... How do you feel about that?

[@TabletsAndTemples]

For most of Christian history in the west, while abortion was generally opposed (mostly for being used to cover up fornication/adultery), it was not always considered murder/homocide in the first trimester, based on a combination of Aristotlean philosophy and interpretation of Exod 21 (i.e. Jerome, Augustine, Aquinas, +various church councils and papal decrees). Also, this is a critical Biblical studies channel, so the approach on these videos is much broader than any one particular faith group or doctrinal position.

[@FIRING_BLIND]

You may be Christian, but many are not, and it is cruel to force your religious beliefs onto others. You think it's murder? Ok. Don't do it then. Others disagree.

[@ThatElephantSeal]

@@FIRING_BLIND "Others disagree" Yes and they are wrong. I see evil, I stamp it out. By your logic if society accepted gang rape as some redress for personal problems that wouldn't make it right, nor any other sin. Just because someones fee fees are hurt does not make them right. They are committing murder. Period. End of story.

[@tasinrambo4166]

@@ThatElephantSeal no society accepts gang rape or murder of a living body or any gruesome atrocity. Its funny how you even brought that analogy with abortion. Have a good day

[@jeojttong]

It can't be miscarriage. You can't redefine words to fit your ideology. Also way talk about the baby if it's illrelivent? Also in context of God's nature it only fits to be referencing the child. This is why context of who God is is important.

[@nancyirenegracia]

Well explained video. I think abortion is evil, especially late term.

[@mustachemac5229]

So, is it always evil... no matter the situation? Is there really no gray area?

[@TabletsAndTemples]

Just to be clear, everyone is entitled to their opinion - but the focus in this video is purely what did the text mean in it's ancient context.

[@brett2660]

So, you’re a foster parent, right? Surely if you think something is evil as you say, you would seek to prevent it. You would be able to prevent abortions by adopting or being a foster parent.

[@nancyirenegracia]

@@brett2660 Have you fostered or adopted?

[@nancyirenegracia]

@@TabletsAndTemples agree

[@mustachemac5229]

Hey guys! Don't forget to thumbs up the video and perhaps invest in Lachlan so you can get these really neat emojis.

[@mustachemac5229]

@@Id8570 If you support Bible unboxed, through KZbin, you get access to these emotes. It's four bucks a month or $1 a week.