Lex Talionis and the Unborn Text: Exodus 21:22-25
Introduction: God's Law in a Lawless Age
We live in an age that has declared war on the most vulnerable. Our culture, in its mad dash away from God, has made the womb, which God designed as a sanctuary, into a tomb. The industrial-scale slaughter of the unborn is the great sin of our time, and it is propped up by a mountain of lies, evasions, and sentimental nonsense. One of the most common evasions, even among those who should know better, is the claim that the Bible is somehow silent on the matter, or worse, that it devalues the unborn. This is a lie from the pit.
When we come to the law of God, we are not coming to a dusty and irrelevant legal code. We are coming to the transcript of God's own character. We are learning how to be a just people because we serve a just God. The laws given to Israel were not arbitrary; they were applications of eternal principles of righteousness to a particular people in a particular time. And as we learn to read these laws rightly, grasping the "general equity" thereof, we find that they speak with a piercing clarity into our own confused and blood-soaked generation.
Our text today from Exodus is a crucial battleground. Those who wish to justify the bloodshed of abortion often run to this passage, twisting it to make it say the opposite of what it plainly teaches. They want to argue that the Law of Moses treats an unborn child as mere property, less than a person. But as we will see, a careful and honest reading shows us the exact opposite. This passage establishes the full personhood of the unborn child and applies the highest legal protection to that child, the principle of life for life.
This is not just an academic debate. How we understand this law reveals whether we think like God or like the world. It determines whether we will stand for the helpless or offer excuses for those who shed innocent blood. God's law is a protector of the weak, and there are none weaker than the child in the womb.
The Text
"And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband will set for him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, bruise for bruise, wound for wound."
(Exodus 21:22-25 LSB)
The Scenario and the Pro-Abortion Twist (v. 22a)
Let's begin with the situation described in verse 22.
"And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely..." (Exodus 21:22a)
The scene is one of common, fallen humanity. Two men are fighting. A pregnant woman gets in the way, perhaps trying to intervene, or perhaps she is just an innocent bystander who is struck accidentally. The blow is not aimed at her, but it connects, and the result is that it induces labor. Her children come out.
Now, right here is where the whole debate hinges. The pro-abortion reading of this text, which has been enshrined in some truly awful Bible translations, insists that this phrase means she has a miscarriage. They want the text to say that the child dies, and the penalty for this is "merely a fine." From this, they build their entire case: the unborn child is not a full person, its death is not treated as murder, and therefore abortion is permissible. This is a classic example of reading your own wicked worldview into the text instead of submitting to what the text actually says.
But the Hebrew does not say "miscarriage." The phrase is simple: her children "come out" or "go forth." This is the same language used for live births elsewhere in Scripture. If the text had meant to indicate a miscarriage, there are specific Hebrew words for that which could have been used. They were not. The text describes a premature birth, not a stillbirth. This is the first and most fundamental point. The pro-choice argument is based on a bad translation that imports a conclusion the text itself does not support.
The Critical Distinction: Harm or No Harm (v. 22b-23a)
The law then makes a critical distinction. The outcome depends entirely on what happens next.
"...yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband will set for him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury..." (Exodus 21:22b-23a LSB)
The first possibility is that the child is born prematurely, but there is "no injury." The child lives and is healthy. The mother is also unharmed. In this case, the man who struck the woman is to be fined. Why? Because his reckless violence caused a crisis. He endangered two lives and caused a premature birth. This was a serious offense, and so a financial penalty is imposed, negotiated by the husband and overseen by the judges to ensure fairness.
But notice the pivot: "But if there is any further injury..." The Hebrew word here for injury is 'ason'. The presence or absence of 'ason' is the determining factor. The pro-abortion argument tries to say that the "injury" refers only to the mother. They argue that if the child dies (their miscarriage view) but the mother is fine, it's just a fine. But if the mother is also harmed, then the penalties escalate. This is a complete distortion.
The most natural reading of the text is that the "injury" refers to either the mother or the child who has just been born prematurely. The premature birth itself is not the 'ason'. The 'ason' is any harm that results from it. If the child is born, but dies because of the premature delivery, that is 'ason'. If the child is born and is maimed or blinded, that is 'ason'. If the mother is harmed or killed, that is 'ason'. The question is not whether a miscarriage occurred, but whether harm resulted from the premature birth.
The Unborn Child and Lex Talionis (v. 23b-25)
And what is the penalty if there is harm? The text is unambiguous.
"...then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, bruise for bruise, wound for wound." (Genesis 21:23b-25 LSB)
This is the principle of lex talionis, the law of retribution. The punishment must fit the crime. This is the very same standard of justice applied to assaults between two adults. If the 'ason', the injury, is the death of the child, then the penalty is "life for life." The man who caused the death, even if unintentionally, is liable to capital punishment. If the child is blinded, the principle is "eye for eye." If a bone is broken, it is "wound for wound."
Think about what this means. Far from devaluing the unborn, this law places the unborn child under the very same legal protection as a free adult Israelite. The penalty for harming the child is identical to the penalty for harming the mother. If the child's life is taken, a life is forfeit. This is the polar opposite of the pro-abortion argument. This passage is one of the most powerful pro-life statements in all of Scripture. It legislates the full personhood of the unborn and protects that personhood with the highest sanctions of the law.
To argue that this passage supports abortion is like arguing that the commandment "You shall not steal" is a ringing endorsement of shoplifting. It requires a level of exegetical malpractice that is breathtaking in its audacity.
Application for a Culture of Death
So what does this ancient case law have to do with us? Everything. God's law reveals His standard of justice, and that standard does not change.
First, this passage demolishes the central lie of the abortion industry, which is that the unborn child is not a person. God's law says otherwise. A person is a person, no matter how small. The unborn child is not a "potential" life. He is not a "clump of cells." He is a human being, made in the image of God, and to intentionally kill that child is the sin of murder.
Second, it establishes that our laws must protect the unborn. A just society is one that defends its most vulnerable citizens. Our society does the opposite; it licenses their destruction and calls it a "right." We have enshrined the sin of Molech in our constitutional law. This passage calls us to repent of this national wickedness and to demand laws that recognize what God's law has always recognized: that the unborn are persons who deserve the full protection of the law.
Third, it reminds us that all sin has consequences. The man in this scenario struck the woman accidentally, yet he was still held responsible for the outcome. How much greater is the guilt of a society that systematically and intentionally destroys millions of its own children? We have stored up for ourselves an immense debt of blood-guilt, and if we do not repent, God will surely exact payment. He is a just God, and He will not allow the shedding of innocent blood to go unpunished forever.
The gospel is the only answer to this kind of deep, societal sin. The blood of Christ is the only thing that can cleanse a conscience or a nation stained with the blood of children. But that gospel call is always a call to repentance, which means turning away from our sin and turning toward obedience. For us, that means we must speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. We must love both the mother and the child. And we must insist, without apology, that our laws reflect the perfect law of God, which says to the unborn child, you are a person, and your life is precious. The penalty for taking your life is life for life.