Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 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].
22. Injury arising to a pregnant woman out of an affray.
And if men strive together ] i.e. quarrel and fight, ch. Exo 2:13, 2Sa 14:6, Psalms 60 title. The same words in Deu 25:2. Not the verb used in v. 18 (which means only to dispute in words).
hurt ] properly, smite or strike (ch. Exo 8:2; Isa 19:22): so v. 35. Probably the woman is to be thought of (as in Deu 25:11) as intervening to separate the combatants.
her fruit depart ] Heb. her children (a generic plural) come forth (Gen 25:25; Gen 38:28).
but no (other) mischief happen ] i.e. no permanent injury from the miscarriage. ‘Mischief’ (’ sn, v. 23, Gen 42:4; Gen 42:38; Gen 44:29 ) means some serious, or even (cf. v. 23) fatal, bodily injury.
fined ] viz. for the loss of the child, which would have been the parents’ property. Holzinger cites for parallels, among the Arabs, W.R. Smith, ZATW. 1892, p. 163, and among the Kirghissians, in Turkestan, Radloff, Aus Sibirien (1884), p. 524; here, if a pregnant woman is injured so that her child is born dead, the penalty is a horse or a camel according to its age (the penalty for killing a free man being a fine of 100 horses, and for killing a woman or slave, 50 horses).
he shall pay (lit. give) with (the approval of) arbitrators ] If the text is correct, the meaning apparently is that the amount of the fine, fixed in the first instance by the woman’s husband, had, before payment, to be submitted to arbitrators, and approved by them. But the word for arbitrators is rare and poetical (Deu 32:31, Job 31:11 ), the use of the prep. is strange, the mention of arbitration is unexpected after the unconditional discretion just given to the husband, nor are any arbitrators mentioned in the similar enactment of v. 30. Under these circumstances the clever suggestion of Budde, for deserves consideration, he shall pay it for the untimely birth (Job 3:16, Psa 58:9), the plural being required on account of the plural ‘children,’ just before (concealed in EVV. by the rend. fruit: the pretii, as Deu 19:21). Cf. amm. 209 214; Cook, p. 253 f.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The rule would seem to refer to a case in which the wife of a man interfered in a quarrel. This law, the jus talionis, is elsewhere repeated in substance, compare the marginal references. and Gen 9:6. It has its root in a simple conception of justice, and is found in the laws of many ancient nations. It serves in this place as a maxim for the magistrate in awarding the amount of compensation to be paid for the infliction of personal injury. The sum was to be as nearly as possible the worth in money of the power lost by the injured person. Our Lord quotes Exo 21:24 as representing the form of the law, in order to illustrate the distinction between the letter and the spirit Mat 5:38. The tendency of the teaching of the Scribes and Pharisees was to confound the obligations of the conscience with the external requirements of the law. The law, in its place, was still to be holy and just and good, Rom 7:12, but its direct purpose was to protect the community, not to guide the heart of the believer, who was not to exact eye for eye, tooth for tooth, but to love his enemies, and to forgive all injuries.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Exo 21:22-25
Life for life.
The criminal law: was it written in blood
The only sense in which retaliation was authorized was as a maxim of law, which helped to fix the measure of punishment for crime. It was the mode of punishment which was at once the simplest, the most natural, and the most easily administered. Indeed, in many cases it was the only mode possible. How would our modern reformers punish such offences? By putting the malefactor in prison? But where was the prison in the desert? In the desert the only possible penalty was one which could be inflicted on the person of the offender, and here the principle of strict retaliation for the crime committed, rigid as it may seem, was perfectly just. It was right that he who inflicted a wound upon his neighbour should feel himself how sharp and keen a wound may be; that he who ferociously tore his brothers eye from its socket should forfeit his own. The law against murder followed the same inexorable rule–life for life; a law in which there was no element of pardon or pity. But Moses did not create it; it had been the law of the desert long before he was born. When that old bearded sheik of all the Bedaween of Sinai, sitting under the shadow of a great rock in the desert, explained to us the operation of the lex talionis in his tribe, he set before us not only that which now is, but that which has been from the very beginning of time. It was somewhat startling, indeed, to find that laws and customs which we had supposed to belong only to an extreme antiquity still lingered among these mountains and deserts. The avenger of blood might follow with swift foot upon the murderers track, and if he overtook him and put him to death the law held him free. But at the same time it gave the criminal a chance for his life. In the cities of refuge the manslayer was safe until he could have a fair trial . . . Perhaps nothing shows more the spirit of a law than the modes of execution for those who are to suffer its extreme penalty. It is not two hundred years since torture was laid aside by European nations. James the Second himself witnessed the wrenching of the boot as a favourite diversion. The assassin who struck Henry the Fourth was torn limb from limb by horses, under the eye of ladies of the court. The Inquisition stretched its victims on the rack. Other modes of execution, such as burning alive, sawing asunder, and breaking on the wheel, were common in Europe until a late period. The Turks impaled men, or flayed them alive; and tied women in sacks with serpents, and threw them into the Bosphorus. Among the ancients, punishments were still more excruciating. The Roman people, so famous for the justice of their laws, inflicted the supreme agony of crucifixion, in which the victim lingered dying for hours, or even days. After the capture of Jerusalem, Titus ordered two thousand Jews to be crucified. How does this act of the imperial Romans compare with the criminal law of a semi-savage race? Under the Hebrew code all these atrocities were unknown. Moses prescribed but two modes of capital punishment–the sword and stoning . . . And is this the law that was written in blood ? No, not in blood, but in tears; for through the sternness of the lawgiver is continually breaking the heart of man. Behind the coat of mail that covers the breast of the warrior is sometimes found the heart of a woman. This union of gentleness with strength is one of the most infallible signs of a truly great nature. It is this mingling of the tender and the terrible that gives to the Hebrew law a character so unique–a majesty that awes with a gentleness that savours more of parental affection than of severity. Crime and its punishment is not in itself a pleasing subject to dwell on; but when on this dark background is thrown the light of such provisions for the poor and the weak, the effect is like the glow of sunset on the red granite of the Sinai mountains. Even the peaks that were hard and cold, look warm in the flood of sunlight which is poured over them all. Thus uniting the character of the supporter of weakness and protector of innocence with that of the punisher of crime, Moses appears almost as the divinity of his nation–as not only the founder of the Hebrew state, but as its guardian genius through all the periods of its history. When he went up into Mount Nebo, and stretched out his arm toward the Promised Land, he gave to that land the inestimable blessings of laws founded in eternal justice; and not only in justice, but in which humanity was embodied almost as much as in the precepts of religion. Nor was that law given for the Israelites alone. It was an inheritance for all ages and generations. That mighty arm was to protect the oppressed so long as human governments endure. Moses was the king of legislators, and to the code which he left rulers of all times have turned for instruction. (H. M. Field, D. D.)
Lessons
1. God supposeth the cruel smitings of masters, but alloweth them not.
2. God foreseeth the sufferings of poor slaves, and provides in His law against it.
3. The perishing of the least member of servants, even of a tooth, God will require of superiors (verse 26).
4. God by His law depriveth those men of lordship, who abuse their power cruelly over servants.
5. Bond and free are equally considered by God in His law without respect of persons. He makes the oppressed free (verses 26, 27). (G. Hughes, B. D.)
Stripe for stripe
A boy was one day sitting on the steps of a door. He had a broom in one hand, and in the other a large piece of bread-and-butter, which somebody had kindly given him. While he was eating it, and merrily humming a tune, he saw a poor little dog quietly sleeping not far from him. He called out to him: Come here, poor fellow! The dog, hearing himself kindly spoken to, rose, pricked up his ears, and wagged his tail. Seeing the boy eating, he came near him. The boy held out to him a piece of his bread-and-butter. As the dog stretched out his head to take it, the boy hastily drew back his hand, and hit him a hard rap on the nose. The poor dog ran away, howling most dreadfully, while the cruel boy sat laughing at the mischief he had done. A gentleman who was looking from a window on the other side of the street, saw what the wicked boy had done. Opening the street door, he called to him to cross over, at the same time holding up a sixpence between his finger and thumb. Would you like this? said the gentleman. Yes, if you please, sir, said the boy, smiling; and he hastily ran over to seize the money. Just at the moment that he stretched out his hand, he got so severe a rap on the knuckles from a cane which the gentleman had behind him, that he roared out like a bull. What did you do that for? said he, making a very long face, and rubbing his hand. I didnt hurt you, nor ask you for the sixpence. What did you hurt that poor dog for just now? said the gentleman. He didnt hurt you, nor ask you for your bread-and-butter. As you served him, I have served you. Now, remember dogs can feel as well as boys, and learn to behave kindly towards dumb animals in future. (Great Thoughts.)
Life for life
Herbert was yet of tender age when his father, the huntsman of Farmstein, was, in the heart of the forest, shot down by an unknown poacher. His mother brought up her fatherless boy as well as she could, and at the age of twenty, when he has become a skilful forester, he obtained his fathers situation. It happened that one day, when Herbert was hunting in the forest with many hunters, he shot at a large stag, and missed it. Presently a voice exclaimed piteously in the copse, Oh, heaven! I am shot. Herbert moved forward, and found an old man who was uttering loud groans, as he lay covered with blood. The whole company of hunters gathered around the dying man. Herbert, however, knelt down beside him and begged his forgiveness, protesting that he had not seen him. The dying man, however, said, I have nothing to forgive you, for that which has hitherto been concealed from all the world shall now come to light. I am the poacher who shot your father just here, under this old oak. The very ground where we now are was dyed with his blood; and it has evidently been destined that you, the son of the murdered man, should on this precise spot, without any thought or intention of such a thing, avenge the act on me. God is just! he exclaimed, and presently expired.
Equitable Judgment
A Teuton made a little fortune here not long ago in the milk business, and decided to return to Germany and enjoy it in his old home. In the ship that was bearing him homeward was a mischievous monkey. The monkey, prying around one day, found a heavy bag and ran up to the masthead with it. The German clasped his hands in despair at seeing the bag; it was his money, all in gold. The monkey in a leisurely way pulled out a piece and flung it down to the deck, when the ex-milkman gathered it up. Then the beast tossed a second piece into the sea. Thus alternately the pieces went, one into the ocean and the next into the distracted mans pocket. Ah, said the ex-milkman, as he pocketed just half of what he had started with, it is just. One-half of that milk I have sold was milk, and the money for it comes back; the other half was water, and half goes back to water.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 22. And hurt a woman with child] As a posterity among the Jews was among the peculiar promises of their covenant, and as every man had some reason to think that the Messiah should spring from his family, therefore any injury done to a woman with child, by which the fruit of her womb might be destroyed, was considered a very heavy offence; and as the crime was committed principally against the husband, the degree of punishment was left to his discretion. But if mischief followed, that is, if the child had been fully formed, and was killed by this means, or the woman lost her life in consequence, then the punishment was as in other cases of murder – the person was put to death; Ex 21:23.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
A woman with child, to wit, the wife of the other person, who interposed herself to succour her husband.
No mischief follow, neither to the woman nor child; for it is generally so as to reach both, in case the abortive had life in it.
The husband shall impose the fine, and if it be unreasonable, the judges shall have a power to moderate it.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
If men strive,…. Quarrel and fight with one another, which is to be understood of Hebrews, as Aben Ezra observes:
and hurt a woman with child; who being the wife of one of them, and also an Israelitish woman, interposes to part them, or help her husband; but the other, instead of striking his antagonist as he intended, gives her a blow:
so that her fruit depart from her; or, “her children go forth” z, out of her womb, as she may have more than one; through the fright of the quarrel, and fear of her husband being hurt, and the blow she received by interposing, might miscarry, or, falling into labour, come before her time, and bring forth her offspring sooner than expected:
and yet no mischief follow: to her, as the Targum of Jonathan, and so Jarchi and Aben Ezra restrain it to the woman; and which mischief they interpret of death, as does also the Targum of Onkelos; but it may refer both to the woman and her offspring, and not only to the death of them, but to any hurt or damage to either of them: now though there was none of any sort,
he shall surely be punished; that is, be fined or mulcted for striking the woman, and hastening the childbirth:
according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine; the husband might propose what fine should be paid, and might ask it in court; and if the smiter agreed to it, well and good, but if he judged it an exorbitant demand, he might appeal to the judges; for the husband might not lay what fine he pleased: this, if disputed, was to be decided by the judges, and as they determined it, it was paid; of which Maimonides a gives this account:
“he that strikes a woman, and her fruit depart, though he did not intend it, is obliged to pay the price of the birth to the husband, and for hurt and pain to the woman; how do they estimate the price of the birth? they consider the woman how well she was before she brought forth, and how well she is after she has brought forth, and they give it to the husband; if the husband be dead, they give it to the heirs; if she is stricken after the death of her husband, they give the price of the birth to the woman.”
z “et egressi fuerint nati ejus”, Pagninus, Montanus, Vatablus, Drusius. a Hilchot Chobel Umazzik, c. 4. sect. 1. 2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
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. 26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. 27 And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake. 28 If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. 29 But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death. 30 If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him. 31 Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him. 32 If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned. 33 And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit, and not cover it, and an ox or an ass fall therein; 34 The owner of the pit shall make it good, and give money unto the owner of them; and the dead beast shall be his. 35 And if one man’s ox hurt another’s, that he die; then they shall sell the live ox, and divide the money of it; and the dead ox also they shall divide. 36 Or if it be known that the ox hath used to push in time past, and his owner hath not kept him in; he shall surely pay ox for ox; and the dead shall be his own.
Observe here,
I. The particular care which the law took of women with child, that no hurt should be done them which might occasion their mis-carrying. The law of nature obliges us to be very tender in that case, lest the tree and fruit be destroyed together, Exo 21:22; Exo 21:23. Women with child, who are thus taken under the special protection of the law of God, if they live in his fear, may still believe themselves under the special protection of the providence of God, and hope that they shall be saved in child-bearing. On this occasion comes in that general law of retaliation which our Saviour refers to, Matt. v. 38, An eye for an eye. Now, 1. The execution of this law is not hereby put into the hands of private persons, as if every man might avenge himself, which would introduce universal confusion, and make men like the fishes of the sea. The tradition of the elders seems to have put this corrupt gloss upon it, in opposition to which our Saviour commands us to forgive injuries, and not to meditate revenge, Matt. v. 39. 2. God often executes it in the course of his providence, making the punishment, in many cases, to answer to the sin, as Jdg 1:7; Isa 33:1; Hab 2:13; Mat 26:52. 3. Magistrates ought to have an eye to this rule in punishing offenders, and doing right to those that are injured. Consideration must be had of the nature, quality, and degree of the wrong done, that reparation may be made to the party injured, and others deterred from doing the like; either an eye shall go for an eye, or the forfeited eye shall be redeemed by a sum of money. Note, He that does wrong must expect one way or other to receive according to the wrong he has done, Col. iii. 25. God sometimes brings men’s violent dealings upon their own heads (Ps. vii. 16); and magistrates are in this the ministers of the justice, that they are avengers (Rom. xiii. 4), and they shall not bear the sword in vain.
II. The care God took of servants. If their masters maimed them, though it was only striking out a tooth, that should be their discharge, Exo 21:26; Exo 21:27. This was intended, 1. To prevent their being abused; masters would be careful not to offer them any violence, lest they should lose their service. 2. To comfort them if they were abused; the loss of a limb should be the gaining of their liberty, which would do something towards balancing both the pain and disgrace they underwent. Nay,
III. Does God take care for oxen? Yes, it appears by the following laws in this chapter that he does, for our sakes,1Co 9:9; 1Co 9:10. The Israelites are here directed what to do,
1. In case of hurt done by oxen, or any other brute-creature; for the law, doubtless, was designed to extend to all parallel cases. (1.) As an instance of God’s care of the life of man (though forfeited a thousand times into the hands of divine justice), and in token of his detestation of the sin of murder. If an ox killed any man, woman, or child, the ox was to be stoned (v. 28); and, because the greatest honour of the inferior creatures is to be serviceable to man, the criminal is denied that honour: his flesh shall not be eaten. Thus God would keep up in the minds of his people a rooted abhorrence of the sin of murder and every thing that was barbarous. (2.) To make men careful that none of their cattle might do hurt, but that, by all means possible, mischief might be prevented. If the owner of the beast knew that he was mischievous, he must answer for the hurt done, and, according as the circumstances of the case proved him to be more or less accessory, he must either be put to death or ransom his life with a sum of money, v. 29-32. Some of our ancient books make this felony, by the common law of England, and give this reason, “The owner, by suffering his beast to go at liberty when he knew it to be mischievous, shows that he was very willing that hurt should be done.” Note, It is not enough for us not to do mischief ourselves, but we must take care that no mischief be done by those whom it is in our power to restrain, whether man or beast.
2. In case of hurt done to oxen, or other cattle. (1.) If they fall into a pit, and perish there, he that opened the pit must make good the loss, Exo 21:33; Exo 21:34. Note, We must take heed not only of doing that which will be hurtful, but of doing that which may be so. It is not enough not to design and devise mischief, but we must contrive to prevent mischief, else we become accessory to our neighbours’ damage. Mischief done in malice is the great transgression; but mischief done through negligence, and for want of due care and consideration, is not without fault, but ought to be reflected upon with great regret, according as the degree of the mischief is: especially we must be careful that we do nothing to make ourselves accessory to the sins of others, by laying an occasion of offence in our brother’s way, Rom. xiv. 13. (2.) If cattle fight, and one kill another, the owners shall equally share in the loss, v. 35. Only if the beast that had done the harm was known to the owner to have been mischievous he shall answer for the damage, because he ought either to have killed him or kept him up, v. 36. The determinations of these cases carry with them the evidence of their own equity, and give such rules of justice as were then, and are still, in use, for the decision of similar controversies that arise between man and man. But I conjecture that these cases might be specified, rather than others (though some of them seem minute), because they were then cases in fact actually depending before Moses; for in the wilderness where they lay closely encamped, and had their flocks and herds among them, such mischiefs as these last mentioned were likely enough to occur. That which we are taught by these laws is that we should be very careful to do no wrong, either directly or indirectly; and that, if we have done wrong, we must be very willing to make satisfaction, and desirous that nobody may lose by us.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Verses 22-25:
An assault resulting in a miscarriage (abortion) was punished by a fine, to be determined by the woman’s husband. If the guilty party thought the fine excessive, he could appeal to a tribunal.
The “law of retaliation” extends beyond the present instance to include all cases of personal injury. “Eye for an eye. . .” etc., was a common mode of justice in the ancient world. The implication is for an exact equality. It would be manifestly unjust to require an “eye for an eye” in the case of a one-eyed man! Jesus referred to this principle: Mt 5:38, and pronounced a higher law, that of mercy toward the offender.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
22. If men strive, and hurt a woman. This passage at first sight is ambiguous, for if the word death (39) only applies to the pregnant woman, it would not have been a capital crime to put an end to the foetus, which would be a great absurdity; for the foetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being, ( homo,) and it is almost a monstrous crime to rob it of the life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a foetus in the womb before it has come to light. On these grounds I am led to conclude, without hesitation, that the words, “if death should follow,” must be applied to the foetus as well as to the mother. Besides, it would be by no means reasonable that a father should sell for a set sum the life of his son or daughter. Wherefore this, in my opinion, is the meaning of the law, that it would be a crime punishable with death, not only when the mother died from the effects of the abortion, but also if the infant should be killed; whether it should die from the wound abortively, or soon after its birth. But, since it could not fail but that premature confinement would weaken both the mother and her offspring, the husband is allowed to demand before the judges a money-payment, at their discretion, in compensation for his loss; for although God’s command is only that the money should be paid before the judges, (40) still He thus appoints them to settle the amount as arbitrators, if the husband should chance to be too exorbitant. We plainly perceive, by the repetition of the lex talionis, that a just proportion is to be observed, and that the amount of punishment is to be equally regulated, whether as to a tooth, or an eye, or life itself, so that the compensation should correspond with the injury done; and therefore (what is first said of the life (41)) is correctly applied also to the several parts, so that he who has plucked out his brother’s eye, or cut off his hand, or broken his leg, should lose his own eye, or hand, or leg. In fine, for the purpose of preventing all violence, a compensation is to be paid in proportion to the injury. But although God commands punishment to be inflicted on the guilty, still, if a man be injured, he ought not to seek for vengeance; for God does not contradict Himself, who so often exhorts His children not only to endure injuries patiently, but even to overcome evil with good. The murderer is to be punished, or he who has maimed a member of his brother; but it is not therefore lawful, if you have unjustly suffered violence, to indulge in wrath or hatred, so as to render evil for evil. Since this error was rife among the Jews, our Lord refutes it, and teaches that the punishment, which is publicly awarded to the wrong-doer, is not subservient to every man’s private passion, so that he who is offended should make haste to retaliate. (Mat 5:38.) Nor indeed are these words addressed to them in order to inflame or excite the desire of vengeance, but all violence is restrained by the fear of punishment.
(39) It will be seen that the word אסון in the text is translated by C. , mors; in A V. , mischief. “The Chaldee expounds it, (says Ainsworth,) no death; but it implieth less also than death, as the words following manifest. The Greek refers it to the child; translating, if it be not figured, ( ἐξεικονισμένον,) i e. , have not the shape and proportion.”
(40) The word determine is added by our translators. Ainsworth’s literal rendering is, “and he shall give by the judges.”
(41) Added from Fr.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(22) If men strive, and hurt a woman with child.It is assumed that this hurt would probably take place through the interference of a pregnant wife in some strife wherein her husband was engaged. It would almost certainly be accidental.
And yet no mischief followi.e., no further mischiefnothing beyond the loss of the child.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
(22, 23) Life for life, eye for eye.It is a reasonable conjecture that the law of retaliation was much older than Moses, and accepted by him as tolerable rather than devised as rightful. The law itself was very widely spread. Traces of it are found in India, in Egypt, among the Greeks, and in the laws of the Twelve Tables. Aristotle says that the Pythagoreans approved it, and that it was believed to be the rule by which Rhadamanthus administered justice in the other world. There is, prim facie, a semblance of exact rectitude and equality about it which captivates rude minds, and causes the adoption of the rule generally in an early condition of society. Theoretically, retaliation is the exactest and strictest justice; but in practice difficulties arise. How is the force of a blow to be measured? How are exactly similar burns and wounds to be inflicted? Is eye to be given for eye when the injurer is a one-eyed man? And, again, is it expedient for law to multiply the number of mutilated citizens in a community? Considerations of these kinds cause the rule to be discarded as soon as civilisation reaches a certain point, and tend generally to the substitution of a money compensation, to be paid to the injured party by the injurer. The present passage sanctioned the law of retaliation in principle, but authorised its enforcement in a single case only. In a later part of the Mosaic code the application was made universal (Lev. 24:17-21; Deu. 19:21).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
(22-25) A personal injury peculiar to womena hurt producing miscarriageis here considered. The miscarriage might cost the woman her life, in which case the man who caused it was to suffer death (Exo. 21:23); or it might have no further ill result than the loss of the child. In this latter case the penalty was to be a fine, assessed by the husband with the consent of the judge (Exo. 21:22). The death penalty, where the woman died, is clearly excessive, and probably belongs to the pre-Mosaic legislation, which required life for life in every case.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
22-25. As the woman’s husband will lay upon him The Hebrews threw every possible safeguard about the fruit of the womb, and an injury of the kind here specified was treated as a very grave offence . If death resulted it was punished as a capital crime, and life for life was demanded . If, however, other and less serious damage followed, the punishment was to be proportioned, according to a rigorous law of retaliation, ( lex talionis.)
The woman might be injured in eye, tooth, hand, or foot, or by means of burning, (branding by a hot iron,) or some other wound or stripe, purposely or accidentally given, or the unborn offspring might be harmed in some of these ways, and a corresponding injury was accordingly to be inflicted upon the offender. The lex talionis, or law of retaliation, which appears in this passage and in Lev 24:19-20; Deu 19:21, is one of the most simple and ancient conceptions of righteous retribution. It has often been condemned as barbarous, but it is grounded in the intuitions of justice, and asserted itself in the legislation of many ancient nations, as the Romans, Greeks, and Indians. “It would seem,” says Michaelis, “that Moses retained the law of retaliation from a more ancient, and a very natural, law of usage.” It would naturally tend to prevent personal injuries, and all must see and acknowledge that when a man speedily receives in his own person the same damage he wilfully inflicted on another, he but receives his deserts and has no ground to complain. But, like the law which authorized the nearest kinsman of a murdered man to avenge his death, this law was liable to be abused. It gave too much room for the gratification of personal bitterness and hatred, and hence, mainly, the reason of our Lord’s words in Mat 5:38-39. The New Testament teaching, as has been so often explained, does not condemn the Mosaic law as unjust, but warns against the feeling of personal bitterness and revenge which is so likely to arise from a sense of injury. That should rather be crucified by a doing good for evil where the public welfare will not suffer thereby.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Regulations Concerning the Causing of Injury ( Exo 21:22-27 ).
This may be analysed as follows:
a Where a pregnant woman loses her child in a fight but the woman is not brought close to death (no mischief follows) then the man will be fined as determined by the court.
b If the woman is badly hurt or dies the punishment will be in accordance with the injury life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth (Exo 21:22-25).
a Where a bondservant or bondmaid are fairly badly injured, for example by losing an eye or losing a tooth, they must be given their freedom (Exo 21:26-27).
Here the two examples in ‘a’ and its parallel, where there is injury but not injury that brings close to death, are both built around ‘b’.
Exo 21:22-25
“And if men strive together and hurt a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, and yet nothing serious follows, he will surely be fined if the woman’s husband lays a charge against him and he will pay as the judges determine. But if anything serious follows then you will give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”
A man who is deemed to cause a miscarriage in a woman who is not his wife, as a result of a tussle with another man, is liable to a fine, the amount of which will be decided by the judges on the facts of the case. But only if nothing more serious develops. The hurt is seemingly physical so somehow she must have become involved in the fight, either deliberately or accidentally.
“Lays a charge against him.” Literally ‘according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him’. This could mean the husband helps to decide the penalty (compare Exo 21:30). But the judges have the final say.
But if the injury is more serious then he will be punished according to the level of the injury. The purpose of this law is to ensure people pay special attention to pregnant women and are more careful when they are around, and reminds them of their special vulnerability. It teaches us concern for pregnant women.
“Eye for eye, —— stripe for stripe.” This is clearly a technical statement, regularly quoted, covering all situations. It is thus quoted here in full even though only a part could apply to the case. Deu 19:21 quotes the first part only, while Lev 24:20 applies a part specifically to the case in question.
The principle (called later ‘the lex talionis’) was widespread in early societies and widely accepted. It put a limit on how far people could go in seeking revenge for injury while satisfying their sense for justice. It was not always strictly carried out and often other compensation was accepted instead. But it did act as a brake on excessive revenge.
The principle behind all these laws is the recognition of the sacredness of human life in God’s eyes, and the concern that punishment be in accordance with the seriousness of the crime and not be based on revenge. The circumstances under which we live may be different but the same principles of justice can be applied.
Exo 21:26-27
‘And if a man smite the eye of his bondman, or the eye of his bondmaid, and destroy it, he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. And if he knock out his bondman’s tooth or his bondmaid’s tooth, the shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.’
The punishment for permanent injury to a bondman or bondwoman is the cancellation of the bond. The man or woman goes free.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Exo 21:22. And yet no mischief follow The literal translation of this in the Hebrew is, and there shall not be death; which is much more proper than our version.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
The gospel sums up these things in a comprehensive manner. Col 3:25 . And our dear Lord folds up the sense of those relative duties, in his unequalled language, Mat 5:38-39 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Exo 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].
Ver. 22. And yet no mischief follow, ] i.e., No life be lost. There is a time, then, when the embryo is not alive; therefore the soul is not begotten, but infused after a time by God. Infundendo creatur, et creando infnnditur, saith Augustine, who at first doubted, till overcome by Jerome’s arguments.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
child . . . so. Figure of speech Ellipsis (App-6); supply “who intervenes”.
punished = amerced, or fined. The laws of Khammurabi distinguished between three classes (209, 211, 213). Here it is any woman. See App-15.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
strive: Exo 21:18
as the judges: Exo 21:30, Deu 16:18, Deu 22:18, Deu 22:19
Reciprocal: Exo 21:6 – the judges Deu 17:8 – between blood 2Ki 23:33 – put Mat 5:38 – An eye
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Exo 21:22-23. And yet no mischief follow That is, if the woman die not, as appears from the next verse, or the child was not formed and alive in the womb; he shall be surely punished The womans husband shall impose the fine, and if it be unreasonable, the judges shall have a power to moderate it. If any mischief follow If the woman die, or if the child was formed and alive, the offender was to be punished with death. Thou shalt give life for life By the judgment of the magistrate.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
21:22 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.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Manslaughter of an unborn child carried a fine (Exo 21:22). The reason seems to have rested on two assumptions. First, accidental killing is not as serious a crime as deliberate killing. Second, a fetus, though a human life, does not have the same status as a self-sufficient human being. [Note: See Sandra Lubarsky, "Judaism and the Justification of Abortion for Non-Medical Reasons," Journal of Reform Judaism 31:4 (Fall 1984):1-13, which contains helpful information on the rabbinic teaching on abortion, though the author’s conclusion, ". . . Judaism not only permits abortions for medical reasons, but also supports abortion for non-medical reasons" (p. 12), contradicts the spirit of Old Testament teaching.]
"The most significant thing about abortion legislation in Biblical law is that there was none. It was so unthinkable that an Israelite woman should desire an abortion that there was no need to mention this offense in the criminal code." [Note: Meredith Kline, "Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus," Simon Greenleaf Law Review 5 (1985-86):75. See also Bruce K. Waltke, "Reflections from the Old Testament on Abortion," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 19:1 (Winter 1976):3-13; and Robert N. Congdon, "Exodus 21:22-25 and the Abortion Debate," Bibliotheca Sacra 146:582 (April-June 1989):132-47.]
Pro-abortion advocates frequently appeal to Exo 21:22 to support their claim that a fetus is not a person and, therefore, abortion is not murder.
"In other words, if you cause the death of the fetus, you merely pay a fine; if you cause the death of the woman, you lose your own life. Thus the Bible clearly shows that a fetus is not considered a person. If the fetus were considered to be a person, then the penalty for killing it would be the same as for killing the woman-death. Abortion, then, is not murder." [Note: Graham Spurgeon, "Is Abortion Murder?" in The Religious Case for Abortion, p. 16. For the same view, see also Shalom Paul, Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Law, p. 71; Lloyd Kalland, "Fetal Life," Eternity, February 1971, p. 24; and Dolores E. Dunnett, "Evangelicals and Abortion," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 33:2 (June 1990):217.]
However other Scriptures present the fetus as a person, a real human being (Job 10:8-12; Job 15:14; Psa 51:5; Psa 58:3; Psa 139:13-16; Ecc 11:5; Jer 1:5; Gal 1:15). This was the prevailing opinion in the ancient Near East as well. [Note: See the excellent discussion by Russell Fuller, "Exodus 21:22-23: The Miscarriage Interpretation and the Personhood of the Fetus," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:2 (June 1992):169-84. Fuller also evaluated and rejected the popular evangelical view that this verse does not refer to a miscarriage but to a premature birth.]
In contrast to other ancient Near Eastern law codes, the Torah made no differentiation on the basis of the woman’s social class. It treated all equally. Also only the man who caused the injury was liable, not other members of his family who could suffer punishment for his offense and often did in other ancient Near Eastern societies. Principles explained elsewhere in the Torah determined the penalty the guilty party had to pay. [Note: See Stanley Isser, "Two Traditions: The Law of Exodus 21:22-23 Revisited," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52:1 (January 1990):30-45, for some ancient abortion laws and the views of Jewish rabbis and translators on this passage.]