In November of 2015, the Freedom From Religion Foundation published an article on its website by Brian Bolton, entitled “God Is Not So Pro-Life”. In the article, Bolton attempts to use the Bible to prove a point that God is not “pro-life” in the context of abortion and offers “scriptural truths” to back up his claim. He provides ten “biblical episodes and prophecies” that provide, in his estimation, “an unequivocal expression of God’s attitude toward human life, especially the ontological status of ‘unborn children’ and their pregnant mothers-to-be. Bolton provides “brief summaries” of these “episodes and prophecies” and then places a Scriptural reference at the end of each of his summaries. It is important to note that the summaries are his and not the text of the Scripture. Upon close examination, it is clear the summaries are not only his alone, but also bear no relation to actual meaning of the Scriptural passages he references and are distortions of what the text actual says and means.
A 2010 profile of Brian Bolton on the Freedom From Religion Foundation website gives us some insight into the person making the claim that “God is not so pro-life.” Bolton is a “Life Member” of the Freedom From Religion Foundation and a “retired rehabilitation psychologist” with a Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin – Madison. According to his profile, his future includes “eternal nonexistence or everlasting nothingness,” and even though he attended Sunday School as a child, his “soul was never captured.” He promotes “freethought” by “complaining about religious violations in local schools and government, voting in elections and writing letters and op-ed pieces for the local newspaper.” What the profile reveals about Brian Bolton is what he is not: a theologian, Biblical scholar, or someone interested in the truth claims of the Scripture. His bias against the Bible and theism, in general, should be noted. His antipathy toward religion seems quite apparent in both his profile and his writing. The analysis of the text he presents as proof of his assertions is not only lacking in historical context but is also devoid of a basic understanding of the hermeneutical methods employed by serious theologians.
The first Scriptural text Brian Bolton offers in his article as “proof” that God is not only not pro-life, but rather pro-abortion, is Exodus 21:22-25. It should be noted that Bolton did not provide the actual text of the Scripture in his “summary”, but only a reference. One can only imagine that he did not expect many of his readers to actually go to the source material themselves and evaluate it from an objective point of view—or even read it. Spoiler alert: Bolton’s summary does not match up with the text of Scripture he references, as explained below, and his analysis demonstrates a lack of objectivity related to the topic contemplated by the passage. But first, Bolton’s summary of Exodus 21:22-25:
“A pregnant woman who is injured and aborts the fetus warrants financial compensation only (to her husband), suggesting that the fetus is property, not a person (Exodus 21:22-25).”
This summary seems to suggest that Exodus 21:22-25 deals with a pregnant woman who is injured and who then “aborts the fetus” as a result of the injury sustained. Bolton’s summary does not suggest where the injury to the woman originated, but his mention of “compensation” indicates the injury came from another person—who could provide compensation—and not as a result of an accident or some other self-inflicted injury. Bolton states the injury “warrants financial compensation only” which indicates to him “that the fetus is property, not a person.” Notwithstanding the awkwardness of the summary and the difficulty in following the reasoning presented, it seems that Bolton is suggesting:
- Exodus 21:22-25 presents a pregnant woman who is injured by a third party.
- The injured woman, as a result of the injury, takes affirmative action and “aborts the fetus” because of the injury.
- The person who injured the woman is financially liable to the woman’s husband.
- Because the tortfeasor or criminal actor is only financially liable to the woman’s husband, the “fetus” is therefore “not a person.”
With that summary in mind, let’s turn to the actual text of Exodus 21:22-25 and see if Bolton’s summary accurately reflects the text and captures the essence of what this passage is addressing:
“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. But if any harm follows,
then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for
foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”
A cursory reading of the plain meaning of the foregoing text seems to indicate the following:
- There are third party tortfeasors or criminals engaged in violent activity in the presence of a pregnant woman.
- A pregnant woman is injured due to the third-party tortfeasors or criminal’s violent activity.
- The pregnant woman gives birth prematurely.
- If no harm follows the premature birth, the third-party tortfeasors or criminals are financially liable to the husband for the premature birth.
- If harm does follow the premature birth, the third-party tortfeasors or criminals are liable “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”
The immediate context of this passage is a pregnant woman who is injured and gives birth prematurely as a result of the torts or criminal acts of third parties. There is no indication in this passage of any attempt on the part of the injured woman to “abort the fetus.” In fact, the woman takes no affirmative action anywhere in this context. Bolton’s assertion that Exodus 21:22-25 includes a woman who “aborts the fetus” as a result of injury is demonstrably false. Nothing in the text—both in the original Hebrew and in the English translation—suggests that the woman does anything to bring harm to the child. The harm to the child occurs only as a result of the tortious or criminal actions of the third parties involved. Bolton’s imposition of “abortion” onto this passage is not only intellectually irresponsible but also revelatory of his bias. Abortion is not contemplated by this passage of Scripture and to assert otherwise is to blatantly impose the topic onto the text or hope that your readers do not fact-check the prooftext provided.
In plain English: Exodus 21:22-25 states that if third-parties are fighting and injure a pregnant woman and the only harm sustained is a premature birth, the third-parties are financially liable to the husband in an amount either determined by the husband and accepted as appropriate by the third-parties, or in an amount that a judge determines is appropriate for the premature birth. However, if any harm does follow—note that if any harm follows, not just the death the premature child—then the third parties are personally liable for the extent of the harm that results, up to and including their own deaths.
What does the passage mean when it speaks of the “harm that follows” the injury to the pregnant woman? Is this passage of Scripture referring to the harm to the woman or the harm to the prematurely born child? The “harm that follows” seems to be harm to the prematurely born child and the heightened liability of the third party tortfeasors seems to be contingent upon whether harm to the child does or does not follow their violent actions that injured the woman. How can we be sure? It is simple: the harm to the woman occurred when she was injured by the third-party tortfeasors or criminals. She was harmed immediately. There is likely no “harm to follow” in her case, as the harm she suffered was the premature birth of the children and any attending physical injures (such as bruises, internal bleeding, broken bones, etc.). It would seem the “harm to follow” would be what occurs after the child is born prematurely, particularly to the child. The context of this passage of Scripture is not the liability of third-party tortfeasors or criminals for injury to women particularly, but the liability of third-party tortfeasors or criminals for injuries to pregnant women that result in premature birth and any following harm. The purpose of this law, given by God, is to protect pregnant woman particularly and not just women generally (there are other passages of Scripture that would be applicable to injuring women generally).
Exodus 21:22-25 is actually a very pro-life passage. There is no distinction in Exodus 21:22-25 between tortfeasors and criminals; those who are fighting are simply presented as “fighting” and the result of their fighting is the injury to a pregnant woman and premature birth. There does not seem to be a necessity for intent to injure the pregnant woman or the unborn child for liability to attach, up to and including capital punishment. This is what is called in the law “strict liability.” There is no need for intention; the fact that third parties were engaged in fighting and that fighting resulted in the premature birth and harm is enough for liability to attach. It seems that this passage of Scripture is intended to be a warning to anyone who might fight around a pregnant woman: Beware! If you’re fighting around her and she is injured and she gives birth prematurely, you’re liable for the premature birth and for any harm that follows that premature birth. Is it possible that the harm to follow is harm the woman following the premature birth? Yes, but as noted above, it seems this passage is designed to protect pregnant women, and not just women in general. Also note that if the harm to follow is related to the woman and not the child, this still does not support Bolton’s claims in his summary. His goal is to convince his readers that God does not care about the harm to or death of the child born prematurely, but this is not at all the plain meaning of this passage. In fact, it seems that God is attempting to protect unborn life by setting the liability for causing premature births extremely high: Liability for no harm to follow a premature birth is only a financial penalty, but there is still a penalty for causing it; liability for any harm to follow is as serious as you could forfeit your life.
In conclusion, Exodus 21:22-25 does not support Bolton’s assertion that God is not pro-life and is instead somehow “pro-choice” or “pro-abortion.” There is nothing in the passage to suggest that God does not value unborn human life—actually, the evidence is quite strong that God does value unborn life and therefore promulgated this law to the people of Israel to protect it. There is no evidence that God sees unborn human life as “property” and that the financial penalty imposed for causing a premature birth is in anyway indicative of the inherent worth of the child. Bolton’s summary imposes upon the passage his own agenda and does not take into consideration the historical context, the immediate context of the passage or many other Scriptures that support the view the God sees human life as beginning at conception and extending until natural death.
Bolton’s assessment of Exodus 21:22-25 is nothing more than amateur hermeneutics or, worse, an attempt to convince unsuspecting readers of things the Bible does not say. Exodus 21:22-25, in summary, is God promulgating law protecting human life—including the life of an unborn human being—and imposing the highest levels of liability upon those who do not take that life seriously and order their conduct aright in its presence. Brian Bolton not only misunderstands and misinterprets Exodus 21:22-25, but his summary and assessment of Exodus 21:22-25 is misleading at best, intentionally deceptive at worst.