Abortion and the Sanctity of Life

​Abortion is a very emotional issue that always seems to arouse passion, not matter which side of the belief an individual finds themselves on.  A place to begin would be by noting a view that is not very popular today, but once was defended particularly in certain Roman Catholic ethical circles. It is the view that one is never justified in taking a life. There is a difference, so the argument goes, between taking a life and letting one die. The former is never a moral option; the latter may be. If one simply does nothing in a case where mother and/or baby are endangered, and one or both die, one has simply let them die. This was the best that could be done in this case, and at least no life was taken. It is not hard to see why this view is unpopular today. One runs the risk of losing two lives, when it seems quite clear that one could be saved.[1]  This view advocates a position of personal responsibility in taking ownership over one’s own healthcare.  Many today still hold this view.
Now in society many have gone the other way entirely by placing most, if not all the responsibility for treatment and care on the patient himself or herself.  The pendulum has swung all the way from regarding the physician as god to seeing the patient as god. Personal autonomy now dominates modern medicine. Abortion and euthanasia are justified by people who believe that they have the right to do with their bodies whatever they wish. Similarly, those who want alternative therapies say they are entitled to use whatever therapeutic option is available, even if others think it is strange or ineffective. Therefore, the responsibility for health care is placed solely on patients’ shoulders—health-care professionals become little more than counselors and providers of the services patients want.
The biblical view of responsibility for health is God-centered rather than self-centered. Our bodies are gifts (or better, loans) from God for which we are responsible to care—they have been purchased by the blood of Christ. They are not our own to do with as we please. Instead, by faith, we should pursue good health to glorify God, serve others (Rom. 14:7–8; 1 Cor. 6:19–20; 2 Cor. 5:15; Phil. 1:20–26), and participate in everything that God has given us to enjoy (1 Tim. 6:17). Only in this context will believers be able to experience the abundant life Christ has offered (John 10:10).[2]
Although health is ultimately from God (Ps. 103:1–5), each individual bears a great responsibility for his or her own health. However, health care should be a partnership among health-care professionals, the patient, and the family or close friends and relatives. Absolute autonomy brings isolation, while faith in God and association with others provide companionship, confidence, and comfort. When considering alternative medicine, it would be wise to seek guidance not only from a physician whom you trust but also from members of the church whom you believe possess gifts of knowledge, wisdom, discernment, and counseling. Responsibility for health can be shared when people of the church use their gifts for the good of others (Rom. 12:3–8; 1 Cor. 12:7, 12–26; Eph. 4:11–16; 1 Peter 4:7–11).[3]
 
A National Debate
      Abortion is a monumental issue that ignites heated debates. Divisions in the state and in the church are multiplying, with major denominational church bodies coming down on both sides of the issue. The fires of controversy show no signs of abating, but rather of intensifying.[4]
      Federal funds are given to secular humanist activities that are diametrically opposed to Christian values: grants to universities that promote naturalistic concepts of education, science, psychology, and sociology; Planned Parenthood, which promotes abortion; the National Endowment to the Arts, which awards grants worth thousands of dollars to what many Christians consider pornographic and blasphemous art projects; and public school systems, where humanistic values are taught through sex education, value clarification, and naturalistic evolution.[5]
      Examples of the devastating consequences of legalizing an immoral act include the Supreme Court’s 1857 Dred Scott decision that declared that no black person, free or slave, could claim United States citizenship, and the Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade that in effect, legalized abortion throughout pregnancy. In the Roe decision, the Court contradicted years of legal, religious, and social objections to abortion. Many women, in the vulnerable position of contemplating an abortion they don’t really want, rationalize that since the procedure is legal, it must also be moral.[6]
      The law of our land is often immoral and unjust. That should be declared from tens of thousands of pulpits in America.[7] When the American Medical Association was formed in 1847, abortion was commonly practiced “before quickening.” But through the efforts of the AMA and antiobscenity crusaders and (ironically) feminists, abortion became illegal everywhere in the U.S. by 1900.[8]  The key reversal of this legal situation came on January 22, 1973, when the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade.
 
      One individual who holds strongly to the idea that abortion in general is morally permissible is Emily Letts, a 25-year old abortion counselor at a women’s center. When Letts found herself pregnant, she immediately knew she was going to have an abortion simply because she was ready to care for a child; she then decided that she would make a video to be the first of its kind that would show the actual surgical procedure in the clinic and focus on the woman’s experience. The result was a disturbing and mixed message. The main goal of this video, other than informative purposes, was to show a positive abortion story to prove to woman that they do not have to feel guilty. Emily Letts, in her interview with Cosmopolitan, repeated over and over the fact that she felt no guilt about terminating the life of her child. Guilt is her main focus throughout the whole process; she says this society-imposed guilt is unnecessary and inspires them to stop the guilt. Letts herself said, “Even women who come to the clinic completely solid in their decision to have an abortion say they feel guilt for not feeling guilty.”[9]
Many Christians have taken the position that it is not the church’s business what the state legislates, since the church is not to legislate morality. However, the state does have the responsibility of legislating morality. Traffic laws deal with the moral issue of how one drives one’s car. Justice is a moral issue; laws are an attempt to promote justice. The essence of legislation is morality. The church has the responsibility to speak to the legislature. The state’s primary function is the preservation of society and the preservation of life. When the state is involved in legislation that does not respect and promote the sanctity of life, the church must speak out. While we recognize the separation of power between church and state, we cannot recognize the autonomy of the state before God. The state is also a servant of God. If there is any legislation on which the church has the responsibility to speak, it is on this one, since the heart of the issue is the sanctity of life.[10]
 
The Procedure And The Rationale
Induced abortions are commonly what we think of when we hear people talk about abortions. This class of abortions is characterized by outside or external intervention into the reproductive process with a view to terminating pregnancy. There are several kinds of induced abortions. Therapeutic abortions are performed to save the mother’s life. Because of the present state of medicine, such abortions are rare.[11]  Much more common is the abortion by the choice of the mother.  More than one million legal abortions were performed in the U. S. annually. More than 2% of U. S. women (of reproductive age) obtained abortions each year, and a fourth of pregnancies (excluding those ending in miscarriages) were aborted.[12]
Ectopic or tubal pregnancies are examples. In this kind of pregnancy the fertilized egg does not implant in the uterus but in the fallopian tube. Only two options are open to the doctor. Either he intervenes to take the baby’s life in order to save the mother’s life, or both baby and mother die. Another potential cause of therapeutic abortion is maternal heart disease. At one time women with heart disease were at risk in full-term pregnancies. However, that is almost never the case today. The most common candidates for therapeutic abortions are pregnant women with cancer (especially uterine cancer). If treatment of the cancer requires either radiation or chemotherapy, that will likely kill the baby. Hence, it must be decided whether to delay treatment until the birth of the baby, or begin it immediately and risk losing the child.[13]
The question of when life begins has been pivotal to the discussion. Agreement is difficult because no consensus has emerged. Different points on the conception-birth continuum have been preferred, with the added problem of variant medical definitions of “life” itself.
There are some who maintain that the moment of birth is when a fetus becomes a person. There are good reasons for this argument. This is a rather clear line of demarcation, indicating a new status, a new moment of independent existence with individuation beginning with the snipping of the umbilical cord.[14]
Another view points to the moment of “quickening”; another to the time when the circulatory system is fully developed. Others say that the principle of life in the Old Testament is the “breath” of life in man. Therefore, life would be present when the lungs develop and the fetus could breathe on its own.
The moment of conception has been seen by many groups to be the beginning of life, since all the potentiality of personhood is then present. David and others speak of their conception as part of their personal history.[15]
There may be occasions where there are not preferential health issues but a very strong idea that death will occur for one or both parties involved. With ectopic pregnancies, the baby’s life must be taken, for the baby is developing outside the uterus, and without intervention both mother and baby will die. Intervention must come so early in the pregnancy that even if a mother wanted to save the baby, the baby would be too premature to survive. In cancer cases where treatment for cancer or the removal of the cancer would terminate pregnancy (as, e.g., with cancer of the uterus), we think commencement of treatment for the mother is morally permissible.[16]
To refer to an embryo as a blob of protoplasm is to be guilty of a severe form of reductionism. The “parasite” term is equally inaccurate, as parasites have an independent life cycle that includes reproduction. As for the analogy to cancer, a cancer left to natural development destroys life. An embryo left to natural development produces life—a difference that cannot be ignored.[17]
Abortions can be divided into those that are spontaneous and those that are induced. Spontaneous abortions are not usually thought of as abortions. What characterizes this class of abortions is that there is no outside or external intervention. There are two basic kinds of spontaneous abortions.[18]
Many ethics based textbooks on college campuses today espouse abortion under almost any circumstances. “Therapeutic abortions are usually not thought to be morally problematic, but induced abortions are intensely controversial and are the focus of the ongoing moral debate.”[19] The moral argument against abortion rests on the premises that the unborn fetus is obviously a human life, it is wrong to take a human life, and abortion is the taking of a human life. Therefore, based on these premises, abortion is wrong.[20] Comparing the liberal argument for abortion to the moral argument, both arguments agree on the wrongness of murder, but the disagreement comes from one differing premise – the question of the life, potential life, or absence of life of the unborn.[21]
The issue of therapeutic abortions must be dealt with separately. Generally they are used in two situations: where there is clear and present danger to the life and physical health of the mother, and where there is concern for the psychological well-being of the mother, especially in the case where the woman has been victimized by a rapist. In the first instance, there are two basic points. Some argue that in the case of the danger to the life of the mother, it is better to destroy the fetus to save the mother. The actual life is more valuable than the potential life. Others say the fetus should be saved, basing this on the matter of certainty versus probability. Suppose that the death of the mother is 99 percent probable if the child is left to be born. If there is an abortion, that means 100 percent certainty of death for the fetus. If there is one chance in 100 for both to survive, this group holds that the chance should be taken.[22]
As to specifics, if the problem occurs late in the pregnancy, the child can likely be taken prematurely without dying, i.e., probably both lives can be saved. If the mother’s illness is diagnosed early in pregnancy, treatment should be delayed as long as possible and the baby taken prematurely. Of course, a lot depends on the nature of the illness. In some cases both lives cannot be saved. However, with advances in medical technology the number of times one life must be lost is rare indeed. [23]
The question of when life begins has been pivotal to the discussion. Agreement is difficult because no consensus has emerged. Different points on the conception-birth continuum have been preferred, with the added problem of variant medical definitions of “life” itself.
There are some who maintain that the moment of birth is when a fetus becomes a person. There are good reasons for this argument. This is a rather clear line of demarcation, indicating a new status, a new moment of independent existence with individuation beginning with the snipping of the umbilical cord.
Another view points to the moment of “quickening”; another to the time when the circulatory system is fully developed. Others say that the principle of life in the Old Testament is the “breath” of life in man. Therefore, life would be present when the lungs develop and the fetus could breathe on its own.
The moment of conception has been seen by many groups to be the beginning of life, since all the potentiality of personhood is then present. David and others speak of their conception as part of their personal history.[24]
Two words of caution are in order. First, to repeat that in light of advances in medical technology, the actual number of cases where the life of either mother or baby must be sacrificed is very small indeed. Second, abortion to save the mother’s life has been called therapeutic abortion. In the current discussions on abortion the meaning of “therapeutic” has been expanded to cover anything that affects the well-being of the mother. This now includes whether she is depressed at the thought of having another child or whether having a child fits in with her career goals.[25]  While words, in the past, have seemed to hold tightly to meanings first assigned to them, this is not always the case today.  Both sides of the argument may use the same vocabualary, but attached very different meanings to the same word. This is certainly true with the use of the word therapeutic, when used in the abortion discussion. 
 
A Biblical Perspective
            No teaching in the Old Testament or New Testament explicitly condemns or condones abortion. Exegetically, the debate has been waged on implicit grounds. The Old Testament passage that has received the greatest attention concerning this matter is Exodus 21:22–24.
When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
There is a built-in ambiguity with this text, giving rise to differing interpretations of its precise meaning and application. The theological house is divided between “maximum” and “minimum” positions. The problem centers in the words no harm follows. To what “harm” does the verse refer? This problem is linked to another, namely the question of what is meant by the “miscarriage” of the pregnant woman. Is the text referring to an incident where the woman, being jostled by fighting men, is induced to a premature childbirth in which the anguish and inconvenience of premature delivery is recompensed by the law even though the premature child lives and thrives? Or is the text speaking of a case where the induced premature birth yields a stillborn fetus and further considerations come into play only if the mother suffers additional complications, even death?[26] 
The commandment rules out abortion because, as genetic science shows, the fetus is from the moment of conception a human being in process (we might say) of arriving. The fact that for several months it cannot survive outside the womb does not affect its right to the same protection that other human beings merit, and which it will itself merit after birth. Abortion can only ever be justified (and then only as a necessary evil) when the pregnancy genuinely endangers the mother’s life—and, as doctors know, there are few such cases today. Legalizing abortion on other grounds is a social evil, whatever arguments of convenience are invoked.[27]
After the Ten Commandments, God gives Moses a variety of laws. Here, and in the books of Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, there are as many as seven groups of laws. They are collections of rules and detailed procedures.
Here guidance is found for owning servants and settling quarrels. There is compensation for injuries to people or damage to property. The weaker members of society—orphans, widows, the poor and the stranger—are given special protection.[28]
These verses enumerate four crimes that required the death penalty: premeditated murder (vv. 12, 14; cf. the sixth commandment in 20:13 and Gen. 9:6); physical violence against parents (Ex. 21:15); kidnapping (v. 16; cf. Deut. 24:7); and verbal abuse of parents (Ex. 21:17; cf. the fifth commandment in 20:12 and note Lev. 20:9). Allowance was made for unintentional, accidental deaths (Ex. 21:13). A “guilty” person could escape to one of the six cities of refuge after Israel was in the land (Num. 35:6–34; Deut. 19:1–13; Josh. 20). Because of the importance of the home its sanctity was guarded, parents protected, and children controlled; disrespectfulness was to be dealt with in the same way as murder.[29]
From the protection of life the law passes to that of the body against all injuries, whether by man (vers. 18–27) or by beast (vers. 28–32). The principle here is, so far as possible, compensation, coupled with punishment in grave offences.[30] Though in recent decades both proponents and opponents of abortion have cited these verses for support, several observations prohibit using these verses to support abortion.
            They appear in the context of the Book of Exodus with its concern for preserving infant life (Ex. 1; 2). The fact of pregnancy as part of the case must imply concern for the unborn child, or the situation could involve any bystander and be covered by other verses (vv. 12–14, 18, 19).
            If one is seriously considering the spirit of the law, they must pay attention to the implications (implicit understanding) of a particular commandment. The converse of a prohibition must be affirmed: what the law implicitly affirms is a part of the complex of what the prohibition explicitly negates. Wanton destruction of life is prohibited. This implies an implicit command to promote the sanctity and safeguarding of life. The sanctity of life is the supreme basis for the prohibition of murder. The question is, Does the sanctity of life include concern for potential life? There is no way we can prove decisively that it does. But in light of the overwhelming concern in the Scriptures for the safeguarding and preservation of life, the burden of proof must be on those who wish to destroy potential life.[31]
            Even if it is asserted that a fine was assessed for the death of the child rather than the death penalty, which does not indicate that unborn life is valueless or can be extinguished without penalty but just the opposite (see differing penalties involving adults, children, and slaves, vv. 30–32).  Verses 22–23 are basic to the pro-life position on abortion, for they indicate that the aborting of a fetus was equivalent to the murdering of the child. The guilty party was punished as a murderer (“life for life”) if the mother or the unborn child, or both, died.[32]
            The case in Exodus describes unintentional injury.[33]  It was freedom too, because under this Law each person was protected from wrongs others might commit against him, and then was charged with a responsibility for others’ welfare.
            The Old Testament Law was given to Israel by a loving God. It’s very provisions constantly reveal God’s love in action.[34]  Some sins, according to these laws, required the death penalty in ancient Israel. These included wilful murder, the murder or cursing of one’s parents, and the abduction and enslavement of an individual. Other offences, such as quarrelling and hitting another man, or a slave, or a pregnant woman, were regulated for. So, too, were cases as diverse as knocking out the tooth of a slave, or what to do if your ox gores someone to death. The specific cases mentioned help to illustrate the absolute principles of the Ten Commandments, and highlight particular applications of these laws, which are to cover the whole of life. The basic principle, however, is that of verses 23–5: ‘If there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.’[35]
            God’s law shows that He is concerned about everything: men, women, children, the unborn, property, and even animals. This is His creation, and He has the right to tell us how to manage it. The Law did not change people’s hearts, but it did help to control their conduct and give order to the nation. Laws and government have been instituted by God, and we should respect them (Rom. 13).[36]
            In the New Testament the word abortion is used only in a figurative sense. One passage often cited to support an antiabortion stance is Luke 1:39–42, when Mary visited Elizabeth and the child “leaped in her womb.” Other passages that speak of persons being conceived in sin and known by God in the womb are also referred to. The question exegetically is whether or not these allusions are to be taken as religious hyperbole or poetry. However, the message of these passages clearly indicates that God is involved with man’s history prior to his birth.[37]

 
 
CONCLUSION
 
The crucial concern here is that we can say with certainty that at any stage of development the fetus is a potential life, a potential human being, with a high level of probability of becoming a human being if left to the normal course of its life. With this in mind, let us look at the essence of the debate: What is the relationship of abortion to the biblical prohibition against murder? Does the Bible have anything to say about the destruction of a potential life?
            Bible students remember that in the Old Testament there are five distinctions made in the broader application of the Decalogue’s prohibition of killing, including distinctions for manslaughter and involuntary murder. In the New Testament, however, we have an authoritative application and interpretation of this prohibition.
            The prohibition “You shall not kill” is not a universal prohibition against taking human life in any context, but it is wider in its scope than simple first-degree murder. Jesus includes in his understanding of this mandate a prohibition against hatred. Hatred is understood as murder of the heart. In effect Jesus says that the law implicitly prohibits potential murder (and potential adultery). Left to its own, hatred results in murder; lust, in adultery. He says that the law prohibits the potential destruction of life. This is not the same as prohibiting the actual destruction of potential life. But these two are very close to being the same, similar enough to raise serious questions about abortion. In terms of the sanctity of life, potentiality is clearly an issue with Jesus.[38]

 
 
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Campbell, Iain D.  Opening Up Exodus, Opening Up Commentary.  Leominster: Day One Publications, 2006.
 
Edersheim, Alfred .  Bible History: Old Testament.  Oak Harbor: Logos Bible Software, 1997.
 
Feinberg,  John S. and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World.  Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993.
 
Hannah, John D.   "Exodus" In , in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck.  Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985.
 
Knowles, Andrew.  The Bible Guide, 1st Augsburg books ed.  Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 2001.
 
Mohler, Albert, “‘I Feel Super Great About Having an Abortion’ — The Culture of Death Goes Viral.”
 
Nelson, Thomas. The Woman’s Study Bible.  Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995.
 
Packer, J. I.   Growing in Christ.  Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1994.
 
Piper, John.  Brothers, We Are Not Professionals: A Plea to Pastors for Radical Ministry (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers
 
Richards, Larry and Lawrence O. Richards, The Teacher’s Commentary.  Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1987.
 
Sproul, R.C.  Following Christ.  Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996.
 
Stewart, Gary,   Basic Questions on Suicide and Euthanasia: Are They Ever Right?, BioBasics series.  Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998.
 
Story, Dan .  Christianity on the Offense: Responding to the Beliefs and Assumptions of Spiritual Seekers.  Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998.
 
Tan, Paul Lee ,  Encyclopedia of 7700 Illustrations: Signs of the Times.  Garland, TX: Bible Communications, Inc., 1996.
 
Vaughn, Lewis, Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues, Third Ed., W.W. Norton & Company, 2013.
 
Wiersbe, Warren W.   Wiersbe’s Expository Outlines on the Old Testament.  Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1993.
 
Wiersbe, Warren W.   With the Word Bible Commentary.  Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991.


[1] John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993), 73-74.
 

[2] Gary Stewart, Basic Questions on Alternative Medicine: What Is Good and What Is Not?, BioBasics Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998), 14.
 

[3] Ibid, 15.
 

[4] R.C. Sproul, Following Christ (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996).
 

[5] Dan Story, Christianity on the Offense: Responding to the Beliefs and Assumptions of Spiritual Seekers (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998), 137.
 

[6] Gary Stewart, Basic Questions on Suicide and Euthanasia: Are They Ever Right?, BioBasics series (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998), 54.
 

[7] John Piper, Brothers, We Are Not Professionals: A Plea to Pastors for Radical Ministry (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2002), 212.
 

[8] John Piper, Brothers, We Are Not Professionals: A Plea to Pastors for Radical Ministry (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2002), 212.
 

[9] Mohler, Albert, “‘I Feel Super Great About Having an Abortion’ — The Culture of Death Goes Viral.” AlbertMohler, N.p., 8 May 2014, Web, 11 March 2015.
 

[10] R.C. Sproul, Following Christ (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996).
 

[11] John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993), 50.
 

[12] Paul Lee Tan, Encyclopedia of 7700 Illustrations: Signs of the Times (Garland, TX: Bible Communications, Inc., 1996), 839.
 

[13] John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993), 50-51.
 

[14] R.C. Sproul, Following Christ (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996).
 

[15] R.C. Sproul, Following Christ (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996).
 

[16] John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993), 74.
 

[17] R.C. Sproul, Following Christ (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996).
 

[18] John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993), 50.
 

[19] Lewis Vaughn, Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues, Third Ed., W.W. Norton & Company, 2013, p 164.
 

[20] Ibid, pg. 165.
 

[21] Ibid, pg. 171.
 

[22] R.C. Sproul, Following Christ (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996).
 

[23]John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993), 74.
 

[24] R.C. Sproul, Following Christ (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996).
 

[25] John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993), 75.
 

[26] R.C. Sproul, Following Christ (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996).
 

[27] J. I. Packer, Growing in Christ (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1994), 260.
 

[28] Andrew Knowles, The Bible Guide, 1st Augsburg books ed. (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 2001), 53-54.
 

[29] John D. Hannah, "Exodus" In , in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), Ex 21:12–17.

[30] Alfred Edersheim, Bible History: Old Testament (Oak Harbor: Logos Bible Software, 1997), Ex 20:18–24:12.
 

[31] R.C. Sproul, Following Christ (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996).
 

[32] Warren W. Wiersbe, Wiersbe’s Expository Outlines on the Old Testament (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1993), Ex 21:12–36.
 

[33] Inc Thomas Nelson, The Woman’s Study Bible (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995), Ex 21:22.
 

[34] Larry Richards and Lawrence O. Richards, The Teacher’s Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1987), 97.

[35] Iain D. Campbell, Opening Up Exodus, Opening Up Commentary (Leominster: Day One Publications, 2006), 87-88.
 

[36] Warren W. Wiersbe, With the Word Bible Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991), Ex 21:1.
 

[37] R.C. Sproul, Following Christ (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996).

[38] R.C. Sproul, Following Christ (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996).