James Talarico’s ‘Biblical’ Defense of Weird Stuff

James Talarico, the Democrat nominee for the 2026 U.S. Senate election in Texas, will face Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in November. Paxton trounced incumbent Sen. John Cornyn in the primary by nearly 30 points. Good riddance. Talarico claims to be a Christian. As a Presbyterian seminarian, he argues that issues like abortion and LGBTQ+ rights are not biblically settled, famously stating that God is nonbinary and that the Annunciation demonstrates divine support for reproductive consent. In April 2021, as a Texas State Representative, Talarico stated during a legislative hearing on an anti-trans sports bill that “modern science obviously recognizes that there are six really common biological sexes.”

Recently, he said, “Most Christians would acknowledge that God is beyond gender. In fact, the apostle Paul, in his letter to the Galatians, said that ‘In Christ there is neither male nor female.’” While God is “beyond gender,” He (note the pronoun) created the first man and woman. Paul’s point about “neither male nor female,” note the binary sex designation, concerns that salvation in Christ is not restricted to either men or women. The full context includes, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free” (Gal. 3:28). Everyone is welcome to embrace Jesus as Savior and Lord. Paul was not in any way declaring that there are numerous ‘genders.’

Like how some argue that “Jesus never talked about homosexuality,” Talarico states that “Jesus never talks about abortion.” In fact, he goes on to say, “The Bible is silent on abortion.” When Jesus defines marriage as between a man and a woman, based on what we find in Genesis 2:24 and elsewhere (Eph. 5:31), what Jesus quotes in Matthew 19:3-6, all other relationships are excluded. This includes transgenderism.

Now on to Talarico’s claim about abortion. He’s not the first person to make the claim that the Bible does not mention abortion. For example, Jacob Shelton, writing for the website Weird History, claimed that the translation of Exodus 21:22-25 was altered to support Republicans and the Christian Right:

In the 1975 version of the New American Standard Bible, the verse read: “And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is not further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide.”

In 1995, the verse was changed to read: “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury…”

*****

The words were changed in the 1995 version in order to make it so the fetus doesn’t die in the verse, thus supporting the Christian Right’s pro-life message that killing a fetus is the same as killing a human, and the Bible says so.

Shelton may be “a know-it-all when it comes to horror movies, serial killers, government conspiracies, comic books, and movies about comic books,” as he describes himself, but he does not know much about the Bible and Bible translations.

Let’s put Mr. Shelton’s claim to the test that the NASB editors changed their translation of Exodus 21:22 for political reasons. First, Exodus 21:22-25 deals with a judicial case where two men struggle (fight) with each other. We are not told why they are fighting. A pregnant woman is standing close enough to them to be affected by the altercation. She goes into premature labor. This case law covers all the “cases,” everything from no harm to the mother and her prematurely born children (plural) to harm resulting in death to the mother and one or more of her unborn children.

Second, the woman is not deciding to have an abortion. At one level, it’s an accident that she goes into labor. There is no premeditation on her part to abort. At another level, however, the men should not have been fighting, so there is some liability on their part. The woman could be the wife of one of the men who is trying to break up the fight.

Even if there is a distinction in terms of harm to the mother and/or the unborn children in what is ostensibly an accidental act, this is a far cry from permitting women intentionally to kill their unborn children up until the endpoint of a normal pregnancy. Dave Mill comments in his article “Abortion and Exodus 21.”

Notice that this Mosaic regulation had to do with injury inflicted indirectly and accidentally: “The phrasing of the case suggests that we are dealing with an instance of unintentional battery involving culpability” (Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), 92). Abortion, on the other hand, is a deliberate, purposeful, intentional termination of a child’s life. If God dealt severely with the accidental death of a pre-born infant, how do you suppose He feels about the deliberate murder of the unborn by an abortion doctor in collusion with the mother? The Bible states explicitly how He feels: “[D]o not kill the innocent and righteous. For I will not justify the wicked” (Exodus 23:7). As a matter of fact, one of the things that God hates is “hands that shed innocent blood” (Proverbs 6:17; cf. 2 Kings 8:12; 15:16; Hosea 13:16; Amos 1:13). Abortion is a serious matter with God. We absolutely must base our views on God’s will—not the will of men. The very heart and soul of this great nation is being ripped out by unethical actions like abortion. We must return to the Bible as our standard of behavior—before it is everlastingly too late.[1]

Third, the text is clear; she is pregnant with at least one child: “And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child…” (Ex. 21:22). The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon defines the Hebrew word hareh as a pregnant woman with child. It’s clear that she is not carrying around a mass of undefined tissue that becomes a human being when “it” exits the sanctuary of the womb.

Fourth, the Bible attributes self-consciousness to unborn babies, something that modern medicine has studied and acknowledges. Jacob and Esau “struggled together within” their mother’s womb (Gen. 25:22). The New Testament offers a similar glimpse into prenatal consciousness: “And it came about that when Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb” (Luke 1:41). “Struggling” and “leaping” are the result of consciousness. John leaps in reaction to Mary’s pregnancy.

Fifth, some commentators claim that in Exodus 21:22, the death of a “fetus,” either accidentally or on purpose, is a property crime. The Bible teaches otherwise. The original Hebrew reads: “And if men struggle with each other and strike a pregnant woman so that her children [yeled] come out….” The Hebrew word for “children” in this verse is used in other contexts to designate a child who has already been born. For example, in Exodus 2:6 we read: “When Pharaoh’s daughter opened [the basket], she saw the child [yeled], and behold, the boy was crying. And she had pity on him and said, ‘This is one of the Hebrews’ children [yeled].’” Exodus regards a yeled as a person, not like an appendix or a kidney.

Sixth, if there is no injury to these individuals—the mother and her prematurely delivered child or children—then there is no penalty. If there is injury, the judges must decide on an appropriate penalty based on the extent of the injury to the mother and/or her child, because both are persons under biblical law.

Seventh, As Shelton points out, the 1977 edition of the New American Standard Bible of those working on the passage translated the Hebrews as “so that she has a miscarriage.” The 1995 translation is better (“she gives birth prematurely”), but it still does not capture the literal rendering of the Hebrew. In a marginal note, the NASB translators recognize that the literal meaning of the text is “her children come out.”

It’s frustrating to read translations that include marginal notes telling us what it literally says. It’s better to translate a passage literally and then add a margin note to explain if needed. Other translations are more word-for-word. Here’s one example from the Holman Christian Standard Bible:

When men get in a fight and hit a pregnant woman so that her children are born [prematurely] but there is no injury, the one who hit her must be fined as the woman’s husband demands from him, and he must pay according to judicial assessment.

Notice that it’s “so that her children are born.” Here’s another from Young’s Literal Translation (1898):

And when men strive, and have smitten a pregnant woman, and her children have come out, and there is no mischief, he is certainly fined, as the husband of the woman doth lay upon him, and he hath given through the judges.”

Note the date (1898), Young’s translation is long before there was a Christian Right.

Eighth, there are two Hebrew words that fit the circumstances of a miscarriage or premature birth. Umberto Cassuto (1883-1951) was a Jewish rabbi and biblical scholar born in Florence, Italy. In his commentary on Exodus, long before Roe v Wade or the rise of the Christian Right, he presents an accurate translation of the passage based on the Hebrew:

When men strive together and they hurt unintentionally a woman with child, and her children come forth but no mischief happens—that is, the woman and the children do not die—the one who hurts her shall surely be punished by a fine. But if any mischief happens, that is, if the woman dies or the children, then you shall give life for life.[2]

Ninth, the King James Version uses a different translation approach, but it is consistent with the text in showing that “children” are “coming out.” The KJV reads, “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” (Ex. 21:22). The use of the word “fruit” is a descriptive euphemism for a child in the Old Testament (Gen. 30:2) and the New Testament (Luke 1:42). Elizabeth responded to Mary this way when she learned of Mary’s pregnancy:

And she spake out with a loud voice, and said,
Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

Mr. Shelton and Mr. Talarico are biblically ignorant. Mr. Talarico needs to pick a different seminary.

---

[1] Dave Mill, “Abortion and Exodus 21,” Apologetics Press: https://bit.ly/33ix90y

[2] Umberto Cassuto, Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1967), 275.

American Vision’s mission is to Restore America to its Biblical Foundation—from Genesis to Revelation. American Vision (AV) has been at the heart of worldview study since 1978, providing resources to exhort Christian families and individuals to live by a Biblically based worldview. Visit www.AmericanVision.org for more information, content and resources

Source: https://americanvision.org/posts/james-talaricos-biblical-defense-of-weird-stuff/