Is abortion in the bible?

[Charlotte408]

Numbers 5:

22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the LORD and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial** offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.

Can someone help me understand this? Thank you.**

 

[MarcoPolo]

According to the Navarre Bible, this was a method that was used to “test” if a woman had been unfaithful in a case where it was impossible to prove. So, similar to the Salem Witch Trials when they threw a woman into the water to see if she didn’t drown in order to prove her as a witch, this ancient “rite” was applied to determine if a woman had been unfaithful. If she had been unfaithful, supposedly the child would miscarry.

The text is not an endorsement of the rite.

 

[Scoobyshme]

Abortion is certainly in the Bible. It’s the 5th Commandment, Thou shalt not murder.

 

[Little_One0307]

Hi,

No abortion is not in the bible. This passage has nothing to do with abortion. I will write down what my commentary says on it. I learned something new. It’s gonna be a long post so bear with me. Gotta take it in the context it is said in.

Numbers 5:11-31 - Trial by Ordeal - This was a widespread practice in antiquity. It was known in Babylonia long before Moses [Code of Hummurabi] and was common among many Semitic peoples. It survived down to the Middle Ages and the Church has repeatedly expressed her disapproval thereof. From the 14th and 15th cent. the practice was gradually discontinued.

Although this practice rests on the universal belief that no one guilty of any sin may appear before God with impunity, and that GOd will never permit an innocent person to be punished as guilty, with the Hebrews it had no supersititous associations nor any presumptous call for a divine intervention. It does not subject the suspected person to any dreadful hazard such as walking over red-hot bars. An innocuous ption was the only means used as a test of innocence. Moreoever, with other peoples this practice was inteded to detect a secret sin; with the Hebrews on the contary, it was inteded to prove one’s innocence by washing away all suspicions of conjugal infidelity.

12f. are a description of the sin which a woman is suspected of having committed. When the suspicious husband has no legal proff against his wife, he has the right to bring her before the priest carrying with him an offering called “the offering of jealousy” or “the offering of remembrance [of a real or supposed sin]” and consisting of one-tenth part of an ephah or barley meal without oil and without frakenincense, as in the case of a poor man’s offering. The priest then takes some water miexed with a small dose of dust from the floor of the sanctuary, leads the woman before the tabernacle, uncovers her head as a sign of distress and places the offerin on her hands, while he holds the water which is “holy” [17] on account of the holiness of the place whence the dust has been taken, and “bitter” [18] on account either of its taste or of the harmful effect it was intended to produce in case of guilt. Then follows the most impressive part of the ceremony. The woman swears her innocence, calling down upon herself a divine punishment if she is really guilty. The punishment very probably was a miscarriage or strerility or something similiar. In order to epxress the entrace of the imprecations into the woman’s bowels more forcilbly, the curses were written down on a piece of skin or some other writing material and washed off into the drink. Then the offering was brought to the altar. For the waving ceremony see Lev 7:30. It was not usual to wave cereal offerings. Although an instaneous divine response was naturally expected, it appears that the result was not so speedy. [28] Pregnancy and normal childbirth were infallible signs of innocence, but miscarriage would convict the unfortunate woman.

The concluding 28-31 must be interpreted in the same sense as 12f. viz. whether the woman is guilty or not, the husband has the right to bring her to the priest and call upon God to decide. If she is innocent, the husband is not to blame for having suspected his wife’s fidelity; but is she is guilty, she will have to bear the consequences of her sin.

---

Taken from A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture - by Nelson.

Hope this sorts it out.

God bless.

 

[Kaninchen]

Numbers 5:

22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the LORD and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial** offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.

Can someone help me understand this? Thank you.**

This is the one bit of ‘sympathetic magic’ in the Torah which is a bit of a hint as to what’s really going on because we don’t ‘do’ sympathetic magic.

This has nothing to do with abortion and everything to do with shutting up vexacious husbands. An accused woman is given a not very nice tasting but basically harmless mixture, so nothing is going to happen.

Since nothing happens, the husband has to shut up.

 

[Charlotte408]

This is the one bit of ‘sympathetic magic’ in the Torah which is a bit of a hint as to what’s really going on because we don’t ‘do’ sympathetic magic.

This has nothing to do with abortion and everything to do with shutting up vexacious husbands. An accused woman is given a not very nice tasting but basically harmless mixture, so nothing is going to happen.

Since nothing happens, the husband has to shut up.

It’s just weird to me. My friend, she’s become more interested in Christianity since I’ve had my conversion, and I recommended for her to read the bible because I’m no scholar and just reading it myself - and she is. And she brought this to me, and I told her, you know I don’t have all the answers, so I’ll ask you guys.

Our confusion is that, yes - even in the OT it was a rule, ‘thou shalt not murder’, and God himself I guess ‘murdered’ when he took out all the first born sons, but He did that Himself, we were tripping that he would give a priest the authority to give a potion of sorts - to a woman with the intention of her miscarrying.



Is there something later on that abolishes or like, voids that? Kaninchen since Jews still believe just in the OT, do they use this to justify abortion?

Please, please forgive me if any of this sounds crazy I’m just trying to understand - and I’m totally pro-life and my friend of course being pro-choice brought this over to me like ‘see even God commands Moses to perform abortions!’

You can imagine my surprise right?

 

[Oldtimer_7]

Single Bible verses can be twisted, turned, and distorted to allow or explain many different behaviors. The Old Testament is not the best place for a new believer to begin. If you do decide to go that route, it is incumbent on you to find a reliable Bible Study group, or at least a guide. For you, a good place to start would be to make an appointment with your priest for you and your friend to discuss the matter with him.

 

[Kaninchen]

It’s just weird to me. My friend, she’s become more interested in Christianity since I’ve had my conversion, and I recommended for her to read the bible because I’m no scholar and just reading it myself - and she is. And she brought this to me, and I told her, you know I don’t have all the answers, so I’ll ask you guys.

Our confusion is that, yes - even in the OT it was a rule, ‘thou shalt not murder’, and God himself I guess ‘murdered’ when he took out all the first born sons, but He did that Himself, we were tripping that he would give a priest the authority to give a potion of sorts - to a woman with the intention of her miscarrying.



Is there something later on that abolishes or like, voids that? Kaninchen since Jews still believe just in the OT, do they use this to justify abortion?

Please, please forgive me if any of this sounds crazy I’m just trying to understand - and I’m totally pro-life and my friend of course being pro-choice brought this over to me like ‘see even God commands Moses to perform abortions!’

You can imagine my surprise right?

The thing is that it really doesn’t have anything to do with abortion but everything to do with keeping the peace in the tribe (in the Bronze Age, remember).

A man turns up at the Priest’s house moaning on about how naughty his wife has been and, to shut him up, there’s a test - if you read the concoction, it wouldn’t taste good but it wouldn’t do anybody any harm. Nothing happens, so the priest says “She can’t have been naughty, nothing happened.”

The idea that such a concoction (with nothing poisonous or anything) could do harm is what could be described as ‘sympathetic magic’ (like love potions and stuff like that) and it’s basically superstition/folk lore and it’s nowhere else in the Torah.

We presume that God doesn’t contradict himself or indulge in the illogical and one of the major themes of the Torah is keeping the tribal peace - like the ‘eye for eye, tooth for tooth’ formula which isn’t about retribution but restitution, a flock of sheep for an eye/a sheep for a tooth (or whatever) - and I would suggest that you have bear this in mind and read this passage from Numbers with a somewhat cynical eye

As an aside:

We Jews don’t have the same kind of relationship to what we call the Tanakh (what you call the ‘OT’, the first five books are the books of ‘The Law’, or Torah) that many Christians do to your scriptures.

For example, if you read the OT, you’ll find that there are numerous contraventions of the Torah punishable by death - yet, in fact, it was extremely difficult to get yourself executed, even in ‘Biblical Times’.

Why was that? Well, basically, because a huge amount of argument and interpretation of ‘The Law’ went on - rather like when secular laws are passed today, the courts, when deciding cases, interpret their intent, their language and so on within the context of the constitution, all the other laws that exist, precedent and opinions of legal experts.

So, it ended up with situation, given the requirements about circumstances, that you’d been warned, number of witnesses and so on, that it would take some effort your part to end up under a pile of stones.

This body of comment, interpretation, argument and so on is known to us as ‘Oral Torah’ and you can’t say what the Jewish position on anything is from just reading the Torah (even then you’re faced by ‘two Jews, three opinions’).

[The Catholic Church has been doing this sort of legalistic thing for a couple of thousand years, we’ve just been doing it for a thousand, or so, longer and without the ultimate authority of a Pope and Magisterium. ]

 

[Charlotte408]

Single Bible verses can be twisted, turned, and distorted to allow or explain many different behaviors. The Old Testament is not the best place for a new believer to begin. If you do decide to go that route, it is incumbent on you to find a reliable Bible Study group, or at least a guide. ** For you, a good place to start would be to make an appointment with your priest for you and your friend to discuss the matter with him.**

That is an *excellent *idea.

The thing is that it really doesn’t have anything to do with abortion but everything to do with keeping the peace in the tribe (in the Bronze Age, remember). A man turns up at the Priest’s house moaning on about how naughty his wife has been and, to shut him up, there’s a test - if you read the concoction, it wouldn’t taste good but it wouldn’t do anybody any harm.

You said, ‘if you read the concoction’ - where can I see what this concoction is?

 

[Kaninchen]

You said, ‘if you read the concoction’ - where can I see what this concoction is?

It’s in the text itself. The priest writes the curse down then washes the ink off into some water and adds dust from the temple floor - then she drinks the ink/dust mix.

 

[Charlotte408]

Ran to my bible and read the entire passage again - and THANK YOU!

I see it all so clearly now!

Isn’t that crazy how that happens? How did I miss that? lol.

 

[PJM]

=Charlotte408;8004461]Numbers 5:

22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the LORD and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial** offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.

Can someone help me understand this? Thank you.**

THE ANSWER TO THE OP-Q IS A RESOUNDING YES! The Fifth Commandment: THOU SHALL NOT KILL!

Placed BACK into context the veeses make a great deal more sense.

Num. 5:12-23 "Say to the people of Israel, If any man’s wife goes astray and acts unfaithfully against him, if a man lies with her carnally, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she is undetected though she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her, since she was not taken in the act; and if the spirit of jealousy comes upon him, and he is jealous of his wife who has defiled herself; or if the spirit of jealousy comes upon him, and he is jealous of his wife, though she has not defiled herself; then the man shall bring his wife to the priest, and bring the offering required of her, a tenth of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it and put no frankincense on it, for it is a cereal offering of jealousy, a cereal offering of remembrance, bringing iniquity to remembrance. "And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD; and the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water.
And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and unbind the hair of the woman’s head, and place in her hands the cereal offering of remembrance, which is the cereal offering of jealousy. And in his hand the priest shall have the water of bitterness that brings the curse. Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying, If no man has lain with you, and if you have not turned aside to uncleanness, while you were under your husband's authority, be free from this water of bitterness that brings the curse. But if you have gone astray, though you are under your husband's authority,* and if you have defiled yourself, and some man other than your husband has lain with you, then' (let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse, and say to the woman) the LORD make you an execration and an oath among your people, when the LORD makes your thigh fall away and your body swell; may this water that brings the curse pass into your bowels and make your body swell and your thigh fall away.’ And the woman shall say, `Amen, Amen.’ "Then the priest shall write these curses in a book, and wash them off into the water of bitterness; *

ABORTION IS ALWAYS AND EVERYTIME; MURDER of a Holy Innocent.

Let us pray for all who have had an abortion or has encouraged one AND to an end to this EVIL practice.

God Bless you,
Pat

 

[Big_Dummy]

causes her to lose the child, looks like an abortion to me.

But, who is causing the abortion? God,

Do we really want to play God? And, then be accountable to God for doing that?

 

[Crumpy]

A couple years ago I read the Jewish Publication Society Commentary on the Torah - Numbers.

It offers the insight and explanation that without this testing ritual, the wife suspected of adultery would be summarily put to death.

So, the bitter water ordeal is a way to defuse the husband from killing his wife, whether one considers that justifiable in some sense or not.

I seem to recall their analysis that the water ordeal practiced elsewhere was different, in which the woman was immersed under water somehow. If she survived, then she was innocent. This practice is a lot closer to the idea of putting the woman to death, summarily.

The Temple ordeal puts God in the picture, etc. etc. It makes her survival one of Divine will.

 

[Walter_Maxey]

My friend, she’s become more interested in Christianity since I’ve had my conversion, and I recommended for her to read the bible because I’m no scholar and just reading it myself - and she is.

Instead of just reading the bible front to back, I would read the bible according to the 3 year cycle of readings that the Catholic Church uses, or some other correlative source that ties the Old Testament to the New Testament.

Just an example:

If you just read the story of God asking Abraham to sacrifice his son, you might wonder about God’s all good nature.

But if you read it as foreshadowing (written 2000 years before the foreshadowed event!), for God who, while letting Abraham off the hook, nonetheless sent his only Son to be sacrificed, complete with Jesus, like Isaac, carrying the wood up the hill for the sacrifice…well, then things become more clear, in my opinion.

In my opinion, if you read the Old Testament without the context of the New Testament, you get maybe 10% of what God wants to communicate to you.

 

[Mark_David]

Abortion is certainly in the Bible. It’s the 5th Commandment, Thou shalt not murder.

Amen!

 

[Kaninchen]

A couple years ago I read the Jewish Publication Society Commentary on the Torah - Numbers.

It offers the insight and explanation that without this testing ritual, the wife suspected of adultery would be summarily put to death.

So, the bitter water ordeal is a way to defuse the husband from killing his wife, whether one considers that justifiable in some sense or not.

I seem to recall their analysis that the water ordeal practiced elsewhere was different, in which the woman was immersed under water somehow. If she survived, then she was innocent. This practice is a lot closer to the idea of putting the woman to death, summarily.

I seem to remember that, in Babylon, the punishment for adultery was drowning but I’m suspicious of the ‘ordeal by water immersion’ idea here - it may have been in the Code of Hammurabi but it’s not in the Torah.

The Temple ordeal puts God in the picture, etc. etc. It makes her survival one of Divine will.

I think it was more of a getting the gullible to confess and the vexacious to shut up process.

 

[Oldtimer_7]

In reading a number of translations, the overall gist of v.21 is that it will interfere with a woman’s ability to have children in the future. Only the NEB, a Protestant translation specifically mentions miscarriage. It is implied in the NRSV and the Vulgate, since both of them refer to the uterus. However, even in these translations, the main idea is to cause her to be infertile in the future, a condition that would allow her husband to leave her. Getting this passage to be about abortion is a far stretch at best, and would have to call on non-Catholic sources to even come close. The case against abortion is made much more strongly from other verses. In fact, citing this verse would be counter-productive because it is so far-fetched.