Is Numeri 5:11-31 an instruction on commiting an abortion?

[LongJohnSilver]

I read a comment on an atheist website which said that Numeri 5:11-31 is an instruction on how to commit an abortion. I read it and I don’t think that can be extracted from the text. But it seems to me a very strange text nonetheless. Can any of you give me a good explanation of what this instruction in Numeri 5 is for and what it means?

11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[c] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.

16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[d] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 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[e] 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. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lord and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.’” [NIV]

 

[Armor_of_Light]

I think it’s safe to say nothing in the Holy Bible condones abortion.

Admitedly, the old testament sounds really harsh and a schooled person such as Dr. Scott Hahn could explain this better.

If anything, it tells me that a woman with an unwanted pregnancy should go see a priest

 

[TimothyH]

It has nothing to do with abortion. It has to do with a medical condition known as Pelvic Prolapse, Uterine Prolapse, or Vaginal Prolapse. The muscles of the pelvic floor become weakend and internal organs do not recieve the proper support. In some cases, internal organs can fall right through the floor of the vagina.

Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prolapse#Female_genital_prolapse

Mayo Clinic: mayoclinic.com/health/uterine-prolapse/DS00700

WebMD: webmd.com/urinary-incontinence-oab/tc/pelvic-organ-prolapse-topic-overview
Older women, women who have had many babies, and those who are pregnant are told by their OB/GYN to do pelvic floor exercises to strengthen the muscles so as to prevent this from happening. Prolapse still happens today.

The translation in the original post is not good. It says “Miscarry” but that is an extremely poor translation. I’d like to know what translation it is because it is very poor and is clearly leading people into extremely grave error.

*And when she hath drunk them, if she be defiled, and having despised her husband be guilty of adultery, the malediction shall go through her, and her belly swelling, her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse, and an example to all the people. (Numbers 5:27 Douay-Rheims)

And when he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has acted unfaithfully against her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her body shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away, and the woman shall become an execration among her people. (Numbers 5:27 RSV)

And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. (Numbers 5:27 King James Version)*

The word “thigh” is an evasive-synonym. They would never say “scrotum” or “penis” or “vagina”, but would use the word “thigh” instead, to convey the same meaning but avoid having to say the actual word.

Abraham said to the senior servant of his household, who had charge of all his possessions: "Put your hand under my thigh, and I will make you swear by the LORD, the God of heaven and the God of earth, that you will not procure a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites among whom I live," (Genesis 24:2-3)

Use your imagination here. Thigh is an evasive-synonym for the male genitals. The servant put his hands on Abraham’s genitals and swore an oath. Wow! Yikes!!! Abraham is saying that if the servant breaks the oath, he is going to cut the servants genitals off. The same use of an evasive-synonym is going on in Numbers 5. Thigh is an evasive-sysnonym, so that the author did not have to name the female genitals. The author is telling us that the woman’s genitals will rot or that the womans gentials will “Fall away”. That’s Uterine Prolapse.

Uterine Prolapse is is still common, especially in third world countries, in areas where women do not recieve adequate nutrition, societies and cultures in which woman are required to engage in hard physical labor. It is more common in women who have had many or very large babies or have pushed for prolonged periods of time. The Israelites prized large families - lots of babies - and life was hard for many. Nutrition was often not adequate in the desert areas and everyone had to work. It is not difficult to imagine Uterine Prolapse being a very common problem.

Nowhere in the bible does it say anything about abortion, but only speaks of children as blessings, strength, and gifts from God. We have to be very careful about reading things into Scripture which are simply not there, and whenever we interpret scripture, we have to try to understand the clear meaning of what the writer was trying to communicate. In this case the passage is a classic use of eveasive-synonymn and has nothing to do with abortion, but everything to do with the very common medical condition known today as Uterine Prolapse.

It has nada, zero, zip, zilch, nothing to do with abortion.

-Tim-

 

[Julia_Mae]

I read a comment on an atheist website which said that Numeri 5:11-31 is an instruction on how to commit an abortion.

20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[d] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 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.”

Unless the ink they used and washed off into the water was an abortifacient, I don’t think it’s exactly instructions on how to commit abortion. However, the curse is supposed to cause exactly that to happen. In medical terms, a miscarriage is an “involuntary abortion.” In this case the priest is doing something that would intentionally cause the fetus to be expelled and die and the woman is agreeing to it.

So the passage shows they not only condoned abortion in the case of the unfaithful wife, but the priest is acting to assure that it happens in cooperation with a husband who caused the action to take place that would make her abort.

 

[cjforJesus]

The spirit of jealousy: This ordinance was designed to clear the innocent, and to prevent jealous husbands from doing mischief to their wives: as likewise to give all a horror of adultery, by punishing it in so remarkable a manner.

This verse has nothing to do with abortion.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Unless the ink they used and washed off into the water was an abortifacient, I don’t think it’s exactly instructions on how to commit abortion. However, the curse is supposed to cause exactly that to happen. In medical terms, a miscarriage is an “involuntary abortion.” In this case the priest is doing something that would intentionally cause the fetus to be expelled and die and the woman is agreeing to it.

So the passage shows they not only condoned abortion in the case of the unfaithful wife, but the priest is acting to assure that it happens in cooperation with a husband who caused the action to take place that would make her abort.

Even in this translation it seems it would be God causing the miscarriage, not a human act of killing the unborn baby. But also there is the post immediately above yours, which claims the whole thing is a translation error.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

The spirit of jealousy: This ordinance was designed to clear the innocent, and to prevent jealous husbands from doing mischief to their wives: as likewise to give all a horror of adultery, by punishing it in so remarkable a manner.

This verse has nothing to do with abortion.

Right. This seems to be one of those parts of the Law designed to protect women from abusive husbands.

 

[TimothyH]

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ABORTION OR MISCARRIAGE OR PREGNANCY OR LOSS OF A FETUS.

The translation in the original post is bad. The NIV is bad.

It has to do with a medical condition known as Uterine Prolapse. See post number 3.

-Tim-

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I read a comment on an atheist website which said that Numeri 5:11-31 is an instruction on how to commit an abortion. I read it and I don’t think that can be extracted from the text. But it seems to me a very strange text nonetheless. Can any of you give me a good explanation of what this instruction in Numeri 5 is for and what it means?

No, it was not a practice designed to cause an " abortion. " The Duay-Rheims w/ Haydock commentary has a lengthy comment. According to his commentary the procedure was seldom used because of the ease with which husbands of that time could procure a writ of divorce. That there is no actual case of it actually having occurred being mentioned in the Bible is no proof that it did not occur.

Accoding to Haydock’s sources the " bitter waters " test was a two edged sword. If the woman was innocent she would bear a healthy son within ten months. If she was guilty she would begin to waste away and die or deliver a still born son within a short time. Apparantly the " curse " actually worked and was regarded as a miracle in early Biblical history.

However, the idea was not that God would cause or approve of an abortion. More than likely, the idea was to keep a child from being born to an unfaithful wife. His reason might also have been to keep a child from being born who might have been neglected because of linguring suspicion on the part of the husband. The Old Testment and even New have numerous accounts of God acting directly to prove a point.

We must remember, an abortion is a premeditated act by a woman and/or her partner to rid themselves of the responsibility of raising a child. This was not the purpose of the " test." The woman was not seeking an abortion, that was actually the last thing she wanted because if she had a healthy child that would prove her innocence. So if she did miscarry it was an act of God as described above and a punishment for the woman.

These are my personal thoughts, I have no source for them excet Faith and common logic.

 

[cjforJesus]

No, it was not a practice designed to cause an " abortion. " The Duay-Rheims w/ Haydock commentary has a lengthy comment. According to his commentary the procedure was seldom used because of the ease with which husbands of that time could procure a writ of divorce. That there is no actual case of it actually having occurred being mentioned in the Bible is no proof that it did not occur.

Accoding to Haydock’s sources the " bitter waters " test was a two edged sword. If the woman was innocent she would bear a healthy son within ten months. If she was guilty she would begin to waste away and die or deliver a still born son within a short time. Apparantly the " curse " actually worked and was regarded as a miracle in early Biblical history.

However, the idea was not that God would cause or approve of an abortion. More than likely, the idea was to keep a child from being born to an unfaithful wife. His reason might also have been to keep a child from being born who might have been neglected because of linguring suspicion on the part of the husband. The Old Testment and even New have numerous accounts of God acting directly to prove a point.

We must remember, an abortion is a premeditated act by a woman and/or her partner to rid themselves of the responsibility of raising a child. This was not the purpose of the " test." The woman was not seeking an abortion, that was actually the last thing she wanted because if she had a healthy child that would prove her innocence. So if she did miscarry it was an act of God as described above and a punishment for the woman.

These are my personal thoughts, I have no source for them excet Faith and common logic.

Since there are no biblical sources to show this curse was ever enacted I would have to say it was a case of exagerration and threat. In spite of what Haydock claims I believe it was figurative and never a literal thing.

 

[Actaeon]

Unless the ink they used and washed off into the water was an abortifacient, I don’t think it’s exactly instructions on how to commit abortion. However, the curse is supposed to cause exactly that to happen. In medical terms, a miscarriage is an “involuntary abortion.” In this case the priest is doing something that would intentionally cause the fetus to be expelled and die and the woman is agreeing to it.

So the passage shows they not only condoned abortion in the case of the unfaithful wife, but the priest is acting to assure that it happens in cooperation with a husband who caused the action to take place that would make her abort.

Actually, if you speak to a jewish rabbi, you will find that your interpretation is completely off the mark.

You see, to the Jews, God in the old testament was capable of allowing people to believe incorrectly if it led humanity in the right direction. The implications of cheating on a primative tribal society are much more grave than they are today, and genetic testing did not exist. We see the harsh consequences in the gospels when the jews wanted to stone an adulteress, and we see it even today in the muslim world.

Obviously, however, something had to be done to sate the appetites of jealous husbands WITHOUT them stoning their innocent spouses to death… after all, the strictures of this practice denote that the husband is jealous but HAS NO EVIDENCE (meaning that he’s most likely jealous for no reason). The majority of women who would have been submitted to this test would have been innocent.

To wit, the test is a form of what is called sympathetic magic. Drinking ink does not cause abortions, and God does not cause miscarriage to punish the mother. The way it works is this: the woman, if she is innocent, will take the harmless drink of ink, dust, and water, and nothing will happen. The jealous husband will (hopefully) be satisfied and will have no legal recourse to kill his spouse.

If the woman is guilty, she will likely refuse to drink the (harmless) concoction… precisely because uterine prolapse IS a real life condition, people of the time would have heard ample stories of how it REALLY had happened to a friend of a friend in the village 30 miles away… they would have been horrified to think that the rumors would confirm the “curse” in this practice as real… and if guilty they would not submit to the test.

In other words, the test given here is a ruse, and the curse is completely bupkis, but it worked because, just like any other form of sympathetic magic, people BELIEVED it would work. Jealous husbands were appeased, and innocent women went back to their lives as faithful wives. And God played down to the jealous and imperfect nature of man to give us a practice which would help us to deal with our primative psychology.

 

[MulusChristi]

Greetings,
I’ve read the Bible twice and didn’t remember this passage. At any rate, I looked up Rashi’s commentary because I wanted to get a Jewish perspective on interpreting the passage. You can find it in the Aquinas Study Bible here: sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/numbers/rashi-on-numbers/chapter-2/chapter-3/chapter-4/chapter-5

Based on what I see there, the original translation looks bad and it does not look like an abortion is occurring but rather a curse on the unfaithful wife.

Rashi has swelling of the abdomen and thighs, which he explains as the part of the adulterous women’s body which was sinning (not much imagination needed there. )

Rashi makes no mention of the fetus being aborted, so I think the curse takes effect after the birth, which might support the prolapse discussed above.

BTW, to the best of my limited knowledge, Judaism has a different attitude about the unborn child. In Catholic theology, the unborn child is always innocent, so taking its life deliberately is always a grave sin. In Jewish theology, the child is not always innocent, so that if its growth is threatening the life of the mother, the mother can “defend” herself against the child threatening her by getting an abortion. Of course we all know what a slippery slope “the life of the mother” is…

 

[jcrichton]

I read a comment on an atheist website which said that Numeri 5:11-31 is an instruction on how to commit an abortion. I read it and I don’t think that can be extracted from the text. But it seems to me a very strange text nonetheless. Can any of you give me a good explanation of what this instruction in Numeri 5 is for and what it means?

…anything in Scriptures can be made to fit any given ideology… I still have a laugh when I come across the “et is found in Scriptures!” themes…

I will highlight the pertinent verses:

11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[c] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.

16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[d] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 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[e] 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. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lord and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.’” [NIV]

…we must remember that Jewish women stayed home (the household must be going through extreme difficulties for the woman to be allowed to work even from her own home) while the husbands/fathers/brothers provided for the household; so when the husband would be away there was a great oportunity for charlatans/players to take advantage of the “lonely” and “bored” wifees; the curse was set to determine if the wife had been guilty of adultery… though it is not fully clear, the curse is similar to that of the “Passover” where the angel of death did not kill the first-born in the homes that had been marked (with blood) as belonging to Yahweh God.

No, Obama has no prayer in finding his “abortion on demand” clause hidden in Scriptures!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Unless the ink they used and washed off into the water was an abortifacient, I don’t think it’s exactly instructions on how to commit abortion. However, the curse is supposed to cause exactly that to happen. In medical terms, a miscarriage is an “involuntary abortion.” In this case the priest is doing something that would intentionally cause the fetus to be expelled and die and the woman is agreeing to it.

So the passage shows they not only condoned abortion in the case of the unfaithful wife, but the priest is acting to assure that it happens in cooperation with a husband who caused the action to take place that would make her abort.

…are you aware that you have made two conflicting statements: paragraph 1: no; paragraph 2: yes.

…the passage speaks of a claim of adultery–the curse is to extract the truth; if the woman has been impregnated by someone other than her husband the curse is to cause her to abort and remain sterile; however, if the husband’s suspicions are unfounded the curse becomes innnert and the woman remains as a blessing (fertile) for the house of Israel.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ABORTION OR MISCARRIAGE OR PREGNANCY OR LOSS OF A FETUS.

The translation in the original post is bad. The NIV is bad.

It has to do with a medical condition known as Uterine Prolapse. See post number 3.

-Tim-

Hi, Tim!

…as I have stated, I am pedestrian at best… but 20/20 hindsight does not help… the operational theme is: suspected of adultery – seek the priest – face a curse from God – be blessed or damned – guilt: curse is fulfilled with the loss of the child and a life of infertility vs. innocense: curse is nutralized and the woman remains fertile and a blessing for the house of Israel.

…if we remove the hindsight diagnosis the fact remains that a curse is placed on adultery and the woman is made infertile; yet, the woman’s purity is proven and the curse voided as she remains fertile.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[wiggbuggie]

It has nothing to do with abortion. It has to do with a medical condition known as Pelvic Prolapse, Uterine Prolapse, or Vaginal Prolapse. The muscles of the pelvic floor become weakend and internal organs do not recieve the proper support. In some cases, internal organs can fall right through the floor of the vagina.

Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prolapse#Female_genital_prolapse

Mayo Clinic: mayoclinic.com/health/uterine-prolapse/DS00700

WebMD: webmd.com/urinary-incontinence-oab/tc/pelvic-organ-prolapse-topic-overview
Older women, women who have had many babies, and those who are pregnant are told by their OB/GYN to do pelvic floor exercises to strengthen the muscles so as to prevent this from happening. Prolapse still happens today.

The translation in the original post is not good. It says “Miscarry” but that is an extremely poor translation. I’d like to know what translation it is because it is very poor and is clearly leading people into extremely grave error.

And when she hath drunk them, if she be defiled, and having despised her husband be guilty of adultery, the malediction shall go through her, and her belly swelling, her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse, and an example to all the people. (Numbers 5:27 Douay-Rheims)

And when he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has acted unfaithfully against her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her body shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away, and the woman shall become an execration among her people. (Numbers 5:27 RSV)

And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. (Numbers 5:27 King James Version)

The word “thigh” is an evasive-synonym. They would never say “scrotum” or “penis” or “vagina”, but would use the word “thigh” instead, to convey the same meaning but avoid having to say the actual word.

Abraham said to the senior servant of his household, who had charge of all his possessions: "Put your hand under my thigh, and I will make you swear by the LORD, the God of heaven and the God of earth, that you will not procure a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites among whom I live," (Genesis 24:2-3)

Use your imagination here. Thigh is an evasive-synonym for the male genitals. The servant put his hands on Abraham’s genitals and swore an oath. Wow! Yikes!!! Abraham is saying that if the servant breaks the oath, he is going to cut the servants genitals off. The same use of an evasive-synonym is going on in Numbers 5. Thigh is an evasive-sysnonym, so that the author did not have to name the female genitals. The author is telling us that the woman’s genitals will rot or that the womans gentials will “Fall away”. That’s Uterine Prolapse.

Uterine Prolapse is is still common, especially in third world countries, in areas where women do not recieve adequate nutrition, societies and cultures in which woman are required to engage in hard physical labor. It is more common in women who have had many or very large babies or have pushed for prolonged periods of time. The Israelites prized large families - lots of babies - and life was hard for many. Nutrition was often not adequate in the desert areas and everyone had to work. It is not difficult to imagine Uterine Prolapse being a very common problem.

Nowhere in the bible does it say anything about abortion, but only speaks of children as blessings, strength, and gifts from God. We have to be very careful about reading things into Scripture which are simply not there, and whenever we interpret scripture, we have to try to understand the clear meaning of what the writer was trying to communicate. In this case the passage is a classic use of eveasive-synonymn and has nothing to do with abortion, but everything to do with the very common medical condition known today as Uterine Prolapse.

It has nada, zero, zip, zilch, nothing to do with abortion.

-Tim-

thanks for the interesting read, I should pick up a douay rheims soon

 

[TimothyH]

Hi, Tim!

…as I have stated, I am pedestrian at best… but 20/20 hindsight does not help… the operational theme is: suspected of adultery – seek the priest – face a curse from God – be blessed or damned – guilt: curse is fulfilled with the loss of the child and a life of infertility vs. innocense: curse is nutralized and the woman remains fertile and a blessing for the house of Israel.

…if we remove the hindsight diagnosis the fact remains that a curse is placed on adultery and the woman is made infertile; yet, the woman’s purity is proven and the curse voided as she remains fertile.

Maran atha!

Angel

I understand the spiritual sense - obedience to God under the covenant, blessing and curse - I get it.

But there are people who believe that this passage has to do with abortion, and that it is scriptural proof that abortion was commanded by God! That’s the whole reason why I am making such a big deal about it. I’m not making so much noise to prove anyone wrong, but to simply point out that it has nothing to do with abortion or loss of a fetus as a means to correct any misunderstanding about God ever having approved of abortion.

One of the rules of Catholic interpretation of scipture is to understand the literal sense first. After we have a proper understanding of what the plain meaning of what the author was trying to say, then we can move to the spiritual senses. Understanding the literal sense of Scripture first, and then discerning the spiritual senses is the ancient, traditional method of scriptural interpetation taught by the Church, recommended by Popes and used by theologians from the very beginnings of the Church.

Let the interpreters bear in mind that their foremost and greatest endeavor should be to discern and define clearly that sense of the biblical words which is called literal. Aided by the context and by comparison with similar passages, let them therefore by means of their knowledge of languages search out with all diligence the literal meaning of the words; all these helps indeed are wont to be pressed into service in the explanation also of profane writers, so that the mind of the author may be made abundantly clear. (Divino Afflante §23, Pope Pius X11)

You can read about the senses of scripture in the Catechism, paragraphs 115 through 119

There is a good article about the senses of scripture on the Sacred Page blog.

Any interpetation which sees the literal sense of the passage as having to do with abortion or miscarriage of a fetus is just plain wrong. Pelvic Prolapse is not a 20/20 hindsight diagnosis. . It was more common at that time then it is today. To say that the passage has anything to do with abortion or the loss of a fetus is to lead people into error. There are people who use this passage to claim scriptural proof of the acceptablity of abortion!!!

The following references writings about the subject from 1800 and 1500 years before Christ respectively.

Uterine prolapse is an ailment that has seemingly affected women for all of time. In fact, the problem of uterine prolapse and its potential treatment is described in the oldest documented medical literature, the Egyptian Papyri, where it is written, “of a woman whose posterior, belly, and branching of her thighs are painful, say thou as to it, it is the falling of the womb,” (Kahun papyrus ca. 1835 B.C.E.) [1]. The Ebers papyrus goes on to recommend “to correct a displaced womb: with oil of earth (petroleum) with fedder (manure) and honey; rub the body of the patient,” (Ebers papyrus ca. 1550 B.C.E.) [2].

Read More: Uterine Prolapse: From Antiquity to Today, Obstetrics and Gynecology International, Keith T. Downing, Einstien College of Medicine.

I understand the spiritual sense. Yes, I get it. But there are people who believe that this passage has to do with abortion, and that it is scriptural proof that abortion was commanded by God! That’s the whole reason why I am making so much noise.

Young men are convincing their girlfriends that aboration is acceptable and young woman are contemplating murdering their children because of a misunderstanding of what this passage is about. That’s why my cage is rattled.

-Tim-

 

[jcrichton]

I understand the spiritual sense - obedience to God under the covenant, blessing and curse - I get it.

But there are people who believe that this passage has to do with abortion, and that it is scriptural proof that abortion was commanded by God! That’s the whole reason why I am making such a big deal about it. I’m not making so much noise to prove anyone wrong, but to simply point out that it has nothing to do with abortion or loss of a fetus as a means to correct any misunderstanding about God ever having approved of abortion.

One of the rules of Catholic interpretation of scipture is to understand the literal sense first. After we have a proper understanding of what the plain meaning of what the author was trying to say, then we can move to the spiritual senses. Understanding the literal sense of Scripture first, and then discerning the spiritual senses is the ancient, traditional method of scriptural interpetation taught by the Church, recommended by Popes and used by theologians from the very beginnings of the Church.

Let the interpreters bear in mind that their foremost and greatest endeavor should be to discern and define clearly that sense of the biblical words which is called literal. Aided by the context and by comparison with similar passages, let them therefore by means of their knowledge of languages search out with all diligence the literal meaning of the words; all these helps indeed are wont to be pressed into service in the explanation also of profane writers, so that the mind of the author may be made abundantly clear. (Divino Afflante §23, Pope Pius X11)

You can read about the senses of scripture in the Catechism, paragraphs 115 through 119

There is a good article about the senses of scripture on the Sacred Page blog.

Any interpetation which sees the literal sense of the passage as having to do with abortion or miscarriage of a fetus is just plain wrong. Pelvic Prolapse is not a 20/20 hindsight diagnosis. . It was more common at that time then it is today. To say that the passage has anything to do with abortion or the loss of a fetus is to lead people into error. There are people who use this passage to claim scriptural proof of the acceptablity of abortion!!!

The following references writings about the subject from 1800 and 1500 years before Christ respectively.

Uterine prolapse is an ailment that has seemingly affected women for all of time. In fact, the problem of uterine prolapse and its potential treatment is described in the oldest documented medical literature, the Egyptian Papyri, where it is written, “of a woman whose posterior, belly, and branching of her thighs are painful, say thou as to it, it is the falling of the womb,” (Kahun papyrus ca. 1835 B.C.E.) [1]. The Ebers papyrus goes on to recommend “to correct a displaced womb: with oil of earth (petroleum) with fedder (manure) and honey; rub the body of the patient,” (Ebers papyrus ca. 1550 B.C.E.) [2].

Read More: Uterine Prolapse: From Antiquity to Today, Obstetrics and Gynecology International, Keith T. Downing, Einstien College of Medicine.

I understand the spiritual sense. Yes, I get it. But there are people who believe that this passage has to do with abortion, and that it is scriptural proof that abortion was commanded by God! That’s the whole reason why I am making so much noise.

Young men are convincing their girlfriends that aboration is acceptable and young woman are contemplating murdering their children because of a misunderstanding of what this passage is about. That’s why my cage is rattled.

-Tim-

…got you!

…again, I’m quite pedestrian… so when God states: “be fruitful and multiply,” I simply do not see abortion as part of that equation… but, as you’ve stated, not everyone is truly seeking to know the Truth but rather so find an excuse for their deeds/desires; sadly, those “Christians” tend to follow social morals rather than God’s (as the pseudo concern for social justice which some “nuns” and other “religious” puport to champion against clear Scriptural Teaching); your posts are quite welcomed… they are never noice… my concern is as yours: a response to manipulation or misuse of Scriptures.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[TimothyH]

…got you!

…again, I’m quite pedestrian… so when God states: “be fruitful and multiply,” I simply do not see abortion as part of that equation… but, as you’ve stated, not everyone is truly seeking to know the Truth but rather so find an excuse for their deeds/desires; sadly, those “Christians” tend to follow social morals rather than God’s (as the pseudo concern for social justice which some “nuns” and other “religious” puport to champion against clear Scriptural Teaching); your posts are quite welcomed… they are never noice… my concern is as yours: a response to manipulation or misuse of Scriptures.

Maran atha!

Angel

A couple of points. I don’t mean to lecture but find language such a barrier. I hope you don’t take it that way.

What you are talking about are mores (pronounced “Morays”), not morals. Morals are objective because they are from God. Mores are societal in origin, and may or may not correspond to morals. God gives us morals. Society gives us mores.

Also on the subject of justice… All sin is injustice. There is the idea among Catholics today that there is somehow a seperation between social justice and personal morals, and this really isn’t the case. Injustice is denial of something which belongs to someone by right. Adultery is an injustice against the injured spouse because it denies the spouse fidelity, robs the injured spouse of trust, and gives to another what belongs to the spouse excusively - namely intimate physical contact. All of these belong to the spouse and when they are denied that, an injustice has been committed.

Sex outside of marriage is an injustice to the child which is born because it robs them of a two parent home which is theirs by right, and the same holds true of divorce. Abortion and euthanasia is a great injustice because they rob people of the life which only God has the right to take.

All sin, whether against God alone or against both God and man, is injustice. There is no seperation between social justice and personal morality. We can argue about the specific positions taken by the nuns and religious mentioned in your post, and how best to remedy social injustice, but the idea that sins of social injustice (in general) and sins of personal morality are somehow completely different and unrelated is not true.

God is a God of justice, and that applies to both the individual and society as a whole. Isreal was led out of Egypt as a group, and recieved blessing and curse as a group. Justice and injustice are universal in the Bible. It is just as much of an injustice when someone in Africa starves while we as a nation throw food in the garbage as it is for us to barbeque filet mignon while our next door neighbor starves.

-Tim-

 

[SuperLuigi]

I read a comment on an atheist website which said that Numeri 5:11-31 is an instruction on how to commit an abortion. I read it and I don’t think that can be extracted from the text. But it seems to me a very strange text nonetheless. Can any of you give me a good explanation of what this instruction in Numeri 5 is for and what it means?

No