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

[jcrichton]

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-

Tim, no offense taken… I’m a lard butt when it comes to many things; ie: loved chess, a natural they called me while on 4th grade–homeroom teacher gave me a book so that I could prepare for a local tournament… one look kept me off anything but chess as a hobby! :juggle::juggle::juggle:

I understand the distinctions you’ve made… but the fact is that the culture (which includes what I believe are pseudo Believers) do not make such distinctions (the ole gray scale) since they would be obliged to recognize their error (lend-a-dollar-lose-a-friend syndrome); claiming that morality is fluent and spirituality is malleable is their sole recourse… it is the only way that a president of any state can claim that he “would not punish” his daughters by forcing them to bring a pregnancy to term (child birth). It is this blurring of the Truth that tend to corrode the Faith and understanding of even the “religious.”

…I would only add that adultery is also an injustice to God since it is In Him that we are to Live; but those who deny/ignore true Justice seek to change (either by coersion or oppression) not only the heart of the massess but the primordial essence of Christ’s Church.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[babs57]

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

The loss of what child? There is no mention of the woman being necessarily pregnant. If it were apparent that she was pregnant, then there would be no need for the test. This seems to refer to future fertility. Also, it is “the thigh” (ei: the center of the reproductive life, as is the loin for men) that falls away, not the “child” that falls away.

And the word used for “to fall away” is different than the word used for “miscarry” in other passages of the OT:

Jb 3:16
Ec 6:3
Ps 58:9

 

[LongJohnSilver]

Thanks all for replying.

I am still thinking about TimothyH’s reply of Pelvic Prolapse. It sounds likely, but this procedure isn’t just curing a woman from this disease, is it?

 

[TimothyH]

Thanks all for replying.

I am still thinking about TimothyH’s reply of Pelvic Prolapse. It sounds likely, but this procedure isn’t just curing a woman from this disease, is it?

I think the curse was that the woman would get the condition, not be cured of it.

In the original post it was asserted that if the woman had in fact been unfaithful, the ritual would then bring about miscarriage, and was therefor a way to induce a spontaneous abortion. I assert that it does not bring about miscarriage, but brings about pelvic prolapse.

I don’t think it is about curing at all but maybe I am misunderstanding.

-Tim-

 

[LongJohnSilver]

I think the curse was that the woman would get the condition, not be cured of it.

In the original post it was asserted that if the woman had in fact been unfaithful, the ritual would then bring about miscarriage, and was therefor a way to induce a spontaneous abortion. I assert that it does not bring about miscarriage, but brings about pelvic prolapse.

I don’t think it is about curing at all but maybe I am misunderstanding.

-Tim-

Ah I see. Is there anything known about toxics bringing about pelvic prolapse on women? I find the explanation that it was only a threat to bring out the truth in a possibly unfaithful woman sounding quite interesting and maybe probable.

 

[jcrichton]

Ah I see. Is there anything known about toxics bringing about pelvic prolapse on women? I find the explanation that it was only a threat to bring out the truth in a possibly unfaithful woman sounding quite interesting and maybe probable.

…the problem of empty threat is just that… once a woman would know that nothing could happen… what would keep her from having extramarital affairs? …and what of her friends and acquaintances that got the goods on the fake priestly threat, would they not feel more open to extramarital affairs since all they have to do is go through the motions (’…I promise, I promise, nothing happened, the Lord be my witness!’)

…and how would a woman procure a decease that makes her infertile only through a perceived threat?

I think that the operational fact is that she is brought to the priest who then performs a ritual in which the woman commits to dire consequences “in the presense of the Lord.”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Actaeon]

…the problem of empty threat is just that… once a woman would know that nothing could happen… what would keep her from having extramarital affairs? …and what of her friends and acquaintances that got the goods on the fake priestly threat, would they not feel more open to extramarital affairs since all they have to do is go through the motions (’…I promise, I promise, nothing happened, the Lord be my witness!’)

…and how would a woman procure a decease that makes her infertile only through a perceived threat?

I think that the operational fact is that she is brought to the priest who then performs a ritual in which the woman commits to dire consequences “in the presense of the Lord.”

Maran atha!

Angel

Well, to be fair, like I said, there are cases of pelvic prolapse, so the actual threat, while empty, could be backed by the fact that people would have been aware of the fact that the conditions were real and very well COULD happen (and without modern medicine, for all they knew the condition could happen to any woman at any time). The passage likewise doesn’t say that the condition will result IMMEDIATELY… so it’s not like an adulterous woman could just take the rite and then feel like she was safe if she didn’t suffer immediately.

Furthermore, if you look at the conditions under which this rite would apply, there is the stated fact that it is only done when the husband is jealous and there is NO EVIDENCE of actuall infidelity. Because adultery is something that comes and goes based on societal acceptance, and because tribal judaism was not a sexual culture like our present one, and because of the very communal aspect of tribal judaism, we can be sure of a couple things: unlike today, adultery would have been exceedingly rare, and that if there was no evidence, it likely did not happen.

In other words, the interpretation that this is an act of “sympathetic magic” more hinges around assauging the suspicions of jealous husbands than supressing adultery, because the odds in any case of it ACTUALLY dealing with real adultery are low.

 

[jcrichton]

Well, to be fair, like I said, there are cases of pelvic prolapse, so the actual threat, while empty, could be backed by the fact that people would have been aware of the fact that the conditions were real and very well COULD happen (and without modern medicine, for all they knew the condition could happen to any woman at any time). The passage likewise doesn’t say that the condition will result IMMEDIATELY… so it’s not like an adulterous woman could just take the rite and then feel like she was safe if she didn’t suffer immediately.

Furthermore, if you look at the conditions under which this rite would apply, there is the stated fact that it is only done when the husband is jealous and there is NO EVIDENCE of actuall infidelity. Because adultery is something that comes and goes based on societal acceptance, and because tribal judaism was not a sexual culture like our present one, and because of the very communal aspect of tribal judaism, we can be sure of a couple things: unlike today, adultery would have been exceedingly rare, and that if there was no evidence, it likely did not happen.

In other words, the interpretation that this is an act of “sympathetic magic” more hinges around assauging the suspicions of jealous husbands than supressing adultery, because the odds in any case of it ACTUALLY dealing with real adultery are low.

…when we read stories like that of Susana and the Elders we must understand that adultery was not and extinct species in the Hebrew/Jewish kingdom… and the problem with the interpretation that relegates this passage to a naturally occurring decease is that the decease would certainly not distinguish from marital or extramarital relations (unless one were to stipulate that the potion itself contained the virus/contaminant and that the priest would be in cahoots with the husband to cause the decease on an unwanted wife) so both an adulterous and a chaste woman would get the decease regardless of their chaste status.

…as for a direct demonstrative event, most Biblical text do not depict general or inconsequential events–even pertinent events do not always get a huge listings (ie: the battle of the titans: Genesis 3:15!)

FYI: “Curse” does not, in Biblical terms, translates to “magic.”

Maran atha!

Angel