Miscarriage and Numbers 5 11- 31; Please Read Everything

  • Thread starter Thread starter Avermaria
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Avermaria

Guest
I know this has been discussed before on the forum but not in the manner I wish it to be discussed. I know the interpretation of scripture states that the curse God sends down on an unfaithful woman is one of infertility or possibly death according to some interpretations. One user on here before has stated that the scripture mentions uterine prolapse. My question takes it a little bit further to not abortion but miscarriage. The scripture mentions a woman that has been unfaithful and can involve having sexual relations and becoming pregnant. The rite was used to test if a woman was unfaithful by bringing her to be infertile but if this is done during pregnancy and through uterine prolapse wouldn’t this put the child at danger to miscarriage as a uterine prolapse during pregnancy (according to a short google search) can possibly cause miscarriage? Further, if you argue that the woman’s baby isn’t put at risk and rather the curse’s effects are delayed until after the pregnancy the husband could presume she become infertile or died of childbirth, not the curse unless the curse’s effects look remarkably different to the effects of childbirth?

One explanation that I’ve thought of is that the Lord is just simply able to miscarry the baby because he wants to as he is able to give or take a life when he wants. This isn’t abortion as it’s Double Effect as the death of the child wasn’t the aim of the ritual, the infertility of the woman was, the death of the baby is just an unfortunate side effect of the unfaithfulness and rite.

I dont aim to prove abortion or anything of the like as I am prolife, I just pondered this part of scripture and the answers given by other people troubled me.
 
Last edited:
The Old Testament ceremonial laws are not part of our Christian teachings.

God does not curse women with miscarriages or infertility.
 
Not to upset you but God can do whatever he wants. Just as much as he’s able to give he can take. This includes the fertility of a woman as detailed in Scripture.
 
The drink the priest made doesn’t cause miscarriage, but if God blesses/curses it, it is capable of doing so. It is similar to the Eucharist or Holy water, as both are just bread and water if God doesn’t act on it.
 
So why does this bother you?
As TheLittleLady said in a previous post, we’re no longer under the Mosaic law?
 
i wanted other opinions to see if my interpretation was wrong. I accept that we aren’t under the Mosaic Law but I still seek to understand it and the Old Testament to better understand and love God.
 
Avermaria said:
Not to upset you but God can do whatever he wants.
Click to expand...
Of course He can, but being perfect, He does not have a want to punish women by the taking of innocent life.

And, this
Avermaria said:
The drink the priest made doesn’t cause miscarriage, but if God blesses/curses it, it is capable of doing so. It is similar to the Eucharist or Holy water, as both are just bread and water if God doesn’t act on it.
Click to expand...
is a best misguided, at worst blasphemy…the goodness of the turning the accidents into the body and blood of Christ is for the good, where His causing the death of an innocent is purely evil, which He is not capable of.
 
Last edited:
Then how would you justify God killing the firstborn of Egypt to make Ramses let go of the Hewbrews if you believe it is evil? All the actions God does is good but you say that if he kills an innocent (which he is allowed to do) it’s evil which God is incapable of. Either killing the innocent is good (or at least morally neural) if God does it because he is the Creator and able to give and take life away or you suggest that God is evil which is incorrect.
As for the Eucharist example i simply used that as an example to show how the normal substances have no power on their own but if God does something to them then they do, but on their own they’re no different. I didn’t mean to align that the Eucharist is good that the death of an infant is also good, i just wanted to explain how God acts on the objects.
 
Last edited:
It is appointed to us once to die, after that the judgement. By worry we cannot add one moment to our lifespan. All that is true. I am going to die when I die, God knows when and how that will be.

That does not mean that when someone in my family, including when our second child died before birth, dies that God is punishing me.
 
Avermaria said:
Then how would you justify God killing the firstborn of Egypt to make Ramses let go of the Hewbrews if you believe it is evil?
Click to expand...
Your folly is isolating events outside the full context of the salvation economy.

We should be cognizant of the context, especially in light of Jesus’ preaching to the souls in Sheol or Hades following his crucifixion and death.

Yes, those firstborn Egyptians did indeed lose their biological life, but God, through the death and resurrection of Jesus, had a means for their eternal life.

You seem bent on applying human limitations on a God who is divine.

Rejoice, don’t just lament!
 
Avermaria said:
I just pondered this part of scripture and the answers given by other people troubled me.
Click to expand...
It was a case of using a bit of ‘sympathetic magic’ (only place in the Torah) as a means of quieting vexatious husbands in a tribal, Bronze Age, world. The only harm might be an upset stomach.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top