With Due Respect: Does Numbers 5:27 support abortion?

 

Hector and his daughter Liliana from Fire Emblem Cipher 

Often Christians use the Bible to justify their moral or political stance. In this way, we all fall temptation to misquoting the Bible. One example I want to examine today is the Book of Numbers and abortion.

Numbers and abortion
One of the popular Bible quotes for pro-abortion Christians is from Numbers 5:27:

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. (Numbers 5:27; NIV)

In other words, the author of the passage was describing how to cause a miscarriage, which implied that abortion was acceptable during the Old Testament times.

Immediately you should see the fallacies in such an argument.

Fallacy 1: Describing is not the same as endorsing
One giant mistake that such pro-abortionists make is that just because the Bible describes something, it does not mean the Bible supports it.

For instance, in my history blog I often describe horrors of the Japanese Occupation of Singapore. This does not mean that I support such terrors.

Describing the expansion of Imperial Japan is not the same as supporting it.

Fallacy 2: The context is a test for unfaithfulness, not procedure for an abortion.

Even a simple look at the verse in context reveals that the passage is not about abortion, but about punishment for unfaithfulness.

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”— here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. (Numbers 5: 20-21; NIV)

Fallacy 3: The verse is not deliberately causing a miscarriage
While the NIV translators used the term "miscarry", it is not a unanimous translation. The same passage is translated slightly differently even within the English versions.

And when he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has broken faith with her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away, and the woman shall become a curse among her people. (Numbers 5:27; ESV)

When he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall discharge, her uterus drop, and the woman shall become an execration among her people. (Numbers 5:27; NRSVUE)

If she has defiled herself by being unfaithful to her husband, the water that brings on the curse will cause bitter suffering. Her abdomen will swell and her womb will shrink, and her name will become a curse among her people. (Numbers 5:27; NLT)

Comparing the translations, the idea of miscarriage is admittedly unclear. Nevertheless, it is clear that Numbers 5:27 refers to a punishment for the unfaithful wife.

Children are a gift from God

Fallacy 4: The Bible overwhelmingly supports procreation
Lastly it is a mistake to take a single verse and make a stance out of it. The Bible is very clear in its support for childbearing.

For you created my inmost being;
 you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
    your works are wonderful, (Psalms 139: 13- 14; NIV)

Children are a heritage from the Lord,
   offspring a reward from him. (Psalms 127:3; NIV)

Did you not pour me out like milk
    and curdle me like cheese,
 clothe me with skin and flesh
    and knit me together with bones and sinews?
 You gave me life and showed me kindness,
    and in your providence watched over my spirit. (Job 10: 10 -12; NIV)

Conclusion
It is dangerous to twist the Bible for our purposes. We instead, should mediate on the Bible and be inline with God's purposes.

For a summary video:

Alternative Culture: Gutters-- the New Testament, a new reboot?

Recently, the webcomic Gutters portrayed the New Testament as a reboot of the Old Testament, parodying the 2011 DC comics reboot.

Wait... what is a reboot?
In the comic industry, a reboot is to discard all or much of previous continuity of the series to accomodate new ideas. An example of this in the film industry is the 2005 movie Batman Begins, which discards canon in the previous canon.

So is this portrayal of the New Testament accurate? Does it discard the canon of the Old Testament?

What did Jesus say?
When we look at Christainity, we first have to look at Christ, and in this case on how he treated the Old Testament. Jesus treated the Old Testament as something he came to fulfil (Matthew 5:17-21). Jesus also had a high regard for Scripture (John 10:35), and referred to events that happened in the Old Testament (eg: Mark 12:26).

What did his followers say?
The followers of Jesus also made frequent reference. It would make little sense if the disciples intended to discard the Old Testament and yet frequently referred to it (eg: Romans 2:24; 1 Peter 1:16).

So did Jesus disregard anything from the Old Testament?
If he made anything new, Jesus gave a new convenant- one of his blood (Luke 22:20-23). The writer of Hebrews makes this even clearer, especially in Hebrews 8 (and at the same time, alluding to events in the Old Testament.

Wait, but reboots do make references to the past too, right?
That is true. For instance, the Iron Man comic book series received a reboot, which updated his origin from Vietnam to Afghanistan. However, that reboot did not dicard any of his previous stories. However, the New Testament cannot be loosely compared like that as the Old Testament does alludes to events in the New Testament (specifically the life of Jesus), while older story lines in the Iron Man stories do not intentionally allude to the future retcons.

Allusions to the New Testament went as far back as Genesis (eg: Genesis 3:14-15) and found in many of the prophets (eg: Isaiah 53, Isaiah 9:1-2, Micah 5:2). In fact Micah 5:2 was the verse that the wisemen quoted in finding Jesus (which frightened Herod) (Matthew 2: 1-12).

Conclusion
Hence, we see that the New Testament is not a reboot (in the literature sense) because
a) Frequent reference to Old Testament from the New Testament (including Jesus)
b) Future allusions from the Old Testament to the New Testament.

If the New Testament brings anything new, it is the fact that God came down in Jesus, so that we can look at Him for our righteousness and forgiveness.

For further reading

Alpha-- do prophecies about Jesus Matter?
Bethinking-- how did Jesus view the Old Testament?


PS: Gutters is a great parody site for comic book fans!