Exodus 21:22-25 gives us some perspective on how the ancient Hebrews dealt with this issue. In the event that fighting causes a pregnant woman to be struck, and she gives birth prematurely, then a judge will determine the appropriate fine. The portions of the text that the NIV renders "gives birth prematurely" also mean "miscarries." Preemies didn't fare so well in the ancient world...the assumption should be that this event automatically implies the loss of the fetus. The primary concern of this text is the harm that may or may not occur to the woman. If the woman is harmed, then the strictures on taking a life for a life, an eye for an eye, and a bicuspid for a bicuspid apply. If not, then it's a property issue.
Some might argue that the "harm" here speaks of the life of the fetus, but the placement of this passage within the legal code speaks against that position. Note that we're in a transitional section that talks about the destruction of property, beginning with strictures regarding slaves in verse 20, and continuing on to matters of oxen and other livestock in verses 28-36.
We've also got the issue of children conceived out of wedlock. This process is dealt with in two ways in Torah. First, there's Leviticus 20:10, which counsels death as the punishment for adultery. Whether or not there's a "pre-born" involved isn't even a factor. To put it bluntly, everybody involved gets aborted. There'd be far fewer visits to Planned Parenthood offices if that were still standard procedure.
A more troubling passage, though, comes in Numbers 5:11-31 . This rather horrid section describes an Ancient Israelite procedure by which women
suspected of adultery are brought in to the temple by their husbands. There, the husband makes payment to the temple, and the woman is required to drink a "bitter" concoction which is administered by the temple priest. If she hasn't committed adultery, then nothing happens. If she has, then the substance causes a physical reaction. That reaction is translated in the NIV as "..her abdomen will swell and her thigh waste away."
The NIV's translation here doesn't capture the nuance of what this means in the Hebrew, though. The waters of bitterness don't turn you into a skinny-legged fatty. The Hebrew word bitnek, which the NIV translates as "abdomen," is used elsewhere in Torah exclusively as a term for womb (see Deut.
7:13; Deut. 28:4; Deut. 28:11; Deut. 30:9). A closer translation would be "her womb shall discharge, and her uterus drop," or she will "have a miscarrying womb and barrenness." A good study NIV should have this in the liner notes. The bottom line is that this substance, to be administered to a woman who is suspected of adultery, induces miscarriage and barrenness. If her misdeed had resulted in pregnancy, the effect would be as of an abortifacient. This isn't an easy passage for fundamentalists. The Bible prescribing forced abortions...in the temple? Ack. For both "life" and "choice" sides, this passage doesn't exactly make you want to cart out Matthew 5:17-18.
What these passages strongly suggest is that in the Biblical worldview articulated in Torah, there was not significant and sustained concern for the lives of the "pre-born." They were either considered the equivalent of property, or irrelevant. A woman's "right to choose" ain't a priority, neither.
But there's much to be found elsewhere in scripture on this topic, so it's to the prophets and the New Testament that I'll go next.
Good post. I think there are compelling arguments against abortion, but you have pointed out that the OT isn't exactly the best place to find them, contrary to popular belief. In any case, we should focus on helping people be able to forego abortions rather than trying to argue and change the political system.
I'd never connected the bitter drink as an abortifacient. For some reason I think I had kind of connected that to something like the salem witch trials (I don't know why. . . that's kind of a weird correlation). Anyway, that would take some wind out the sails of some militant prolifers. I guess I have only ever heard abortion condemned out of the OT (which I agree with upsidedownkingdom, is not the best place to find those arguments). I think something like the sanctity of life would be a better argument against abortion. . .
I don’t have time to look at everything at the moment. However, I would like to briefly hit up the "bitter waters" section. The first thing that must be recognized is simple. The "bitter water" test is only used when the wife leads a life of innocence (there are no witnesses against her and she has not been caught in the act) - she is essentially pleading not guilty.
(From tektonics for the sake of time)
Num 5.12--the trial of bitter waters (Sotah) is an amazing provision by God for a woman to publicly clear her name (and indict a dysfunctional husband in the process). This is the procedure invoked by a jealous and/or paranoid husband who suspected his wife of infidelity. God gave this law to protect the woman from physical and economic abuse from a capricious and petty husband. In many of the cultures of that day, men had absolute dictatorial rights over their wives. If they suspected adultery, they were allowed to kill the woman without any appeal on her part. There was not a process of justice, or process where they BOTH had to appear before a higher authority. In fact, in the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1720 BC.), CH 132, women who were suspected of this type of infidelity were required to throw themselves into the Euphrates river--if they drown, they were guilty; if not, they were innocent! (Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 171). God would instead provide a public vindication process, before His leaders, his people, and the couple. If the woman was vindicated, the man would bear the stigma of unfounded and paranoid jealousy, and slanderous accusation before his friends/family (with possible legal consequences). Her rights were protected by this very ceremony. This was a very, very advanced pro-women procedure for those times.
-- By comparison, in the other law codes of that time, ANYONE could accuse her and force her to undergo the River Ordeal(!). So, the Laws of Ur-Nammu, 14 [ca. 2100bc, Ur in Sumer]: "If a man accuses the wife of a young man of promiscuity but the River Ordeal clears her..." (LCMAM:18).
drink a "bitter" concoction which is administered by the temple priest. If she hasn't committed adultery, then nothing happens. If she has, then the substance causes a physical reaction.
I must say that you seem to be reading into the scriptures. The bitter water is actually merely: "...some holy water in a clay jar (with) some dust from the tabernacle floor (in) the water..."
The priest then purposes an oath that the woman agrees to in order to prove her innocence. If she is guilty (and lying before the priest and God), than a curse of barrenness will fall upon her. Barrenness is used repeatedly as a supernatural punishment throughout scriptures, and to argue it is the same as an abortion is a stretch, and also implies that sovereign punishment in the scriptures is no different than individual choice each and everyday. If she is not guilty - she has proven herself innocent in a public place before Israel, showing her accusing husband up in public.
The main point in this explination is this: The substance itself doesn't cause the physical reaction. It is important to look at the heavy use of the word "curse" rather than your implication that the bitter water is actually some sort of abortion tool/poison. The curse aspect is out of the hands of man, insomuch that the Father has the power to enforce the curse of bareness or not. Putting such things in the hands of the Father is hardly something that is horrid as you imply. Rather, as shown above, the whole process is unique and seems incredibly wise. No one can prove guilt...let the Father handle it through a public covenant agreement.
"Amazing provision by God for a woman?" "A very, very advanced pro-women procedure?" I suppose that's why her accuser instigates and pays for the ritual. The woman is at no juncture in the text identified as a significant actor in the process. There is also not a whiff of the presumption of innocence in the text...verses 12 and 13 imply precisely the opposite. True, it wasn't as barbaric as other procedures in the region. But casting this as an event filled with enlightened grace is a wee bit of a stretch. At some point, presupposition becomes sophistry.
The oath and the curse do play a substantial role. Whether any response is psychosomatic, the result of substances in the "water that brings the curse" (both "dust" and an immersion in some form of ink used for writing, see v. 23), or a manifestation of divine wrath is unclear. You and the apologetics of tektonics favor the latter, so let's take the assertion from your comment at face value. If it is a curse, and she is in fact guilty, would you then assert that it is God's power that would cause the effect described in verse 27? If she was pregnant as a result of her infidelity, would then the abortion that results be a work of the Lord? I can see where one could answer yes to that, in deference to divine sovereignty. But then you're asserting--and I'll try to articulate this from a pro-life perspective--that God killed innocent pre-born children to punish their adulterous mothers.
I suppose that's why her accuser instigates and pays for the ritual.
I dont see how this changes my assertions.
The woman is at no juncture in the text identified as a significant actor in the process.
Other than she is the one swearing an Oath before everyone - and then drinking. I would say she is the central actor. If the accuser truly believes she is adulterous, the only course left is through this process which makes her (and more importantly her word before God) the central actor. Thats my point.
Verses 12 and 13 are talking to the accuser, mainly saying this. If you think your wife is adulterous, yet you dont have any real proof of her being guilty, you have the option of her swearing publically that she is pure - with God determining the truth of the oath. The key of my point is actually verse 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..."
Before we look at the three options you posit, let me clear one thing up. To the best of me knowledge, we dont have anything saying the woman is pregnant even if she is guilty of adultery! To assume that an adulterous woman in a culture such as Israel would be autimatically be with child at the time of adultery is to assume the woman a fool in my mind.
Now, keeping verse 14 in mind, lets look to the three options you posit. The first, psychosomatic, seems hardly probible. Not only does it fail to exercise justice (to assume all guilty parties would experience psychosomatic and all non guilty wouldn't is a stretch ), it also assumes the process (which would be known to all woman) would cause stress. If a woman is committing adultery, she would know that the process may eventually be before her and would have dealt with the possible stress. Miscarriage because of stress happens, but not often.
Option two, the result of the water, would imply the water would cause the barreness regardless of the parties innocence. Throughout scriptures, the Father is the protector of the innocent, especially women and children, not the other way around. For the Father to condone and create a process that claims to show the truth of the matter - yet always brings barreness despite the possiblity of innocence is to claim a just God injustice. If we do assume the "bitter" water is a poison of sorts - then we have to assume there is knowingly no justice being played out.
That leaves the third option. For which the answer is simple. Throughout scriptures Curses and Blessings have profound effect. If she knowingly curses herself and her children - God cannot deny that choice. In effect, God didn't "kill" - She did by speaking death over herself and her body when lying. (Keep in mind...we dont know that she is in fact pregnant at the time.) v27. ...and she will become accursed among her people.
I remind you - to lie before God, Priest and man is a serious offense during this time. An oath is of the utmost importance.
Finally, I still claim this process is designed to protect the innocent more than punish the guilty. It is a process that gives weight to the claims of the innocent.
28 If, however, the woman has not defiled herself and is free from impurity, she will beclearedof guilt and will be able to have children. (Possibly implying she isn't with child...?)
In finishing, I remind you that barreness is a common curse upon Israel during this time, both self induced through immoral choices (and God telling them what their choices would result in) and God induced in punishment.
Its been real.
Its been good.
Its been real good. ;)
I look foward to your next post.
While I recognize that the early writings of the apostles and their disciples are not canon, I found it interesting that in the Didache, which was early-on considered for the canon of Scriptures, chapter 2, verse 2, we find (As translated by J.B. Lightfoot): " 2 You shall do no murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not corrupt boys, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not deal in magic, you shall do no sorcery, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born, you shall not covet your neighbor's goods, you shall not perjure yourself, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not speak evil, you shall not cherish a grudge, you shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued"
The only point I would make here is that in the early church (first century after Christ death and resurrection), killing the unborn was considered wrong and sinful.
LaleoCafe: A valid point, even if extra-scriptural.
Insometry: Or, reading the text as it reads, it gives an opportunity for an accuser to ritually humiliate the one they suspect, and possibly inflict a heavy punishment on them and, by extension, any child they're bearing. There are portions of scripture that don't need to be defended...I'd contend that this is one of them. You clearly see Numbers 5 as positive, and I do understand the underlying theological assumptions that oblige you to that view. Ah well. Thanks for the exchange!
I'm a lil confused by this one. Are you saying that it would be appropriate to view teh unborn as property or go back to the same seemingly careless attitude toward them? I'm hoping that I missed something...and I'm going to read the next post on this topic.
If this was the treatment of unborn children at the time, then it is a dark place in our human history and should be considered disgraceful. Women were treated as property also and as a feminist, I find it to be horrifyingly primative.
Go back to THAT? Goodness no. It's a reflection of the worldview that created that particular passage, not my own.
Good! What a superb write-up! A particular advice:In case you atart exercising . pix, it will be easiler to stick to!
This is a very good blog. I appreciate very much this text, thank you, let me know so I have moved the article. By "> Air Jordan shoes
Comments (14)
I don’t have time to look at everything at the moment. However, I would like to briefly hit up the "bitter waters" section. The first thing that must be recognized is simple. The "bitter water" test is only used when the wife leads a life of innocence (there are no witnesses against her and she has not been caught in the act) - she is essentially pleading not guilty.
(From tektonics for the sake of time)
Num 5.12--the trial of bitter waters (Sotah) is an amazing provision by God for a woman to publicly clear her name (and indict a dysfunctional husband in the process). This is the procedure invoked by a jealous and/or paranoid husband who suspected his wife of infidelity. God gave this law to protect the woman from physical and economic abuse from a capricious and petty husband. In many of the cultures of that day, men had absolute dictatorial rights over their wives. If they suspected adultery, they were allowed to kill the woman without any appeal on her part. There was not a process of justice, or process where they BOTH had to appear before a higher authority. In fact, in the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1720 BC.), CH 132, women who were suspected of this type of infidelity were required to throw themselves into the Euphrates river--if they drown, they were guilty; if not, they were innocent! (Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 171). God would instead provide a public vindication process, before His leaders, his people, and the couple. If the woman was vindicated, the man would bear the stigma of unfounded and paranoid jealousy, and slanderous accusation before his friends/family (with possible legal consequences). Her rights were protected by this very ceremony. This was a very, very advanced pro-women procedure for those times.
-- By comparison, in the other law codes of that time, ANYONE could accuse her and force her to undergo the River Ordeal(!). So, the Laws of Ur-Nammu, 14 [ca. 2100bc, Ur in Sumer]: "If a man accuses the wife of a young man of promiscuity but the River Ordeal clears her..." (LCMAM:18).
drink a "bitter" concoction which is administered by the temple priest. If she hasn't committed adultery, then nothing happens. If she has, then the substance causes a physical reaction.
I must say that you seem to be reading into the scriptures. The bitter water is actually merely: "...some holy water in a clay jar (with) some dust from the tabernacle floor (in) the water..."
The priest then purposes an oath that the woman agrees to in order to prove her innocence. If she is guilty (and lying before the priest and God), than a curse of barrenness will fall upon her. Barrenness is used repeatedly as a supernatural punishment throughout scriptures, and to argue it is the same as an abortion is a stretch, and also implies that sovereign punishment in the scriptures is no different than individual choice each and everyday. If she is not guilty - she has proven herself innocent in a public place before Israel, showing her accusing husband up in public.
The main point in this explination is this: The substance itself doesn't cause the physical reaction. It is important to look at the heavy use of the word "curse" rather than your implication that the bitter water is actually some sort of abortion tool/poison. The curse aspect is out of the hands of man, insomuch that the Father has the power to enforce the curse of bareness or not. Putting such things in the hands of the Father is hardly something that is horrid as you imply. Rather, as shown above, the whole process is unique and seems incredibly wise. No one can prove guilt...let the Father handle it through a public covenant agreement.
The oath and the curse do play a substantial role. Whether any response is psychosomatic, the result of substances in the "water that brings the curse" (both "dust" and an immersion in some form of ink used for writing, see v. 23), or a manifestation of divine wrath is unclear. You and the apologetics of tektonics favor the latter, so let's take the assertion from your comment at face value. If it is a curse, and she is in fact guilty, would you then assert that it is God's power that would cause the effect described in verse 27? If she was pregnant as a result of her infidelity, would then the abortion that results be a work of the Lord? I can see where one could answer yes to that, in deference to divine sovereignty. But then you're asserting--and I'll try to articulate this from a pro-life perspective--that God killed innocent pre-born children to punish their adulterous mothers.
I suppose that's why her accuser instigates and pays for the ritual.
I dont see how this changes my assertions.
The woman is at no juncture in the text identified as a significant actor in the process.
Other than she is the one swearing an Oath before everyone - and then drinking. I would say she is the central actor. If the accuser truly believes she is adulterous, the only course left is through this process which makes her (and more importantly her word before God) the central actor. Thats my point.
Verses 12 and 13 are talking to the accuser, mainly saying this. If you think your wife is adulterous, yet you dont have any real proof of her being guilty, you have the option of her swearing publically that she is pure - with God determining the truth of the oath. The key of my point is actually verse 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..."
Before we look at the three options you posit, let me clear one thing up. To the best of me knowledge, we dont have anything saying the woman is pregnant even if she is guilty of adultery! To assume that an adulterous woman in a culture such as Israel would be autimatically be with child at the time of adultery is to assume the woman a fool in my mind.
Now, keeping verse 14 in mind, lets look to the three options you posit. The first, psychosomatic, seems hardly probible. Not only does it fail to exercise justice (to assume all guilty parties would experience psychosomatic and all non guilty wouldn't is a stretch ), it also assumes the process (which would be known to all woman) would cause stress. If a woman is committing adultery, she would know that the process may eventually be before her and would have dealt with the possible stress. Miscarriage because of stress happens, but not often.
Option two, the result of the water, would imply the water would cause the barreness regardless of the parties innocence. Throughout scriptures, the Father is the protector of the innocent, especially women and children, not the other way around. For the Father to condone and create a process that claims to show the truth of the matter - yet always brings barreness despite the possiblity of innocence is to claim a just God injustice. If we do assume the "bitter" water is a poison of sorts - then we have to assume there is knowingly no justice being played out.
That leaves the third option. For which the answer is simple. Throughout scriptures Curses and Blessings have profound effect. If she knowingly curses herself and her children - God cannot deny that choice. In effect, God didn't "kill" - She did by speaking death over herself and her body when lying. (Keep in mind...we dont know that she is in fact pregnant at the time.) v27. ...and she will become accursed among her people.
I remind you - to lie before God, Priest and man is a serious offense during this time. An oath is of the utmost importance.
Finally, I still claim this process is designed to protect the innocent more than punish the guilty. It is a process that gives weight to the claims of the innocent.
28 If, however, the woman has not defiled herself and is free from impurity, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children. (Possibly implying she isn't with child...?)
In finishing, I remind you that barreness is a common curse upon Israel during this time, both self induced through immoral choices (and God telling them what their choices would result in) and God induced in punishment.
Its been real.
Its been good.
Its been real good. ;)
I look foward to your next post.
While I recognize that the early writings of the apostles and their disciples are not canon, I found it interesting that in the Didache, which was early-on considered for the canon of Scriptures, chapter 2, verse 2, we find (As translated by J.B. Lightfoot): " 2 You shall do no murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not corrupt boys, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not deal in magic, you shall do no sorcery, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born, you shall not covet your neighbor's goods, you shall not perjure yourself, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not speak evil, you shall not cherish a grudge, you shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued"
The only point I would make here is that in the early church (first century after Christ death and resurrection), killing the unborn was considered wrong and sinful.
To read more and other translations of the Didache, visit Early Christian Writings
God bless.
Insometry: Or, reading the text as it reads, it gives an opportunity for an accuser to ritually humiliate the one they suspect, and possibly inflict a heavy punishment on them and, by extension, any child they're bearing. There are portions of scripture that don't need to be defended...I'd contend that this is one of them. You clearly see Numbers 5 as positive, and I do understand the underlying theological assumptions that oblige you to that view. Ah well. Thanks for the exchange!
If this was the treatment of unborn children at the time, then it is a dark place in our human history and should be considered disgraceful. Women were treated as property also and as a feminist, I find it to be horrifyingly primative.
Good! What a superb write-up! A particular advice:In case you atart exercising . pix, it will be easiler to stick to!
This is a very good blog. I appreciate very much this text, thank you, let me know so I have moved the article.
By "> Air Jordan shoes
I really like your blog, wrote brilliantly, thank you for sharing!
By Jordan Retro 11
jordan 6 retro package