Today’s question is: Is Numbers 5:11-31 referring to God causing an abortion? In
this video I’ll answer that question from a biblical perspective. Then afterwards,
as always, I’ll share some helpful resources, so stick around until the end.
Numbers 5:11–31 describes an unusual procedure, sometimes referred to as the “jealousy offering.”
Others label it “the ordeal of bitter water.” An Israelite man who insisted his wife was
unfaithful—but had no proof—could bring her to the tabernacle for this test. The ritual required an
accusing husband to bring his wife to the priest. The priest would create a concoction of unpleasant
but relatively benign ingredients. The wife would recite an oath and drink the mixture. Guilt was
demonstrated if the woman’s belly swelled and she became sick. If there was no such effect,
her innocence was established. Conviction for adultery would be followed by a possible death
sentence (Leviticus 20:10). Innocence meant clearing her name, putting away all suspicion.
The woman would suffer no ill effects “and will be able to have children” (Numbers 5:28).
Critics label this test a barbaric, superstitious ritual involving sorcery. Others suggest that it
depicts an abortion. Neither view is correct. While bizarre, the rite protected women from
husbands who were overly aggressive or hasty in their judgments. It offered a safe outlet
for male jealousy and prevented emotional or physical abuse. It kept Israelites from visiting
pagan temples. And it would have nearly always exonerated the woman in question.
Many seemingly strange rules of the Old Testament helped mediate a sinful,
fallen culture. And such is the case with the “jealousy offering” or “bitter water
ordeal” of Numbers 5:11–31. It provided a stopgap measure that people could reasonably be expected
to follow. This parallels the Mosaic Law’s procedures for divorce, intended to prevent
women from being easily abused or cast aside (See, Deuteronomy 24:1–4; and Matthew 19:8).
There was nothing magical about the concoction the priest would make to
determine guilt or innocence. Nor would the listed ingredients naturally produce swelling
or severe illness. This implies a supernatural source for a “guilty” sign. In other words,
for a woman to be exposed as blameworthy by the “curse” of this ritual, God would
have to intervene and make the signs appear. This follows the perspective that adultery
is fundamentally wrong as a sin against God, rather than simply an insult to the husband.
It’s also noteworthy that the process is heavy on symbolism and drama. Components
such as temple dust, an offering, water, and the loosening of the hair are representative
of ideas such as repentance, holiness, and submission. One purpose for these
components is the psychological effect they have on participants. Many ancient tests for
innocence were structured in a similar way. A guilty conscience would be strained by fear,
likely leading to a confession before the “curse” could be enacted. The rite was meant to exemplify
the principle explained in Numbers 32:23: “Be sure your sin will find you out.” Some ancient
Jewish commentators even believed the curse would affect the adulterous male, as well.
Those who claim the passage depicts abortion insert concepts not even hinted at in the
text. Part of this confusion stems from the 2011 edition of the NIV, which refers to miscarriage.
Pregnancy is not part of the requirement for the ritual. Nor is pregnancy mentioned anywhere in the
process. The effects include some type of swelling and/or shriveling. Yet the targeted body part is
vague. In fact, it’s the same Hebrew term used to describe the spot where Jacob suffered his
infamous injury (in Genesis 32:25), as well as the place where Ehud hid his sword (Judges 3:16).
At worst, the Numbers 5 passage implies future infertility. The ritual was not
a remedy for an unwanted pregnancy—it was a test for adultery. Traditional
interpretations of the ritual even restricted it from being performed on pregnant women.
In the ancient world, women were often afforded no rights of any kind. Merely being suspected
of adultery was enough justification to be divorced, cast aside, and left destitute. A
man who suspected his wife was unfaithful might batter or even murder her. Or he might employ
a pagan spell that would all but guarantee a guilty verdict. The ritual depicted in Numbers
5:11–31 is an allowance to human nature and to that cultural context, and it had the effect of
greatly reducing the damage done to women. That’s not an endorsement of jealousy or suspicion. Nor
does it include anything reasonably interpreted as an abortion. Unless God supernaturally intervened,
the rite described in Numbers 5 would declare a woman innocent by default.
Want to learn more? Subscribe so you don’t miss the next video! Visit GotQuestions.org
for more great content. And check out the details section below this video,
there you’ll find one book I recommend, along with links to several related questions. If
you’d like to learn about Bible Munch, or if you’re interested in Bite-sized devotionals,
subscribe to Bible Munch on YouTube, it’s linked right here. Now remember,
Got questions? The Bible has answers, we’ll help you find them!