Is the Weird Story in Numbers 5 about Abortion?

Sarah and Hagar ( Winceslas Hollar )

This post isn’t about entering the abortion debate. I am only addressing whether the Bible “speaks to” abortion, namely one particular passage that is sometimes brought up in this regard:  the truly odd law in Numbers 5:11-31 about what to do if a man suspects his wife of committing adultery.

Two things about this passage. (1) To repeat, it is very, very weird. Like, “Why is this even in the Bible?” weird. Like, ‘Dear Lord, can we just delete this part of the Bible?” weird.  (2) More germane to this post, the Hebrew of two crucial parts of this passage is ambiguous. 

The passage concerns a husband’s suspicion that his wife has been unfaithful, but there are no witnesses to the act. The husband has a “spirit of jealousy” (verse 14) come over him, which sounds to me like a flimsy reason for what is to come. Regardless, this law (mind you, a law from God on Mt. Sinai) is about steps the husband can take to see if his suspicions are correct. 

To cut to the chase, the way to find out if the woman is guilty (the other man’s guilt is not addressed) is for the priest to make a concoction in an earthen vessel of holy water and dust from the tabernacle floor. The purpose of this concoction is for the woman to ingest it in order to establish the woman’s guilt or innocence. (Try explaining and defending that to your unbelieving friends.)

Can I say one more time that this is weird? It gives off a folkloric feel, but let’s not let that weirdness derail us. The specific issue I am concerned about here is what the punishment itself actually is. And to get to that, we need to look at two more passages from this story. 

The first is verses 19-22:

If no man has lain with you, if you have not turned aside to uncleanness while under your husband’s authority, be immune to this water of bitterness that brings the curse.  But if you have gone astray while under your husband’s authority, if you have defiled yourself and some man other than your husband has had intercourse with you . . . .  the LORD make you an execration and an oath among your people, when the LORD makes your uterus drop, your womb discharge; now may this water that brings the curse enter your bowels and make your womb discharge, your uterus drop!”(verses 19-22)

What does it mean for a womb to discharge and a uterus to drop?  Whatever it means, it either involves a fetus or it doesn’t. It’s hard to tell.

A “discharging” womb certainly seems to tip the scale toward the first option: the concoction will cause miscarriage. The problem, though, is that the Hebrew verb translated “discharge” (tsavah) only occurs here (twice) in Numbers 5, and the lexicons list the meaning as “swell” rather than discharge.

OK, so what would it mean for a womb to swell? Good question. It could imply a miscarriage, but that is an interpretation of a rare Hebrew word. There is also nothing in the context that might clear this up. There is no indication in this story that a pregnancy is involved, or that it even matters.

Furthermore, “uterus” is an interpretation of the Hebrew word for “thigh.” The Hebrew Bible likes euphemisms for sexual organs, thigh being one of them. I do think uterus is meant, but I am not sure, especially since the passage just mentioned “womb” a few words earlier (why say the same thing twice?). Neither am I sure what it means for a uterus to “drop,” medically speaking. Whatever it is, it’s not good, I’m sure.

But still, the first option is still intact – maybe all this is referring to an induced miscarriage, in which case we would have a biblical instance where God does not seem overly concerned with the fate of the unborn. It’s all about adjudicating adultery.

Another way of reading this, which is the reading I favor, is that the punishment to the woman is not the loss of her hypothetical fetus. Rather, it is damage to her womb/uterus, thus making her unable to ever conceive.

To see this possibility more clearly, we need to jump ahead to the end of the passage, to verses 27-28..

When he [the priest] 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 [fancy word for “curse”] among her people. But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be immune [Heb. free from punishment] and be able to conceive children. 

The bold/italicized part at the end is key. Does this help us understand what a discharged womb and dropped uterus might mean?

Possibly.

If “be able to conceive children” is the correct translation of the Hebrew, it means that the innocent woman would be able to conceive. By contrast, logically speaking, punishment for infidelity is that the concoction will render her infertile–not induce a miscarriage.

But, the problem is that the Hebrew might not mean “be able to conceive children” in the future. The Hebrew, made up of two words, can be rendered woodenly as “sow seed.” The problem is that “seed” in Hebrew (as well as Greek and English) can be plural or singular in meaning, depending on the context. (Like Abraham’s “seed” are too numerous to count.) 

As far as I am concerned, the Hebrew could mean that the unmentioned fetus would be delivered unharmed if the woman is innocent. It could also mean that she would not be punished by barrenness. 

I think both interpretations are possible, even if I do favor the second one. 

To sum up, the womb swelling and uterus dropping may have nothing to do with anything happening to a fetus. It may refer to harm coming to the womb that would make it impossible for her to conceive. This scenario would be a plus for Pro-life interpreters. There is no law from God about inducing an abortion. 

On the other hand, Pro-life readers of this story would need to acknowledge the ambiguities of the Hebrew and allow that the illicit union may have resulted in a pregnancy. In that case, the  law would make no provision for waiting long enough to find out. God does not seem to care whether the woman is pregnant or not. This would not be a plus for Pro-life readers.

To add another factor, having a child by a man who is not one’s husband has consequences in the biblical world beyond the marriage itself. Patrilineage is huge in the ancient world, and so a woman bearing another man’s child could cause problems on the inheritance front. One could make the case that God cares more for property rights than the fruit of an illicit union.

If you’ve read this far, you are a legend in my mind. 

Long story short, Numbers 5:11-31 raises some key interpretive questions that cannot be solved with complete certainty. As tempting as it might be to call upon this story for the purpose of establishing legal, biblical precedent for either side of the modern day abortion debate, the ambiguities will always raise questions.

In my opinion, it is best to leave Numbers 5 out of that debate entirely.