How
should Christian pro-life advocates respond? Cenk needs to be corrected on
several points.
First,
Cenk begins by writing off the scientific evidence that a genetically distinct,
living, and whole human being comes into existence at conception. The question
of “when life begins” has been settled for decades thanks to the science of
embryology. To quote just a few experts in the field,
Human life
begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm
(spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form
a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked
the beginning of each of us as a unique individual. (and) A zygote is the
beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”[1]
“Although life
is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under
ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed
when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”[2]
“The development
of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly
specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female,
unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”[3]
You
can read 40 similar quotes from medical experts in this
article who reach the same conclusion.
Despite
the evidence, Cenk says the view that life begins at conception is based solely
on religion. Why? Because this allows him to dismiss the view as “religious” which
further justifies his refusal and inability to interact with the evidence. Not
only is this wrong, but it is intellectually lazy. Secular pro-life advocates
use the same evidence and argumentation in making a case for the pro-life view,
and their analysis certainly cannot be labeled “religious.”
Second,
moving from science to the biblical text, there is no indication in this passage
that the woman is pregnant. This test of faithfulness is a general test applied
when a husband suspects his wife has been unfaithful, with no mention of
pregnancy being made. In fact the passage specifically says that the husband
has a mere suspicion with no evidence or witnesses, seemingly ruling out a
visible, noticeable pregnancy:
If a man lies
with her sexually, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she is
undetected though she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her,
since she was not taken in the act (v. 13).
Again,
there are no witnesses to testify against this woman, the act of adultery was
hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she has remained undetected. Pregnancy
from adultery would not go unnoticed or undetected, and so pregnancy resulting
from this act seems to be precluded in this scenario.
One
could respond to this by saying that perhaps the passage is referring to future
pregnancies of the unfaithful woman that will ultimately result in miscarriage.
This brings us to our next point.
Third,
Cenk Uygur quotes from a very specific Bible translation. Why? Because this is
the only translation that uses the word “miscarry” when interpreting this
passage. In other words, this translation fits his narrative. He quotes from
the 2011 NIV translation which uses the word “miscarry” twice in Numbers 5 verses
21 and 27:
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. (v. 21)
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. (v. 27)
Interestingly,
not even the 1984 NIV translation translates the verse this way. This seems to
be a change made specifically in the 2011 edition. Every other reliable
translation I examined including the NASB, KJV, NKJV, HCSB, RSV and ESV, all
translate the verse similar to this:
Then’ (let the
priest make the woman take the oath of the curse, and say to the woman) ‘the LORD make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the
LORD makes your thigh fall away and your body swell.
(v. 21 ESV)
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. (v. 27 ESV)
The
more literal interpretation for the phrase in question is “your thigh fall away.”
So is the translation “your womb miscarry” an accurate interpretation for “your
thigh fall away”? This brings us to our next point.
Fourth,
looking at the context of the passage, a strong case can be made that miscarriage
is not in view but rather barrenness
or the inability to have children (sterility). Notice there is a contrast being
made in this passage between barrenness and fertility in verses 27 and 28:
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. But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall
be free and shall conceive children.
To
reiterate, if the woman is guilty of wrongdoing, “her womb shall swell, and her
thigh shall fall away” but if she is innocent “she shall be free and shall
conceive children.” The opposing consequences based on guilt or innocence make
sense if what is being contrasted is sterility with fertility, or the inability
and ability to have children. The case becomes stronger when we consider that
throughout the Old Testament barrenness is considered a curse (e.g. Gen. 20:17-18;
30:1, 22-23) and children are considered a blessing (Gen. 17:6; 33:5; Ps. 113:9;
127:3-5). The “curse” then that the water brings is the curse of barrenness or
sterility which is hermeneutically consistent with the rest of the Old
Testament. Roy Gane agrees in his commentary on the book of Numbers. Referring
to this passage, he states,
The former, in which
“thigh” apparently connotes reproductive organs (cf. Gen. 24:2, 9), can be
taken to imply sterility and may refer to a prolapsed uterus. H.C. Brichto suggests
that abdominal swelling indicates a state “known to the layman as ‘false pregnancy.’
This condition…is featured by distended belly, cessation of the menses and
incapacity to conceive.”
While scholars
have not agreed on the gynecological implications of the Hebrew terminology,
they sound painful and clearly cause sterility (contrast 5:28). So the conditional
imprecation, to which a suspected woman must assent by saying ’amen, ’amen (5:22),
specifies outcomes that any Israelite woman dreads: social stigma, physical
suffering, and inability to bear children.[4]
In
summary, Cenk has failed to make his case that God is pro-abortion based on the
biblical data. First, there is no indication that the woman in this scenario is
pregnant. Second, Cenk must rely on a questionable interpretation of the text
in order for his view to hold water. Third, a strong contextual case can be
made that sterility or barrenness is being spoken of, not necessarily miscarriage.
Finally,
we can ask the question, “So what?” Let us suppose Cenk is correct in his
interpretation and that the judgment from God on the adulterous woman is
miscarriage. What follows from that?
Does
it follow that abortion on demand is morally permissible? No. As Francis
Beckwith points out, attempting to argue for abortion on demand due to hard
cases or special circumstances “is like trying to argue for the elimination of
traffic laws from the fact that one might have to violate some of them in rare
circumstances, such as when one’s spouse or child needs to be rushed to the
hospital."[5]
Does
it follow that elective abortion is permissible in special circumstances such
as adultery? No. The fact that God in His judgment takes life doesn’t give
human beings the prerogative to do likewise. This is seen throughout both the
Old and New Testaments. As Clinton Wilcox states, “Peter pronounced a curse on
Ananias and Sapphira because they lied to the Holy Spirit, and God struck them
dead. It doesn’t follow that we are justified in killing someone for lying. God
is the giver of life, and only he is uniquely qualified to take it.”[6]
Does
it even follow that God is pro-abortion? No. Again Clinton Wilcox points out
that “an abortion really isn’t in view here…children were a blessing to Jewish
women. A barren woman was seen as cursed. This curse was not meant to abort a
child. Rather, it was meant to show guilt. A woman who had not committed
adultery would gladly redeem herself by drinking the water. A woman who had committed
adultery would not agree to drinking the water, and therefore guilt could be
determined.”[7]
[1]
Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically
Oriented Embryology, 7th ed., pp. 16, 2.
[2] Ronan O’Rahilly and
Fabiola Miller, Human
Embryology and Teratology, 3rd ed., p. 8.
[3] Jan Langman, Medical Embryology. 3rd
ed., p. 3.
[4]
Roy Gane, The NIV Application Commentary:
Leviticus and Numbers, 523-524.
[5]
Beckwith, Defending Life, 105.
[6]
Clinton Wilcox, Does the Bible Justify
Abortion?, found at http://christianapologeticsalliance.com/2012/10/30/does-the-bible-justify-abortion/
[7]
Ibid.
Good post.
ReplyDeleteThank you Sean.
ReplyDeleteGlad you guys are posting against after a two month gap. I enjoy reading this blog, though I haven't gone through all the past posts yet.
Delete