Dear Adrial,
You correspondent writes: "Every time (the Bible) mentions the
unborn, it seems to imply that they are fortunate if they die in
the womb." He should go to the first chapter of St. Luke's
gospel. There Mary, who is carrying Jesus in her womb, visits
Elizabeth, who is pregnant with John the Baptist. Filled with
the same Holy Spirit who inspired all the writers of the Bible,
Elizabeth cries out to Mary: "Blessed is the fruit of your womb!"
She then describes how at the sound of Mary's voice, her own baby
leaped for joy in her womb. These unborn babies refute your
correspondent. Your correspondent further alleges that Eccl.
4:2-3 and 6:3-5 along with Numbers 5:11-31 and "many passages in
Job, especially chapter 3" are "the only passages of Scripture
that mention the unborn by name" (whatever that means). But
positive and happy references to the unborn abound in the Bible:
Gen. 25:22-24, Gen. 38:27-30, Deut. 7:13, Deut. 28:4
Deut. 28:11, Psalm 127:3-5, Psalm 139:13-15, Eccl. 11:5
Isa. 44:1-2, Isa. 44:24, Isa. 46:3-4, Isa. 49:1
Isa. 49:5, Isa. 49:15 Isa. 66:9, Hos. 9:14, Hos. 12:3,
Gal. 1:15, Acts 2:30
Note also that Hos. 9:14 teaches that "a miscarrying womb and dry
breasts" are a curse from the Lord. The same is implicitly the
burden of Numbers 5:11-31, as we shall see.
Turning first to the passages from Ecclesiastes (4:2-3 and
6:3-5), we must first observe that many Jews and Christians have
wondered how this book has been included in the Bible. Its
message is almost entirely the opposite of the other sacred
writings. Indeed, it is the oldest of the Bible books. In
Ecclesiastes, God has not revealed himself to man. He is
unknowable to reason, and his existence can only be presupposed
as a backdrop to the meaningless struggle which is man's life.
The only virtue is resignation and taking things as they come.
R.B.Y. Scott (Anchor Bible) commends the writer's "stern and
unrelenting honesty as he faces facts and questions a doctrine
which will not face them.... (Eccl) is needed in the Bible as a
counterweight to smug assurance and unreflective belief. Because
it faces the reader of the Bible to look straight at the darkness
which surrounds him, it is a component of true religion" (pp.
206-207).
The Christian reader of Ecclesiastes comes to realize the depth
of darkness that enwrapped the souls of even pious, earnest,
thoughtful people before Christ came to complete God's
revelation. The teaching of Ecclesiastes is not so much in what
the writer says, but in the blackness of the picture of life that
he paints. He makes us appreciate anew God's revelation,
especially as we see it in Christ: "I am the light of the world;
he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the
light of life" ( John 8:12). We know that even today Christ's
light meets the world's darkness: "The light shines in the
darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it" (1:5).
Your correspondent has badly missed the point of Ecclesiastes.
He might us his time more fruitfully in meditation on the
commandment: "Thou shalt not kill." He will find there a passage
of Scripture that has a "direct bearing on the morality of
abortion."
Turning to Numbers 5:11-31, we see a type of trial by ordeal.
Before describing it, let me recall Mark 10:2-5, where the
Pharisees ask Jesus if divorce is lawful. Moses had allowed a man
to divorce his wife, but Jesus said: "For your hardness of heart
(Moses) wrote you this commandment." The trial by ordeal in
Numbers 5:11-31 was designed to put a wife on the spot. In the
absence of evidence, a suspicious husband could force her to the
temple to undergo a curse. If she refused to go, she was presumed
guilty , and so he could divorce her. If she wanted the chance to
save her marriage and her reputation, she was forced to go
through an elaborate ceremony involving a curse (you all can read
the grisly details for yourselves). The curse was written down,
and then the ink of the curse was washed off in a cup of water,
in which a pinch of dust from the tabernacle floor was mixed. She
drank the dirty water, and if she was guilty, she would suffer
(according to the words of the curse) either dropsy or pelvic
prolapse. Some modern scholars have interpreted the words to mean
miscarriage or abortion. But I think it is pretty clear that a
cup of dirty water is not an effective abortifacient.
So if nothing happened after the ceremony, the couple, I suppose,
put it all behind them and got on with their lives together. But
if the curse seemed to be working, she was adjudged guilty and he
could divorce her. Jesus wiped all this out and restored marriage
to its pristine dignity, forbidding divorce.
Under pressure of great suffering, people cry out in bitter
anguish. Jesus in Luke 23:29 predicts the sufferings of the
people of Jerusalem in the Roman siege of A.D. 70, when history
records that women saw their children die of starvation, or even
become victims of cannibalism. About Job, chapter 3, the New
Catholic Commentary says: "The whole passage is a wild and
profound explosion of anguish, and has been likened to the roar
of a wounded beast" (365a). Such passages are not sober prose
embodying doctrin e about abortion or anything else. (See also
Romans 9:2-3 for a heavily emotional passage that cannot be taken
literally.)
None of the scriptures your correspondent cites are about
abortion. The matter does not arise in these passages. Killing an
innocent human being, still more, killing a helpless child is an
abominable crime. In charity to your correspondent, I would ask
him to consider well the warnings in 2nd Peter 3:16-17 and Isaiah
5:20.
Sincerely in Christ,
Father Mateo
- Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit -
-- | CIN (619-449-6030) Fido: (1:202/1613) http://www.cin.org/cin | St. Gabriel Gift & Book Nook: http://www.stgabriel.com/gabriel