I came of age, as an evangelical Christian, in the period 1977 to 1983, during which time I attended Wheaton College.  That form of evangelical Christianity was very, very different than the form it took following the rise of the religious right in the middle and late 1980s.  In particular, abortion was not nearly the litmus test issue for evangelical piety and political allegiance that it would eventually come to be.
And so, with the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy bringing the question of abortion to the forefront once again, I offer an interpretation of Numbers 5:11-31, a text that is often ignored by those who propose that Christians must be anti-abortion in order to be true to the gospel.
It is ignored because in it, God gives Moses specific instructions on the creation of a “magic” potion that functions like an abortifacient in the context of a husband’s accusation of his wife’s unfaithfulness.
The key portion of this text is found in verses 27-28:  “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.  If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children” (New International Version).
A couple of points need to be mentioned.  First, the book of Numbers was originally written in Hebrew, and the relevant part of verse 27 in Hebrew would be “her thigh (will) fall.”  In other words, the language here is euphemistic.
Second, the contrast between verses 27 and 28 could not be clearer.  According to verse 28, the woman who has not cheated on her husband “will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.”  Consequently, despite the euphemistic language of verse 27 (repeated also in verses 20-22), it is equally clear that the consequence for the woman who has cheated on her husband must be the opposite of bearing children, namely having a miscarriage.
But don’t take the NIV’s word for it.  The (evangelical) Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis puts it this way:  “The sense seems to be that if the woman is guilty, she will be physically affected by the holy water-dust-and-ink potion, and these physical results, including the loss of her embryo, will signify to her kinsmen that she has sworn falsely as well as committed adultery” (volume 2, page 736).
The footnote to verse 21 in the (evangelical) New English Translation (my favorite study Bible, by the way) says this:  “Most commentators take the expressions to be euphemisms of miscarriage or stillbirth, meaning that there would be no fruit from an illegitimate union.”
In other words, Numbers 5 raises this question:  How can it be right to connect an unyielding anti-abortion stance with faithful Christianity in such a rigid, inflexible, and ideological way if even God would fail that test, if Numbers 5 is taken seriously on its own terms?
I realize that the days in which Christians could have a calm, civil, and nuanced conversation about abortion are long, long gone.  And so I harbor no illusion that the hard right anti-abortion Christians will see any contradiction here.
Online searches indicate that some of these anti-abortionists treat the euphemistic language as literal, referring to some kind of physical deformation and not a euphemism for miscarriage.
Others argue that the text nowhere states that the woman is pregnant, choosing to ignore the introductory part of the legal situation and compare/contrast of situation and outcome in verses 27 and 28.
But I see it.  And unless this widely – almost unanimously – accepted reading of the Hebrew text of Numbers 5 is wrong, then I somehow have to reckon with the fact that this divinely instituted test of unfaithfulness has as its intended outcome the chemical abortion of a child conceived in an adulterous relationship, just as the consequence of David’s sexual assault on Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11) resulted in the death of their child (2 Samuel 12).
And so perhaps the abortion issue should not be held quite so tightly by Christians.  Perhaps there is room within the church for those confessing Christians who oppose abortion from a personal standpoint but equally oppose its illegalization and the current legislative attempts to restrict it and to defund places like Planned Parenthood which offer abortion services.
After all, haven’t we had our fill of politicians who are anti-abortion until it comes to their own affairs and their own political careers?  Tim Murphy, R-Pennsylvania, is simply the most recent hypocrite to resign in disgrace.
Still, it is well to remember that it is easy to be a moral hardliner on some ethical issue.  Easy, that is, until the issue affects us personally.  Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) changed his view on gay marriage when his son, Will Portman, came out.  In contrast, the fundamentalist pastor Kevin Swanson said that if he had a gay son who invited him to his gay wedding, he’d sit in front of the church in sackcloth and ashes and cover himself in cow manure (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mibbHDmz85o).  I cite the video reference just in case someone is wondering whether I’m making this up.  For the sake of the kingdom of heaven, I wish I were.
A vibrant faith for the 21st century will look much, much more like Sen. Portman and much, much less like Kevin Swanson.  It will admit and embrace the existence of a wide swath of moral grey in between the obviously right and the obviously wrong.  It will hold its views with humility (not ideological inflexibility) and will treat with compassion and kindness those who act from a different point of view (instead of demonizing them).  It will be open to change when confronted by the need for change because – most importantly – it will listen to other people’s stories with intentional empathy, always asking the question, how can I be a minister of God’s loving grace to those who need it?
Because being ministers of God’s loving grace to those who need it must surely be the hallmark of anyone who wishes to live a vibrant faith in the 21st century.

Sharing is caring!