| Author | Message | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 2141 Registered: 11-2002 |
According to John V. Stevens, Sr. who has a letter to the editor in the March 2006 issue of the Pacific Union Recorder it is. You all really ought to read this and then lets discuss it on here. According to this guy Numbers 5 commands the woman have an abortion if she became pregnant as a result from infidelity. Well, I got out my Bible and read and then reread Numbers 5 and I have news for Mr. Stevens. Numbers 5 does not in any way even imply it says what he writes that it says. Of course, being a total spun SDA he gets to his real belief that abortion is all good and moral and women who have abortions are on the road towards higher moral ground and the more abortions they can get the better. His reason for this belief is because EGW did not say anything anti-abortion! Has this guy given up all his independent ability to think for himself?! Well, I'm exagerating but nonetheless he does say it is a God-given law that the pregnant lady must have an abortion. He somehow links the pro-life movement to the up and soon coming dreaded Sunday laws. Now, I don't know this man and before reading his letter to the editor had never heard of him. Having made that clear I want to say it is my opinion that he must be so PRO-abortion (not pro-choice because he actually states that an abortion is required by God in certain circumstances)because he must have been the cause of abortions and is just grateful that his causing the pregnancies of aborted babies released him of being a responsible father as well as years of child support. Or, maybe he has contributed the money for women to get abortions so they could "save face". I have no idea what his real motive is but I am sure it is not to do the will of God. Colleen, if I have violated any sort of rules concerning libility then feel free to alter or delete any of this post you feel you must. | ||
| Windmotion Registered user Username: Windmotion Post Number: 283 Registered: 6-2001  |
For what it's worth, here's the address: http://www.pacificunionrecorder.com/106/3/28171.html And the passage: 11And the LORD said to Moses, 12"Say to the people of Israel: `Suppose a man's wife goes astray and is unfaithful to her husband. 13Suppose she sleeps with another man, but there is no witness since she was not caught in the act. 14If her husband becomes jealous and suspicious of his wife, even if she has not defiled herself, 15the husband must bring his wife to the priest with an offering of two quarts[b] of barley flour to be presented on her behalf. Do not mix it with olive oil or frankincense, for it is a jealousy offering--an offering of inquiry to find out if she is guilty. 16" `The priest must then present her before the LORD. 17He must take some holy water in a clay jar and mix it with dust from the Tabernacle floor. 18When he has presented her before the LORD, he must unbind her hair and place the offering of inquiry--the jealousy offering--in her hands to determine whether or not her husband's suspicions are justified. The priest will stand before her, holding the jar of bitter water that brings a curse to those who are guilty. 19The priest will put the woman under oath and say to her, "If no other man has slept with you, and you have not defiled yourself by being unfaithful, may you be immune from the effects of this bitter water that causes the curse. 20But if you have gone astray while under your husband's authority and defiled yourself by sleeping with another man"-- 21at this point the priest must put the woman under this oath--"then may the people see that the LORD's curse is upon you when he makes you infertile.[c] 22Now may this water that brings the curse enter your body and make you infertile.[d]" And the woman will be required to say, "Yes, let it be so." 23Then the priest will write these curses on a piece of leather and wash them off into the bitter water. 24He will then make the woman drink the bitter water, so it may bring on the curse and cause bitter suffering in cases of guilt. 25" `Then the priest will take the jealousy offering from the woman's hand, lift it up before the LORD, and carry it to the altar. 26He will take a handful as a token portion and burn it on the altar. Then he will require the woman to drink the water. 27If she has defiled herself by being unfaithful to her husband, the water that brings the curse will cause bitter suffering. She will become infertile,[e] and her name will become a curse word among her people. 28But if she has not defiled herself and is pure, she will be unharmed and will still be able to have children. Additionally, Hannah | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 982 Registered: 7-2004 |
That has always been a portion of scripture that has upset me. Maybe because I'm a woman, and this whole thing looks one-sided to me. Where is the opportunity to call into question a man's extra-marital activities. I've looked. Couldn't find one. We do have one example, and that is David. The baby that was ill-conceived by Bathsheba, and thus was the reason that David murdered her husband, died as a result of David's sin(s). Anyway, you might say I'm just venting. When cheating is happening, it takes two! There is no evidence from the above-stated scripture that abortion is condoned, or performed. It says that the woman will be barren thereafter. I think there is another verse that says that if the husband has wrongly accused the wife of unfaithfulness she will immediately conceive and bear a child. Nothing is said about whether or not the woman is pregnant at the time of her husbands suspicions. | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 325 Registered: 10-2005 |
Call me a fundamentalist. I've always been against abortion. I didn't know the church was so liberal on the matter. The women I've known in the adventist church were not liberal about it either. I really would have been shocked if I knew what I know now. __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Regarding that article, it just goes to show you that you can make anything up that you want and use the bible to back it up if you are creative enough. Simply stated in the NT and in the words of Jesus: Hebrews 1 1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. John 8:3-7 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3524 Registered: 12-2003  |
Belva, I understand what you're saying. I'm wondering if this whole one-sided procedure is related to the apparent fact that in the Mosaic covenant, the attitudes of the culture in general prevailed. For example, divorce was allowed, plural wives were allowed, in general, male-dominance was the rule of the day, even in Israel. It wasn't until Jesus gave the sermon on the mount that Jesus addressed the issue of what lies behind the behavior. He declared "lust" to be "adultery" (and remember that divorce, which also Jesus restricted far more than in the OT, was allowed for unfaithfulnessówhich Jesus had just defined as lust). I believe that Jesus was placing responsibility on both men and women to live in love and integrity at far deeper levels than they had previoiusly. I wonder if the ritual described in Numbers 5 was related to God's curse on the serpent in Genesis 3, that the woman's seed would crush the serpent's head. Perhaps the focus in this odd ritual was in figuratively protecting Israelite women's "seed" from corruption. (Just conjecture...) Colleen | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 391 Registered: 7-2004  |
If abortion is God's preferred method for resolving pregnancies that came about outside of marriage, then isn't it interesting that Jesus' geneology was "tainted" with Tamar (see Matthew 1:3). In Genesis 38 you can read the account of how Tamar, Judah's daughter-in-law, became pregnant by Judah when she disguised herself as a prostitute. Jesus does have a rather colorful geneology (Bathsheba is in there also). Makes one hopeful that God is more interested in saving sinners than making sure we're holy enough first. | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1406 Registered: 3-2005 |
Excellent point Raven! Stan | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 128 Registered: 7-2005  |
Colleen, I disagree with the idea that this one- sided procedure was related with the culture. When I read what you said about one-sided procedure, and after that you mentioned what Jesus Christ said about the lust of the eyes, I saw that you put two one-sided situations together. I saw that Jesus mentions only the men in his definition of adultery: the lust in the eyes of men, not in the eyes of women. Only lusting after a women was defined as a sin, the lust of women was not mentioned. And I don't believe that Jesus only wanted to balance the situation, presenting a one-sided sin. From my perspective something deeper is involved here. It implies the fact that men are more vulnerable to sin sexually than women. For them this temptation is more stronger than for the women. They have to battle more and harder to overcome than women. When a women sin sexually, she is more guilty than the man, and must bear a greater responsability than the man who sinned with her. I don't excuse men for this sin. I want only to point that the Bible seems to recognize the difference between men and women, and applies adequate measures. | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 983 Registered: 7-2004 |
I grew up in the late '50s/early '60s, so at that time there still was no birth control pill, and the whole responsibility of remaining moral/virginal was placed on the female. Women and girls were more or less willing to shoulder that burden because they would have to bear (literally) the outcome. Jackob, it sounds like you are expressing just that ideology. A man, when confronted with sexual urges, is weaker than a woman, so she must therefore be the one to control the situation. It feels lop-sided and bit of a cop-out to me. | ||
| Cathy2 Registered user Username: Cathy2 Post Number: 57 Registered: 2-2006 |
I respectfully disagree Jackob. There are millions of young girls and women of all ages, who are very vulnerable, sexually and emotionally (this tied into their sexuality), to be seduced by a sexually preying male of any age. The victims are all around us. All over the world, from the beginning. America and Western Europe might be worse than any other areas. I suspect so. The Arabs leave the Middle East, and go elsewhere for sexual playtime. Japan is pretty sexually offensive in their males, as well. (Even beastiality in one of their common on-the-street comic books) Yes, there are woman and even teen girls, who see 'pulling men' as a conquest, but by and large, females are very vulnerable to seduction, believing it is love, before they get savvy and mature (or worse, bitter against men). We are not in a mature society; this has to be home-grown. There are many very skilled 'predator' men out there. I can think of one--Bill Clinton. Our most infamous sexual addict, who needs a clinic and Jesus Christ. To place all the blame on one sex or the other (it is not a half and half statistic) is only going to get one gender or the other hurting, mad and defensive, for reason. Many, many men, as well as women, have been victims, in one way or the other, by the other gender (and the same)...of lies, betrayals, abadonments, STD's, seductions; flirting, which meant nothing and the other thought they were liked or loved. There are a legion of ways in which this sin can do terrible damage, all the way up to adultry, outside of the confines of a lifetime's committed relationship, married within the Bonds of God. I view this massive problem, as looking for the wounded, male and female both, and bringing them to healing in Chirst, instead of trying to decide which gender is at fault. We both are; in every culture, for all time, from the beginning of the Fall. It comes down much to controlling each other. Power, lust and pride. In both. And we all can be weak. In fact, if we think we are not (in any area), God finds ways to knock us out of the saddle. The humbling isn't fun. Jacob, there is merit in what you wrote, if the female is mature enough to have good self-control, but that isn't always the case. Ignorance is not bliss.And a lot of lies are taught, now, about a false love. And this is on an individaul basis, not across the board for genders. Also, the male needs self-control, but it isn't much out there in American Christianity, I have seen, when I dated in person and the online Christian sites, making it clear that I was celibate until marriage. Christian men told me shocking stories about 'Christian' women. All peoples (*not* individauls), throughout all demographics, are crippled in mind and emotion, looking for love in the wrong ways, building themsevles up in desructive ways, not knowing what and WHOM Love truly is. BTW, I believe that men should minister to wounded men, and women to women in the Body. Just seen too many wounded hearts, Cathy | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3526 Registered: 12-2003 |
Belva, your comments about how things were do, I think, inform the situation expressed in Numbers. Traditionally, women were held "responsible" for not bearing the shameónot only for herself but also for her familyóof an illegitimate pregnancy. Further, in Israel her shame would have reflected on the leadership of her husband. He would be deprived of offspring, and he also would have an unfaithful wife in his household. In some ways, the punishment was a reflection on the husband's leadership of the household. Jackob, I really do not believe that sexual sin is a greater sin for a woman than for a man. Even though the nature of the temptation to sexual sin may be different between the sexes, the temptation that drives women is no less intense and sinful than the man's. Women tend to be tempted more from a "romantic" dream of intimacy and closeness and belonging while men are tempted more physically. The two temptations are not less intense for the two, I think. The difference between the two tends to aid women, as Belva pointed out, to "put on the brakes" to avoid pregnancy, but the sin of the heart and head are no less intense or driving. (I suspect one of the reasons the husband of an unfaithful wife was deprived of his prime commodity, offspring, was related to the fact that the husbandóas the NT points outóis accountable for the emotional and physical well-being of his wife.) I really don't have an answer as to why the adulterous man wasn't included in this curse. I do not believe the man was guilty of a lesser sin; the seventh commandment was directed equally at men and women. Adultery is adultery. (And lust, as Jesus explained it, is lustóeven though he didn't describe women's fantasies in his discourse, I don't believe He excluded them. Just as pronography has been a perennial temptation for men, romance novels and fantasizing have been, IMO, the female equivalent.) I still think this curse is somehow addressing the importance of guarding the chosen seed. Circumcision, after all, was a symbol that emphasized the need to guard the seed. There was no equivalent symbol for Jewish women to enter the covenant promises. Every single Jewish male had to bear circumcision. Adulterous women had to bear the divine curse of barrenness. Perhaps these laws added to the shame of women such as Hannah. who wept before the altar in petition for a son. and Rachel, who tried everything she could think of to conceive. I think these cultural mores had something to do, also, with the huge significance of the births of Isaac and John the Baptist. Even Joseph and Benjamin came from a woman thought to be barren. I really don't know the answer to the non-inlcusion of the adulterous man in the curse, but I don't believe this law had to do with women being more guilty. Colleen | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 326 Registered: 10-2005 |
Men often deceptively think that they can get away with sexual sin. However, this is never the case, nor does the bible say that any man will get away with even lusting after a woman. Did David really get away with his sin with Bathsheba? His adultery with Bathsheba and murder of her husband produced family strife, the death of his son and opportunities for enemies to blaspheme God (2 Samuel 11-12). Matthew 18:9 And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell. Here is a good link looking at consequences of sexual sin in the bible http://www.porn-free.org/sex_sin_Bible.htm __________________________________________________________________________________________________ The Women Of Ancient Israel Women in ancient Israel had their position in society defined in the Hebrew Scriptures and in the interpretation of those scriptures. Their status and freedoms were severely limited by Jewish law and custom in ancient Israel: * Women were restricted to roles of little or no authority. * Women were confined to the homes of their fathers or husbands. * Women were to be inferior to men, under the direct authority of men, their fathers before marriage, or their husband after. * Women were not allowed to testify in court trials. * Women could not appear in public venues. * Women could not talk to strangers. * Women were required to be doubly veiled when they ventured outside of their homes. Women in ancient Israel had a status, not unlike that of women in Afghanistan, during the grossly oppressive rule of the Taliban. __________________________________________________________________________________________________ One of the most obvious and most ignored truths of biblical reality is that the word "testament", as used in Old and New Testament, is interchangeable with the word "covenant". The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines covenant as: a usually formal, solemn, and binding agreement. In our modern world this is known as a "contract". Logic defines "old" as what was, and "new" as what is. In the context of the Bible, the Old Testament is the former contract God made with man, specifically the nation of Israel. The New Testament is the current contract God has made with all mankind. __________________________________________________________________________________________________ The New Covenant and Women The manner Jesus dealt with the women of his day gives evidence that the oppressive treatment of women, by the edicts of the old contract, was ended. Jesus nullified many centuries of oppressive Jewish law and custom. He consistently violated the rules, concerning women, of the three major Jewish religious groups of the day: the Essenes, Pharisees, and Sadducees. The treatment of women by Jesus was nothing short of radical for his day. Jesus repeatedly expressed concern for widows. Luke 20:46 Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts; 47 Which devour widows' houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation. He ignored ritual impurity laws. Mark 5:25 And a certain woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years, 26 And had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse, 27 When she had heard of Jesus, came in the press behind, and touched his garment. 28 For she said, If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole. 29 And straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her body that she was healed of that plague. 30 And Jesus, immediately knowing in himself that virtue had gone out of him, turned him about in the press, and said, Who touched my clothes? 31 And his disciples said unto him, Thou seest the multitude thronging thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me? 32 And he looked round about to see her that had done this thing. 33 But the woman fearing and trembling, knowing what was done in her, came and fell down before him, and told him all the truth. 34 And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague. He talked to foreign women. John 4:7 There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink. 8 (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.) 9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. 10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. Jesus changes the male-favored doctrine of divorce: Mark 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. He appeared first to a woman after his resurrection. Matthew 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. 28:9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 132 Registered: 7-2005 |
I apologize for saying that women are more guilty than men in sinning sexually. I don't want to excuse and minimize the responsability of men. What I still consider a problem is the fact that a woman can be a temptation for man only through her presence. In Jesus' times women dressed very un-sexy (I don't know how to say this), but even in this time, a man can lust after a woman, even if nothing in her dressing has something undecent. Why? Because of his fallen nature, because he is visually attracted. It's nothing wrong to be visually attracted by a woman, this is the way God made man. But, because of the sinful nature, this became a source of temptation. In this way, men can be surprised at any moment by sexual temptation, even if the woman does nothing to tempt him. It can be a sudden temptation, not something planned, or fantasized. This is why I think that for a women is a different thing. Men must always be on guard about this temptation. This is why I believe men carry a harder battle than women with this temptation. | ||
| Cathy2 Registered user Username: Cathy2 Post Number: 61 Registered: 2-2006 |
I understand, Jackob, and agree about the struggles men have. Thank you on behalf of the females I have known. Some men would have defensively argued some gender point to the death, using the Bible like a bat. I don't desire to do that, either. Between the genders, Christ is our best unity. I am so thankful for the truly Christ-centered men around, who allow Christ to reign, control and transform, instead of trying to fix things about women themselves and to blame them for their own struggles in the flesh (i.e. conservative Islam). Our daughters need their examples and humility under and in Jesus. God bless you, always~ Cathy | ||
| Ratthedd Registered user Username: Ratthedd Post Number: 30 Registered: 2-2006 |
I don't see any way the passage Hannah quoted earlier can be distorted into a command to abort an unwanted pregnancy, it looks like nothing more than a way to blame a childless marriage on the wife. It makes me wonder how many women were found guilty of infidelity because they or their husbands suffered from low fertility. - Erik. | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 226 Registered: 3-2005 |
I have to wonder if this was a way to keep the man from striking out at the woman. I suppose if we consider the degraded state of the Hebrew people from their years of slavery, I wonder if it's possibl, even likely that physical abuse would have been the natural repercussion and this was God's way of saying...'no, here's a better plan'. If the woman was innocent, she had nothing to fear. It is very clear from the verses that Hannah quoted the 'bitter water' that causes 'suffering' would only work on those who were guilty of infidelity. Don't get me wrong! I don't LIKE the idea of being put through that kind of test, but on the flip side, using this as a test, the man would suffer humility and shame if he had been wrong. Just a thought... Patria | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3545 Registered: 12-2003 |
Patria, really good insight. It makes sense. Colleen | ||
| Ratthedd Registered user Username: Ratthedd Post Number: 31 Registered: 2-2006 |
" 25 Then the priest will take the jealousy offering from the woman's hand, lift it up before the LORD, and carry it to the altar. 26He will take a handful as a token portion and burn it on the altar. Then he will require the woman to drink the water. 27If she has defiled herself by being unfaithful to her husband, the water that brings the curse will cause bitter suffering. She will become infertile,[e] and her name will become a curse word among her people. 28But if she has not defiled herself and is pure, she will be unharmed and will still be able to have children. " Even if the accused woman is innocent, but she or her husband suffer from low fertility, then the woman would be considered guilty. I don't think that sounds very fair. - Erik. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3551 Registered: 12-2003 |
"Fair" really doesn't seem to be a central concept of eternal reality. Justice, yes--"fairness", no. It really wasn't fair that Hannah and Elizabeth were barrenóa disgracful condition among ancient women including Israelites. It wasn't fair that Mary and Joseph had the black cloud of indiscretion hanging over their heads all their lives, or that Jesus lived with the whispered word "bastard" following Him wherever He went. It wasn't fair that Joseph's brothers staged his death and sold him as a slave. Neither was it fair that Jesus became our sin and died ignominiously. God is merciful and just, but fairness, from a human perspective, is not an eternal concept. We can't "see" enough to really know what is just and "fair". I believe the Numbers 5 law was a means of holding people accountable, and as Patria said, it was no less a means of holding a jealous or cruel husband (who had dominating power over his wife during that time) accountable before God for his accusations and possible attempts to be rid of a wife. God is not ultimately in the business of being "fair" to us. He is, rather, merciful and just, and His glory is the ultimate value in the universeónot our human rights. Colleen | ||
| Violet Registered user Username: Violet Post Number: 330 Registered: 2-2001 |
What I took from the article was that he misunderstood the texts and set the sabbath over life. I understood the Bible to say in Exodus 21:22-23 if men are fighting and she gives birth prematurely and no harm is done then a judgment is against the offender, but if there is injury the a penalty for life is required. This would be contrary to what the article claims. This gentleman is attempting to discredit the fundamentalist by misquoting the Bible. He is trying to "warn" people off of mainsream Christianity by bringing his argument around to the Sunday law. One of the problems (of many) is that there is no love in his letter. He would rather support abortion and stay clear of people who might (in his mind) force him to break the sabbath. Where does this have any place in a New Testiment church? No where! We are commanded to LOVE I believe even the unborn. After all what is the difference in a born person and the unborn? Size, Dependency, ability to understand, and spacial occupancy. At what point does it make a difference? We are all different sizes, we all occupy different spaces in the universe, my mother in law is fully dependent and does not understand much in her nursing home state, but if you were to kill her you would be up for the death penalty in my state. As for women being held to a higher standard, are we not the ones who carries life? We would not think twice about holding the CEO of a Fortune 500 to a higher standard of responsability than the clerk at the 7-11. The CEO has more stweardship responability with the blessing of more worldy goods, just a a woman has more responsability to care for her body to be entrusted to carry life. That is one blessing we as women should carry with humble honor. Just my ramblings  |
