Butchering Numbers: The “Abortion Recipe” the Bible Does Not Give

Audio By Carbonatix

Have you heard this one? “The Bible gives directions on how to perform an abortion…ergo, abortion is condoned in Scripture.”

Friend, let not your heart be troubled. Your God is not pro-abortion, and this is only true when you willfully butcher the text.

And yet, this is the “gotcha” argument being used to clobber the sanctity right out of life.

Wicked people are purposely espousing it and foolish people are letting them get away with it.

There are few things more frustrating than watching Scripture get dragged into a modern argument it was never trying to have.

Enter Numbers 5:11–31—the so-called “abortion recipe” passage making the rounds in pro-choice arguments. If you’ve spent five minutes online, you’ve seen the claim:

“The Bible literally gives instructions for abortion.”

It sounds scandalous. Convenient, even.

It’s also not what the text says.

Not in Hebrew.
Not in context.
Not in history.

So let’s slow down, open the actual Bible, and stop butchering Numbers.

The Situationship

Yowza. That’s gonna make the ride home uncomfortable.

Numbers 5 outlines a very specific and admittedly strange ritual—often called the Sotah (the “wayward wife” test).

I don’t know the Hebrew for a “situationship,” but this is it. Oy vey.

A husband suspects his wife of adultery.
There are no witnesses.
No evidence.
Just jealousy and uncertainty.

So what happens?

He brings her to the priest.

The priest prepares a mixture of: (pay careful attention here!)

• Holy water
• Dust from the tabernacle floor
• Ink from a written curse (including God’s name)

She drinks it.

And then—this is key—God determines the outcome.

If she is guilty, she suffers a physical curse.
If she is innocent, she is cleared and blessed with future fertility.

This is not medicine.
This is not a procedure.
This is indeed, a bitter, but divine judicial ordeal.

The Claim: “This Is an Abortion Recipe”

The argument hinges on one line in verse 27:

“Her belly will swell, and her thigh will fall…”

Some modern interpretations—ONE that I know of, the 2011 NIV—translate this as:

“Her womb will miscarry…”

I say again…ONE, unique, non-literal word choice…and just like that, the internet declares:

“Case closed. Bible = pro-abortion.”

Except… that translation is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Especially when EVERY OTHER TRANSLATION gives an entirely different meaning.

Problem #1: The Text Never Mentions Pregnancy

Let’s start with the most obvious issue:

There is no pregnancy in this passage.

Not implied.
Not assumed.
Not stated.

Y’all this is not even a good argument. It’s bush-league Bible “study.” Wanna know how I know this?

Because the ancient Israelites had a word for pregnant and it was used with these lovely ladies and their lovely baby bumps: Eve…yeah, EVE. Hagar, Sarah, Rebekah, Leah, Bilha, Rachel, Tamar…speaking of situationships, Samson’s mama, Samuel’s mama Hannah, Bathsheba (ay oh!), Jochebed…and my favorite twisted sisters—Lot’s daughters. All of them PREGGERS.

The Hebrew words for pregnant occur in the Old Testament 66 times.

And not one of them is in Numbers.

The ritual applies to any woman suspected of adultery—not just one who is pregnant.

In fact, the outcome for an innocent woman is this:

“She will be cleared and will conceive seed.”

That’s future fertility.

Not the preservation of a current pregnancy.
Not the loss of one.

If this were about aborting an adulterous pregnancy, the text would need to say so.

It doesn’t.

Problem #2: The Hebrew Doesn’t Say “Miscarriage”

The key phrases in Hebrew are vague—but not that vague.

• “Belly” (beten) – abdomen or womb region
• “Swell” (tzavtah) – to distend
• “Thigh” (yarekh) – often a euphemism for reproductive organs FOR MEN and WOMEN.
• “Fall” (naphal) – to collapse, waste away, fail, shrivel, be fruitless

Notice what’s missing?

Any word that actually means miscarriage.

Hebrew has words for that too. Clear ones. Shocker. 
They show up elsewhere in the Old Testament. See Exodus 21:22–23. The other passage that’s NOT ABOUT ABORTION.

They are not here, friends.

So, to translate this as “miscarriage” is not a direct reading—it’s an interpretive leap.

Y’all, wrap your beautiful mind around this fun fact: They WEREN’T IDIOTS back then and we ARE NOT GENIUSES now. Do you know how ridiculous it is from a modern/ancient languages perspective to believe that the Greek and Hebrew lacked the linguistic nuances or clarity that we Yanks have? Philistine, please.

As though the Lord didn’t ordain what languages His Word would best be arrayed in splendor in. This is why we have footnotes people. The individual letters carry layered meaning that can allude to time, degree, perspective, intention, etc…making the whole word pregnant, pardon the pun, with meaning.

And we are all over here talking about “rad” and “delulu.” Okay, Socrates. Whatever.

Problem #3: This Is Not a “Recipe” Anyone Can Use

Let’s be honest.

If this is an abortion method, it’s a pretty terrible one. This is as medically helpful as when you would wrap your fake broken arm with paper towels as a kid.

Ingredients:

• Holy water
• Tabernacle dust
• Ink dissolved from a written curse

Nooooo! Not tabernacle dust!!! The horror!

That’s not pharmacology. It’s theology.

There are no known abortifacient substances here.

No herbs.

No compounds.

Nothing remotely resembling an ancient medical practice.

And yes, ding, ding, ding…they DID KNOW what herbs could cause a woman to “empty out the conceived.” And YOU DO see those recipes. Just not in the BIBLE.

In Babylonian, Assyrian, and Egyptian texts. How about that? Nah, none of that’s in Scripture…just some midwives lying to save babies.

This “science experiment” was not intended to be medicinal or chemical.

It was supernatural.

Supernatural revelation. Supernatural condemnation. Supernatural preservation.

The text repeatedly emphasizes that the curse comes from God—that He is the one who judges and acts.

You can’t prescribe this. This is not a how-to guide. This is How Great Thou Art, baby!

There is no “Plan B” here, Mamacita.

There is His Sovereignty and nothing else. Do you see what good news this is? HE IS OUR JUST JUDGE. Still.

Problem #4: The Context Is Judgment, Not Choice

This might be the most important point.

This passage is not about:

• Women’s autonomy
• Reproductive rights
• Medical ethics

It is about divine judgment in a covenant community.

A woman is brought forward under suspicion.
God Himself renders the verdict.

If guilty → curse and physical affliction.
If innocent → vindication and restored fertility.

This is closer to a courtroom than a clinic.

And notably—there is no scenario here where a woman chooses this outcome for herself. And there is NO OUTCOME where the jealous man gets to render his own judgment and exact his own sentence.

So Where Did This Interpretation Come From?

Short answer? Liars. And those who’ve been lied to.

Longer answer, importing modern cultural constructs backward into an ancient text. Bippity, boppity, abortion is in the Bible.

Historically, Jewish interpreters didn’t read this as abortion.
Early Christians didn’t read this as abortion.
The ritual itself was prohibited for pregnant women and eventually discontinued altogether.

The “abortion recipe” reading is not ancient.

It’s recent.

What This Passage Actually Teaches

If we let Numbers say what it actually says, we get something far more lovely and glorious. And the enemy hates that.

• God values women
• God sees what is hidden
• God judges justly when humans cannot
• God defends the innocent
• God deals with sin seriously

It is a sobering. It’s strange and awkward. But it’s not about abortion. You would have to assume your own prideful gnostic understanding while assuming ignorance of the author. (Which is God.)

Stop Butchering the Text

Here’s the bottom line:

Numbers 5 does not describe abortion.
It does not prescribe abortion.

You have to abandon all other best study practices, best interpretations, and historical understandings to arrive here.

This kind of __________ only plays well among those who want and need it to be true. Otherwise, this “abortion recipe” argument would be sliced, diced, and discarded in about 5 minutes by anyone with integrity and a concordance.

I highly recommend both.