Is contraception sinful according to Genesis 38?

Kilk1

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2019
607
193
Washington State
✟103,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Hello! In Genesis 38, Er had a wife named Tamar. Because he was wicked, God killed him (v. 7). According to the customs of the time, Er's brother, Onan, should enter a levirate marriage with her to produce offspring continuing his brother's line (v. 8). He knew the offspring wouldn't be his, though, so when he had relations with Tamar, Onan performed the contraceptive practice of withdrawal, emitting on the ground (v. 9). God wasn't pleased and killed him for what he did (v. 10).

Being someone who hasn't grown up hearing that contraception is wrong, this passage confuses me. While apparently not as prevalent an interpretation in the past, many today say that Onan's sin was not contraception, just violating the levirate custom. However, I came across John F. Kippley, who lists a number of reasons supporting the contraceptive interpretation in the essay "The Sin of Onan: Is It Relevant To Contraception?" starting at page 3. One is the argument that Judah and Shelah also violated the levirate custom but didn't die (vv. 13-18, 24-26).

Does Genesis 38 condemn contraception? While I'd appreciate it if you'd glance over pages 3-4 of the essay before replying, such isn't mandatory. Thanks!
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: AllDayFaith

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Hello! In Genesis 38, Er had a wife named Tamar. Because he was wicked, God killed him (v. 7). According to the customs of the time, Er's brother, Onan, should enter a levirate marriage with her to produce offspring continuing his brother's line (v. 8). He knew the offspring wouldn't be his, though, so when he had relations with Tamar, Onan performed the contraceptive practice of withdrawal, emitting on the ground (v. 9). God wasn't pleased and killed him for what he did (v. 10).

Being someone who hasn't grown up hearing that contraception is wrong, this passage confuses me. While apparently not as prevalent an interpretation in the past, many today say that Onan's sin was not contraception, just violating the levirate custom. However, I came across John F. Kippley, who lists a number of reasons supporting the contraceptive interpretation in the essay "The Sin of Onan: Is It Relevant To Contraception?" starting at page 3. One is the argument that Judah and Shelah also violated the levirate custom but didn't die (vv. 13-18, 24-26).

Does Genesis 38 condemn contraception? While I'd appreciate it if you'd glance over pages 3-4 of the essay before replying, such isn't mandatory. Thanks!
It isn't sinful necessarily for the reasons noted
but it is sinful if not directed by the Father.... i.e. anything not of faith is sinful.
 
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hello! In Genesis 38, Er had a wife named Tamar. Because he was wicked, God killed him (v. 7). According to the customs of the time, Er's brother, Onan, should enter a levirate marriage with her to produce offspring continuing his brother's line (v. 8). He knew the offspring wouldn't be his, though, so when he had relations with Tamar, Onan performed the contraceptive practice of withdrawal, emitting on the ground (v. 9). God wasn't pleased and killed him for what he did (v. 10).

Being someone who hasn't grown up hearing that contraception is wrong, this passage confuses me. While apparently not as prevalent an interpretation in the past, many today say that Onan's sin was not contraception, just violating the levirate custom. However, I came across John F. Kippley, who lists a number of reasons supporting the contraceptive interpretation in the essay "The Sin of Onan: Is It Relevant To Contraception?" starting at page 3. One is the argument that Judah and Shelah also violated the levirate custom but didn't die (vv. 13-18, 24-26).

Does Genesis 38 condemn contraception? While I'd appreciate it if you'd glance over pages 3-4 of the essay before replying, such isn't mandatory. Thanks!

Sex in marriage is for two purposes. the pleasant bonding of husband and wife (Yes God created sex to be very very very enjoyable) and to reproduce Godly offspring.

If a couple never wants children- this is wrong. Unless there are physical detriments that would prevent it.

But how many children and when they should have them is a matter for the couple and their relation for god to decide. Contraception in that sense is 100% Okay.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,168
16,008
Flyoverland
✟1,223,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Does Genesis 38 condemn contraception? While I'd appreciate it if you'd glance over pages 3-4 of the essay before replying, such isn't mandatory. Thanks!
Onan did something bad. He didn't need to agree to the Levirate marriage. He could have turned it down. Others in the Bible have done it, most notably as described in the book of Ruth. But Onan didn't turn down his obligation. He accepted it. But then, in essentially a lie, he fails to do what he had agreed to do.

I think he contracepted so as to have the fun but without fulfilling his duty. And for that God killed him. He was killed for not providing his duty by means of contraception. I do not think you can make a blanket statement from this alone that all contraception is immoral. But this one act of contracepting was immoral.

As to whether all acts of contraception are immoral, that's a more lengthy Biblical and philosophical discussion. I think it ends up abundantly clear that contraception is immoral if one doesn't come into the investigation presuming the cultural norm already.

Two books that have explained it all very well have been edited by Janet Smith. First is 'Why Humanae Vitae Was Right' and second is 'Why Humanae Vitae is Still Right'.
 
Upvote 0

Leet

Active Member
Feb 24, 2015
367
407
✟77,484.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
If a couple never wants children- this is wrong. Unless there are physical detriments that would prevent it.
Wow, are you for real?! I'm happy with my hubby and our sons but by golly gee, it is 100% personal decision of a couple whether to have kids or not.
 
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,328
47
Florida
✟117,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
It isn't sinful necessarily for the reasons noted but it is sinful if not directed by the Father.... i.e. anything not of faith is sinful.

It is not sinful for any reason. If one church says women can't be pastors, keep looking for one that does.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,168
16,008
Flyoverland
✟1,223,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Wow, are you for real?! I'm happy with my hubby and our sons but by golly gee, it is 100% personal decision of a couple whether to have kids or not.
That would have been very standard Christian understanding until not so very long ago. Even among Pentecostals.
 
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Wow, are you for real?! I'm happy with my hubby and our sons but by golly gee, it is 100% personal decision of a couple whether to have kids or not.

Not according to the Bible. One purpose for sex is to reproduce the population. the whens and hows are between the couple and God. But other than for some physical reasons- to not have children is disobedience to God.
 
Upvote 0

Leet

Active Member
Feb 24, 2015
367
407
✟77,484.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Kilk1

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2019
607
193
Washington State
✟103,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The "seed was spilled" in order to avoid an obligation under Torah law. It is not a blanket condemnation of all contraception.
It may not be conclusive, which is why I'm posting on this forum. However, I'd like to consider the following.

First, if the essay I referenced is correct, Genesis 38:9 suggests Onan sinned in relation to the earth, not his brother. The New King James Version says that Onan "emitted on the ground," which accurately describes what happened. However, the word translated "emitted" doesn't literally mean "emit" or "spill"; rather, it means "destory" or "act corruptly." Young's Literal Translation says Onan "hath destroyed it to the earth." The essay I referenced says this:

The Hebrew verb shichet never means “to spill” or “waste.” Rather, it means to act perversely. The text also makes it clear that his perverse action was related toward the ground, not against his brother.

Second, while Onan's intentions definitely should be considered, verse 10 says that it was "the thing which he did," not merely his intentions, that "displeased the LORD" and led to his death.

Thirdly, Judah and Shelah also violated the levirate custom after this event, apparently, but didn't die (vv. 11-18, 24-26). The essay argues it thusly: "When three people are guilty of the same crime but only one of them receives the death penalty from God, common sense requires that we ask what that one did that the others did not do."

Considering these things, does Genesis 38 teach 1) that emitting on the ground was itself corrupt, 2) that the action of Onan was what "displeased the LORD," and 3) that Shelah's non-sexual avoidance of the levirate custom wasn't sinful, but Onan's sexual avoidance was?

The essay could be wrong, and it disagrees with what I've been taught growing up. If it's wrong, however, what should we say is the correct reason that only Onan died, and not Judah or Shelah (vv. 11-18, 24-26)?
 
Upvote 0

Kilk1

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2019
607
193
Washington State
✟103,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Onan did something bad. He didn't need to agree to the Levirate marriage. He could have turned it down. Others in the Bible have done it, most notably as described in the book of Ruth. But Onan didn't turn down his obligation. He accepted it. But then, in essentially a lie, he fails to do what he had agreed to do.

I think he contracepted so as to have the fun but without fulfilling his duty. And for that God killed him. He was killed for not providing his duty by means of contraception. I do not think you can make a blanket statement from this alone that all contraception is immoral. But this one act of contracepting was immoral.

As to whether all acts of contraception are immoral, that's a more lengthy Biblical and philosophical discussion. I think it ends up abundantly clear that contraception is immoral if one doesn't come into the investigation presuming the cultural norm already.

Two books that have explained it all very well have been edited by Janet Smith. First is 'Why Humanae Vitae Was Right' and second is 'Why Humanae Vitae is Still Right'.

I just made a reply to JackRT listing potential reasons this would go beyond violating the levirate, though I could be wrong. I'll copy and paste what I wrote there, here:

First, if the essay I referenced is correct, Genesis 38:9 suggests Onan sinned in relation to the earth, not his brother. The New King James Version says that Onan "emitted on the ground," which accurately describes what happened. However, the word translated "emitted" doesn't literally mean "emit" or "spill"; rather, it means "destory" or "act corruptly." Young's Literal Translation says Onan "hath destroyed it to the earth." The essay I referenced says this:

The Hebrew verb shichet never means “to spill” or “waste.” Rather, it means to act perversely. The text also makes it clear that his perverse action was related toward the ground, not against his brother.

Second, while Onan's intentions definitely should be considered, verse 10 says that it was "the thing which he did," not merely his intentions, that "displeased the LORD" and led to his death.

Thirdly, Judah and Shelah also violated the levirate custom after this event, apparently, but didn't die (vv. 11-18, 24-26). The essay argues it thusly: "When three people are guilty of the same crime but only one of them receives the death penalty from God, common sense requires that we ask what that one did that the others did not do."

Considering these things, does Genesis 38 teach 1) that emitting on the ground was itself corrupt, 2) that the action of Onan was what "displeased the LORD," and 3) that Shelah's non-sexual avoidance of the levirate custom wasn't sinful, but Onan's sexual avoidance was?

The essay could be wrong, and it disagrees with what I've been taught growing up. If it's wrong, however, what should we say is the correct reason that only Onan died, and not Judah or Shelah (vv. 11-18, 24-26)?

Also, you being someone who disagrees with the interpretation I'm asking about but on the anti-contraception side in general, do you know any discussions/debates between both sides that I could access? It would be beneficial to me, that's for sure! Thanks in advance for the reply.
 
Upvote 0

Kilk1

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2019
607
193
Washington State
✟103,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Sex in marriage is for two purposes. the pleasant bonding of husband and wife (Yes God created sex to be very very very enjoyable) and to reproduce Godly offspring.

If a couple never wants children- this is wrong. Unless there are physical detriments that would prevent it.

But how many children and when they should have them is a matter for the couple and their relation for god to decide. Contraception in that sense is 100% Okay.
Can you give Scriptures to support what you're saying? I'm not trying to be rude, as I know Scriptures support, for example, the position that sex is designed to be pleasurable (Prov. 5:19, 1 Cor. 7:1-6). And like obviously, the other purpose is to produce "godly offspring" (Mal. 2:15, NKJV).

But are there verses for the rest of what you said as well, that contraception is wrong when a couple never wants children but 100% okay so long as there's a few children? Is this from the Bible or our own human reasoning?
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,168
16,008
Flyoverland
✟1,223,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
The essay could be wrong, and it disagrees with what I've been taught growing up. If it's wrong, however, what should we say is the correct reason that only Onan died, and not Judah or Shelah (vv. 11-18, 24-26)?
What you've been taught growing up is probably antithetical to what your great grandparents would have been taught in any Christian church of any sort. The Catholics knew it, and the Orthodox knew it, and the Reformers knew it but that teaching got quite lost among the Protestants less than a hundred years ago. The trendsetters were of course the Anglicans and all the rest followed. I think they made a mistake.
Also, you being someone who disagrees with the interpretation I'm asking about but on the anti-contraception side in general, do you know any discussions/debates between both sides that I could access? It would be beneficial to me, that's for sure! Thanks in advance for the reply.
I don't know that I totally disagree on this one thing. You provide some interesting information. I'll have to go back and re-read Kippley. He has been very influential in our practicing natural family planning. It's been my interpretation that Onan could have passed on the levirate marriage with no risk to himself. When he took on the levirate marriage he had a duty to his brother's wife, and failing that duty was a major sin, a sin leading to death. He violated one of the purposes of sex. Not that everyone always needs to keep all of the purposes of sex in mind while engaging in it, but to willfully deny any purpose of sex is a sin. Fidelity for example, violating that one is adultery. Contraception prevents the seed from going where it is intended, or kills it. One doesn't need to intend pregnancy every time, but any act to disrupt it is sin. It's acts that matter, and intent, not just intent.

I did mention the compilations of various authors edited by Janet Smith titled 'Why Humanae Vitae Was Right" and Why Humanae Vitae Is Still Right". Those are pretty heavy works published by Ignatius Press. I wager that anyone who could wade through those two excellent books would come back to the teaching of original Christianity about contraception. They hit the issue from every angle. So I'm going to bed now but I will see if a Kippley essay is in the first book and if I can finish it or fall asleep first. So it may take a few days for me to get back to you.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,168
16,008
Flyoverland
✟1,223,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
But are there verses for the rest of what you said as well, that contraception is wrong when a couple never wants children but 100% okay so long as there's a few children? Is this from the Bible or our own human reasoning?
My view is that openness to life is something for each and every sexual act. One need not be consciously thinking of it all the time but at least to put no impediment in the way of forming a new life, not overall, but at each instance.

Who knows. Maybe Onan would have been willing to have a levirate child next year, or the year after, but God was concerned about each act, in fact the first act. That's my bet.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Nowhere in the bible does it say Christians must have kids.
Does God expect all of us to have children? | GotQuestions.org

Genesis 1:
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

This command is for all mankind! Adam and Eve were the original parents. This applies to us as well!

If you want the many many verses scattered through Scripture which call children a blessing and the implied mandate- they are in both testaments.

Jesus said remaining unmarried a gift from God. And the purpose of marriage is for two to become one flesh and to fill the earth with godly offspring! Sorry but that is the bible.
 
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Nowhere in the bible does it say Christians must have kids.
Does God expect all of us to have children? | GotQuestions.org

I must remind you that got questions is not the bible- and AFAIK it is not even a Christian site. Poor choice to defend matters of faith.

Once again if a couple is infertile or told by doctors that children pose a grave danger to bear or that their offspring would be severely disabled- I see no biblical problem. But a couple who just decide to have no children when there is no physical problem present- the Bible does have issues with.
 
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Can you give Scriptures to support what you're saying? I'm not trying to be rude, as I know Scriptures support, for example, the position that sex is designed to be pleasurable (Prov. 5:19, 1 Cor. 7:1-6). And like obviously, the other purpose is to produce "godly offspring" (Mal. 2:15, NKJV).

But are there verses for the rest of what you said as well, that contraception is wrong when a couple never wants children but 100% okay so long as there's a few children? Is this from the Bible or our own human reasoning?

Genesis 1 the command to our original parents was to be fruitful and multiply!
this was passed on from generation to generation.

I see no problem with contraception. I am convinced it is neither evil or good. It is motive that places a good or evil connotation to it. Couples wishing to wait for children- once again on the surface- I see no biblical issues with it.
those things are between teh couple and god. But to reject children altogether? that goes against th ecommand of God making 2 one flesh.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums