• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Is The Onan Story About Contraception?

Michie

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
182,201
65,934
Woods
✟5,864,621.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
In his article, “Roman Catholic Confusion on Contraception in the Bible” (3-15-12), anti-Catholic Reformed Protestant apologist James Swan observed:


You can’t make this stuff up:
Genesis 38 is about contraception:
Bottom line is that God killed Onan for some reason. The only plausible reason we have from the text itself is contraception. A straightforward reading of the text lends itself readily to that interpretation (though not absolutely of logical necessity).[source]

Genesis 38 is not about contraception:
“In the case of Onan, you are right that the common Catholic reliance on this passage as a proof text against contraception or masturbation is a weak one and wrong-headed” [Source: Mark Shea. What Does it Mean to Say Jesus has Fulfilled the Old Covenant?].

Continued below.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WarriorAngel

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
22,692
19,706
Flyoverland
✟1,357,437.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
In his article, “Roman Catholic Confusion on Contraception in the Bible” (3-15-12), anti-Catholic Reformed Protestant apologist James Swan observed:

Continued below.
Poor Mark Shea. He went off some sort of deep end a few years back and seems to have more or less lost it. I followed him five years ago and before, but he's no longer even on my radar except for occasional prayer.

The story of Onan is about his failure to provide for his brother's wife while pretending to do so. Levirate marriage is NOT required, as there is a way out of it if he just doesn't want to do so. But here he wanted the sex but he didn't want the baby, which was kind of the whole idea of the Levirate duty to his dead brother's wife. It was contraceptive sex.
 
Upvote 0

WarriorAngel

I close my eyes and see you smile
Site Supporter
Apr 11, 2005
73,951
10,060
United States Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟597,590.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Is contraception a modern invention? Hardly! Birth control has been around for millennia. Scrolls found in Egypt, dating to 1900 B.C., describe ancient methods of birth control that were later practiced in the Roman empire during the apostolic age. Wool that absorbed sperm, poisons that fumigated the uterus, potions, and other methods were used to prevent conception. In some centuries, even condoms were used (though made out of animal skin rather than latex).

The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. “Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the sperm on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also” (Gen. 38:8–10).


---

In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, “Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly e.j.a.c.u.l.a.t.e.d, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted” (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

Hippolytus of Rome wrote in 255 that “on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful [certain Christian women who had affairs with male servants] want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered” (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12).

Around 307 Lactantius explained that some “complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife” (Divine Institutes 6:20).

Augustine wrote in 419, “I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]” (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).


 
Upvote 0