Is the Onan Story About Contraception?

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?].

Swan’s point, as always, is to mock and scorn Catholicism and Catholics. Here he finds two Catholic apologists (the first one, myself, unnamed by him as usual), disagreeing on the interpretation of Genesis 38 and the Onan incident with regard to contraception, and so he thinks this is some sort of argument against Catholicism, as if individuals Catholics don’t have disagreements on exegesis, just as all Christian groups do.

I contend that Mark Shea is simply wrong, and unacquainted with the relevant facts. First of all, he is in effect accusing a pope in a very high-level papal encyclical on the topic of contraception — and St. Augustine — of using “weak one and wrong-headed” reasoning concerning this issue. In Casti Connubii (On Christian Marriage), issued by Pope Pius XI on 31 December 1930 (the precursor to the famous Humanae Vitae of 1968), he wrote:

55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.”

[Footnote 45: St. August., De coniug. adult., lib. II, n. 12, Gen, XXXVlll, 8-10.]

In Catholicism, when the choice in a disagreement comes down to a lay apologist vs. a pope in an encyclical along with St. Augustine, virtually any serious, observant Catholic would yield to the reasoning of the pope and the person widely considered the greatest Church father. I would hope that Mark Shea would do so, if he were shown this. I certainly would, if I took this view and discovered this passage. As it turns out, I was correct, and in line with the Bible, the Church fathers, Protestant tradition all the way up to 1930, and the Catholic Church. I’ve written at least five times about Onan, if anyone wants to better understand my position on this:

Why Did God Kill Onan? (Bible and Contraception) [2-9-04]

Dialogue: Why Did God Kill Onan? (Contraception) [2-13-04]

Biblical Data Against Contraception: Onan’s Sin and Punishment: a Concise “Catholic” Argument  [3-7-14]

Bible vs. Contraception: Onan’s Sin and Punishment [National Catholic Register, 5-30-17]

Steve Hays, Onan, Bible Commentary, & Contraception [1-11-07, 2-28-14; revised & expanded on 12-14-21]

The Protestant New Bible Dictionary (J. D. Douglas, editor, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962), in the article, “Marriage”, written by the editor, J. D. Douglas, states that “Onan . . . took steps to avoid a full consummation of the union, thus displeasing the Lord, who slew him” (p. 910). Douglas appears to contend that Onan was killed for the contraceptive act, not disobedience to the levirate law. The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (Allen C. Myers, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1987; English revision of Bijbelse Encyclopedie, edited by W. H. Gispen, Kampen, Netherlands: J. H. Kok, revised edition, 1975; translated by Raymond C. Togtman and Ralph W. Vunderink) concurs:

Onan’s tactic of withdrawing before ejaculation . . . costs him his life. (p. 653)

[W]henever Onan and Tamar had intercourse he would spill his sperm on the ground to prevent her from conceiving; for this the Lord slew him. (p. 781)

In its article on “Levirate Law,” we are also informed that “the brother had the option of refusing to take his sister-in-law in levirate marriage” (p. 652). The logic is apparent: if refusal alone was not grounds to be killed by God or by capital punishment, then there must have been something in the way Onan refused which was the cause. Genesis 38:9 undeniably establishes that Onan utilized the “withdrawal method”: probably the form of contraception most used throughout history. God clearly didn’t approve of it and judged him as a result.

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (Lutheran) also concurs in its view on this passage:

This act not only betrayed a want of affection to his brother, combined with a despicable covetousness for his possession and inheritance, but was also a sin against the divine institution of marriage and its object, and was therefore punished by Jehovah with sudden death.

***

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,600+ articles, please follow this blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

***

Since all Protestants thought contraception was an impermissible sin and evil until 1930, when the Anglicans first permitted it in “hard cases” only, it’s easy to find them supporting my interpretation as well. Hence, John Calvin, commenting on the Onan passage, wrote:

And the thing which he did displeased the LORD. Less neatly the Jews speak about this matter. I will contend myself with briefly mentioning this, as far as the sense of shame allows to discuss it. It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race. When a woman in some way drives away the seed out the womb, through aids, then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime. Onan was guilty of a similar crime, by defiling the earth with his seed, so that Tamar would not receive a future inheritor.

Martin Luther used even stronger language in condemning Onan and interpreting the passage as a condemnation of the contraceptive mentality:

Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed . . . He was inflamed with the basest spite and hatred . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore God punished him . . . That worthless fellow . . . preferred polluting himself with a most disgraceful sin to raising up offspring for his brother. (Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 38-44; 1544; in Luther’s Works, Vol. 7, 20-21)

For more about Luther’s views on this topic, see: Luther and Calvin Opposed Contraception and “Fewer Children is Better” Thinking (2-21-04; published at National Catholic Register, 9-13-17). For an overview of the early Church on this issue, see: Contraception: Early Church Teaching (William Klimon) [1998], and “What the Early Church Believed: Contraception and Sterilization” (Catholic Answers).

As Jesus said to the Pharisees: “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains” (Jn 9:41, RSV).