Why Did God Kill Onan? Luther, Calvin, Wesley, C.S. Lewis, & Others on Contraception

Biblical Evidence for Catholicism ^ | Monday, February 09, 2004 | Dave Armstrong

[GonzoII]

Why Did God Kill Onan? Luther, Calvin, Wesley, C.S. Lewis, & Others on Contraception

Genesis 38:9-10: “But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. 10 And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also.”

It is an historical fact that no Christian communion sanctioned contraception until the Anglican Lambeth Conference in 1930. Protestant historian Roland Bainton states casually that the Church “very early forbade contraception” (Early Christianity, 56). According to The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, “many Christian moralists . . . repudiate all methods of family limitation” (Cross, 889). Ronald Knox eloquently recounted how Christians used to detest contraception:

Practices hitherto connected with the unmentioned underworld have found their way into the home . . . it is not merely a Christian principle that has been thrown overboard . . . Ovid and Juvenal, with no flicker of Christian revelation to guide them, branded the practices in question with the protest of heathen satire. It is not Christian morality, but natural morality as hitherto conceived, that has been outraged by the change of standard.

(Knox, 31-32)

Christianity (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism alike) had always opposed contraception as gravely sinful. When I first learned of this in 1990 (as an inquiring evangelical pro-life activist curious about the “odd” and inexplicable Catholic prohibition) it was a shocking revelation to me and the first step on my road to conversion to Catholicism.

Today, probably upwards of 90% of Protestants and 80% of Catholics use contraceptives. It is a mortal sin in Catholicism, and used to always be considered an extremely serious sin in Protestant circles. How things change. The great Anglican apologist C.S. Lewis, for example, opposed contraception:

As regards contraceptives, there is a paradoxical, negative sense in which all possible future generations are the patients or subjects of a power wielded by those already alive. By contraception simply, they are denied existence; by contraception used as a means of selective breeding, they are, without their concurring voice, made to be what one generation, for its own reasons, may choose to prefer. From this point of view, what we call Man's power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with Nature as its instrument.

(The Abolition of Man, 68-69)

Genesis 38:9-10 (about Onan) has been one of the main prooftexts traditionally used to oppose contraception. Observe how Martin Luther interpreted this biblical passage:

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; LW, 7, 20-21)

John Calvin, in his Commentary on Genesis is no less vehemently opposed to the practice (what would he think if he knew about the vast majority of Calvinists today who regularly contracept?):

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.

The New Bible Dictionary concludes, on the other hand, “this verse does not pass any judgment on birth control as such” (Douglas, 789). The reasoning often used to overcome the force of the verse is that Onan was punished by God (with death) for disobeying the “levirate law,” whereby a brother of a dead husband was to take his sister-in-law as his wife and have children with her (Deuteronomy 25:5-10).

But that can’t apply in this case (or any other) because the same work informs us that the law “allows the brother the option of refusing.” Thus we find in Deuteronomy 25:9 that a sister-in-law so refused should “spit in his face,” but there is no mention of any death penalty or the wrath of God.

How then, can the New Bible Dictionary be so sure that the slaying of Onan by God had no relation to contraception? God didn’t command Onan in this case – another argument sometimes heard -- , so he wasn’t directly disobeying God (it was his father Judah who asked him to do what he didn’t want to do: Gen 38:8).

Whatever was “displeasing” to God couldn’t have been disobedience regarding the levirate law, since He allowed people to disobey it and recommended that they suffer only public humiliation, not death, which is not nearly as serious as being “wicked” -- the reason God slew Onan’s brother Er (Gen 38:7).

Moreover, the passage which teaches about the levirate law (Deuteronomy 25:5-10) is from God, as part of the covenant and the Law received by Moses on Mt. Sinai, and proclaimed by Him to all of Israel (see Deut 5:1-5, 29:1,12).

If God Himself did not say that the punishment for disobeying the levirate law was death (in the place where it would be expected if it were true), how can modern commentators “know” this? Can it be that their “knowledge” exists in order to avoid uncomfortable implications concerning a prohibition of contraception? Might there be a little bit of bias at play?

Yet the article on Onan in the same dictionary (the earlier comment was in the article, “Marriage”), written by the editor, J.D. Douglas, states:

Onan . . . took steps to avoid a full consummation of the union, thus displeasing the Lord, who slew him.

(Douglas, 910)

Douglas appears to contend that Onan was killed for the contraceptive act, not disobedience to the levirate law. If so, his opinion contradicts the view expressed in the other article by J.S. Wright and J.A. Thompson. The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary concurs:

. . . whenever Onan and Tamar had intercourse he would spill his sperm on the ground to prevent her from conceiving; for this the Lord slew him.

Onan’s tactic of withdrawing before ejaculation . . . costs him his life.

(Myers, 781, 653)

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 (652). The logic is apparent: if refusal alone was not grounds to be killed by God or by capital punishment issued by his fellows, then there must have been something in the way Onan refused which was the cause. This was the “withdrawal method,” a form of contraception (probably the one most used throughout history). Therefore, Onan was killed for doing that, which in turn means that God didn’t approve of it.

One might still retort as follows: “it is not contraception per se that was wrong in Onan’s case, but the fact that he wanted to have sex with the woman but not to have children. He had the right to refuse the levirate marriage, but once he agreed to it he was obligated to produce the children which was the purpose of it.”

I would agree with this hypothetical objection prima facie, but (upon closer inspection) I would add that it actually confirms the central moral point on which the moral objection to contraception is based: the evil of separating sex from procreation. It is precisely because the central purpose of marriage is procreation, that the levirate law was present in the first place. If one married, they were to have sexual relations, which was (foremost) for the purpose of having children.

If a husband died with no children, it was so important for children to be born that God commanded the man’s brother to take his wife after he died. But Onan tried to separate sex from procreation. He wanted all the pleasure but not the responsibility of fatherhood or to help perpetuate his brother’s family. He possessed the “contraceptive mentality” which is rampant today, even among otherwise traditional, committed Christians.

This is what is evil: an unnatural separation of what God intended to be together. If Onan didn’t want children, he shouldn’t have agreed to the levirate marriage. Once married, he should have agreed to having children. But he tried the “middle way” of having sex but willfully separating procreation from it. This was the sin, and this is why God killed him. Martin Luther understood the fundamental evil of contraception and the “anti-child” mindset:

Today you find many people who do not want to have children. Moreover, this callousness and inhuman attitude, which is worse than barbarous, is met with chiefly among the nobility and princes, who often refrain from marriage for this one single reason, that they might have no offspring. It is even more disgraceful that you find princes who allow themselves to be forced not to marry, for fear that the members of their house would increase beyond a definite limit. Surely such men deserve that their memory be blotted out from the land of the living. Who is there who would not detest these swinish monsters? But these facts, too, serve to emphasize original sin. Otherwise we would marvel at procreation as the greatest work of God, and as a most outstanding gift we would honor it with the praises it deserves.

(Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 1-5, 1536; LW, I, 118; commentary on Genesis 2:18)

The rest of the populace is more wicked than even the heathen themselves. For most married people do not desire offspring. Indeed, they turn away from it and consider it better to live without children, because they are poor and do not have the means with which to support a household. . . . But the purpose of marriage is not to have pleasure and to be idle but to procreate and bring up children, to support a household. . . . Those who have no love for children are swine, stocks, and logs unworthy of being called men and women; for they despise the blessing of God, the Creator and Author of marriage.

(Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 26-30; LW, V, 325-328; vol. 28, 279; commentary on the birth of Joseph to Jacob and Rachel; cf. LW, vol. 45, 39-40)

But the greatest good in married life, that which makes all suffering and labor worth while, is that God grants offspring and commands that they be brought up to worship and serve him. In all the world this is the noblest and most precious work, because to God there can be nothing dearer than the salvation of souls. Now since we are all duty bound to suffer death, if need be, that we might bring a single soul to God, you can see how rich the estate of marriage is in good works.

(The Estate of Marriage, 1522; LW, vol. 45, 46)

You will find many to whom a large number of children is unwelcome, as though marriage had been instituted only for bestial pleasures and not also for the very valuable work by which we serve God and men when we train and educate the children whom God has given us. They do not appreciate the most pleasant feature of marriage. For what exceeds the love of children?

(In Plass, II, #2834)

Let’s examine more traditional Protestant commentary on Genesis 38:8-9. Matthew Henry decries “the great abuse of his own body” and “sins that dishonour the body and defile it” which “are very displeasing to God and evidences of vile affections.” John Wesley actually quotes Henry, adds that Onan was abusing his wife, and concludes with this powerful condemnation:

Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord -- And it is to be feared, thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.

Sources

Bainton, Roland H., Early Christianity, New York: D. Van Nostrand Company, 1960.

Calvin, John, Calvin's Commentaries, 22 volumes, translated and edited by John Owen; originally printed for the Calvin Translation Society, Edinburgh, Scotland, 1853; reprinted by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI: 1979. Available online: http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment2/

Cross, F.L. and E.A. Livingstone, editors, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edition, 1983.

Douglas, J.D., editor, The New Bible Dictionary, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962.

Henry, Matthew [Presbyterian], Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible, 1706. Available online:
http://www.studylight.org/com/mhc-com/
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc.html

Knox, Ronald, The Belief of Catholics, Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image, 1927; reprinted in 1958.

Lewis, C.S., The Abolition of Man, New York: Macmillan, 1947.

Luther, Martin, Luther's Works (LW), American edition, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan (volumes 1-30) and Helmut T. Lehmann (volumes 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (volumes 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (volumes 31-55), 1955.

Myers, Allen C., editor, The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, Grand Rapids, MI: 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.

Plass, Ewald M., What Luther Says, an Anthology, two volumes, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959.

Wesley, John [founder of Methodism], Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, 1765. Available (online)

* * * * *

From my book: The Catholic Verses (published in 2004 by Sophia Institute Press)

For further fascinating exegesis of the Onan passage, see Fr. Brian Harrison's comments: “The Sin of Onanism Revisited."

Also of related interest: “Church History and Birth Control” (many full citations).

[daniel1212]

See above.

[ravenwolf]

But if he will not take his brother’s wife, who by law belongeth to him,

---

I believe polygamy would be the law in this matter other wise it would be stipulated that only the single brothers would be required to obey the custom.

[hecticskeptic]

I disagree here, as the text teaches that the brother was to marry the widow:

You may have a point with your disagreement but I think some further review of Jewish culture, customs and laws as pertaining to marriage during this period is in order so that a more complete grasp of this story is possible. For example, could the brother who was ‘selected’ (in this instance by his father Judah) to impregnate a widow be married already or did he need to be single? Was there a law governing this? Verse 8 or the Genesis 38 passage says that “And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.” In other words, the act of sex with Tamar was all that was required to be ‘married’….a lesson about what constitutes marriage that is totally lost on the current age that we find ourselves in. But was that ‘marital relationship’ between Tamar and Onan expected to continue in the form of how husbands and wives normally relate to each other i.e. were they expected to be sexual companions for life? Or if Onan was married already, was it expected that he would only have to provide this one duty of a ‘husband’ which was to impregnate his brother’s widow and then go back to living his other life…. be that singlehood or possibly marriage to some other woman? In other words, would that make him a de facto husband who was technically married to Tamar by virtue of the sex act but with no other responsibilities as a husband? If so and assuming that Onan was already married, what were the laws of polygamy…. did this lead to a hierarchy amongst wives that is codified in some way i.e. ones which were ‘relational wives’ versus ones which were ones where the husband was viewed strictly as a sperm donor? Was Tamar viewed as a concubine and for that matter, what were the laws concerning having concubines? My understanding of concubines is that they are women who are living with a man but are not wives…. Does that mean that no sex is involved since sex would imply that they are wives, no? And what is the scope of implications of what is stated in verse 9 of the passage where it says that “And Onan knew that the seed should not be his…” I gather that this had something to do with Jewish laws that governed inheritances and by impregnating Tamar, it meant a further divvying up the pie of his father Judah’s estate. However, I’m just guessing at that but regardless, why was this that such a big deal? If Onan was single and wanted/needed a wife and Tamar wanted/needed a husband….then why would it matter whether Tamar was the woman that Onan impregnated as opposed to some other woman? The fact that Onan did not want impregnate Tamar, does this imply that he already had a wife, that he didn’t really like Tamar and certainly not enough to want her to have his child etc.? I don’t think that this aspect is very clear.

I suggested that Jewish law allowed this ‘exception’ to the commandment concerning adultery and you rightly corrected me that the Genesis 38 text indicates that he was to marry Tamar. To muddy the waters further, what exactly does the commandment concerning adultery really mean in the broad scope of the historical context? Exodus 20: 14 “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” ……The simple meaning of this it means that a sexual relationship with someone other than one’s husband or wife is against God’s law…. that part is clear. However, polygamy was allowed during this period and no examples come to mind where it is specifically pointed out that more than one wife constituted adultery.

There is much still be understood about this story and I readily admit that I probably don’t know near enough to be commenting as there is much more historical context (as alluded to in the above questions) and study that is required. If you know of a good place to get up to speed on these issues from a historical perspective, I’d appreciate the insight.

[daniel1212]

“And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.” In other words, the act of sex with Tamar was all that was required to be ‘married’

That is absurd, as it eliminates fornication, and would mean that Judah married Tamar since her next hook up with with him.

Instead, what Scripture teaches is that leaving father and mother and cleaving to one's wife (Gn. 2:24) means one is leaving the care of the former and entering into the care of the later, which the sexual act (which placed her into the care of the former) signifies, normatively with parental and bridal consent (will you go with this man). And which implies a contract of care, with the husband taking the place of care of the father.

Thus two who consensually enter into the martial act before marriage are to be married, not are married simply because they fornicated:

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

Look at Gn. 34 and the story of Shechem and Dinah, which was consensual, but which "defiled Dinah," by dealing "with our sister as with an harlot," and thus Shechem sought Jacob's consent to be married, which was not given due to endogamy.

But was that ‘marital relationship’ between Tamar and Onan expected to continue in the form of how husbands and wives normally relate to each other i.e. were they expected to be sexual companions for life?

The latter of-course.

Or if Onan was married already, was it expected that he would only have to provide this one duty of a ‘husband’ which was to impregnate his brother’s widow and then go back to living his other life…

No: the Scriptures plainly say

"the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. (Deuteronomy 25:5)

What is this so difficulty to comprehend? Do you want to make fornication into a one night marriage, as in Islam?

My understanding of concubines is that they are women who are living with a man but are not wives…

Wrong also: concubines were wives (Gn. 25:1; cf. 1Ch. 1:32; Gn. 30:4; cf. Gn. 35:22; 2Sam. 16:21, 22, cf. 2Sam. 20:3)

I gather that this had something to do with Jewish laws that governed inheritances and by impregnating Tamar, it meant a further divvying up the pie of his father Judah’s estate. However, I’m just guessing at that but regardless, why was this that such a big deal? If Onan was single and wanted/needed a wife and Tamar wanted/needed a husband….then why would it matter whether Tamar was the woman that Onan impregnated as opposed to some other woman? The fact that Onan did not want impregnate Tamar, does this imply that he already had a wife, that he didn’t really like Tamar and certainly not enough to want her to have his child etc.? I don’t think that this aspect is very clear.

It is fairly obvious that Onan was married, and he spilled his seed on the ground, lest he should give his seed to his brother, lest his brother's wife he had married should conceive by him, and bear a son that should be called his brother's, and inherit his estate.

The provision, “without having a son” (ben), has been correctly interpreted by the lxx, Vulg., Josephus (Ant. iv. 8, 23), and the Rabbins, as signifying childless (having no seed, Mat_22:25); for if the deceased had simply a daughter, according to Num_27:4., the perpetuation of his house and name was to be ensured through her. The obligation of a brother-in-law's marriage only existed in cases where the brothers had lived together, i.e., in one and the same place, not necessarily in one house or with a common domestic establishment and home (vid., Gen_13:6; Gen_36:7). - This custom of a brother-in-law's (Levirate) marriage, which is met with in different nations, and as an old traditional custom among the Israelites (see at Gen_38:8.), had its natural roots in the desire inherent in man, who is formed for immortality, and connected with the hitherto undeveloped belief in an eternal life, to secure a continued personal existence for himself and immorality for his name, through the perpetuation of his family and in the life of the son who took his place. This desire was not suppressed in Israel by divine revelation, but rather increased, inasmuch as the promises given to the patriarchs were bound up with the preservation and propagation of their seed and name.

The promise given to Abraham for his seed would of necessity not only raise the begetting of children in the religious views of the Israelites into the work desired by God and well-pleasing to Him, but would also give this significance to the traditional custom of preserving the name and family by the substitution of a marriage of duty, that they would thereby secure to themselves and their family a share in the blessing of promise.

..if the surviving brother refused to marry his widowed sister-in-law, she was to bring the matter into the gate before the elders of the town (vid., Deu_21:19), i.e., before the magistrates; and if the brother-in-law still persisted in his refusal, she was to take his shoe from off his foot and spit in his face, with these words: “So let it be done to the man who does not build up his brother's house.”

The taking off of the shoe was an ancient custom in Israel, adopted, according to Rth_4:7, in cases of redemption and exchange, for the purpose of confirming commercial transactions. The usage arose from the fact, that when any one took possession of landed property he did so by treading upon the soil, and asserting his right of possession by standing upon it in his shoes. In this way the taking off of the shoe and handing it to another became a symbol of the renunciation of a man's position and property, - a symbol which was also common among the Indians and the ancient Germans (see my Archäologie, ii. p. 66). But the custom was an ignominious one in such a case as this, when the shoe was publicly taken off the foot of the brother-in-law by the widow whom he refused to marry. He was thus deprived of the position which he ought to have occupied in relation to her and to his deceased brother, or to his paternal house; and the disgrace involved in this was still further heightened by the fact that his sister-in-law spat in his face. This is the meaning of the words (cf. Num_12:14), and not merely spit on the ground before his eyes, as Saalschütz and others as well as the Talmudists (tr. Jebam. xii. 6) render it, for the purpose of diminishing the disgrace. “Build up his brother's house,” i.e., lay the foundation of a family or posterity for him (cf. Gen_16:2). - In addition to this, the unwilling brother-in-law was to receive a name of ridicule in Israel: “House of the shoe taken off” (הַנַּעַל חֲלוּץ, taken off as to his shoe; cf. Ewald, §288, - Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament: Johann (C.F.) Keil (1807-1888) & Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890)

polygamy was allowed during this period and no examples come to mind where it is specifically pointed out that more than one wife constituted adultery.

Exactly, since it is a matter of having a wife, which involves care. Note that even in the case of servants,

an exception to the seventh year release of Hebrew slaves was that of a woman who was sold by her father to be a wife, or concubine (a secondary type of wife[17]), to which special requirements applied. If she was betrothed (contracted to be married) to the owner, he was required to let her be redeemed to freedom if he broke the betrothal. If married to his son, the neglect of equal care for her in food, or in clothing or in sexual relations mandated her release. (Exodus 21:7-11) In Deuteronomy 15:12 both male and female Hebrew servants were to be be given release in the seventh year, evidently except in the case of the betrothal arrangement. (http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/w/Slavery)

There is much still be understood about this story and I readily admit that I probably don’t know near enough to be commenting as there is much more historical context (as alluded to in the above questions) and study that is required. If you know of a good place to get up to speed on these issues from a historical perspective, I’d appreciate the insight.

I have not read any specialized treatment, but as Scripture interprets Scripture, and as God provides teachers, I would suggest getting at least a good Bible software program, like the free E-Sword, and then install the Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge, which supplies abundant cross references, and hen some of the many modules available. Launch the installer, then hit Download at the stop, click on each module you want, then hit Download>Start.

Below are commentaries i have installed, though as always, prove all things by Scripture, discerning btwn debatable issues and clear core ones.

[hecticskeptic]

That is absurd, as it eliminates fornication, and would mean that Judah married Tamar since her next hook up with him.

I think that you are viewing this from a more modern context than you should. First of all, when the word fornication is used in scripture, it does not necessarily mean what we think of its definition today… the sexual act between a couple who have not yet entered into matrimony and all that this is understood to mean. Scripture appears to use the word in a more general sense…. sexual immorality or sexual vice if you will. [It also uses it in references that are not sexual per se as in Isaiah 23:17 “And it shall come to pass after the end of seventy years, that the Lord will visit Tyre, and she shall turn to her hire, and shall commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the world upon the face of the earth.”] As for your suggestion that this is absurd, how does one interpret 1 Corinthians 6:15? “Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. 16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. That reference to ‘one flesh’ obviously goes all the way back to Genesis 2:24 which you quoted earlier in your response “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”……marriage. In other words, the admonishment in 1 Corinthians 6:15 could be restated “If your body is consecrated to Christ, then you need to live purely…. and speaking of living in purity, don’t you realize that ‘the act of sex is so intrinsic to marriage that when you engage sexually with a harlot, that constitutes marriage to her?”

Instead, what Scripture teaches is that leaving father and mother and cleaving to one's wife (Gn. 2:24) means one is leaving the care of the former and entering into the care of the later, which the sexual act (which placed her into the care of the former) signifies, normatively with parental and bridal consent (will you go with this man). And which implies a contract of care, with the husband taking the place of care of the father. Thus two who consensually enter into the marital act before marriage are to be married, not are married simply because they fornicated.

Sure…. They had their customs but let’s not read stuff into this that isn’t in scripture since there really wasn’t anything elaborate about it…. “consensually entering into the marital act before marriage are to be married?” Scripture just says that “a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” …and that’s it. There is no discussion here about parental and bridal consent (will you go with this man vows), betrothment, implied contracts of care etc. The sexual act is what constitutes and defines marriage, nothing else. Your reference to Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is actually quite consistent with this thought….that the act of sex is so intrinsic to marriage that even in the case of something that could be interpreted as rape, the union was formally recognized as marriage (albeit with penalties because of the despicable path to marriage that was taken).

No: the Scriptures plainly say "the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. (Deuteronomy 25:5)…. What is this so difficulty to comprehend? Do you want to make fornication into a one night marriage, as in Islam

I’m not sure what I said that indicates that I want to turn ‘fornication’ into anything. Deuteronomy 25:5 says “….her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.” And the Genesis 38 passage simply says “And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.” It doesn’t say more than that and it doesn’t say less. I don’t think that more should be read more into this passage about how the man and his brother’s wife are to relate to each other in the long term but that phrase take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. is only referring to the man’s sexual duty of impregnating his sister-in-law. Hopefully their relationship was more than a one night stand but that is not detailed for us in this passage.

Here’s a question for you…. Where in scripture is there reference to a couple (with no suggestion to them being anything other than virgins) who were in trouble because they had sex before marriage (fornication as defined in the way that you have appeared to use the word in your earlier response)? I could be wrong but I don’t think there is such an instance. That’s because when they had sex, that immediately joined them into the ranks of the married…. and as we know, the marriage bed is undefiled (Hebrews 13:4). Now there are many reference to what happens to adulterers as in Leviticus 20:10 “And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”......but that obviously is a different story.

[daniel1212]

I think that you are viewing this from a more modern context than you should. First of all, when the word fornication is used in scripture, it does not necessarily mean what we think of its definition today…

Listen: this has already been shown to you that fornication is not marriage, but premarital relations, with even the first recorded example showing you that. (Gn. 34) The fornication came first, then the request for marriage.

And thus the requirement to marry a unbetrothed women with whom you did engage in premarital relations with. (Gn. 22:28,29)

Moreover, a women betrothed to a man is considered to be a wife even before they come together. (Dt. 22:23,24)

If intercourse was marriage then why do they need to get married. Why are you trying so hard to make fornication into a marriage? That continue to be absurd as it would make marrying a harlot to be sin, and negate any prohibition against sexual relations before marriage. Is that your premise? It sure seems like it.

That reference to ‘one flesh’ obviously goes all the way back to Genesis 2:24 which you quoted earlier in your response “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”……marriage. In other words, the admonishment in 1 Corinthians 6:15 could be restated “If your body is consecrated to Christ, then you need to live purely…. and speaking of living in purity, don’t you realize that ‘the act of sex is so intrinsic to marriage that when you engage sexually with a harlot, that constitutes marriage to her?”

Wrong: this would make the sin to be that of adultery in marrying harlots, but nowhere is taking strange wives the issue "Becoming "one flesh' means sexual relations, not that this makes the women a wife in Gn. 2:24, for taking the women to be a wife comes first, with sexual relations before that being punished.

Thus as shown before, Shechem lay with Dinah first, then he sought her hand in marriage, and "if any man take a wife, and go in unto her," (Deuteronomy 22:13) and finds out she was not a virgin then she is to be stoned, not as an adulterer but as a whore. And again,

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

Sure…. They had their customs but let’s not read stuff into this that isn’t in scripture since there really wasn’t anything elaborate about it…. “consensually entering into the marital act before marriage are to be married?” Scripture just says that “a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” …and that’s it. There is no discussion here about parental and bridal consent (will you go with this man vows), Really? So "leave father and mother" does not denote leaving their care for another, and

they called Rebekah, and said unto her, Wilt thou go with this man? And she said, I will go. (Genesis 24:58)

And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week: and he gave him Rachel his daughter to wife also. And Laban gave to Rachel his daughter Bilhah his handmaid to be her maid. And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years. (Genesis 29:28-30)

that phrase take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. is only referring to the man’s sexual duty of impregnating his sister-in-law. Hopefully their relationship was more than a one night stand but that is not detailed for us in this passage.

Your idea of what constitutes "take her to him to wife" is absurd. Nowhere will you find any holy marriage being a one night stand in Scripture. Islam, yes. This was not the 20th century: a women who was not married had no support, unless she could return to her father's house, and leaving that to cleave to her husband signified leaving the care of one for that of another, as with Rebekah.

Where in scripture is there reference to a couple (with no suggestion to them being anything other than virgins) who were in trouble because they had sex before marriage...I could be wrong but I don’t think there is such an instance. That’s because when they had sex, that immediately joined them into the ranks of the married…. and as we know, the marriage bed is undefiled (Hebrews 13:4).

Are you blind? I already mentioned to you,

Look at Gn. 34 and the story of Shechem and Dinah, which was consensual, but which "defiled Dinah," by dealing "with our sister as with an harlot," and thus Shechem sought Jacob's consent to be married, which was not given due to endogamy.

As well as Deuteronomy 22:28-29. Meanwhile it also remains that according to your liberal morality Judah married Tamar since her next hook up was with him, but in reality she was initially sentenced for playing the harlot after she became pregnant with his kid, but God never refers to her as his wife. Instead, And he knew her again no more. (Gn. 38)

Now there are many reference to what happens to adulterers as in Leviticus 20:10 “And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”......but that obviously is a different story.

Yet which capital crime of adultery also applies to consensual relations btwn a man and a women betrothed to a man, and she is called and considered to be a wife even before thy came together.

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)

I do not know where you picked up your liberal revisionism, but you need to discard and repent from it in submission to the Lord Jesus.

I am done with you, which usually takes some doing. May God give you grace unto repentance.

[hecticskeptic]

Listen: this has already been shown to you that fornication is not marriage, but premarital relations, with even the first recorded example showing you that. (Gn. 34) The fornication came first, then the request for marriage.

Look at Gn. 34 and the story of Shechem and Dinah, which was consensual, but which "defiled Dinah," by dealing "with our sister as with an harlot," and thus Shechem sought Jacob's consent to be married, which was not given due to endogamy.

So let me get this straight since you’ve related this about Shechem and Dinah a few times…..I just simply can’t believe that you don’t see any problems with using this story to make your point. Dinah who at the time of story, is believed to be between 12 and 16 willfully wanders out of her father Jacob’s house on her own one day to take in the sights of the land where they are living….it says she went to the see the ‘daughters of the land’ which likely means she wanted to see what the local young ladies her age were like, perhaps how they dressed, how they danced and to generally make their acquaintance. At this point, they are residing in one of the tribes/nations in the land of Canaan. On this ‘foray into town’, Dinah ends up meeting and being seduced by Shechem who was the son of Hamor the Hivite, referred to as the ‘prince of the country’. If you read Deuteronomy 7, this group is specifically mentioned and since this is important, several verses are quoted here..….1. When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; 2 And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: 3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. 4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. 5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire. 6 For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth…………and what does Jacob and sons do once they find that the son of the heathen king has defiled their daughter? They lie to them, they deceive the Hivites into thinking that they will agree to intermarry with them…. but only if all the Hivite males agree to be circumcised like they were. The Hivites agree to this condition and while they are still in pain from the circumcision, two of Dinah’s brother go in to the town and slay them all.

Are you blind? I already mentioned to you..

So let me summarize the story of Dinah and Shechem for you…. A very young and likely naïve virgin named Dinah gets seduced by the prince Shechem (from a heathen tribe that they are supposed to have nothing to do with) who in his lust for Dinah (and with a supposed promise from Dinah’s family that he can keep the young damsel if the entire tribe fulfils one condition), convinces his father the king that they all be taken in by the lies and deceit of Jacob’s sons who promptly kill them all when they are in a vulnerable state and unable to defend themselves. And with a straight face you think that this is a perfectly relevant Biblical text to make a point about what marriage is or is not? Good grief! You might want to rethink this….

Moreover, a women betrothed to a man is considered to be a wife even before they come together. (Dt. 22:23,24)

Being pledged to be married is not the same as being a wife. A review of the original Hebrew text is required…. you don’t find it odd that verse 23 refers to her as a “damsel that is a virgin be betrothed” while in verse 24 she is referred to both as a ‘damsel’ and as ‘his neighbour's wife’?

If intercourse was marriage then why do they need to get married. Why are you trying so hard to make fornication into a marriage? That continue to be absurd as it would make marrying a harlot to be sin, and negate any prohibition against sexual relations before marriage. Is that your premise? It sure seems like it.

Good grief….. what a ridiculous interpretation of my comments. I’m not trying to make fornication into marriage…. the act of sex is so important that it defines marriage itself and if people treated it as such and gave it its rightful place, they would realize that there is no such thing as ‘casual sex’ period. Negate any prohibition against sexual relations before marriage? Are you kidding me? If people understood what having sex really means……and that it is a holy act decreed by God, you don’t think that would be a prohibition because the consequences of sexual engagement are so much more profound? Compare that status to the current societal status of sex being relegated to something simply recreational for anyone to enjoy with no consequences. As for your comment about ‘marrying a harlot to be a sin’, all sin can be forgiven… Acts 26:18 “To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.” While marrying a harlot is just a disastrous idea on the part of the man, marrying a harlot that has sought for and received forgiveness may be a very good thing.

Your idea of what constitutes "take her to him to wife" is absurd. Nowhere will you find any holy marriage being a one night stand in Scripture

I have no idea what your point is and I would appreciate it if you would stop indicating that I said things that I did not. I simply made the point that “that is not detailed for us in this passage.” Can you be clear about what your problems are with that statement? If you are aware of more details….how about quoting chapter and verse?

And you call this liberal revisionism and liberal morality? I think not…. You might want to give some thought to your practice of misquoting scripture and reading things into it that aren’t there….. Deuteronomy 4:2 “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.”

[af_vet_1981]

Very well put. This is why every Church before the 1930s condemned it.

Concur, and as is typical for being trapped in a particular sin, there follows a denial, rationalization of the sin, and refusal to repent. We are commanded to walk by faith in the Spirit, giving no occasion to the flesh.

[daniel1212]

If you read Deuteronomy 7, this group is specifically mentioned and since this is important, several verses are quoted here...Jacob’s sons who promptly kill them all when they are in a vulnerable state and unable to defend themselves. And with a straight face you think that this is a perfectly relevant Biblical text to make a point about what marriage is or is not? Good grief! You might want to rethink this….

Wrong. The prohibition against marrying Canaanites and outside the Hebrew nation would forbid Dinah marrying Shechem, but it remains that, contrary to you, they were not married, and thus Shechem treated Dinah as a "harlot."

If fornication means marriage then the sons of Jacob would be killing them because Shechem took Dinah as his wife, but in reality both the Israelites and Hivites agree that Dinah was not married by fornication. Thus even pagans were morally superior to you heres, and it is you who "might want to rethink this."

In addition, despite your "argument by outrage ," the actions of Jacob's sons in killing pagans - a precursor of the future destruction that God marked them for- do not at all negate the validity of the charge against immoral Shechem, any more than the tactics in any war necessarily negate its cause, or the midwives lying about why they saved the men children alive invalidated their reason for doing so. (Ex. 1:16-21)

Being pledged to be married is not the same as being a wife. A review of the original Hebrew text is required…. you don’t find it odd that verse 23 refers to her as a “damsel that is a virgin be betrothed” while in verse 24 she is referred to both as a ‘damsel’ and as ‘his neighbour's wife’?

What kind of reasoning is this? Since the betrothed virgin is called "his neighbour's wife" then it plainly testifies to her being considered to be a wife, the taking of which came first here, then consummation. Thus it is a capital crime for another to lay with her.

Meanwhile it remains (despite your ignoring it) that to consensually fornicate with a betrothed women does not make them married, but requires them to become married! (Dt. 22:28,29)

I’m not trying to make fornication into marriage….

Really? How can you hold that ‘the act of sex is so intrinsic to marriage that when you engage sexually with a harlot, that constitutes marriage to her?” "The sexual act is what constitutes and defines marriage, nothing else." "Where in scripture is there reference to a couple...who were in trouble because they had sex before marriagewhen they had sex,.. I don’t think there is such an instance. That’s because when they had sex, that immediately joined them into the ranks of the married." and not be making fornication into marriage?

Nowhere will you find any holy marriage being a one night stand in Scripture

I have no idea what your point is and I would appreciate it if you would stop indicating that I said things that I did not. I simply made the point that “that is not detailed for us in this passage.” Can you be clear about what your problems are with that statement?

More denial. You plainly stated that "the act of sex with Tamar was all that was required to be ‘married’" and "take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. is only referring to the man’s sexual duty of impregnating his sister-in-law."

Your liberal revisionism began with from your original error that "Under normal day to day circumstances, a sexual act between Onan and his sister-in-law would be considered to be an adulterous act and absolutely prohibited," when in fact his sister-in-law's spouse was dead, and Onan was to "take her to wife" and perform "the duty of marriage," (Ex. 21:10) and polygamy was allowed. And despite your assertion, it is Scripturally clear take her to wife entails more than being a sperm donor, as "if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." (1 Timothy 5:8; cf. Gn. 30:30; 2Cor. 12:14)

And you call this liberal revisionism and liberal morality? I think not…. You might want to give some thought to your practice of misquoting scripture and reading things into it that aren’t there….. Deuteronomy 4:2

That manner of sophistry only makes the damnation of your polemic worse, as it is you who are adding to and subtracting from Scripture making it say the act of sex is all that is required to be married, so when 2 people have sex that immediately makes them married, and denying that there is any instance when any were in trouble because they had sex before marriage.

Which effectively destroys the manifest distinction btwn fornication and adultery. But you continue to manifest that you are committed your unholy liberal morality, and thus why try to reason more with you. Maybe someone else wants to.

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators , nor idolaters, nor adulterers , nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

[Elsie]

WHY???

... And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also.”

It is an historical fact that no Christian communion sanctioned contraception...

Apples and oranges

This same tale has been used to demonize masturbation as well.

[Elsie]

This same tale has been used to demonize masturbation as well.

---

What is your church doing to help the male to stay true?

 

---

---

---

"All of this should be conveyed without having priesthood leaders focus upon intimate matters which are a part of husband and wife relationships. Skillful interviewing and counseling can occur without discussion of clinical details by placing firm responsibility on individual members of the Church to put their lives in order before exercising the privilege of entering a house of the Lord. The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice. If a person is engaged in a practice which troubles him enough to ask about it, he should discontinue it."
- Official Declaration of the First Presidency of the Church, January 5th, 1982

---

"Prophets anciently and today condemn masturbation. It induces feelings of guilt and shame. It is detrimental to spirituality. It indicates slavery to the flesh, not that mastery of it and the growth toward godhood which is the object of our mortal life. Our modern prophet has indicated that no young man should be called on a mission who is not free from this practice. What is more, it too often leads to grievous sin, even to that sin against nature, homosexuality. For, done in private, it evolves often into mutual masturbation-practiced with another person of the same sex and thence into total homosexuality...."
- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, Pages 77-79, 81-82

---

"Among the most common sexual sins our young people commit are necking and petting. Not only do these improper relations often lead to fornication, [unwed] pregnancy, and abortions - all ugly sins - but in and of themselves they are pernicious evils, and it is often difficult for youth to distinguish where one ends and another begins. They awaken lust and stir evil thoughts and sex desires. They are but parts of the whole family of related sins and indiscretions. Almost like twins, 'petting' and fornication are alike."
- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, page 65

---

"Also far-reaching is the effect of the loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in a forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no condemnation where there is no voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle."
- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, page 196

---

"And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth." (Genesis 4:9-14.) That was true of murder. It is also true of illicit sex, which, of course, includes all petting, fornication, adultery, homosexual acts, and all other perversions. The Lord may say to offenders, as He did to Cain, "What hast thou done?" The children thus conceived make damning charges against you; the companions who have been frustrated and violated condemn you; the body that has been defiled cries out against you; the spirit which has been dwarfed convicts you. You will have difficulty throughout the ages in totally forgiving yourself."
-Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, "Love Versus Lust", BYU Speech January 5, 1965. Often-used quote still used today in LDS seminary classes.

---

"I do not find in the Bible the modern terms "petting" nor "homosexuality," yet I found numerous scriptures which forbade such acts under by whatever names they might be called. I could not find the term "homosexuality," but I did find numerous places where the Lord condemned such a practice with such vigor that even the death penalty was assessed."
- Apostle Spencer W. Kimball, "Love Versus Lust", BYU Speech January 5, 1965

---

"If adultery or fornication justified the death penalty in the old days, and still in Christ's day, is the sin any less today because the laws of the land do not assess the death penalty for it? Is the act less grievous? There must be a washing, a purging, a changing of attitudes, a correcting of appraisals, a strengthening toward self-mastery. There must be many prayers, and volumes of tears. There must be an inner conviction giving to the sin its full diabolical weight. There must be increased devotion and much thought and study. And this takes energy and time and often is accompanied with sore embarrassment, heavy deprivations and deep trials, even if indeed one is not excommunicated from the Church, losing all spiritual blessings."
-Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, Page 155

---

"How like the mistletoe is immorality. The killer plant starts with a sticky sweet berry. Little indiscretions are the berries -- indiscretions like sex thoughts sex discussions, passionate kissing, pornography. The leaves and little twigs are masturbation and necking and such, growing with every exercise. The full-grown plant is petting and sex looseness. It confounds, frustrates, and destroys like the parasite if it is not cut out and destroyed, for, in time it robs the tree, bleeds its life, and leaves it barren and dry; and, strangely enough, the parasite dies with its host."
- Apostle Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference Address, April 1, 1967.

[Elsie]

Genesis 38 states that Onan was punished by death for what? For "the thing which he did," which had just been described: a contracepted act of sex.

Oh?

The text SAYS...

But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother.

[Elsie]

If Adam and Eve had practised contraception, we wouldn’t be here today.

And just HOW many kids did this First Perfect Couple have; anyway???

[Elsie]

Many cultures didn't value the life of a newborn very much, did they?

IT's the UNBORN that have no value in THIS one!

[Elsie]

Why has God been so lax with the billions of other people since Onan's time who have likewise sinned by "spilling seed?"

Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira...

[Elsie]

Until God greatly increased Eve's conception after the fall, sex was as much for fun and relationship as it was for procreation because most sex would NOT have resulted in conception.

Oh??

[Elsie]

Rhythm Method is NOT contraception...

(Get your popcorn ready!)

[Elsie]

Some say that God never directly condemns homosexual marriage in the Bible using the exact same logic.

SOME can say whatever they wish: Genesis 13:13

[Elsie]

...Adam's sex drive become more irrational, loveless and lust-driven.

Duh!

He was 'married' to the most fantastic woman the world had ever seen!

[Kackikat]

Romans Chapter One ....last few paragraphs...tells God’s feeling on homosexuality.