What Does The Bible Say About Birth Control?
From the early church up to 1930, virtually every church believed contraception was a sin. That fact alone should have us induce that contraception is in fact a sin. Yet, there are many Christians today, even in my own congregation, that will never entertain the possibility of contraception being a sin.
What does the Bible say about the issue? There is the verse in Genesis that commands humans to go forth and multiply, and by stunting that command by using birth control, that ought to give a Christian pause. It usually doesn't, but it should. So, in that case, I want to look at Genesis 38. It reads, "8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Lie with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so he put him to death also."
This is known as the pull-out method. The male pulls out of the female before he ejaculates so he doesn't impregnate the her. And all this is really is just a low tech version of contraceptives. Contra-against, ceptives-conception, so against conceiving children. The technology doesn't affect anything because the principle is still in play here. I think it is quite obvious that God frowns upon contraceptives. That seems pretty straightforward. He pulled out, so God took him out.
Now, some may say that it wasn't Onan pulling out that made God angry, but his heart behind it. I have two responses to this. Firstly, the paragraph ends with "What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so he put him to death also." So it all depends on what the word "did" refers to. The word "did" always, grammatically speaking, refers to the nearest thing it follows.
For example, imagine I said, "I tagged a wall and then went and stole some fruit. Then I went to walmart and beat up a wrongfully accused bike thief. Then, we went to Panda Express. It was terrible." What does the word "it" refer to? The word "it refers to the nearest thing it followed, in this case, Panda Express. When I say "It was terrible" I am saying the food was bad. While everything else I did was certainly bad as well, words like "it", "that" and "did" refer to the closest thing it followed. So, in this passage, what is the last thing that happened before God got mad? The last thing he did was spilling semen on the ground, or, not conceiving.
Secondly, even if it were the case that it was the heart behind it that made God angry, isn't it true you have that same heart when we use contraceptives today? If the act of sex is the total self-giving of one self to the other (which is it), then isn't it greedy to keep back your fertility from the person you are supposed to be giving everything to? Isn't is trying to take away God's providence? The Bible describes children as a gift (Psalm 127:3-5), and it is wrong to make demands on a free gift (which is also why I am generally against designer babies, that is, the use of technology to predetermine certain aspects of your child). So isn't telling God when you can or cannot have a child a rude rejecting of a gift? Contraception does all of this. So, if you want to say that it was the heart that God condemned, and all contraception is an expression of such a heart, then we can still say God hates contraception I can agree with you and still be right. It might just make my case that much stronger.
Douglas Jacoby, a respected teacher in my church, says, "The sin of Onan was his refusal to fulfill his duty to his brother and provide an heir. (See Deuteronomy 25:5-10.)" He gives no reason as to why this is the case, he only asserts it. It is possible that this was the problem, but it is also possible that this is about contraceptives. So, with these two competing theories, which is correct? He addressed no argument that this passage is against contraceptives and no argument why it God was angry because it was a violation of Deuteronomy. There seem to be arguments that this was not about fulfilling his duty. In verse 26, we learn it was the duty of Shelah to provide an heir. Shelah didn't provide an heir, so why didn't God strike him down? Maybe because it had nothing to with providing an heir, but with contraception.
Christians ought not use contraception.
Recommended Reading:
Love & Responsibility by Carol Wojtyla
One Body by Alexander Pruss
Christians ought not use contraception.
Recommended Reading:
Love & Responsibility by Carol Wojtyla
One Body by Alexander Pruss
> There seem to be arguments that this was
ReplyDelete> not about fulfilling his duty. In verse 26,
> we learn it was the duty of Shelah to
> provide an heir. Shelah didn't provide an
> heir, so why didn't God strike him down?
It appears that Shelah was prevented from "providing an heir" by his father, Judah ... who refused to allow Shelah to marry Tamar.
That would explain why God didn't strike down Shelah. He wasn't the one in sin. That would be Judah.
Therefore, as far as I can see, there does not seem to be any valid argument that Onan was killed for practicing contraception. It seems much more plausible that he was killed for intentionally disobeying God's direct command from Deuteronomy 25.
> Maybe because it had nothing to with
> providing an heir, but with contraception.
This is blatantly inconclusive, so it shouldn't be used to support any conclusion.
> Christians ought not use contraception
Based on the facts above, your conclusion doesn't appear to have any definitive biblical support.
Shelah may not have sired a son to his brother Er's name but he didn't perpetrate coitus interruptus on Tamar. So God didn't strike Shelah dead.
DeleteThen, Judah may not have been next in line after Onan (Shelah was but a child then), but neither did he spill His semen "on the ground." So the LORD didn't kill him either.
Maybe so. But if that was the case, then at least God would have forgave him as he forgave many people before and give him another chance at it, but Onan knew in his heart he didn't want to impregnate her b/c they were not going to be his children. So God knew his heart and knew that he was not going to change his hearts desires. so, the pure fact of him spilling his semen reflected was his intentions were. If God has the power to open and close the womb, then who is the man to try to prevent it from conception?
DeleteIf Judah was the one responsible for Shelah not fulfilling his duty (which is implausible in itself, since he has a God given duty and letting a parent get in the way seems very weak kneed, so even if Judah got in the way, there can still be ground for striking him down)then Judah should have struck down for getting in the way. But he wasn't. If the duty to have a child, which contraception prevents and it wasn't til after I wrote this that I realized the two aren't mutually exclusive, is reason for Onan to be struck down, then we should see others being struck down, but we don't. So, spilling his seed seems to be the better explanation.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I have a post on Natural Law and Contraception, which I think compliments this essay quite nicely, if you'd like to check that out.
If sex were Only for procreation and therefore a sin if done otherwise, it would result in a huge contradiction within the Bible.
ReplyDeleteColossians 3:5-6 states -
"Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:"
(Lets claim that Non-Procreative sex = Inordinate Affection.)
2 Timothy 2:22 states:
"Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart."
Matthew 6:13 tells us to avoid temptation -
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."
So does James 1:13 -
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:"
However, in 1 Corinthians 7:2 & in 1 Corinthians 7:5, Paul states -
"Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."
"Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency."
If sex is Only for procreational purposes, wouldn't this be considered as Paul commanding a married couple to be tempted to give in to inordinate affection with one another? He says for the married couple to "come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency." Technically, that would mean that to avoid fornication, we should marry - However, to avoid temptation - we shouldn't marry at all. If this is so, why are we Allowed to marry? Why would we be Allowed into Temptation?
If sex were Only for procreation and if Paul stated for married couples to come together so that Satan Won't tempt us for our incontinency, wouldn't that sort of activity tempt many into inordinate affection - which in this case would be non-procreational sex? Aren't we supposed to avoid temptation at all costs? If so, then why should a married couple come together and not be allowed to defraud each other?
Didn't he tell us to flee from youthful lusts? If so, why are we not allowed to defraud one another, in other words, flee from each other? Why should a married couple "come together again"? Should the couple divorce because they're engaging in "youthful lust" since non-procreative sex can be considered as such lust and since coming together can be considered as tempting one into such lust even though we should avoid temptation at all time?
No - a married couple can only divorce ONLY if one has sex with someone else regardless of if it's procreative or not. As within "the sin of Onan", it still counts as him lying with her (as this means to have sex with her) even though he used a contraceptive method.
So if marriage can cause any form of temptation towards this youthful lust, then why is it allowed at all? Shouldn't we all stay single? That's what Paul recommends - However, we're given permission to marry as this is also what Paul says. So technically speaking, Paul is giving us Permission to temptation and possibly a youthful lust - this is the same thing Satan does. If this is so, then why is he an apostle of Jesus Christ? Does this mean that Jesus is allowing us to such Lust? If so, then doesn't that mean....
And it'll just go on and on to the end - which would mean that God is allowing us to be tempted and is tempting us. This is Not true.
It is usually wise to ask a clarifying question before before one goes on and on and on... Why? Because you attacked a straw man. My claim is not (nor will any Natural Law theorist claim) that the SOLE purpose of sex is procreation. I did not state that in this post. Nor will I claim it because I too believe that to be false. Now, you wasted God knows how much time attacking something nobody here believes.
Delete1. I'm NOT attacking you - idk Where you even got that idea from. I've never said anything rude - just providing my answers with scriptures.
Delete2. You JUST said "Christians ought not use contraception." That means that (I would Believe to think) that you believe that sex should only be done for procreation.
LOL, I don't believe you are attacking me! If I did, I would have immediately called it out as an ad hominem, but I didn't. No worries, no worries, I have a thick skin, and so even if you did attack me, I wouldn't have thought much of it anyways! I didn't think you were rude either. I just don't think you've answered me (even though I have been clearly misunderstood) in the appropriate way which deals with the issues at hand. So, no need for preemptive apologies. It's all good.
DeleteSaying Christians ought not use contraception does not entail the belief that sex ought be done for procreation only. That is like saying, Because I believe that we ought not to be gluttonous, that therefore the only purpose of food is to be eaten. But that's also not true. The NATURAL and PRIMARY purpose of food is to be eaten, but there are secondary uses as well, such as making it a piece of art or have it pleasurable to the senses. I'm basing my argument on Natural Law. It might be sound to understand that first.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Law
Attacking a straw man is not attacking the opposite person in a debate. It is attemting to counter an argument by constructing a similar-appearing but actually dissimilar argument and attacking it. If done intentionally it is a cheap dodge, an evasion. Often, though, it results from a restatement of an errant understanding of the opposing argument.
DeleteWhat significant thing happened in 1920? The Roman Church first broke with over 1,800 years of virtually uniform Christian teaching against taking any measures whatsoever to enjoy (only natural) sexual intercourse while attempting to avoid procreation. Again, in 1880 the Roman Church affirmed its permission for sexual partners to practice contraception. Not until 1930 did the Anglo-Catholic (Protestant Episcopal) Church approve of its members practicing intentionally sterile sexual intercourse (Lambeth Conference).
ReplyDeleteThe Talmud, the written "Traditions of the Elders" (of which Jesus said they made of the laws of God of none effect) permitted wives between the ages of ten an eleven to use the "moch," a tampon, to block and absorb the husband's semen. This at least was intended only to prevent undue hazard to the wife when she was beginning adolescence and not as a long-term contraceptive practice.
Kelly,
DeleteSorry for the delay. I usually check my blog about once a week.
My reference to 1920 was the Lambeth conference of that year, which, upon review, was in fact 1930. I've corrected the post to reflect that.
Are you thinking of Leo XIIIs Arcanum? If so, please provide the relevant quotations. If not, please cite what document you have in mind.
Roman Catholic Church, Sacred Penitentiary, 1853. Affirmed by S.P., 1880.
ReplyDeleteThe R.C. Church makes a big point of "artificial" contraception vs. "natural" "family planning" (contraception). Well, folks, what Onan did was certainly not artificial. What is "going into" woman and then pulling out of her so as to destroy (the Hebrew term) the semen, which was supposed to have been Tamar's, "on the ground" but absolutely not artificial?
The contraceptive technique utilized by Onan is noted for unreliability. Used without any mistake 18% of fertile women will be impregnated within a year of normal frequency of sexual intercourse. If the LORD had left Onan alone almost certainly Tamar would have been impregnated soon. After all, Judah inseminated her but once and she conceived, twins at that. So what offended the LORD so that He struck the sinner dead the moment his semen hit the ground?
Yeah, we do make a big point between the two. The basis for the distinction is Natural Law. Those who say natural family planning is the same as contraception simply don't understand the ethical theory that the western world employed for like 1800 years. I recommend some Pruss for more info.
DeleteWhat is this "ethical theory" that the western world employed for like 1800 years?
ReplyDeleteWho, or what, is "Pruss?"
As I said in my comment, it is natural law. And as I mentioned in the post, Pruss is a person.
DeleteSo what you are saying it is okay to have pleasurable sex but you should trust in God weather it is time for you to be bless with a child or not?
ReplyDeleteAnd i mean pleasurable sex as long as you are married of course
DeleteI think it could be argued that the reason it was wicked was that it says that he knew that the offspring would not be his so he pulled out. Maybe it was wicked because he slept with with another man's wife with the intentions of never reproducing with her. Clearly he had no intentions of reproducing which at that time was his duty. So instead of just refusing to sleep with her at all he used his duty as an excuse just to have her in bed. I can see how you could compare this slightly to birth control in a married couple but at the same time this was not a married couple. Seems like he disobeyed a direct order for sexual pleasures with someone new. Maybe I'm crazy
ReplyDeleteRight, and that is exactly what contraception is, having no intentions of reproducing and using the other for sexual pleasure. It's basically adultery.
Delete