Hubbry Logo
OnanOnanMain
Open search
Onan
Community hub
Onan
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Onan
Onan
Onan
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Story of Onan

Onan[a] was a figure detailed in the Book of Genesis chapter 38,[1] as the second son of Judah who married the daughter of Shuah the Canaanite. Onan had an older brother Er and a younger brother, Shelah as well.

Onan was commanded by his father, Judah, to perform his duty as a husband's brother according to the custom of levirate marriage with Er's widow Tamar. Onan refused to perform his duty as a levirate and instead "spilled his seed on the ground whenever he went in" because "the offspring would not be his", and was thus put to death by Yahweh.[2] This act is detailed as retribution for being "displeasing in the sight of Lord".[3][4] Onan's crime is often misinterpreted as being masturbation, but it is universally agreed among biblical scholars that Onan's death is attributed to his refusal to fulfill his obligation of levirate marriage with Tamar by committing coitus interruptus.[5][6]

Biblical account

[edit]

After Yahweh slew Onan's oldest brother Er, Onan's father Judah told him to fulfill his duty[7][8] as a brother-in-law by entering into a levirate marriage[9][10][11][12][13][14][8][15] with his brother's widow Tamar to give her offspring. Religion professor Tikva Frymer-Kensky has pointed out the economic repercussions of a levirate marriage: any son born to Tamar would be deemed the heir of the deceased Er and could claim the firstborn's double share of an inheritance. However, if Er were childless or only had daughters, Onan would have inherited as the oldest surviving son.[16]

When Onan had sex with Tamar, he withdrew before he ejaculated[17][18] and "spilled his seed on the ground" thus committing coitus interuptus,[19] since any child born would not legally be considered his heir.[20][21][22][23][24] The next statement in the Bible says that Onan displeased Yahweh, so the Lord slew him.[25] Onan's crime is often misinterpreted to be masturbation but it is universally agreed among biblical scholars that Onan's death is attributed to his refusal to fulfill his obligation of levirate marriage with Tamar by committing coitus interruptus.[5][6]

However, Onan‘s reluctance to give a child to his sister-in-law may reflect a rejection of this custom already present in society. The regulation of levirate marriage in Deut 25:5–10 shows that the custom had encountered some opposition. The law in Deuteronomy allowing a man to refuse[26] his duty was a concession to the reluctance to comply with the custom. Because of Onan's unwillingness to bear a child for his deceased brother, Yahweh was displeased with Onan and slew him also (Gen 38:10).[27][4]

Family tree

[edit]
JudahDaughter of Shuah
ErTamarOnanShelah
Perez and Zerah


Interpretation

[edit]

The implication from the narrative is that Onan's act as described is what gave rise to divine displeasure.

Early Jewish views

[edit]

One opinion expressed in the Talmud argues that this was where the death penalty's imposition originated.[28][failed verification] The Talmud also likens emitting semen in vain to shedding blood.[28]

However, the regulations concerning ejaculation in the book of Leviticus, whether as a result of sexual intercourse or not,[29][30] merely prescribe a ritual washing and becoming ritually impure until the following evening.

Classical Christian views

[edit]

Early Christian writers have sometimes focused on the spilling seed, and the sexual act being used for non-procreational purposes. This interpretation was held by several early Christian apologists. Jerome, for example, argued:

But I wonder why he the heretic Jovinianus set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he begrudged his brother his seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?

— Jerome, Against Jovinian 1:19 (AD 393)

Epiphanius of Salamis wrote against heretics who used coitus interruptus, calling it the sin of Οnan:[31]

They soil their bodies, minds and souls with unchastity. Some of them masquerade as monastics, and their woman companions as female monastics. And they are physically corrupted because they satisfy their appetite but, to put it politely, by the act of Onan the son of Judah. For as Onan coupled with Tamar and satisfied his appetite but did not complete the act by planting his seed for the God-given [purpose of] procreation and did himself harm instead, thus, as [he] did the vile thing, so these people have used their supposed [female monastics], committing this infamy. For purity is not their concern, but a hypocritical purity in name. Their concern is limited to ensuring that the woman the seeming [ascetic] has seduced does not get pregnant—either so as not to cause child-bearing, or to escape detection, since they want to be honored for their supposed celibacy. In any case, this is what they do, but others endeavor to get this same filthy satisfaction not with women but by other means, and pollute themselves with their own hands. They too imitate the son of Judah, soil the ground with their forbidden practices and drops of filthy fluid and rub their emissions into the earth with their feet

— Epiphanius of Salamis, Boston, 2010, p. 131

Clement of Alexandria, while not making explicit reference to Onan, similarly reflects an early Christian view of the abhorrence of spilling seed:

Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted.

— Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 (AD 191)

To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature.

— Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children 2:10:95:3

Roman Catholic views

[edit]

The papal encyclical Casti connubii (1930) invokes this Biblical text in support of the teaching of the Catholic Church against contracepted sex by quoting St. Augustine, "Intercourse even with one's legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda [sic], did this and the Lord killed him for it."[32]

Early Protestant views

[edit]

Making reference to Onan's offense to identify masturbation as sinful, in his Commentary on Genesis, John Calvin wrote that "the voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between a man and a woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is double monstrous."[33][34]

Methodism founder John Wesley, according to Bryan C. Hodge, "believed that any waste of the semen in an unproductive sexual act, whether that should be in the form of masturbation or coitus interruptus, as in the case of Onan, destroyed the souls of the individuals who practice it".[35] He wrote his Thoughts on the Sin of Onan (1767), which was reproduced as A Word to Whom it May Concern on 1779, as an attempt to censor a work by Samuel-Auguste Tissot.[36] In that writing, Wesley warned about "the dangers of self pollution", the bad physical and mental effects of masturbation,[37][36] writes many such cases along with the treatment recommendations.[38]

Disputes

[edit]

According to some Bible critics who contextually read this passage, the description of Onan is an origin myth concerning fluctuations in the constituency of the tribe of Judah, with the death of Onan reflecting the dying out of a clan;[39][40] Er and Onan are hence viewed as each being representative of a clan, with Onan possibly representing an Edomite clan named Onam,[40] mentioned by an Edomite genealogy in Genesis.[41]

Biblical scholars universally agree that the biblical story of Onan is not about masturbation nor about contraception per se or the "wasting of semen" but his refusal to fulfill his obligation of levirate-marriage with Tamar by committing coitus interruptus.[42][5][43][18][44][6][45][8][46][47]

The text emphasizes the social and legal situation, with Judah explaining what Onan must do and why. A plain reading of the text is that Onan was killed because he refused to follow instructions. Scholars have argued that the secondary purpose of the narrative about Onan and Tamar, of which the description of Onan is a part, was to either assert the institution of levirate marriage or present a myth for its origin;[39] Onan's role in the narrative is, thus, as the brother abusing his obligations by agreeing to sexual intercourse with his dead brother's wife, but refusing to allow her to become pregnant as a result. Emerton regards the evidence for this to be inconclusive, although classical rabbinical writers argued that this narrative describes the origin of levirate marriage.[48]

John M. Riddle argues that "Epiphanius (fourth century) construed the sin of Onan as coitus interruptus".[49] John T. Noonan Jr. says that "St. Epiphanius gave a plain interpretation of the text as a condemnation of contraception, and he did so only in the context of his anti-Gnostic polemic".[50]

Bible scholars maintained that the story does not refer to masturbation, but to coitus interruptus.[6][47][51][52] Bible scholars even maintain that the Bible does not claim that masturbation would be sinful.[53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60]

Although the story of Onan does not involve masturbation, according to Peter Lewis Allen, some theologians found "a common element" in both coitus interruptus (also known as onanism) and masturbation, as well as anal intercourse and other forms of nonmarital and nonvaginal sexual acts, which are considered wrongful acts.[61]: 81–82 

Onanism

[edit]

The term onanism has come to refer to "masturbation" in many modern languages – for example Hebrew (אוננות, onanút), German (Onanie), Greek (αυνανισμός, avnanismós), Japanese (オナニー, onanī), and Swedish (onani) – based on an interpretation of the Onan story.

The word onanism is not based on the biblical story of Onan itself but on an interpretation of that biblical story, nor is the word onanism found in any form in the biblical texts. Thus the etymological connection of onanism (in the sense of masturbation) with Onan's name is misleading.[62][47]

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines onanism as:

  1. masturbation
  2. coitus interruptus
  3. self-gratification

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Onan

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Onan was the second son of Judah, one of the twelve sons of the biblical patriarch , whose brief narrative in Genesis 38 centers on his violation of levirate obligation by practicing with his sister-in-law Tamar to avoid providing an heir for his deceased brother Er, resulting in divine execution. Judah, after Er's death for unspecified wickedness, commanded Onan to marry Tamar and raise offspring in Er's name, per the custom of to preserve family lineage and inheritance. Onan complied with intercourse but deliberately "spilled the on the ground" whenever he lay with her, motivated by unwillingness to contribute to his brother's posterity while still enjoying the union, an act deemed wicked in the Lord's sight. The account underscores causal consequences of defying familial and reproductive duties in ancient Israelite context, where seed-spilling symbolized rejection of covenantal propagation rather than isolated , a later interpretive overlay. From Onan's name arose "onanism," coined in the initially for withdrawal method contraception but extended erroneously to denote , reflecting theological extrapolations on seed wastage amid sparse empirical basis for broader prohibitions. Scholarly exegeses emphasize Onan's as levirate refusal and self-interest over procreative intent, not inherent wrongness of non-procreative , challenging traditional views equating it with solitary . This episode embeds in Judah's lineage story, pivotal for messianic via Tamar's later twins Perez and Zerah, highlighting themes of redemption amid human failure.

Biblical Account

Genealogy and Context

Onan was the second of three sons born to Judah by the daughter of Shua, a Canaanite woman, with his elder brother Er preceding him and his younger brother Shelah following. Judah himself was the fourth son of the patriarch (also known as ) and his wife , positioning Onan within the lineage tracing back through to his father and grandfather Abraham. This genealogy situates Onan as a member of the , which would later become prominent among the , though his own line ended without recorded descendants due to his early death. The narrative encompassing Onan's life unfolds in Genesis 38, set against the backdrop of extended family residing in during a period of relative prosperity before the that prompted their relocation to . Judah's choice to depart from his brothers and settle near among the Canaanites reflects a phase of separation and intermarriage with local populations, diverging from the patriarchal emphasis on within the covenant line. This context highlights tensions in familial and cultural boundaries, as Judah's union with a Canaanite produced sons described in the biblical account as wicked, foreshadowing conflicts over inheritance and duty within the household.

The Levirate Duty and Onan's Refusal

Following Er's death without children, Judah instructed Onan to marry Tamar, his brother's , and "perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother." This levirate obligation, a pre-Mosaic custom among ancient documented in Genesis 38, required the surviving brother to wed the widow and produce an heir reckoned to the deceased to preserve the family line and inheritance rights. The practice aimed to prevent the extinction of the brother's name and ensure the widow's provision within the patriarchal structure. Onan complied with the but deliberately evaded its core purpose. Aware that "the offspring would not be his," he engaged in during intercourse with Tamar, spilling his semen on the ground to avoid impregnation. This act stemmed from Onan's unwillingness to contribute to his brother's lineage at personal expense, as the child would inherit Er's portion rather than Onan's. The biblical narrative attributes no other sins to Onan in this context, focusing solely on his refusal to uphold the fraternal duty through procreation.

Divine Judgment

In the account of Genesis 38, is executed upon Onan immediately after his persistent refusal to impregnate Tamar, his deceased brother's widow, as required by the levirate custom. The text explicitly states that Onan "knew that the offspring would not be his," leading him to spill his on the ground during intercourse to avoid providing a for his brother (Genesis 38:9). This act is described as "wicked in the LORD's sight," resulting in God putting Onan to death (Genesis 38:10). The judgment on Onan mirrors the prior slaying of his brother Er by God for unspecified wickedness (Genesis 38:7), highlighting a pattern of direct divine intervention against grave offenses within Judah's family. Scholarly analyses emphasize that the punishment stemmed not merely from the method of contraception but from Onan's deliberate defiance of familial and covenantal obligations, motivated by self-interest to prevent inheritance dilution for his own line. This severity underscores the biblical portrayal of God's intolerance for rebellion against established duties that preserved lineage and property rights in ancient Israelite society.

Historical Interpretations

Ancient Jewish Exegesis

In , Onan's sin is interpreted primarily as a violation of the obligation under which he was required to impregnate his deceased brother's widow, Tamar, to perpetuate Er's lineage, with his act of spilling serving as the mechanism to evade this duty. The Babylonian (Niddah 13a) explains that Onan engaged in specifically to prevent Tamar from conceiving, motivated by a desire to avoid sharing or, in midrashic elaboration, to preserve her physical attractiveness for himself, as her repeated pregnancies would diminish it. This refusal is compounded by the gravity of wasting seed, which Rabbi Yohanan declares merits death, deriving the prohibition directly from Genesis 38:10's description of the act as "wicked in the sight of the Lord." The equates spilling seed with severe transgressions, likening it to bloodshed, , and in terms of moral culpability, as each drop contains potential life that is thereby nullified. In Yevamot 34b, the discussion reinforces that Onan's failure to perform levirate duty invalidated any potential union, underscoring the obligation's binding nature even absent explicit consent. Midrashic sources, such as , extend this by portraying both Er and Onan as engaging in unnatural sexual practices with Tamar to thwart conception, framing their deaths as for perverting procreative intent. Rabbinic thus derives a broader halakhic against emitting in vain (motzi zera l'vatala), applicable beyond levirate contexts, viewing it as antithetical to the divine command to "" (Genesis 1:28). This interpretation, rooted in first-century BCE to fifth-century CE texts, prioritizes the act's intent and consequence over isolated , distinguishing it from later Christian emphases while establishing wasting seed as a rabbinically grave, though not biblically explicit, offense.

Early Christian Patristic Views

Early , writing between the second and fifth centuries AD, generally interpreted Onan's death in Genesis 38:9-10 as divine judgment not solely for evading levirate but for the specific act of spilling his to frustrate procreation, deeming it an unnatural perversion of sexual union's purpose. This emphasized the intrinsic disorder of contracepting intercourse, viewing it as contrary to God's design for and generation, rather than a mere cultural infraction. Patristic commentators, drawing from and scriptural precedent, extended the condemnation beyond Onan's context to prohibit any deliberate barrier to conception within marital relations, reflecting a consensus on sex's unitive and procreative ends. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD), in De Bono Coniugali (The Good of Marriage, c. 401 AD), explicitly cited Onan's act as exemplary of illicit coitus, stating that it is "shameful" for a man to unite with his wife in a manner preventing , equating such evasion with Onan's wickedness even absent levirate duty. Augustine reasoned from first principles that human seed, ordained for propagation, incurs grave when wasted, applying this to spouses avoiding conception during fertile periods to evade perceived futility. Similarly, in De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia (c. 419–420 AD), he reinforced that Onan's fate underscored the of openness to life, distinguishing it from mere refusal by highlighting the deliberate spilling as a mortal offense against and divine order. Jerome (c. 347–420 AD), in Adversus Jovinianum (Against , 393 AD), referenced Onan as slain by for "grudging his brother seed," portraying the act as inherently vicious and linking it to broader biblical barrenness judgments, such as on , to argue against Jovinian's lax views on continence and marital excess. Jerome's translation of Genesis 38:9 preserved the emphasis on Onan's intentional ground-spilling, interpreting it as a culpable frustration of lineage beyond fraternal duty. John Chrysostom (c. 347–407 AD), in homilies on Matthew and related ethical treatises, condemned contraceptive practices akin to Onan's as "worse than ," asserting they destroy potential life preemptively and violate the Creator's intent for seed-sowing within wedlock. Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 310–403 AD) further clarified in (c. 375 AD) that Onan's sin was precisely , not levirate neglect, marking an early explicit identification of the method as heretical and lethal under divine wrath. These views, rooted in empirical observation of generation's causality and scriptural literalism, formed the patristic foundation for later prohibitions, prioritizing procreative over individualistic autonomy.

Medieval and Scholastic Developments

In the , scholastic theologians and canonists increasingly interpreted the story of Onan through the lens of and the procreative purpose of intercourse, viewing his act as a deliberate frustration of conception via rather than mere refusal of levirate duty. Gratian's (c. 1140), the cornerstone of medieval , compiled earlier patristic authorities and canons prohibiting contraceptive acts, linking them to Onan's precedent as a grave violation of divine order in marriage and generation. This framework classified spilling seed outside the vagina as equivalent to , a sin against nature that impeded the of . Peter Lombard (c. 1100–1160), in his Four Books of Sentences, echoed this by incorporating the canon Aliquando—which condemns potions or acts to avoid offspring—into discussions of marital sins, associating Onan's behavior with broader prohibitions on thwarting procreation, thereby shaping pedagogical texts for generations of scholastics. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) systematized these views in his Summa Theologica and commentaries, arguing that Onan's sin lay in misusing the generative power by spilling seed to prevent birth, an intrinsically disordered act comparable to homicide of potential life since it attacked the future by averting conception. Aquinas rooted this in Aristotelian teleology, asserting that sexual acts must align with their natural end of propagation within marriage; any intentional sterility rendered the act vicious, even if not masturbatory, as it subordinated reason to lust. This scholastic synthesis reinforced ecclesiastical bans on contraception, influencing papal decretals like those of Gregory IX in 1234, which upheld Gratian's prohibitions.

Denominational Perspectives

Roman Catholic Doctrine

In Roman Catholic doctrine, the sin of Onan in Genesis 38:8–10 is interpreted as a grave violation of the natural law governing , specifically the deliberate separation of the procreative potential from the marital act through , or "spilling his seed upon the ground" to prevent conception. This act is seen not merely as a refusal of the levirate duty to provide offspring for the deceased brother, but as an intrinsically disordered frustration of the twofold purpose of conjugal union: the unitive and procreative ends, which must remain inseparable. articulated this in the 1930 Casti Connubii, citing Onan's example to condemn any direct interference with procreation, stating: "Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it," thereby affirming the divine judgment on acts that render the sexual faculty sterile by intention. This teaching draws from the consistent patristic tradition, where early such as St. Augustine viewed Onan's deed as a of unnatural and contraception, punishable by as a rejection of God's ordinance for generation. The doctrine holds that while Onan's motive included selfishness—avoiding inheritance dilution—the method itself rendered the act mortally sinful, independent of context, as it treats the generative power as a mere instrument for pleasure rather than a participation in divine creatorship. Magisterial documents emphasize that such practices pervert the essence of marriage, established by God as ordered toward both spousal love and fruitful increase (cf. Gen 1:28), and thus constitute a form of against potential life by thwarting its natural course. Reaffirmed in Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical , which upholds the intrinsic immorality of artificial contraception without direct reference to Onan but in continuity with prior condemnations, the Church teaches that every complete act of intercourse must remain open to life, excluding any prior or concurrent action to impede procreation. The (1992) codifies this in paragraphs 2366–2372, describing contraception as "intrinsically evil" for objectifying the spouse and usurping God's dominion over life, aligning with the Onan narrative's implication that human interference in seminal emission within the conjugal act defies natural . While some modern biblical scholars, often influenced by progressive in academic circles, reduce Onan's fault to levirate evasion alone, Catholic prioritizes the magisterial lens, which integrates scriptural, traditional, and rational evidence to uphold the act's objective disorder over subjective intent.

Protestant Reformation Interpretations

During the , leading figures such as and interpreted the account of Onan in Genesis 38 as condemning not only the refusal to fulfill the obligation but also the deliberate act of as an intrinsically grave sin against God's created order for and procreation. They emphasized that Onan's motive—to avoid providing an heir for his deceased brother Er—was compounded by the unnatural frustration of the sexual act, which they regarded as a form of wasting seed akin to or murder of potential life, warranting . This view aligned with broader Reformation opposition to non-procreative sexual practices, viewing them as rebellious against the biblical mandate to "be fruitful and multiply" in Genesis 1:28. Martin Luther, in his lectures on Genesis delivered between 1535 and 1545, described Onan as a "malicious and incorrigible scoundrel" whose sin was "far more atrocious than and ," portraying the spilling of as a willful perversion that defied divine ordinance by separating pleasure from procreation. Luther argued that Onan's act represented a "" of indulging while evading responsibility, equating it to self-murder and a violation of , and he extended this condemnation to and other forms of seed-spilling outside marital intercourse aimed at conception. He maintained that such practices undermined family lineage and human propagation, insisting that God punishes them severely as assaults on the institution of marriage itself. John Calvin, in his 1554 commentary on Genesis, similarly condemned Onan's "voluntary spilling of semen outside of coitus" as a "monstrous thing," interpreting the act as doubly wicked for quenching familial hope and effectively "killing the son" before birth by allowing the seed to "putrefy" rather than engender life. Calvin highlighted Onan's envy and fraud against his brother but stressed the method's inherent depravity, likening it to a "violent and untimely birth" that destroys part of the human race, and he viewed deliberate contraception as unforgivable, akin to infanticide. This perspective reinforced Calvin's theology of total depravity, portraying Onan's deed as emblematic of humanity's corruption in thwarting God's sovereign design for sexuality. These interpretations influenced subsequent Protestant confessions and writings, such as those of later reformers who upheld the sinfulness of Onanism until shifts in the , maintaining that the biblical narrative prohibits any intentional barrier to conception within sexual union.

Contemporary Evangelical and Orthodox Positions

Contemporary evangelical interpretations center Onan's on his deliberate refusal to fulfill the levirate duty of impregnating his brother's widow Tamar, thereby shirking responsibility for perpetuating Er's lineage and protecting familial . This selfishness manifested in to enjoy sexual pleasure without consequence, rendering the act wicked in God's sight as described in Genesis 38:9-10. Theologians in Reformed evangelical circles, such as those from , frame this as a violation of pre-Mosaic custom that underscored moral decay in Judah's household, prioritizing personal gain over covenantal obligations. Evangelicals generally distinguish this from modern contraception or , arguing the text lacks universal application absent levirate context; withdrawal as is deemed biblically permissible, albeit practically unreliable with 73-96% failure rates. While some invoke broader scriptural emphases on marital openness to life—drawing from Genesis 1:28's mandate to be fruitful—Onan serves more as a caution against exploitative sexuality than a blanket prohibition on . Eastern Orthodox views traditionally link Onan's judgment to both levirate disobedience and the unnatural frustration of procreation through seed-spilling, with patristic witnesses like St. Epiphanius of Cyprus condemning the act as a perversion of marital purpose akin to thwarting divine order. Compilations of , including St. Ephraim the Syrian's depiction of it as a "cruel stratagem" against Tamar's rightful heirs, reinforce this as emblematic of sins against generativity, influencing ascetic teachings on sexuality's teleological ends. In contemporary practice, however, Orthodox jurisdictions apply oikonomia to permit non-abortifacient contraceptives in for reasons like health or finances, under , without equating them to Onan's of outright refusal. This pastoral flexibility, emerging prominently post-1970, prioritizes spousal unity and stewardship over rigid interpretation of the passage, though the Church discourages habitual use and upholds procreation as sex's normative aim.

The Term Onanism

Etymology and Original Meaning

The term onanism derives from Onan, the second son of Judah described in the (38:8–10), where he engages in by "spilling [his] seed on the ground" to evade impregnating his deceased brother's widow, Tamar, as required by levirate custom. This deliberate withdrawal during intercourse to prevent conception represents the original biblical referent, emphasizing interruption of the sexual act for non-procreative purposes rather than solitary self-stimulation. The English word onanism first appears in records circa 1600, formed by combining the proper name Onan with the suffix -ism, denoting a practice or associated with the figure. In its nascent usage, the term denoted the specific transgression of ejaculating outside the during heterosexual relations, mirroring the Genesis account's focus on seed-spilling as a violation of familial and reproductive duty, not . Early connotations thus prioritized the causal act of contraception via withdrawal over broader interpretations of sexual waste.

Evolution in Usage and Misapplications

The term onanism originally referred specifically to coitus interruptus, the withdrawal method employed by Onan to evade fulfilling his levirate obligation under Jewish custom, as detailed in Genesis 38:8–10, rather than solitary masturbation. By the early 18th century, however, usage broadened significantly through the influence of the anonymous English pamphlet Onania; or, The Heinous Sin of Self-Pollution (published circa 1710–1712), which misrepresented Onan's act as masturbation and propagated claims of severe health risks, including insanity and physical debility, thereby linking the term to solo sexual self-stimulation. This shift was reinforced in continental Europe by Swiss physician Samuel-Auguste-André-David Tissot's L'Onanisme (1760), a treatise that medicalized the practice as a cause of myriad diseases, from epilepsy to infertility, drawing pseudoscientific parallels to Onan's fate without regard for the biblical context of familial duty. Such expansions fueled moral and medical panics across Europe and North America during the Enlightenment and Victorian eras, where onanism became a catch-all condemnation for non-procreative sexual acts, including not only masturbation but also contraception and "unnatural" intercourse, often invoked in sermons and hygiene manuals to enforce ascetic ideals. In religious discourse, particularly among Catholics and some Protestants, the term was misapplied to argue against birth control, equating withdrawal or barriers with Onan's "spilling of seed" as intrinsically sinful, despite ancient Jewish exegesis emphasizing Onan's selfishness in thwarting lineage preservation over the mechanics of emission. These interpretations persisted into the 20th century, underpinning anti-masturbation devices and campaigns, such as those promoted by American physician John Harvey Kellogg in the late 1800s, who cited Onan to advocate dietary and mechanical restraints. Contemporary scholarship highlights these developments as misapplications rooted in moralistic overreach rather than textual fidelity, noting that Onan's intercourse occurred with Tamar, precluding , and that divine judgment targeted his refusal of brotherly duty, not seed wastage in isolation—a view echoed in rabbinic sources distinguishing the narrative from general prohibitions on emission. Secular medical consensus by the mid-20th century rejected earlier pathological claims, with studies like Alfred Kinsey's Sexual Behavior in the Human Male () documenting 's prevalence without the purported harms, leading to the term's decline in clinical usage and its relegation to historical or contexts. Despite this, residual misapplications linger in some conservative religious circles, where onanism symbolizes broader critiques of sexual autonomy, often without acknowledging the causal disconnect from the Genesis account.

Modern Scholarly and Cultural Debates

Textual and Linguistic Analysis

The narrative in Genesis 38:8–10 describes Onan’s refusal to fulfill the levirate obligation by providing an heir for his deceased brother Er, explicitly stating that Onan “knew that the offspring would not be his” and thus “wasted [his seed] on the ground” during intercourse with Tamar to avoid impregnating her. The Hebrew verb שָׁחַת (shachat) in the Piel stem, rendered as “wasted” or “destroyed,” connotes intentional corruption or ruination, applied here to semen (זֶרַע, zeraʿ, literally “seed” but contextually denoting offspring) spilled onto the ground (אַרְצָה, ʾartzah). This phrasing, combined with the euphemism בּוֹא אֶל (bo ʾel, “went in to”) for sexual penetration, linguistically indicates coitus interruptus—withdrawal during intercourse—rather than solitary masturbation, as the act occurs in the context of marital relations with Tamar. Textual analysis of the Masoretic Hebrew underscores the motivational clause לְבִלְתִּי נְתָן־זֶרַע (ləvilti netan-zeraʿ, “lest [he] give seed”), which ties Onan’s action directly to evading levirate duty, paralleling Deuteronomy 25:5–10’s framework for brother-in-law marriage to perpetuate lineage. The divine response in verse 10—“what he did was wicked in the sight of the Lord”—attributes displeasure to the overall refusal and its selfish intent, not isolating the emission method as inherently sinful; ancient interpreters like Philo emphasized Onan’s “love of self and pleasure” over the spilling itself. Scholarly exegesis, including Second Temple expansions like Jubilees 41:5–7, sometimes recasts the act as masturbation to sidestep implications of incomplete levirate intercourse, but the proto-MT tradition preserves the relational context without such alteration. Linguistically, zeraʿ’s dual sense—semen as potential progeny—reflects ancient Near Eastern views of as patrilineal continuity, rendering Onan’s waste not merely biological but covenantally disruptive within the Judahite genealogy leading to Perez (Genesis 38:29; cf. Ruth 4:12). Rabbinic sources later broaden shachat’s implications to prohibit “vain” emission (e.g., b. 13a), influenced by Hellenistic and Persian ideas, but the biblical locus stands as a case-specific judgment on familial evasion rather than a universal ban on non-procreative acts. Modern philological studies confirm shachat’s force emphasizes agency in nullifying fertility, aligning the sin with broader motifs of preservation (e.g., Leviticus 15:16–18 on emissions) without equating it to .

Implications for Sexuality and Reproduction

The narrative of Onan in Genesis 38:8–10 underscores a divine disapproval of intentionally thwarting within the specific obligation of , where Onan was required to provide an heir for his deceased brother Er by impregnating Tamar, yet chose to avoid this outcome, resulting in his death as a consequence of what the text describes as wickedness in the sight of the . This act is portrayed not merely as sexual indulgence but as a deliberate of familial lineage continuity, emphasizing as a binding duty tied to and in ancient Near Eastern structures. In Jewish interpretive traditions, the implications center on the violation of levirate responsibility rather than a universal prohibition on non-procreative sexual acts; rabbinic sources, such as the , view Onan's method as contraceptive but condemn it primarily for evading the (commandment) of perpetuating his brother's name, without extending it to outright bans on contraception outside such duties or to independently. This perspective aligns with broader emphases on progeny as a and infertility as a , as seen in narratives like those of and , where affirms covenantal promises and social stability, though without mandating unrestricted fertility in all marital relations. Christian , particularly from early like Augustine, expanded the story's reach to critique any dissociation of sexual pleasure from procreative intent, interpreting Onan's "spilling of seed" as emblematic of lustful self-gratification that undermines the unitive and procreative purposes of intercourse, influencing doctrines that sex must remain open to life to avoid rendering it sterile or sinful. This has historically informed opposition to contraception in Roman Catholic teaching, where Onan's act is seen as robbing intercourse of its generative potential and offending against the natural order of oriented toward offspring, a view reiterated in papal encyclicals like (1968) drawing on reasoning. initially echoed similar reservations, with figures like decrying Onan's "detestable unfairness" in shirking duty for personal gain, though 20th-century shifts in some denominations decoupled the story from blanket anti-contraceptive stances, prioritizing general biblical mandates for over lineage-specific obligations. Scholarly analyses caution against overgeneralizing the to modern reproductive ethics, noting that Onan's sin involved both the method and motive of —enjoying conjugal rights while despising the spousal and procreative responsibilities—rather than condemning withdrawal or seed-wasting acts in isolation, as evidenced by the absence of similar punishments elsewhere in Scripture for non-levirate contexts. Empirically, the story reflects ancient concerns with demographic viability in patrilineal societies, where failing to reproduce risked , but lacks direct prescriptive force for contemporary debates on rates or assisted , which hinge more on broader ethical frameworks than this isolated narrative.

Critiques of Common Misinterpretations

A prevalent misinterpretation of Genesis 38:8–10 posits that Onan's sin consisted of , with "spilling his seed upon the ground" serving as a divine condemnation of solitary self-gratification. This reading, which gave rise to the term "onanism" in later ecclesiastical and medical discourse, overlooks the narrative context: Onan engaged in with his sister-in-law Tamar as part of the levirate obligation to produce an heir for his deceased brother Er, but deliberately withdrew to prevent conception, motivated by unwillingness to confer rights on a not reckoned as his own. Biblical scholars emphasize that the text attributes divine displeasure not to the emission of semen per se, but to Onan's refusal to fulfill the familial duty mandated by custom, as evidenced by the explicit rationale: "he knew that the offspring would not be his" (Genesis 38:9). Another common error frames Onan's act as a prohibition against contraception, particularly , extrapolating it to deem all forms of intrinsically sinful. While some Roman Catholic interpretations, drawing on traditions, invoke the passage to argue against any deliberate frustration of procreation within marital acts, exegetical analyses contend this conflates the specific cultural and covenantal breach with a universal ethic. The levirate duty, rooted in ancient Near Eastern practices to preserve lineage and protect widows (cf. Deuteronomy 25:5–10), rendered Onan's evasion a direct defiance of patriarchal command and divine order in that context; absent such obligation, the text does not address contraception independently, and no parallel biblical penalty attaches to seed wastage outside levirate scenarios. Theological examinations, including those from Reformed and evangelical perspectives, affirm that the wickedness lay in self-interested shirking of responsibility rather than the method of avoidance. These misreadings often stem from post-biblical moralizing, amplified during the when "onanism" was weaponized in Puritan and Victorian sermons to curb sexual vices, detached from the Hebrew text's emphasis on covenantal and . Scholarly consensus, informed by linguistic scrutiny of terms like šākab (to lie with) and šāpaḵ (to spill), rejects anachronistic projections of later ethical categories onto the , prioritizing the motive of familial over isolated acts. Such critiques underscore the risk of , where preconceived views on sexuality impose frameworks alien to the original intent.

References

  1. https://biblehub.com/genesis/38-8.htm
  2. https://biblehub.com/genesis/38-9.htm
  3. https://biblehub.com/genesis/38-10.htm
  4. https://spot.colorado.edu/~tooley/Masturbation-Onan.html
  5. https://www.etymonline.com/word/onanism
  6. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/onanism
  7. https://ijrpr.com/uploads/V3ISSUE11/IJRPR7838.pdf
  8. https://jbburnett.com/resources/ot/gn/gn%2520%21%252038%2520Mathewson.%2520An%2520Exegetical%2520Study%2520of%2520Genesis%252038.pdf
  9. https://enduringword.com/bible-commentary/genesis-38/
  10. https://shereadstruth.com/judah-and-tamar-2/
  11. https://pastorross1.wordpress.com/2021/04/09/genesis-386-10-tamar-diary-of-a-no-win-situation-part-13/
  12. https://www.bibles.net/genesis-38-why-judah-and-tamar/
  13. https://www.writtenforus.fathomcolumns.com/post/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-judah-and-tamar-story-in-genesis-38
  14. https://learn.ligonier.org/devotionals/wicked-sons-judah
  15. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2038:8&version=ESV
  16. https://jbqnew.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/292/292_DERBY.pdf
  17. https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-levirate-law-a-marriage-contract-clause-that-became-legislation
  18. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2038:9&version=ESV
  19. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2038:6-10&version=ESV
  20. https://bible.usccb.org/bible/genesis/38
  21. https://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/library/bqa/id/64/why-did-god-slay-onan-genesis-383-10.htm
  22. https://uasvbible.org/2025/10/22/genesis-388-10-why-did-god-kill-onan-for-refusing-to-produce-offspring/
  23. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/bcc/genesis-38.html
  24. https://www.thetorah.com/article/does-the-torah-prohibit-male-masturbation
  25. https://www.talmudology.com/jeremybrownmdgmailcom/2019/10/31/niddah-13-onanism-masturbation-and-potential-people
  26. https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004182189/Bej.9789004177277.i-284_014.pdf
  27. https://www.catholic.com/tract/contraception-and-sterilization
  28. https://theologicalstudies.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/39.2.2.pdf
  29. https://brewminate.com/between-sin-and-strategy-coitus-interruptus-and-the-medieval-culture-of-contraception/
  30. https://www.beep.ac.uk/content/378.0.html
  31. https://vdoc.pub/documents/introduction-to-bioethics-76etdf0q20u0
  32. http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html
  33. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-real-sin-of-onan
  34. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-sin-of-onan
  35. https://www.ncregister.com/blog/luther-and-calvin-opposed-contraception-and-fewer-children-is-better-thinking
  36. https://purelypresbyterian.com/2015/08/13/contraception-pt-4-onanism/
  37. http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/02/why-did-god-kill-onan-luther-calvin.html
  38. https://firstthings.com/protestants-against-the-pill/
  39. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/protestants-against-contraception
  40. https://restlesspilgrim.net/blog/2016/02/23/protestants-reformers-on-contraception/
  41. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/cal/genesis-38.html
  42. https://www.christianity.com/bible/commentary/john-calvin/genesis/38
  43. https://baylyblog.com/blog/2006/03/calvin-onan
  44. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2019/12/why-did-god-kill-onan-bible-and-contraception.html
  45. https://www.bound4life.com/history-of-contraception-in-the-protestant-church
  46. https://www.gotquestions.org/onanism.html
  47. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/pastor-preach-hard-texts/
  48. https://orthodoxwiki.org/Birth_Control_and_Contraception
  49. https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2022/04/07/florilegium-on-onan-a-response-to-birth-control-and-family-planning/
  50. https://www.zygonjournal.org/article/id/15419/
  51. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/onanism
  52. https://www.oed.com/dictionary/onanism_n
  53. https://atoday.org/is-masturbation-a-sin-the-curious-history-behind-a-long-held-religious-prohibition/
  54. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22992891/
  55. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27505821
  56. https://www.britshalomstatecollege.org/torah-commentaries/2021/11/21/the-sins-of-onan
  57. https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/38-9.htm
  58. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1476993X221104182
  59. http://essays.wisluthsem.org:8080/bitstream/handle/123456789/509/BivensOnan.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  60. https://hts.org.za/index.php/hts/article/view/10336/28437
  61. https://gsarpublishers.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/GSARJMS182023-Gelary-script.pdf
  62. https://www.gotquestions.org/masturbation-sin.html
  63. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5316/was-onan-really-struck-dead-by-god-for-masturbating
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.