The Onanism of ‘teavangelical’ Republicans

I referred yesterday to the weird little story of Onan in the book of Genesis.

It’s a weird story for a host of reasons, including that it’s a screaming anachronism for those who attempt a “literal” reading of the Pentateuch based on the non-literal, extra-textual presumption that the book of Genesis was written by Moses as dictated by God.

Here, in its entirety, is the story of Onan, from Genesis 38:

But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord put him to death.

Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her; raise up offspring for your brother.” But since Onan knew that the offspring would not be his, he spilled his semen on the ground whenever he went in to his brother’s wife, so that he would not give offspring to his brother.

What he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also.

That’s quite a bit of smiting for such a brief, four-verse story. Poor Er’s wickedness was so great that he was put to death by a lethal miracle. That’s an extreme punishment, so be sure to learn the lesson of Judah’s firstborn and don’t … er … don’t do whatever it was that Er did. (At least the guy’s name lives on, and to this day we all say it whenever we want to abort a thought just as God cut short the life of poor Er.)

This is what Onanism looks like. God is displeased.

Judah points out to Er’s brother, Onan, that it is now his duty as a brother-in-law to impregnate his dead brother’s widow. Onan takes this as license to have sex with his late brother’s wife, but he always pulls out so that he won’t have to worry about having a new son/nephew and another mouth to feed. That wasn’t the deal with “the duty of a brother-in-law” so Onan is put to death as well.

Alas, Onan’s name has also lived on in a flagrant misreading of this story. “Onanism” became something of a euphemism for masturbation, and this text has been, for centuries, cited as forbidding masturbation. Onan’s name has been invoked in warning juvenile boys not to behave like juvenile boys. If they spilled their seed like Onan did, they were warned, they might go ow-ow-out like a blister in the sun.

That use of the story abuses the text worse than any juvenile boy has ever abused himself. Onan wasn’t masturbating — he was having sex with his sister-in-law. The story cannot be twisted into teaching that masturbation puts one in danger of being put to death by divine intervention. (Apart from contradicting the text, the idea that anyone who masturbates might be struck dead by God is obviously wrong anyway — disproved by the continuing existence of the human race.)

It’s equally mendacious to abuse this story by trying to force it to say something else it refuses to say: that sex must always be for the purpose of procreation. That’s not what the text says. That’s not something the story itself will allow you to say this story “teaches.” The story absolutely does not say that sex must always be for the purpose of procreation. The story says, rather, that sex with your dead brother’s childless widow must always be for the purpose of procreation.

And to understand what that’s all about in this story, we have to discuss the howling anachronism here.

The “duty of a brother-in-law” here refers to the practice of yibbum. This practice is outlined in Deuteronomy 25:

When brothers reside together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her, taking her in marriage, and performing the duty of a husband’s brother to her, and the firstborn whom she bears shall succeed to the name of the deceased brother, so that his name may not be blotted out of Israel.

In our story, in other words, Judah instructs his son Onan to do what the law commands — the law as given by Moses centuries after Judah is dead and buried. Er, oops.

Onan’s duty was to continue his dead brother’s line by providing a child for his sister-in-law. That child would be regarded as his brother’s heir, keeping his brother’s share of the land in his brother’s name. That child would also be immensely important for the wellbeing of Onan’s sister-in-law. As a childless widow, she would be utterly dependent in that ancient economy, whereas a second wife with a firstborn son has hope for an economic future.

That’s the whole point of this duty. It’s the one reason that Onan was required to marry his sister-in-law. If she and Er had had children, then the law would have forbidden Onan to marry her (see Leviticus 18:6-16 and Leviticus 20:21 — which also warns that anyone who marries their late brother’s non-childless widow will be unable to have children with her).

This form of marriage, in other words, was part of the safety net for childless widows in this ancient economy. Onan’s sin was not “spilling his seed,” or having sex for reasons other than procreation. Onan’s sin was his exploitation of the helpless and his failure to fulfill his responsibility in the safety net for childless widows.

That passage in Deuteronomy 25 outlining the “duty of a brother-in-law” also lays out the oddly baroque punishment for any brother-in-law who refused this duty:

If the man has no desire to marry his brother’s widow, then his brother’s widow shall go up to the elders at the gate and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.”

Then the elders of his town shall summon him and speak to him. If he persists, saying, “I have no desire to marry her,” then his brother’s wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, pull his sandal off his foot, spit in his face, and declare, “This is what is done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.”

Throughout Israel his family shall be known as “the house of him whose sandal was pulled off.”

As unpleasant as that punishment sounds, what with all that face-spitting and sandal-pulling and name-changing, it’s still a much lighter sentence than what Onan was given — being “put to death” by the very hand of God.

Onan was dealt a more severe sentence because he was guilty of a more severe crime. Him Whose Sandal Was Pulled Off was guilty of neglecting his duty to provide for a childless widow. Onan was trying to weasel out of that duty while at the same time exploiting the very woman he was duty-bound to help. HWSWPO failed to play his role in the safety net for childless widows. Onan was attacking the very existence of that safety net.

This is an ancient story. The past is a foreign country, and the farther back we go into the past the more foreign it seems. It can be almost impossible to decipher such an ancient alien world, let alone to derive moral lessons from it that are applicable to our lives in the very different world we live in today.

Yet I still think we can learn something from the weird little story of Onan in the book of Genesis. Neglecting our duty to provide a safety net for those who need it is shameful behavior — a lasting shame so severe it forever alters our very name and how we are perceived throughout the community. But it’s even worse to attack the very idea of such duty while simultaneously exploiting those we are duty-bound to protect.

I think we are on solid biblical footing, in other words, to say that the current effort among House Republicans to gut SNAP is an example of the sin of Onanism. The anti-welfare rhetoric and ideology of the tea party — with its denunciations of “takers” and “moochers,” and the rallying cry of its founding in rejection of mortgage assistance for soon-to-be-homeless families — is a virulent, vicious strain of Onanism,

And this weird little story in Genesis suggests that God takes that sin very seriously indeed.




Stay in touch with the Slacktivist on Facebook:

Consent is necessary. This is not complicated.
The past is gone but something might be found to take its place
Where are the white evangelicals for McMullin?
Team Because vs. Team Despite
  • frazer

    A terrific reading. Thanks.

  • axelbeingcivil

    I love the Slacktivist. There’s so little reason for me to usually comment here, as I usually find myself agreeing with most anything said, but the writing quality, the research, the work, the spirit in which it is written… I love everything you do. Keep it up, for the good of us all.

  • SergeantHeretic

    Well, Fred has done it again. From now on I shall referre to Teabagger selfishnish and downpunching at the poor as “Republican Onanism.” Fred has preached us a good sermon on the passage of the story of Onan. I found it spiritualy uplifting and properly convicting of the attitudes and opinions he speaks on.
    Onan was not only rejecting his godly duty to care for his brother’s wife and insure she would not starve, he was screwing her and then taking styeps to make sure that after he had his fun she would still be out i nthe cold. That attitude right there is Rethuglican Teabagger selfishness and downpunching to a “T”! Fred, as you so often say, That’ll preach!

  • Vermic

    Biblically speaking, tea partiers are both Onanists and Sodomites. This amuses me more than I can say.

  • Vermic

    On a side issue, I have always been deeply weirded out by “self-abuse” as euphemism for masturbation. That’s pretty much the opposite of the goal! Adolescents: if that thing you find yourself doing these days (yes, we know you’re doing it and it’s fine) feels anything like “abuse” after you’re finished, maybe check wikiHow because you’re probably doing it wrong.

  • AnonaMiss

    (unless you’re into that)

  • We Must Dissent

    Wow. I finally have a use for this bit of etymological trivia: “masturbation” comes through French from Latin, where it is thought to derive from “defile with the hand”, though there’s no direct proof. A competing theory is that it means “defile the penis”. As is often the case in English, the Latinate synonym sounds classier but means the same thing.

  • MaryKaye

    Scarleteen has some great how-to information as well. Highly recommended. Also great anatomy maps, if you’re unsure where your or your partner’s various parts might be (and dispelling some illusions about how female parts “typically” look–they are amazingly diverse).

  • Scarlet

    Hey, not just for adolescents. Many adults partake in this, even those in loving, committed relationships. I really can’t begin to understand this shaming culture we have about it OTHER than the possible idea that children are stealing their own innocence? I think it has more to do with parents unable to come to terms with their children becoming adults.

    Also, not just for guys. Yes, women do it, too.

  • Randy Owens

    I think the point of addressing adolescents was that adults usually know better than to worry about it, and if they don’t, we probably can’t reach them anyway. It’s the teens who need to hear this. Certainly not that adults don’t do it.

  • Madhabmatics

    wait so are you saying this doesn’t happen to you when you do it:

  • Mordicai

    You’ve been on fire lately, huh?

  • BringTheNoise

    “Don’t spread my wealth; spread my work ethic”

    Yes, all those damn lazy single parents working three jobs and still unable to afford all the necessities of life are lacking WORK ETHIC. You ignorant asshole.

  • Invisible Neutrino

    And they’re all white people, too. (-_-)

    I bet all of them, in their own minds, actually work hard and provide for their families, when in reality, half of them are retired already and have a pension from the glory days of the fifties and sixties and seventies when having access to one was the rule, not the exception, and the other half fuck off all day at their jobs browsing their little Tea Bagger web forums and fulminating about lazy blah people.

  • Lorehead

    I have no reason to doubt that they do have a work ethic, but they sure don’t look to me as if they do hard manual labor for minimum wage or less.

  • AnonymousSam

    To hell with that noise. I want to give them my work ethic. I had a job where I had to work steadily and with constant concentration for 90 hours a week — for a paycheck of $125. I’d love to see some senators take up that torch.

  • WingedBeast

    I really want her to be outside my house with that sign so I can paint one and counterprotest with “If you want a better work ethic, develop a better pay ethic.”

  • J_Enigma32

    My usual response is something along the lines of:

    Why would we do that? If poor people stopped working, the economy would collapse.

  • Rhubarbarian82

    I’d have counter-protested with a sign saying “It’s okay if you spread my wealth a bit,” but I was busy with work and didn’t have time to stand around all day holding a sign.

  • Matri

    I find it funnier that the lady who is holding up that sign isn’t currently at the office, doing work.

    Do as you say, not as you do.

  • Albanaeon

    Hmm… Given that Americans in general are working too much for not enough pay, maybe we *should* give her “work ethic” a try.

    I think it may be time for some constructive laziness to invade America. Particularly if all we are doing is enriching the already too rich.

  • lampwick

    Dorothy Parker named her parakeet Onan because he “spilled his seed upon the ground.”

  • AnonymousSam

    In our story, in other words, Judah instructs his son Onan to do what the law commands — the law as given by Moses centuries after Judah is dead and buried. Er, oops.

    That’s okay. In Exodus, God gives Moses a command to honor Shavout and Sukkot. Apparently Shavout celebrates God giving the Israelites the Torah — which has yet to be written at the time stated in Exodus, while Sukkot represents the Israelites wandering in the wilderness for 40 years — which has yet to happen at the time stated in Exodus.

    Obligatory reference to Teavangelicals being martyrbators.

  • Rakka

    Who needs linear time in their mythology, right?

  • Kubricks_Rube

    I can’t get over the misogyny of twisting Onan’s sin into masturbation.

    “…Jack the Ripper remains a notorious villain to this day, his name synonymous with his crime. And that, kids, is why you shouldn’t litter.”

  • LL


  • Ross

    And that is why we call it “Jacking off”

  • Headless Unicorn Guy

    The anti-welfare rhetoric and ideology of the tea party — with its denunciations of “takers” and “moochers,” and the rallying cry of its founding in rejection of mortgage assistance for soon-to-be-homeless families — is a virulent, vicious strain of Onanism,
    Again, “takers and moochers” (as opposed to the more common form “mooches”) is not so much Onanism as Objectivism. A philosophy of Utter Selfishness.
    That said, I’ve known a couple Tea Party types and they’re not some sort of Grinning Objectivists. Whether they’re being used by organizers and higher-ups is one thing, but most Tea Party sympathizers I’ve encountered seem to be ordinary types who are just Fed Up with Business As Usual. (Again, they may be being used or manipulated by others with a different agenda, but the rank-and-file strike me as nothing more sinister or conspiratorial than just being Fed Up with Business As Usual.)

  • Tim

    Very interesting. And, very good points…Well done.

  • Julie

    I note that this article made Fark today. At least it’s on the politics tab.

  • geoff

    LOVED the violent femmes reference… Well played Sir!!!

  • Ross

    So if I’m reading Fred right here, he’s saying that the Tea Party is a bunch of wankers.

  • MaryKaye

    No, that would be an insult to wanking, which is harmless and fun.

  • Jeff Henderson

    Wow how loving and Christ-like.

  • cm47

    Thanks for this message, It was so interesting and so meaningful ti me.

  • banancat

    Also, surely I’m not the only one who finds it dehumanizing to equate this story with masturbation (for men) because essentially that opinion holds that a woman is no different than a hand.

  • Steve Zissou

    I laughed so hard when I got to the “HWSWPO” piece.

    An excellent dissection.

  • Lorehead

    You can’t get a complete picture of the duty to take care of a childless widow without also reading the book of Ruth.

  • Mary

    The book of Ruth is also about racism, which is lost on most of us today since we lack the context of when it was written. This was during a time where the Jews were arguing for an “ethnic cleansing”. Not in the violent sense but basically anyone who did not have a pure blood line was suspect. The reasons for this was because they were going through some hard times and figured that God was punishing them for marrying foreigners. At the end of the story was the kicker..Ruth the foreigner was a predecessor to King David,

    It is hard to say how much of the story was true since it was written sometime after King David came into power, but it apparently was a good commentary on the political situation at the time and made some people think. Before I read about this I found the story to be a bit odd, since she didn’t seem to be an important character in the Bible.

  • Lorehead

    It’s still a unique piece of social history from whenever it was written, particularly since it’s told from the women’s perspective in a culture that so often regarded women as beneath mention.

    When I was younger, I once got into a discussion with a Fundamentalist who insisted that Eve must be alive and the Whore of Babylon because the Bible said when all the men died, but not her. In fact, the genealogies usually mention women only when literally forced to, such as when an Egyptian son-in-law inherited through a daughter. One reason behind this might possibly be how many of the cases we do know of were intermarriages, and therefore listing only the men hid just how many of the ancestors of the wealthy and powerful were from outside the tribe.

    For a Christian, there’s another twist to it: David is said in the Gospels to be the ancestor of Jesus; and thus, anyone who insists on so-called racial purity rejects not only David, but Jesus.

  • Mary

    Good points.

  • William_C_Diaz

    Quite possibly the best thing I have read all week and a refreshing change from the blatant misuse of scripture like II Thessalonians, another biblical injunction used to screw the poor.

    Have a great day!

  • Mary

    The Teapartiers and the repubs are both responsible for turning me into a die-hard liberal. I am legimately disabled and I paid into social security disability just like everyone else. But now I am a “leech” and get regularly bashed on by these people. Common sense is completely lacking as it is “lynch first and ask questions later.” I have been called all sorts of vile names and one guy had the audacity to say if you are not paralysed then you can work. Well guess what? There are paralysed people that can work and non-paralysed who can’t! Someone who is paralysed from the waste down can get a wheel-chair and special accomadations at work. Someone who is not paralysed can have a disease which makes it impossible to know how one is going to feel day to day. I am in that catagory. I cannot get a regular nine to five job because I would get fired probably within the first week! I am exhausted and in pain most of the time and I am slow as molasses. I am so foggy that I can’t remember things and in fact it even shows here with all of my mispellings. I have had people tell me that I could at least be a typist. Exactly how am I supposed to do that if I can’t even remember how to spell? And no spell-check doesn’t fix everything! I can’t be a receptionist because I cannot even focus on talking with people on the phone and I have to ask them to repeat things. Five minutes later I couldn’t tell you what they said.

    I have no use for people like that. Any conservative who even dares to go against the prevailing mood is labeled a “traitor” It used to be that the parties at least made some attempt to work together but not anymore. Helping people is not a sin and receiving help isn’t either. When people claim that it is better to get help from your family instead of the government, they are completely delusional. Should I rely on my 85 year old Dad who has to worry about his financial future? What about other family members that have no jobs and are in fact getting help from my Dad?

    These “God-fearing” Tea-Partiers have nothing at all in common with what Jesus taught. They should be ashamed of themselves, but rarely are.

  • banancat

    And to prove your point further, the Teapartiers and similar have made a social situation where it is necessary to qualify disabled with “legitimately”.

  • Mary

    Well I feel like telling some of these people that while Jesus commanded the lame to walk it was ONLY because he healed them first! (lol).

    Seriously though not being able to work is hard and there are times when I end up in tears over it so as much as I want to have goodwill towards others there are times when I wish they could go through JUST ONE WEEK of what I go through and combine it with the feeling of them not knowing if they will ever get better.

  • Greg Robertson

    So is Onan keeping to the Biblical view of marriage? He can have another wife? Some use this passage to condemn contraception, but that is a crazy reading of the text. And besides, this applied to the ANCIENT HEBREWS, not to modern day society.

  • Mary

    As I understand it, this is the Catholic justification against birth control. But you are right that is a crazy reading of the text as it referes to a custom long gone. I blame this misreading by many popes for a lot of the overpopulation and poverty that exists in many Catholic countries. The main reason why we have illegals coming into this country is not because they want to be “leeches” but because they can’t support their families. I occasionally go south of the border and have seen people begging in the streets. One time I saw a pregnant woman with two other kids begging for money.

    What is scary is that there seems to be a move by conservatives in this country to discourage or even ban birth control in this country. We already have enough problems with poverty in this country and this would make it worse. Maybe we aren’t like Mexico but without contraception we could become like them.

  • J. S. Owens

    Thanks for the sermon idea. I am so going to rock this in a couple of weeks.

  • Carstonio

    The confusing part of Fred’s reading is that Onan wasn’t being ordered to marry his sister-in-law, but simply to impregnate her. Would any readers of the time automatically assume that marriage would be involved? Is marriage what “perform the duties of a brother-in-law” meant?

    If I read Fred correctly, the OT authors may have recognized the injustice of childless widows lacking any safety net other than remarriage to brothers-in-law. While marrying his sister-in-law would have been the right thing for Onan to do, I maintain that it shouldn’t have been necessary. Gregory Maguire’s “Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister” confronts the injustice of such societies more forthrightly. Women were generally barred from work where they could support themselves and had no personhood or legal standing, so they could only survive by marrying. Hard to imagine that any rule like that would have served the common good in some way.

  • AnonymousSam

    While not being spelled out as such, scholars equate Onan’s obligation with that of levirate marriage.

  • AnonymousSam

    Deuteronomy 25:5 says it more explicitly.

  • Carstonio

    Except that it doesn’t name Onan specifically. It’s reasonable to infer from both Genesis and Deuteronomy that Onan was being ordered to marry his sister-in-law. But it’s still an inference, and it may be less obvious to readers who lack non-Bible knowledge about the ancient culture. While it may be unlikely that Onan was being ordered only to impregnante, it’s still possible.

  • AnonymousSam

    *Nods* There’s a lot of examples of reverse inference in the Bible. I still firmly believe that Jacob wrestled with YHWH and not an angel, because I don’t buy into the explanation that it must have been an angel because (1) he used magic but couldn’t be God because (2) no man has seen the face of God and lived.

  • Jeff Henderson

    Ahh – in your interpretation then Onan should have supported an Israelite program to pay for his sister-in-law and her offspring, but such a failure caused him to be smitten. Doesn’t the text say his reasoning was because the children would not be his own offspring? Nowhere in the text does it say Onan did not care for and support the childless widow – that is your reading into the text – a case of Biblical ventriloquism. The mistake here is in trying to take Biblical teachings of care and compassion and make them into social programs with other people’s money. The Bible is telling us as Christians how to live, not how to make the government work. We as individuals and as the body of Christ are supposed to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the sick, visit those in prison – we are not supposed to try to shirk that responsibility off to a government run program. And doesn’t the continued existence of Tea Party members and Republicans prove that your interpretation is just as faulty as the anti-masturbation, anti-sex-for-pleasure interpretations?

  • Boidster

    And doesn’t the continued existence of Tea Party members and Republicans
    prove that your interpretation is just as faulty as the
    anti-masturbation, anti-sex-for-pleasure interpretations?

    No, it does not.

    1. The sin of Onan was masturbation
    2. Onan was whacked by God for his sin
    3. Therefore do not whack or God will whack you

    However, billions of people have masturbated, will masturbate, are masturbating at this very moment while typing on Disqus, and they are not being whacked by God. Therefore, the anti-masturbation interpretation of “Onanism” cannot be correct.

    Fred does not, I don’t think, believe that God whacks anybody directly for their sins (viewing the Bible, as I think he does, as a semi-historical asemblage of stories, fables, poems, letters, and whatnot, with many, many authors, and not as The Divine Literal Truth Book). The continued existence of the Tea Party and Republicans only proves that hateful, ignorant people can exist. Fred’s interpretation of the sin of Onan is not in conflict with that sad fact at all.

    TL;DR – Fred did not say and does not mean “do not neglect or abuse the poor, or God will whack you like he did Onan.” Too literal.

  • Jeff Henderson

    I think you missed my sarcasm. I do not think the story of Onan should be used to suggest anything about masturbation, or about birth control, or about SNAP – my point is that Fred is using the exact same methodology of interpretation (misinterpretation) that he is criticizing. Yes, the existence of the tea party does indeed show how hateful and ignorant and prejudiced people that criticize them as a group can be.

  • Boidster

    And but so also,

    We as individuals and as the body of Christ are supposed to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the sick, visit those in prison – we are not supposed to try to shirk that responsibility off to a government run program.

    You are begging the question. Why does taking collective action, through the agent of a civilized society (government), automatically equate to “shirking”? Government is, by far, better able to provide a safety net for the poor and downtrodden.

  • Jeff Henderson

    “Why does taking collective action, through the agent of a civilized society (government), automatically equate to “shirking”?”

    Because the government is not a Christian government and there is no Christian witness connected with the government run programs. There was a ‘dole’ provided by the Roman government for the poor in Jesus’ day, but he still expected his followers to ante up and do these things in His name.

    Government is also, by far, less inefficient in distributing care to the needy than any other method, with the possible exception of just throwing cash out of a moving car.

  • AnonymousSam

    Pretty sure I can name some organizations that are less efficient than the government. It’s not uncommon for less than 10% of an organization’s donations to go to their supposed cause. :p

    I do object to this recurring tendency to portray the government as being some sort of disconnected body of non-human, barely benign intelligence which distributes money according to whim and never in a useful manner. The government is people.

  • Jeff Henderson

    Sam – careful, you are sounding like the Supreme Court in their Citizen’s United ruling. We are discussing the Biblical interpretation of a portion of scripture. If we expect the people in the government to take over our responsibility to feed the poor, clothe the naked, etc., what other Christian responsibilities can they handle for us? Can they declare our nation a Christian nation so that every American is then saved? Can we consider paying our taxes to them to be part (or more than all) of our tithes (or freewill offerings)?

    How is forcing everyone in the country to support poor people an act of Christian charity?

    How is expecting the taxes that non-Christians pay to the government to be used to help the poor supposed to be a part of me fulfilling the command of Christ?

    How does deflecting kingdom conduct onto the members of our government bring glory to God?

  • Invisible Neutrino

    You sound like someone trying to come off as being “in the center”, but your wording betrays the fact that you fundamentally believe in the politically right-wing, religiously evangelical Christian notion of how the government should work.

    Protip: It’s your carping about taxes and the omgforcedcharity thing.

  • Jeff Henderson

    What would a political association have to do with the situation we have been discussing? The point here is that the author of the article is using the same lousy methodology of misinterpreting the Bible as they complain about in the beginning of the article. I do not think the government should be an arm of the Christian church and Sam is focusing on the irrelevant, rhetorical questions I posed. Here is the problem. Someone might read the Onan story and conclude that Onan was denying his personal responsibility to care for his sister-in-law and passing that off to the community. That would be just as valid of an interpretation as the one proposed in the article. It would be just as wrong. Tea party members read the Bible and interpret a passage to fit their political agenda. Progressive Christians read the same passage and interpret it to fit their political agenda. Both are wrong.

    Squeezing and manipulating the Bible until it ejaculates one’s own political agenda is nothing but Biblical masturbation.

  • AnonymousSam

    The correct Biblical interpretation, of course, is the one which upholds your agenda.

  • Jeff Henderson

    No Sam, the correct Biblical interpretation most likely supports no political agenda. It is arrived at through proper use of hermeneutics and considers first-of-all what the text meant to the original audience – and I am sure the ancient Israelites would have failed to understand any of the proposed interpretations.

    My reading of the text is that we should care about our brother and fulfill our responsibilities to our brother and to others. How we fulfill those responsibilities is unclear from the text. Some might think they read the text to mean that we should use the government to do that, others might think they read the text to mean that we should do that individually.

    I think there are Christians on the left that sincerely believe we should do that through political agenda and an agenda of social reform for society. I also think there are Christians on the right that sincerely believe that the work of Christ is best done and people are helped when society gives them more opportunity to take care of themselves. I do not think either side should as a rule condemn the Christians on the other side. And I do not think either side should try to wrest scripture into supporting their own agenda.

  • AnonymousSam

    It is impossible for the Bible to serve no political agenda, because political agendas are held by human beings — the Bible’s authors and interpreters. Aside from which, the Bible itself takes a political stance at least once in commanding followers to obedience:

    Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

    Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and* *to praise those who do good.

  • Jeff Henderson

    “It is impossible for the Bible to serve no political agenda, because political agendas are held by human beings”

    By the same logic every book then must serve a political agenda, even cook books, since the authors and readers of those books hold political beliefs.

    A wrote B
    A reads B
    A has C
    Therefore B has C
    Bad logic

    And the very passage you cite shows that specific politics or policies were not part of Paul’s concern. Notice the passage from Romans does not state – “Let every person strive to get the government to . . .” It does not state “Let every person become active in working within the government to . . . ” Rather than being a passage to encourage political involvement – Paul was arguing for political acquiescence. So if the government is run by Republicans it is the duty of Christians to obey and if the government is run by Democrats it is the duty of Christians to obey. Now there is more to the NT and our life in and among the world than just that passage, but it hardly supports any particular political agenda. Once again I would say that both sides, honestly and sincerely believe that a government following their principles would “praise those who do good.”

  • AnonymousSam

    The authors and readers of cookbooks do convey and interpret an agenda from a recipe. It may not be political, but it is very much subjective. The author writes the recipe they found noteworthy and readers might interpret it as instructions to be followed precisely or as guidelines to use as a model for further variation. It’s gobsmackingly vacuous to believe that a book of various laws and moral advice cannot be ascribed to have a bias coinciding with social and political thought. That the Bible happens to be have such a varied assortment of laws and moral codes and perspectives and stories just means that there are that many more possible interpretations of its intended meaning.

    Given that it has multiple authors of a variety of backgrounds, the answer as to the Bible’s intended bias is more likely to be “both” than “neither.” Or both and neither, and sometimes just flat out contradicting itself (such as the insistence that the laws of Moses will remain relevant for all time, even while Paul brushes aside their undying importance as a matter for those of weak faith with which to concern themselves).

    I suppose the important thing is that you’ve found a way to feel superior to both.

  • Invisible Neutrino

    Considering I don’t even believe in the Bible as any kind of valid historical or religious text any more than I do the Torah, the Koran, et cetera, trying to hang that one on me won’t work.

    The government is the entity which “scales well” to the needs of the community. Churches do not scale well.

    By this I mean that the government:

    1. By its own law, must be impartial in dispensing aid and assistance to all who quality for it.

    Churches are denominational. That means they will give succour and support to their “own” first before anyone else gets to call on that support (cf. Jews, Atheists, Muslims, Zoroastrians, even other Christian sects i.e. Mormons, Catholics, etc)

    The government cannot pick and choose in this manner and that is to the good. First come, first serve and that shall be the whole of the matter. All are eligible by virtue of being human beings who lawfully reside in the community.

    2. Can adjust its resources as the demand for such aid rises and falls.

    If a church were suddenly swamped by a bunch of new peopl needing to call upon its resources, past a certain point the support network would simply collapse.

    But were the government to be swamped in such a way, all it needs to do is expand its spending and call on extra staff as needed to deal with the increased load.

  • Jeff Henderson

    My concern is not whether a government can or should take care of the poor. My concern is about the misuse of Scripture here, making it into a weapon to attack others.

    Your last paragraph is blatantly ridiculous. Why do you say the Church could be swamped but not a government? If it is just a matter of the government having more resources, then it would just be a matter of having similarly more needy people to swamp their support network? Why can’t the church expand its spending and call on extra staff? (And a good church does not go by the motto of support our own first.)

  • Invisible Neutrino

    For there to be so many people that the government could not care for its own there would need to be such high unemployment (>30%) that the first worry wouldn’t be the economic depression, it would be whether or not there’d be a revolution.

  • Ross

    Because churches can’t raise taxes, enforce price controls, change regulations and laws, declare a state of emergency, mobilize the national guard or print their own money

  • AnonymousSam

    Sam – careful, you are sounding like the Supreme Court in their Citizen’s United ruling.

    No. The government is not a person. The government is made of people. I often hear rhetoric which suggests the exact opposite, however, as if the government had no human element at all. People do not cease to be people when they start working for government — or through the government, as I have no doubt that some people, desiring to help their common fellow, deliberately sought out government positions where they would be able to do so. (Ideally, this is why the government exists. We know this is not 100% the case, but it is also not implausible.)

    If we expect the people in the government to take over our responsibility to feed the poor, clothe the naked, etc., what other Christian responsibilities can they handle for us? Can they declare our nation a Christian nation so that every American is then saved? Can we consider paying our taxes to them to be part (or more than all) of out tithes (or freewill offerings)?

    You are sending up red flags with these suggestions. They are not what Christianity is about — not to all of us, in any case. In no particular order, my objections:

    1) The government cannot declare a Christian nation whether we assign it a human element or not — not without drastic renovation of the first amendment.
    2) It is my belief that we are already all saved, American or not. Not all Christians believe as I do. I am not Christian and cannot speak for them. 3) It is my belief that tithing is a relic of the corrupt church of Aaron, but certainly I cannot speak as to whether a person will feel their obligations assuaged by “tithing” to the government through taxation. Taxes serve to finance several processes I consider necessary. Whether a hypothetical Christian government would consider taxation a form of tithing would depend on which specific denomination of Christianity was dominant and it spirals so far into the realm of speculation as to become meaningless.

    How is forcing everyone in the country to support poor people an act of Christian charity?

    Because Christianity repeatedly emphasizes a web of inescapable mutuality, and the government is the designated representation of the ties which bind us together. Christianity emphasizes the duty of those who are called to serve those who have heard nothing —

    You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.

    How is expecting the taxes that non-Christians pay to the government to be used to help the poor supposed to be a part of me fulfilling the command of Christ?

    I cannot speak as to your relationship with Christ. If you do not feel satisfied by the actions of others, then act in a manner which satisfies yourself. As Jeremiah said, trusting entirely in others neglects your own soul, and as Jesus said, those who follow him will perform even greater works than he did.

    How does deflecting kingdom conduct onto the members of our government bring glory to God?

    You have slain this strawman thoroughly, but I do not think it has accomplished much.

  • Jeff Henderson

    See my response below.

  • Kubricks_Rube

    If we expect the people in the government to take over our responsibility to feed the poor, clothe the naked, etc…

    Who said anything about “take over”? To quote our host here (and I highly recommend the full post this comes from):

    And but so my point here is that responsibility to meet the needs of those in need is never an either-or situation. This responsibility is never exclusive. Yes, “Let the churches do it.” The churches must do it. It’s part of their job. But not only the churches. And let the government do it. The government(s) must do it. It’s part of their job. But not only the government(s). If either of those actors were left to handle this alone, they would be forced to go beyond their capacity, their competence and their proper bounds.

  • Jeff Henderson

    Now let me go one more round and say what is most revolting here is the author’s attempt to use the Bible as a political weapon. This is just as bad as many of those on the right that misuse scripture to their own political advantage. It is shameful conduct. I also find it funny that many of the people here condemning Tea Party members and Republicans en masse, would cite the scripture to “Judge not” for people that believe homosexuality is a sin. It seems among the Progressive Christian movement the Biblical injunction should be, “Judge not, unless they are a Republican.” There are many Christians on both sides of the aisle and openly condemning them via such vague and faulty interpretations is un-Christlike.

  • John P McKeown

    Thanks Fred, well said. A few supplementary points come to mind.

    There was a third brother, Shelah, so if Onan had simply refused to help (and maybe got sandal shamed) then his father Judah could instead have asked Shelah to marry the widow and donate an heir for Er, but Onan’s deceit prevents that happening, so Onan is cutting off all hope of a son for Er.

    I agree that a son would help widow Tamar, but given ancient concern about proxy “immortality” by memorial and perpetuating a man’s name in genealogies, I think not helping his dead brother Er is an issue.

    Also, Onan deceived his father and that was a serious offence.

    Plus there is a greater issue in the background: the narrator says the Davidic royal line will come from Tamar, so Onan’s deceit obstructs a central divine purpose, the line leading to the future Messiah: that is a feature of Genesis 38 which is not applicable to fathers today (at least not for those who believe Messiah has now already been born).

    – derived from chapter 4 of

  • Secular Antitheist Liberal

    Great article. Saved to Evernote. ;)

    The whole purpose of GOPTP bullshit is the hatred of the secular safety net where you get help without bowing down to the unquestioned authority of Big Brother Jehovah.