![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/07\/MosesTablets.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The New Bible Dictionary<\/em> (J. D. Douglas, editor, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962) concludes about Onan (Genesis 38): \u201cthis verse does not pass any judgment on birth control as such\u201d (p. 789).<\/p>\n The reasoning often used to overcome the force of the verse is that Onan was punished by God (with death) for disobeying the \u201clevirate law,\u201d whereby a brother of a dead husband was to take his sister-in-law as his wife and have children with her (Deuteronomy 25:5-10).<\/p>\n But that can\u2019t apply in this case (or any other) because the same work informs us that the law \u201callows the brother the option of refusing.\u201d Thus we find in Deuteronomy 25:9 that a sister-in-law so refused should \u201cspit in his face,\u201d but there is no mention of any death penalty or the wrath of God.<\/p>\n How then, can The New Bible Dictionary<\/em> maintain that the slaying of Onan by God had no relation to contraception? God didn\u2019t command Onan in this case \u2013 another argument sometimes heard \u2014 , so he wasn\u2019t directly disobeying God (it was his father Judah who asked him to do what he didn\u2019t want to do: Gen 38:8).<\/p>\n Whatever was \u201cdispleasing\u201d to God couldn\u2019t have been disobedience regarding the levirate law, since He allowed people to disobey it and recommended that they suffer only public humiliation, not death, which is not nearly as serious as being \u201cwicked\u201d \u2014 the reason God slew Onan\u2019s brother Er (Gen 38:7).<\/p>\n Moreover, the passage which teaches about the levirate law (Deuteronomy 25:5-10) is from God, as part of the covenant and the Law received by Moses on Mt. Sinai, and proclaimed by Him to all of Israel (see Deut 5:1-5, 29:1, 12).<\/p>\n If God Himself did not say that the punishment for disobeying the levirate law was death (in the place where it would be expected if it were true), how can modern commentators \u201cknow\u201d this? Can it be that their \u201cknowledge\u201d exists in order to avoid uncomfortable implications concerning a prohibition of contraception? Might there be a little bit of bias in play?<\/p>\n Yet the article on Onan in the same dictionary (the earlier comment was in the article, \u201cMarriage\u201d), written by the editor, J. D. Douglas, states:\u00a0\u201cOnan . . . took steps to avoid a full consummation of the union, thus displeasing the Lord, who slew him.\u201d (p. 910)<\/p>\n Douglas appears to contend that Onan was killed for the contraceptive act, not disobedience to the levirate law. If so, his opinion contradicts the view expressed in the other article by J. S. Wright and J. A. Thompson. The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary<\/em> (Allen C. Myers, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1987; English revision of Bijbelse Encyclopedie<\/em>, edited by W. H. Gispen, Kampen, Netherlands: J. H. Kok, revised edition, 1975; translated by Raymond C. Togtman and Ralph W. Vunderink) concurs:<\/p>\n [W]henever Onan and Tamar had intercourse he would spill his sperm on the ground to prevent her from conceiving; for this the Lord slew him.<\/p>\n Onan\u2019s tactic of withdrawing before ejaculation . . . costs him his life. (pp. 781, 653)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In its article on \u201cLevirate Law,\u201d we are also informed that \u201cthe brother had the option of refusing to take his sister-in-law in levirate marriage\u201d (p. 652). The logic is apparent: if refusal alone was not grounds to be killed by God or by capital punishment issued by his fellows, then there must have been something in the way Onan refused which was the cause.<\/p>\n This was the \u201cwithdrawal method,\u201d a form of contraception (probably the one most used throughout history). Therefore, Onan was killed for doing that, which in turn means that God didn\u2019t approve of it.<\/p>\n One might still retort as follows: \u201cit is not contraception per se that was wrong in Onan\u2019s case, but the fact that he wanted to have sex with the woman but not to have children. He had the right to refuse the levirate marriage, but once he agreed to it he was obligated to produce the children which was the purpose of it.\u201d<\/p>\n