I found the article interesting, and even almost Catholic in many places, however... you knew that was coming :-) ... when it comes to Onan's sin - the writer makes a very definitive statement that Onan was not slain for spilling his seed, but in reality - it is precisely for what Onan DID (spilling his seed) and not his MOTIVE (not wanting to produce children for his brother). Look at the verses again: 8 Juda, therefore said to Onan his son: Go in to thy brother's wife and marry her, that thou mayst raise seed to thy brother. 9 He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother's wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother's name. 10 And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.
So, again, it is what Onan DID that was a detestable thing and got him slain by the Lord - and not for WHY he did it. To just flatly state the Bible says nothing about this sort of "birth control" is not a factual statement, it is a rationalization based in a faulty premise which leads the good doctor in to a false conclusion.
I found the article interesting, and even almost Catholic in many places
That's okay. I find Catholicism almost Protestant in many places. Although to be fair, I also find Catholicism very pagan in many places.
when it comes to Onan's sin - the writer makes a very definitive statement that Onan was not slain for spilling his seed, but in reality - it is precisely for what Onan DID (spilling his seed) and not his MOTIVE (not wanting to produce children for his brother).
Given your private interpretation of the Onan passage, the first part of v 9 ("He knowing that the children should not be his") and the last part of v 9 ("lest children should be born in his brother's name") might as well not exist.
But you must keep in mind what Scripture actually SAYS and not what is being IMPUTED to Scripture. God's Word says Onan was slain for what he DID not for WHY he did it.
But you must keep in mind what Scripture actually SAYS and not what is being IMPUTED to Scripture. God's Word says Onan was slain for what he DID not for WHY he did it.
Well, Scripture "actually SAYS": "But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother's wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother" (v 9). Onan did what he did based on the motivation that he didn't wish to "give offspring to his brother."
Not to mention the passage is part of a much larger picture involving Judah, Tamar, and Levirate marriage, among other things.
Yes, and I understood the rationalization the first time I saw this argument (years ago), and it's still just a rationalization. God slew Onan for WHAT he DID not for WHY he did it. Yes, we all know WHY he did THAT which God found detestable - you still can't get around the simple FACT, he was slain for WHAT he did, not WHY he did it. THAT is what Scripture tells us.
Yes, and I understood the rationalization the first time I saw this argument (years ago), and it's still just a rationalization. God slew Onan for WHAT he DID not for WHY he did it. Yes, we all know WHY he did THAT which God found detestable - you still can't get around the simple FACT, he was slain for WHAT he did, not WHY he did it. THAT is what Scripture tells us.
1. If you "saw this argument (years ago)," then I take it this indicates your own "years" of obstinately ignoring the argument. Or worse.
2. Actually, Scripture explicitly notes both Onan's motivations as well as his actions. You can't arbitrarily drive a wedge between the two. At least not without some sort of an argument, which you fail to provide. Why would Scripture mention both motivations as well as actions? What makes you think God didn't consider Onan's motivations? After all, it's one thing to say God found Onan's actions more detestable than his motivations, and thus put Onan to death. But you're flatly asserting God put Onan to death for his actions, period; as if his motivations weren't likewise a consideration. On the face of it, what you say contradicts Scripture.
3. If God found only Onan's action of wasting his semen on the ground detestable enough to put him to death, then why didn't God slay Onan the first time he wasted his semen on the ground? As Scripture says: "So whenever he went in to his brother's wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother" (emphasis mine).
An act in itself is not always enough or sufficient to make someone guilty. For example, two different people can each kill another person. One person will be guilty of murder (as in David killing Uriah) and the other commended for his righteousness (as Phinehas who killed a wicked Israelite man and Midianite woman).
Along with the 1. act itself, God also factors in both the 2. motive and 3. the circumstances. David is guilty even though he only killed one person INDIRECTLY. While Phinehas is commended by God even though he DIRECTLY killed TWO people.
Nowhere in the text of Gen. 38 does it state that spilling one's seed is itself wicked or sinful. Rather the text connects the spilling of seed with 1. Onan's wicked motive and 2. the circumstance in which Onan was supposed to raise offspring for the sake of his brother.
I appreciate the rationalizations. What it really comes down to is justification for birth control. Whatever one proposes the motive, the deliberate wasting of one's seed outside his spouse is detestable to God. Onan's motive was to not produce children, and God slew him. I'm sure we could come up with all sorts of questions, like why didn't God just kill Cain? Why did God ask about Abel? Why did God permit the Hebrew people to build a golden calf while Moses was up on the mountain, etc. The bottom line here would be that you cannot find even one instance of where it is acceptable for a man to spill his seed - so therein the comparison to killing someone is found a bit lacking here.
Ironically, Scott, your reply is itself a rationalization. What's lurking behind everything you've said is the Roman Catholic position on birth control. You're starting from the Catholic position and reading it back into the text rather than exegeting the text on its own terms.
There are intricate Mosaic laws regarding many sexual practices including purity laws concerning nocturnal emissions and menstruation. If it's such a wicked thing for a husband and wife to agree for the husband to spill his seed why isn't it addressed in the Mosaic law? It seems that something so heinous would be directly addressed or at least alluded to. Notice too that (AFAIK) there is no instance in OT or NT where the sin of male homosexuality is linked to or described as wasting male seed. Yet, that would be the epitome of waste since a man can't conceive.
The fact remains that there is no direct or indirect command in Scripture relating to or prohibiting the spilling of seed per se. Physiologically, God has designed both male and female seed to be emitted when it becomes old (i.e. nocturnal emissions and menstruation). So there is nothing inherently wrong with the spilling or wasting of seed. The Catholic claim is that the DELIBERATE spilling of seed by humans is sinful waste. Well, why think that? All other kinds of seeds in the Jewish agrarian society could be used for whatever purposes they chose. Where is there an analogous OT or NT command that the Jews were forbidden to deliberately not sow plant seeds. In fact, seeds were sometimes eaten or thrown away without any intention or expectation of it sprouting. OT Jews eating grapes (or other fruits) probably did what many modern Americans do while eating watermelon. Spit out the seeds indiscriminately. Even in areas where there's no hope of the seed sprouting or growing (e.g. rocky ground, on the foot beaten trail, or asphalt).
If we're to take this analogy to its logical conclusion, since Genesis commands that we are given the seed of every plant to eat, then it would be a sin to NOT eat the seeds of whatever plants or fruits we eat.
Traditionally, Jews agree with Catholics that the intentional destruction of human male seed is a grave sin. Yet, some Jewish theological schools allow for oral and anal sex so long as the husband's seed is implanted in his wife (either anally or if orally, with the wife swallowing the ejaculate). So, Catholic appeals to Jewish tradition regarding sexuality may prove too much. I say "may" because I'm no expert on the various theological schools in Judaism both in history and at present.
rocking... said: Ironically, Scott, your reply is itself a rationalization. What's lurking behind everything you've said is the Roman Catholic position on birth control. You're starting from the Catholic position and reading it back into the text rather than exegeting the text on its own terms.
I respectfully disagree. I have taken the text and exegeted precisely what it says - that it was what Onan DID which displeased God enough to slay him. Regardless of the rationalizations, you can't get around this fact unless you're eisegeting the text.
Annoyed... said: Notice too that (AFAIK) there is no instance in OT or NT where the sin of male homosexuality is linked to or described as wasting male seed. Yet, that would be the epitome of waste since a man can't conceive.
And I agree! The fact that works against you here is that Scripture clearly refers to homosexuality as an abomination to the Lord. We can rationalize WHY this is an abomination, and IMHO, it is equivalent to Onanism - but that too would be a bit of a eisegesis. Pure exegesis leaves us with the facts that both "spilling the seed" and homosexuality are abhorrent to God.
I thank you for your time on this matter, and do appreciate your expressing your views.
....that it was what Onan DID which displeased God enough to slay him.
That assumes that only what's performed physically is something that's "done." But actions can include motivations and intentions (e.g. acts of the will) which are non-physical. Therefore, pointing to what Onan "DID" begs the question as to whether the physical act of spilling seed is in itself wicked. You haven't shown that. Using your type of "exegesis" it would be evil for women to wear make up. Here's a random website where a list of verses are given that have been traditionally used by some denominations and cults to argue that very thing HERE. It seems to me that a much stronger case could be made against the use of makeup than against the spilling of seed. Though, I personally don't think makeup is sinful per se. Though, it can be sinful if it's used with the intention to seduce etc.
I respectfully disagree. I have taken the text and exegeted precisely what it says - that it was what Onan DID which displeased God enough to slay him. Regardless of the rationalizations, you can't get around this fact unless you're eisegeting the text.
You keep repeating what you've already said without interacting with what I've already said.
For example, you don't interact with the fact that you entirely leave out the first part of v 9 ("He knowing that the children should not be his") and the last part of v 9 ("lest children should be born in his brother's name"). As I've already said, these might as well not exist given your "rationalization" of what the passage is actually saying.
I found the article interesting, and even almost Catholic in many places, however... you knew that was coming :-) ... when it comes to Onan's sin - the writer makes a very definitive statement that Onan was not slain for spilling his seed, but in reality - it is precisely for what Onan DID (spilling his seed) and not his MOTIVE (not wanting to produce children for his brother). Look at the verses again:
ReplyDelete8 Juda, therefore said to Onan his son: Go in to thy brother's wife and marry her, that thou mayst raise seed to thy brother.
9 He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother's wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother's name.
10 And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.
So, again, it is what Onan DID that was a detestable thing and got him slain by the Lord - and not for WHY he did it. To just flatly state the Bible says nothing about this sort of "birth control" is not a factual statement, it is a rationalization based in a faulty premise which leads the good doctor in to a false conclusion.
Scott<<<
Scott Windsor, Sr. said:
DeleteI found the article interesting, and even almost Catholic in many places
That's okay. I find Catholicism almost Protestant in many places. Although to be fair, I also find Catholicism very pagan in many places.
when it comes to Onan's sin - the writer makes a very definitive statement that Onan was not slain for spilling his seed, but in reality - it is precisely for what Onan DID (spilling his seed) and not his MOTIVE (not wanting to produce children for his brother).
Given your private interpretation of the Onan passage, the first part of v 9 ("He knowing that the children should not be his") and the last part of v 9 ("lest children should be born in his brother's name") might as well not exist.
But you must keep in mind what Scripture actually SAYS and not what is being IMPUTED to Scripture. God's Word says Onan was slain for what he DID not for WHY he did it.
DeleteScott Windsor, Sr. said:
DeleteBut you must keep in mind what Scripture actually SAYS and not what is being IMPUTED to Scripture. God's Word says Onan was slain for what he DID not for WHY he did it.
Well, Scripture "actually SAYS": "But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother's wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother" (v 9). Onan did what he did based on the motivation that he didn't wish to "give offspring to his brother."
Not to mention the passage is part of a much larger picture involving Judah, Tamar, and Levirate marriage, among other things.
Yes, and I understood the rationalization the first time I saw this argument (years ago), and it's still just a rationalization. God slew Onan for WHAT he DID not for WHY he did it. Yes, we all know WHY he did THAT which God found detestable - you still can't get around the simple FACT, he was slain for WHAT he did, not WHY he did it. THAT is what Scripture tells us.
DeleteScott Windsor, Sr. said:
DeleteYes, and I understood the rationalization the first time I saw this argument (years ago), and it's still just a rationalization. God slew Onan for WHAT he DID not for WHY he did it. Yes, we all know WHY he did THAT which God found detestable - you still can't get around the simple FACT, he was slain for WHAT he did, not WHY he did it. THAT is what Scripture tells us.
1. If you "saw this argument (years ago)," then I take it this indicates your own "years" of obstinately ignoring the argument. Or worse.
2. Actually, Scripture explicitly notes both Onan's motivations as well as his actions. You can't arbitrarily drive a wedge between the two. At least not without some sort of an argument, which you fail to provide. Why would Scripture mention both motivations as well as actions? What makes you think God didn't consider Onan's motivations? After all, it's one thing to say God found Onan's actions more detestable than his motivations, and thus put Onan to death. But you're flatly asserting God put Onan to death for his actions, period; as if his motivations weren't likewise a consideration. On the face of it, what you say contradicts Scripture.
3. If God found only Onan's action of wasting his semen on the ground detestable enough to put him to death, then why didn't God slay Onan the first time he wasted his semen on the ground? As Scripture says: "So whenever he went in to his brother's wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother" (emphasis mine).
An act in itself is not always enough or sufficient to make someone guilty. For example, two different people can each kill another person. One person will be guilty of murder (as in David killing Uriah) and the other commended for his righteousness (as Phinehas who killed a wicked Israelite man and Midianite woman).
DeleteAlong with the 1. act itself, God also factors in both the 2. motive and 3. the circumstances. David is guilty even though he only killed one person INDIRECTLY. While Phinehas is commended by God even though he DIRECTLY killed TWO people.
Nowhere in the text of Gen. 38 does it state that spilling one's seed is itself wicked or sinful. Rather the text connects the spilling of seed with 1. Onan's wicked motive and 2. the circumstance in which Onan was supposed to raise offspring for the sake of his brother.
I appreciate the rationalizations. What it really comes down to is justification for birth control. Whatever one proposes the motive, the deliberate wasting of one's seed outside his spouse is detestable to God. Onan's motive was to not produce children, and God slew him. I'm sure we could come up with all sorts of questions, like why didn't God just kill Cain? Why did God ask about Abel? Why did God permit the Hebrew people to build a golden calf while Moses was up on the mountain, etc. The bottom line here would be that you cannot find even one instance of where it is acceptable for a man to spill his seed - so therein the comparison to killing someone is found a bit lacking here.
ReplyDeleteScott<<<
Ironically, Scott, your reply is itself a rationalization. What's lurking behind everything you've said is the Roman Catholic position on birth control. You're starting from the Catholic position and reading it back into the text rather than exegeting the text on its own terms.
DeleteThere are intricate Mosaic laws regarding many sexual practices including purity laws concerning nocturnal emissions and menstruation. If it's such a wicked thing for a husband and wife to agree for the husband to spill his seed why isn't it addressed in the Mosaic law? It seems that something so heinous would be directly addressed or at least alluded to. Notice too that (AFAIK) there is no instance in OT or NT where the sin of male homosexuality is linked to or described as wasting male seed. Yet, that would be the epitome of waste since a man can't conceive.
DeleteThe fact remains that there is no direct or indirect command in Scripture relating to or prohibiting the spilling of seed per se. Physiologically, God has designed both male and female seed to be emitted when it becomes old (i.e. nocturnal emissions and menstruation). So there is nothing inherently wrong with the spilling or wasting of seed. The Catholic claim is that the DELIBERATE spilling of seed by humans is sinful waste. Well, why think that? All other kinds of seeds in the Jewish agrarian society could be used for whatever purposes they chose. Where is there an analogous OT or NT command that the Jews were forbidden to deliberately not sow plant seeds. In fact, seeds were sometimes eaten or thrown away without any intention or expectation of it sprouting. OT Jews eating grapes (or other fruits) probably did what many modern Americans do while eating watermelon. Spit out the seeds indiscriminately. Even in areas where there's no hope of the seed sprouting or growing (e.g. rocky ground, on the foot beaten trail, or asphalt).
If we're to take this analogy to its logical conclusion, since Genesis commands that we are given the seed of every plant to eat, then it would be a sin to NOT eat the seeds of whatever plants or fruits we eat.
Traditionally, Jews agree with Catholics that the intentional destruction of human male seed is a grave sin. Yet, some Jewish theological schools allow for oral and anal sex so long as the husband's seed is implanted in his wife (either anally or if orally, with the wife swallowing the ejaculate). So, Catholic appeals to Jewish tradition regarding sexuality may prove too much. I say "may" because I'm no expert on the various theological schools in Judaism both in history and at present.
rocking... said: Ironically, Scott, your reply is itself a rationalization. What's lurking behind everything you've said is the Roman Catholic position on birth control. You're starting from the Catholic position and reading it back into the text rather than exegeting the text on its own terms.
ReplyDeleteI respectfully disagree. I have taken the text and exegeted precisely what it says - that it was what Onan DID which displeased God enough to slay him. Regardless of the rationalizations, you can't get around this fact unless you're eisegeting the text.
Annoyed... said: Notice too that (AFAIK) there is no instance in OT or NT where the sin of male homosexuality is linked to or described as wasting male seed. Yet, that would be the epitome of waste since a man can't conceive.
And I agree! The fact that works against you here is that Scripture clearly refers to homosexuality as an abomination to the Lord. We can rationalize WHY this is an abomination, and IMHO, it is equivalent to Onanism - but that too would be a bit of a eisegesis. Pure exegesis leaves us with the facts that both "spilling the seed" and homosexuality are abhorrent to God.
I thank you for your time on this matter, and do appreciate your expressing your views.
Scott<<<
....that it was what Onan DID which displeased God enough to slay him.
DeleteThat assumes that only what's performed physically is something that's "done." But actions can include motivations and intentions (e.g. acts of the will) which are non-physical. Therefore, pointing to what Onan "DID" begs the question as to whether the physical act of spilling seed is in itself wicked. You haven't shown that. Using your type of "exegesis" it would be evil for women to wear make up. Here's a random website where a list of verses are given that have been traditionally used by some denominations and cults to argue that very thing HERE. It seems to me that a much stronger case could be made against the use of makeup than against the spilling of seed. Though, I personally don't think makeup is sinful per se. Though, it can be sinful if it's used with the intention to seduce etc.
Scott Windsor, Sr. said:
DeleteI respectfully disagree. I have taken the text and exegeted precisely what it says - that it was what Onan DID which displeased God enough to slay him. Regardless of the rationalizations, you can't get around this fact unless you're eisegeting the text.
You keep repeating what you've already said without interacting with what I've already said.
For example, you don't interact with the fact that you entirely leave out the first part of v 9 ("He knowing that the children should not be his") and the last part of v 9 ("lest children should be born in his brother's name"). As I've already said, these might as well not exist given your "rationalization" of what the passage is actually saying.
And that's the tip of the iceberg.
Steve Hays has responded to Windsor.
ReplyDelete