In the book, “Fathers know Best” which explores the earliest teaching of the Catholic Church, Jimmy Atkin spends a lot of time quoting different people about the churches stand against contraception and abortion. This has been taught in the Church from the start. I would suggest getting this book and reading it.
I think he was being more selfish because any child concieved would legally be considered his late brother’s and not his. the custom and then law was for a brother to have an heir on behalf of their deceased brother who might not yet have had children to conitnue the line.
I’m pretty sure those texts are adding in a modern feeling that is not there. His motivations are clearly said to be because he did not want the children to be in his brother’s name, not because he thought sex with his sister in law was wrong or even because he thought it was wrong for one brother to continue another’s line.
In that time and culture, it was important and vitale that a man would have heirs. When that didn’t happen and the man dies and leaves a widow without an heir, then it was expected that the next closest brother or relative that was available would marry her and hopefully beable to produce an heir in the late brother’s name. This is what happen in the story of Ruth. Ruth was a widow with no children. Boaz was the next available male after another closer relative turned it down. Boaz was willing to do this and even checked with a closer relative first. This was not done to solve infertility with an already married couple.
He was not having sex with his sister-inlaw. The covenant relationship between husband and wife ended when the husband died. Marriage is a covenant, and a covenant ends when one of those who enter into the covenant dies. When the husband died, the sister-inlaw ceased being Onan’s sister-inlaw.
as always Tim thanks, you’re the best!
God hated it then
Your speculation is not what scripture says.
It wasn’t because of any righteousness on his part but not wanting his brother to have an heir. This is confirmed in the next scripture.
What he did was evil and that is why he was killed.
I don’t follow the logic. He was supposed to have sex with his dead brother’s wife solely to provide his brother an heir. He agreed to have sex with her (from what I’ve read, the language implies that this was on an ongoing basis,) but purposefully denied his brother the heir.
It follows that birth control is wrong because the authority on matters of faith and morals established by Jesus Christ - the Holy Catholic Church - has said so. The Catholic Church is the mouthpiece of Christ and operates with divine authority when it interprets scripture, and it has infallibly done so on the subject of artificial birth control without deviation for twenty centuries.
In other words, you’re saying that it must follow because the Church says is does? I guess my faith isn’t quite that strong, at least at this point. Usually, the Church has pretty good arguments, but the argument against contraception (at least, non-abortifaciant contraception), and the appeal to infallibility, leave me a bit wanting…
Such as, perhaps, having sex with her, under the pretense of providing his brother an heir, but denying them that heir.
Onan spilled his seed TO AVOID GIVING OFFSPRING TO HIS BROTHER. God was offended and struck him dead. That’s what scripture says.
My understanding is that even orthodoxy Jewish teaching forbids onanism which I’ve seen defined as “the spilling of seed to no purpose.” It’s not just something the Church made up to inconvenience people, but has been a consistent teaching even from our Jewish forebearers.
That is no wives’ tale, it is absolutely true. The women had recourse to sorcerer who had " special " knowledge of drugs derived from plants ( various poisins) which would kill the unborn child. Oh yes, people always found a way to kill the " unwanted " pregnancy.
That’s a good point - I’ve been reading up on Jewish sexual laws myself. At the same time, Judiasm often builds a fence around the law, to the point that the fence is much taller than the original law. For instance, the laws around a kosher kitchen, or not speaking the name of God.