T
Why was Onan killed?
- Thread starter Nelka
- Start date
- Status
Our God…He’s so logical sometimes. 
I
irenaeuslyons
Guest
Excellent analysis Tim
A
ahs
Guest
Amen! I see it as logic still (not contradicting a Truth with another Truth; Truth being True regardless of circumstances) , but Amen!
G
Gorgias
Guest
Show me a magisterial document that says “Onan was killed because he practiced coitus interruptus”, and I’ll back off. (On the other hand, showing me a document that says that contraception – coitus interruptus or otherwise – is against God’s will and I’ll still ask whether that’s what Scripture is saying in the Onan account.
)The position you’re putting forward speaks to contraception alone, not to the case at hand. Important difference. Contraception: against God’s will. Jewish people attempting to fool God and avoid the prescriptions of the Mosaic law: against God’s will. How are you showing that it’s the former and not the latter? I’m not seeing it…
Has a magisterial statement – a statement of “the infallible Church” – made the assertion you’ve placed here? Or have Christian writers simply pointed out that coitus interruptus is not in line with Christian sexual ethics? The two are not the same…
G
Gorgias
Guest
Tim,
Maybe I’m misunderstanding you. However, it seems that you’re saying that crime X – publicly stating “I will not father a child by my sister-in-law” – is punishable by public humiliation; and then punishing that crime with death is inconsistent.
Yet, Onan did not say “I will not father a child by my sister-in-law.” Rather, he took great pains to attempt to demonstrate that he was willing to father her child, while nevertheless taking actions to ensure that he did not. In other words, he did not commit ‘crime X’ (stating that he would not father her child); rather, he committed a different crime – attempting to get around the prescriptions of the law (and the punishments thereof). In this way, his actions were more like the actions of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 – they, too, attempted to lie and say that they were following God’s law… and guess what their punishment was? Yep, you got it… death.
So, unless I misunderstand you, your analysis is not logical, but rather, mistaken.
I
irenaeuslyons
Guest
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.htmlShow me a magisterial document that says “Onan was killed because he practiced coitus interruptus”, and I’ll back off. (On the other hand, showing me a document that says that contraception – coitus interruptus or otherwise – is against God’s will and I’ll still ask whether that’s what Scripture is saying in the Onan account.
The position you’re putting forward speaks to contraception alone, not to the case at hand. Important difference. Contraception: against God’s will. Jewish people attempting to fool God and avoid the prescriptions of the Mosaic law: against God’s will. How are you showing that it’s the former and not the latter? I’m not seeing it…
Has a magisterial statement – a statement of “the infallible Church” – made the assertion you’ve placed here? Or have Christian writers simply pointed out that coitus interruptus is not in line with Christian sexual ethics? The two are not the same…
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
“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”… “To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature.”
St. Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children (A.D. 191)
CCC 2351 - Lust is disordered desire for, or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.
CCC 2370 - … "Every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil: Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other…
A
ahs
Guest
Show me a magisterial document that says “Onan was killed because he practiced coitus interruptus”, and I’ll back off. (On the other hand, showing me a document that says that contraception – coitus interruptus or otherwise – is against God’s will and I’ll still ask whether that’s what Scripture is saying in the Onan account.
The position you’re putting forward speaks to contraception alone, not to the case at hand. Important difference. Contraception: against God’s will. Jewish people attempting to fool God and avoid the prescriptions of the Mosaic law: against God’s will. How are you showing that it’s the former and not the latter? I’m not seeing it…
Has a magisterial statement – a statement of “the infallible Church” – made the assertion you’ve placed here? Or have Christian writers simply pointed out that coitus interruptus is not in line with Christian sexual ethics? The two are not the same…
(Casti Connubii) 55. “Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.”[45]”
which Scripture tells us he did by having intercourse
…which Scripture tells us happened by spilling his seed on the ground (committing coitus interruptus)
Scripture says “crime x” was a refusal…does not say anything about whether he had to state such verbally. I can refuse to do many things and never say a word… But you are right, he didn’t just commit “crime x”, Scripture tells us which crime he did that was detestable to God…he “spilled his seed”. “What Onan DID was detestable…and God slew him also…” What did Onan do? Scripture plainly tells us he spilled his seed. I’m not seeing any room for adding my own personal interpretation to that verse to come up with some other reason except what the Church teaches.
Are you going to provide the Church document that supports this theory that Onan’s sin was “like the actions of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 – they, too, attempted to lie and say that they were following God’s law”? Because the only Church documents I have read say that Onan’s sin was preventing the conception of offspring…not attempting to lie.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Thanks for pointing out this quote. Of the examples that irenaeus provided, this is the only one that seems relevant.
I’ve been thinking and praying about this question, and it seems to me that there is middle ground here. We know that there are many senses of Scripture, and that in addition to the literal sense, there is also the moral sense. I think that I would argue for a ‘both/and’ approach here, rather than an ‘either/or’ approach.
In other words, we see that (for instance, in Casti connubii), the Church is calling us to see that the example of Onan demonstrates that his actions (i.e., using sex in a way that’s neither procreative nor unitive) is wrong, and that God detests this use of human sexuality. After all, in context, Pius isn’t talking about masturbation or coitus interruptus, but rather, an approach to sexuality that is disordered due to its desire to nullify the potential fecundity of the sexual act. So, in this case, we have a quite appropriate moral interpretation of what is going on in Genesis 38.
However, that’s not all that’s going on. I still maintain that, on the literal level, Onan is both lying and attempting to avoid his responsibilities as a brother-in-law: he doesn’t tell his father ‘no’, but nevertheless acts in a way that disobeys his father. (Later in the OT, under Mosaic law, he could tell his father ‘no’, and bring humiliation upon himself, but he doesn’t even attempt to tell his father ‘no’ here.) So, at a literal level, I think Scripture is showing us something in addition to the moral lesson on sexuality: at that point in time, attempting to avoid his responsibilities in Levirate marriage, and deceiving his father, and unjustly using his sister-in-law sexually, all merit his death.
So, I think it’s ‘both/and’. We’re used to seeing the moral lesson about sexuality, as taught throughout the ages. I don’t think that this precludes seeing that both lessons (moral and literal) are valid; in fact, attempting to argue for only one seems to be the less praiseworthy approach.
Here’s the thing, though: the material cause of Onan’s sin was coitus interruptus. The formal cause, though, was his disobedience to his father and his unjust sexual use of his sister-in-law. He could have done this in a number of ways; he simply chose coitus interruptus as the means to achieve his ends. I would argue that asserting simply for the material cause is the weaker case here; and asserting for the formal cause isn’t ‘personal interpretation’, per se, especially if the Church remains silent on the literal sense in this passage. (Which, I’d assert, she does, as evidenced by the fact that the discussions we see on this issue are always in the context of moral teachings on sexuality.)
This goes to my point, I think. The fact that “the only Church documents” that discuss this are teachings on sexual morality, demonstrates that there isn’t a definitive teaching on the literal sense of this passage; therefore, it’s safe to make the case for ‘lying’, as long as it doesn’t contradict Church teaching.
(And so, if your case for ‘lying’ attempts to say that lying was the only sin, then you run afoul of Church teaching on morality; but if your case for ‘lying’ affirms that the means that he chose – coitus interruptus – is likewise evil, then all is good.)- Status