Historically, Onan in Genesis 38 has been accused of masturbation, and for this supposed transgression was struck dead. The term Onanism (or in German Onanie) is still used to describe this practice.
Was Onan's sin really masturbation?
|
Historically, Onan in Genesis 38 has been accused of masturbation, and for this supposed transgression was struck dead. The term Onanism (or in German Onanie) is still used to describe this practice. Was Onan's sin really masturbation? |
|||||||||||||
|
|
Onan's sin is most accurately interpreted as withdrawal, or coitus interruptus, as affable geek has said. But interpreting the sin as masturbation is strained even further when you consider the relevant Leviticus passages (my Wikisource translation), chapter 15, verses 16-18:
These verses are not solely referring to nocturnal emissions, as the last verse makes clear. It nowhere prohibits masturbation, nor non-standard sex. It simply (sensibly, in my opinion) asks you to wash up afterwards. Here is a continuation versus 19 and 24 (linked by some irrelevant stuff, same translation, my translation)
The main injunction is against touching blood. There is no special injunction against the necessarily non-procreative sex involved here. The blood injunction is the main theme of Pentateuch law. The blood is to be drained from animals before eating, it is to be sacrificed to God, and it is not to be eaten or touched. The defiling aspects of blood over and above other discharges are repeated many times, For example, in my translation of Lamentations 4:13-15, on Wikisource:
The reason for this seems to be that the blood is considered the resting place of the soul. The injunctions on semen are minor by comparison. Consider Leviticus 17:11 ( again, my translation, available on Wikisource ):
So on the whole, Leviticus doesn't care about masturbation (beyond cleaning up afterward), so it is inconceivable that the even more lax pre-Leviticus code would. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Perhaps, given more time, I might be able to actually flush this answer out, but I feel that the opposing side should be heard.
|
|||||||
|
|
This might depend on the definition of masturbation. The ends achieved by masturbation are not all that different than coitus interruptus, homosexual sex, contraceptive sex, oral sex or anal sex to name a few. The real question, the one you bring up, is whether Onan died because:
But, what if Onan has just refused her relations altogether, would have have still been killed for it? I've been doing some bible searching and I haven't found much mention of anyone, besides St. Joseph and David (as an old man), not having relations with a woman (or women) whom he was lawfully married to. So, the real, real question to ask is this, why did Onan consent to 'having relations' with Tamar and not just abstaining? And, if he had refused relations, would he still have been smote? It's impossible to know, but I have to believe that the part about spilling his seed is in there for a reason and you can't just substitute "not laying with" with "seed spilling" and expect the same end result. One thing is clear, Judah and Shelah weren't punished like Onan was even though God, who knew their hearts, knew their actions produced the same end result. One thing Catholics believe about the OT, is that everything in it is found in perfection in the New Testament. In my opinion, and maybe you'll see this too, if you compare the relationship between Onan and Tamar and Joseph and Mary, you can see the difference between the right way to live the vocation of marriage chastely and the wrong way to do so. |
|||||||
|
|
The story of Judah and Tamar is an interesting one, to say the least. Judah and Tamar are both explicitly mentioned in Jesus' lineage (Matthew 1 - and Tamar is only one of four women mentioned, all of whom have sordid stories associated with them). In the end, Tamar is going to trick her father-in-law into getting her pregnant, and then avoids death by proving Judah is the father. But the question is about Onan, not Judah... In the story, Tamar is first wed to Er, the eldest of Judah's sons. Er dies for some unmentioned reason, and Tamar is left without children. Children in that time were important both for the social support for parents in their old age, and for continuance of the family line. Being childless, the law calls for something called 'levirate marriage' - the next oldest brother is required to marry and give the widow the children. This is how Judah's second child, Onan, enters the story.
As you can see, Onan was not masturbating. If anything, you could accuse Onan of coitus interruptus, but not masturbation. What Onan was doing, however, was using Tamar for sex, but not giving her the child she deserved. One could call this theft - it isn't really the sex that is at issue at all. As the text clearly states, Onan did not want his deceased brother to have an heir. That would have negated his claim on the inheritance, and his new found status as eldest brother. Interestingly, the story continues with this theme of theft - Judah refuses to allow his third son Shelah, to fufill this duty. (I mean, can you blame him? Two sons dead, and now looking at a third?) Instead of Shelah taking from Tamar, Judah is "stealing" Tamar's due. In the end, however, Tamar tricks Judah into securing her place in the line of Christ. Just your typical Sunday School story, I know, but a fun one :) |
|||||||||||||
|
This question is protected to prevent "thanks!", "me too!", or spam answers by new users. To answer it, you must have earned at least 10 reputation on this site.