The Sin of Onan

By Cale Gressman 

        In Genesis chapter 38 we get one of the many stories in the Bible that I’m sure many parents love to just skip on by. This is the story of Onan, which goes as follows: 

8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also. (Genesis 38:8-10)

Now the whole of the chapter is more broadly about the fulfillment of duty; specifically that of filial piety. However, this batch of verses has had a bit of a controversial history. On the one hand, it has been traditionally used as evidence for the Biblical disapprobation of masturbation. Whatever your opinion of the subject, this seems to my eye to be nonsense. The verses are clearly speaking about something else. 

More credible accounts take the punishment of Onan to be the result of his failure to provide a descendant for his deceased brother i.e a lack of filial piety. Since I first read this verse back in (probably) middle school I always thought that the true sin of Onan was his selfishness. He selfishly refused to do his duty to his dead brother, but what's more, he denied children to Tamar. 

Today, the lack of children does not ring the same alarm bells that it did back then. There was by and large no help if you fell on hard times until approximately 100-120 years ago. So the family was essential. That is, marriage and children are essential. So there was a marked degree of shame for men and especially women who were not married or lacked children. 

So here we have Onan who is refusing to give Tamar children. But perhaps worse than that he is using her for his own pleasure all the while. As verse 9 states,  “so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother.” He still slept with her. Still used her. 

I’m not a Catholic. But it seems pretty clear to me that they are onto something with their “extreme” views of sex and contraception. I’m all the way on board, but it cannot be denied that there is an intrinsic link between sex and childbearing (which is this year’s winner of the “no crap” awards). But what happens when we begin to sever that link? The Sexual Revolution’s aim was just this in so many ways. But can the tree survive without the root? 

Many who have traditionally been in favor of the contemporary status quo like Louise Perry have come out against the Sexual Revolution. Their criticism is one as old as time; men have a nasty inclination to use women for sex. We “objectify” them. Perry has come to the conclusion (one that I share) that complete sexual liberation has done real harm to women. Or rather that it has put no constraints on male sexuality. But wasn’t this outcome foreseeable? 

Modern culture has made Onans out of us. Selfish. Using each other for nothing but pleasure. And we are surprised when it turns out that it sucks?