Onan's sin

[Guest]

I thought I'd throw this one out for a change in topic.

I've been reading through Genesis lately and this passage in Genesis 38 always puzzles me for some reason. What exactly was Onan's sin? Most commentator's say it was his refusal to provide an heir for his brother. But for some reason, that answer has never satisfied me. After all, Judah also withheld his last son from providing an heir for the same person. Why was he not also killed by God? Was this Judah's punishment for instigating Joseph's sale to the Ishmaelites? Was God displeased with Onan's crude form of birth control? That doesn't seem likely to me, but at first glance, it may appear that way. Was it malicious and deceptive use of Tamar as an object of recreational sex? Or was it simply God's way of making sure the Messiah would come through Judah?

The other thing is, the commentators I read suggest that Onan was a mere teenager when this happened but I haven't been able to piece together how they draw that conclusion.

I look forward to hearing some of your thoughts.

[Guest]

Onan's sin was primarily his deliberate failure to raise up a child as heir for his brother. Secondarily, it was disobedience to his father Judah.

Hugh McBryde

[Guest]

I've always thought his sin was disobedience plus exploitation. Instead of doing right by his brother (and sister-in-law), he used her for his own gratification while completely shunning his responsibility.

Think of it another way: The only way "going into" his brother's wife was not sinful was if it was for the purpose of Leverate marriage (raising up offspring for his brother). Anything else would place him under the category of adulterer. And what was the punishment for adultery?

[Guest]

"I've always thought his sin was disobedience plus exploitation."

In that God later codifies Judah's command to his son, I would have to go with it was Onan's righteous obligation. Apparently this was a desire of God that was known prior to the giving of the Law. In any case "Levirate Law" in Deuteronomy mirrors the exact command of Judah to his son, to all Israelites.

"Instead of doing right by his brother (and sister-in-law), he used her for his own gratification while completely shunning his responsibility."

There is no indication in the text that his "gratification" had anything to do with God's anger. He was directed to raise up an inheritor for his brother, by his father, he specificly did things to prevent that for the specific rebellious reason that he did NOT want to raise up a heir.

"Anything else would place him under the category of adulterer. And what was the punishment for adultery?"

Um, Tamar was not inelligible for marriage, how would Onan have been an adulterer?

Hugh McBryde

[Guest]

I posted this question almost a year ago and didn't get any bites at that time. But I'm pleasantly surprised to see it re-opened.

The purpose of the question was actually to try and find out why Onan was considered worthy of instant judgment by God. There are a few such occasions in the bible that seem somewhat overly harsh on the surface(Nahab and Abihu, Ananias and Sapphira, Uzzah who steadied the ark when it was about to fall off the ox cart, etc.), but further review usually gives a hint at what God's reasons were for acting so swiftly and harshly. I just haven't been able to see it yet in this particular case.

It's obvious that Onan was rebellious against his father, but at the same time, Judah himself withheld his third son from Tamar which would seem to make him just as guilty. Yet he was not judged.

Rebellion against parents was not (and is not) uncommon yet most escape instant death. And if the commentators are correct, these guys were just teenagers. There seems to be something particularly wicked about Judah's first two sons (Er and Onan) that caused the Lord to kill them. I guess we're just not told exactly what that was.

[Guest]

[Um, Tamar was not inelligible for marriage, how would Onan have been an adulterer?

I guess I was thinking she *was* ineligible for marriage to Onan, except for a Leverate marriage.

My point was, the only way he could *righteously* marry her was if he intended to raise up sons for his brother. Since he didn't do that, he had no right to act married with her.

Bottom line, of course, and we agree on this, is that he was not carrying out his duty by his father and brother.

The thing about his gratification is just a side-issue. But it seems like everything about what he did was offensive to God. He essentially treated her like a prostitute. Which is interesting, given her next move...

And BTW, why is Judah never condemned for his use of a (as he supposed) prostitute?

[Guest]

"I guess I was thinking she *was* ineligible for marriage to Onan, except for a Leverate marriage.

My point was, the only way he could *righteously* marry her was if he intended to raise up sons for his brother."

So you're saying one of two things (perhaps both) it seems to me. One, that unless you're going to make children, sex is wrong or marriage is wrong? That Onan was already married? What are you saying?

Inheritance was HUGE in the scheme of the Covenant between Abraham and God, and God and Isaac and Jacob. Onan was REFUSING to raise up the heir for his dead brother. This heir is later found to be IN THE LINE OF CHRIST. Onan was struck dead for trying to block the action of the Covenant. I think we all miss how important inheritance was, and we also miss the fact that though Judah was the physical contributer to the sons of Tamar, they were Er's.

Hugh McBryde

[Guest]

Hmm...now that you mention it, I *was* assuming Onan was married. Weird...where'd I come up with that?

And as to the other issue, I was *not* saying that marriage/sex is only for procreation (I only have one child and I'm 12 years married - although I do have a problem with the popularity of artificial contraception among Christians).

Okay, here's another one...if Onan had simply *refused* to marry Tamar, what then? Would he have been struck down? If the Covenant alone was the issue, seems like he would have been. I'm not so sure, though. There was provision for a man refusing Levirate marriage, although it was an embarassing situation for him according to the law (Deuteronomy 25:7 and following).

[Guest]

"Hmm...now that you mention it, I *was* assuming Onan was married. Weird...where'd I come up with that?"

I would agree with your assumption, though I wouldn't bank my life or a doctrine on it. I believe Onan was already married, he had his own inheritance to preserve and Judah would have probably arranged a marriage for him specificly for that purpose. Furthermore Onan seemed to be concerned with preserving an existing inheritance, namely that he thought Tamar's offspring would have carved into his existing chunk of what Judah had to give. Boaz's relative that declines the obligation to take Ruth does something similar, but Boaz picks up the duty immediately and there's no problem. Onan was the only son available to provide offspring, Judah's other son was too young, there was no other solution, he had to do it, his action amounted to the murder of his brother's line.

"if Onan had simply *refused* to marry Tamar, what then? Would he have been struck down? If the Covenant alone was the issue, seems like he would have been."

We don't know, but the problem would have been immediately obvious, he would have disobeyed his father. As it was Onan was like the son in the parable, who said he WOULD do as his father asked, but then didn't.

"I'm not so sure, though. There was provision for a man refusing Levirate marriage, although it was an embarassing situation for him according to the law (Deuteronomy 25:7 and following)."

There was indeed a penalty, all the language goes along the lines of "should" and "must" and "shall", not "if he chooses." It's clear he could refuse but there was a penalty for doing so. Apparently if someone else stepped in, as in Boaz, there was no problem.

Hugh McBryde

[Guest]

christopher wrote:

There are a few such occasions in the bible that seem somewhat overly harsh on the surface(Nahab and Abihu, Ananias and Sapphira, Uzzah who steadied the ark when it was about to fall off the ox cart, etc.),

your mention of ananias and sapphira made me think of something-- they sold a field and PRETENDED to give the whole amount rec'd for the field while secretly holding some back. they were struck dead for lying to the HS (God).

Onan PRETENDED to carry out his duty under the levirate requirement, but secretly held back via his crude form of birth control. He was lying to God as well, and God struck him dead. there seems to be some parallel in the stories.

TK