4. What Was the Sin of Onan?

The six Biblical laws violated by Onan

Perhaps the most significant Biblical argument used by the NCC camp against any form of conception control is God’s judgment of Onan. What were the sins of Onan in Genesis 38:8-10? It is clear that Onan committed some sin, since “the thing which he did displeased the LORD, therefore He killed him also” (v. 10). Apart from some sin, it is difficult to imagine the Lord’s displeasure or killing of Onan. The word “also” implies that his brother, Er, had committed the same sin, and his brother “was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and the LORD killed him” (v. 7). Since we have already seen (chapter 3) that nothing can be called a sin that is not clearly laid out as a sin in the law of God (Rom. 3:20; 4:15; James 2:9; 1 John 3:4), we should be able to isolate specific laws that this narrative passage illustrates.

The NCC camp usually points to one act as being the sin – that “he emitted on the ground.” The ABC camp replies that the only sin was Onan’s violation of the law of Levirate marriage, pointing to his responsibility to “raise up an heir to your brother” and pointing to the fact that the emission was simply a means to the sin – “he emitted on the ground, lest he should give an heir to his brother.”

This chapter will seek to demonstrate that both sides are wrong. The NCC camp adds to the law of God a prohibition nowhere given (thou shalt not have sterile sex) and the ABC camp takes away from the law by ignoring other ethical issues violated by Onan. In the process, the NCC camp often binds the conscience of men and women over issues that the Bible sees as joyful liberties, and the ABC camp often grossly violates God’s laws related to health and life issues.

In contrast to the NCC and ABC camps, the BLCC camp sees at least five laws that were violated by Onan, and probably six. First, we would point out that the ABC camp is correct in stating that Er’s refusal to raise an heir to his brother was a violation of a fundamental provision in the Levirate marriage law in Deuteronomy 25:5-10.⁸⁶ He should have refused to get married (something that was a shame [Deut 25:7-10], but still lawful) rather than to pretend to fulfill his Levirate responsibilities and immediately violate them. Having taken her as a wife, Onan was required by the law to “perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her” (Deut. 25:5). The text of Genesis 28 is quite explicit that “he emitted on the ground, lest he should give an heir to his brother” (v. 9). It was a deliberate violation of the duty that his father had given to him in verse 8. It is clear that the patriarchs had God’s commandments, statutes, and laws long before the time of Moses (Gen. 26:5).⁸⁷

Second, Onan lied. Worse, he broke the solemn vows of a Levirate marriage. This was a clear violation of Numbers 30 and of the ninth commandment.⁸⁸

Third, Onan had no intention of giving his brother’s inheritance to any son of Tamar’s. He hoped by marrying Tamar that he could gain Er’s inheritance, but he hoped that by having no children, the inheritance would not fall out of his hands. This violated a fundamental provision in the law of inheritance (Deut. 21:15-17)⁸⁹ and was therefore a form of theft (eighth commandment).

Fourth, verse 9 makes it clear that he entered into marriage with no intention of ever having children by this woman. He was not using conception control to delay having children or to space children or to limit the number of children. The stated goal was to eliminate the possibility of having any children. This violated numerous commands to be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:22; 9:1; etc. – see chapter 1) and also violated the Levirate duty to raise up a son for her (Deut. 25:5-10). Contrary to the ABC claim that the passage is irrelevant to the conception control debate, this point makes it clear that the Onan passage is very relevant to the debate. It illustrates God’s great displeasure when men violate God’s first commandment to mankind: “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28). Contrary to the ABC arguments, it was not simply shirking the Levirate law that was wicked in God’s sight – it was emitting on the ground so as to have no children.

Fifth, this was clearly violating Tamar’s desire to have children. Her desire to have children was so great that she was willing to take a great risk to her own life in order to have a child (Gen. 38:12-26). Her willingness to sin in order to have children is also a warning to the ABC camp that some methods of getting pregnant may indeed be sinful. We will look at some of the sinful methods used in fertility clinics later in this book. This robbing Tamar of children shows that the conception control was not mutually agreed upon, but was a selfish desire on Onan’s part. The command to be fruitful and multiply was not just given to Adam, but to “them” (Gen 1:28), that is to Adam and Eve. Thus Paul rightly applies the command to widows, saying that they should “bear children” (1 Tim. 5:14). Thus Onan’s unilateral decision to have no children selfishly ignored such ethical mandates.

Sixth, this coitus interruptus may very well have deprived Tamar of the pleasure of sexual relations. Though Martin Luther didn’t understand the law on conception, he definitely understood the lawful requirement to bring sexual pleasure to the wife. He stated,

Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime to produce semen and excite the woman, and to frustrate her at that very moment… That worthless fellow refused to exercise [love].⁹⁰

Though the text does not explicitly say that Onan failed to gratify his wife’s sexual desires, given his selfishness in the other areas already covered, Luther’s conclusion is very likely. If so, it was a clear violation of the law of God. Exodus 21:10 says that even a slave who has been elevated to the status of wife cannot be denied “her sexual rights.” To arouse sexual desires in your wife only to dash them is a form of defrauding. It is not just the woman who is responsible to learn “how she may please her husband” (1 Cor. 7:34); the husband is responsible to know “how he may please his wife” (1 Cor. 7:33). The Song of Solomon is an instruction manual on learning how to please each other, and it is not simply the man who has sexual desires that need to be met. The woman too can be “lovesick” (2:5) and sexually hungry (3:1-5). Thus Paul insists that neither husband nor wife should “deprive one another except with consent for a time” and then should “come together again” (1 Cor. 7:5). The interplay of invitation given and accepted in the Song of Solomon shows both were involved, and the arousal of either husband or wife without fulfillment is not seen as a good thing (5:1-6:1). The man’s “desire” (7:10) and delight (7:6) should not be pursued in ways that rob the wife of her own “great delight” (2:3). The repeated calls to not stir up or awaken love inappropriately all apply to this situation. The ideal is a mutual self-giving where the wife can say, “I am my beloved’s, and his desire is towards me” (Song 7:10).

Is “wasting” seed sin when it avoids the previous six sins?

The NCC contention

What about the NCC contention that “wasting seed” is itself a separate sin, even if the other six violations of the law have been avoided? Provan claims that any sexual relationship with a wife that has no possibility of making the woman pregnant is “wasting seed.”⁹¹ This would of course logically exclude any sexual relations with a pregnant wife or any sexual relations after menopause. The reason is clear – such relations are “sterile” (to use Provan’s language). Though many NCC people don’t like the logic of that position, it is an inescapable conclusion if “wasting seed” is a sin. It is this very reason that made Philo conclude that it is a sin to marry a sterile woman:

But those people deserve to be reproached who are ploughing a hard and stony soil. And who can these be but they who have connected themselves with barren women? For such men are only hunters after intemperate pleasure, and in the excess of their licentious passions they waste their seed of their own deliberate purpose. Since for what other reason can they espouse such women? It cannot be for a hope of children, which they are aware must, of necessity, be disappointed, but rather to gratify their excess in lust and incurable incontinence.⁹²

This was exactly the viewpoint of many early church fathers who had been unduly influenced by Greek philosophy. Pseudo-Clementine reflects the views of many when he says, “sexual intercourse must not take place heedlessly and for the sake of mere pleasure, but for the sake of begetting children.”⁹³ Clement of Alexandria likewise stated that “ the law intended husbands to cohabit with their wives with self-control and only for the purpose of begetting children”⁹⁴ Though Thomas Aquinas had a much healthier view in that he allowed for the pleasure of sex,⁹⁵ he still maintained that it should not “glide on or advance unto sexual intercourse beyond the necessity of begetting children.”⁹⁶ See footnotes 9 and 10 in chapter 1 for similar references.

BLCC claim – No sin for wasted seed, based on Leviticus 15:16-18, Prov. 5:19; 1 Cor. 7:5; etc.

God’s design on “wasted” seed

Does the law of God condemn “wasting seed”? No. As we will see, it does the exact opposite. The reason is fairly obvious: God created the average male to produce about 180 million sperm in every ejaculation, with estimated ranges being from 40 million to as high as 1.2 billion sperm cells dying in a single ejaculation.⁹⁷ This means that every time there is sexual intercourse, there are millions of sperm that are “wasted” by God’s design.⁹⁸

It is hard to imagine how Onan’s ejaculation in Genesis 38:9 “wasted” any more sperm than his father’s incestuous ejaculation did in Genesis 38:18. It was not an issue of wastefulness, but an issue of violating the law of God. The burden of proof is upon the NCC advocate to show where the law of God itself condemns “wasting seed.” If wasting sperm means that sperm needlessly die, then all sexual relations waste sperm.

Indeed, God commands us to waste sperm since He commands husbands concerning their wives to “let her breasts satisfy you at all times; and always be enraptured with her love” (Prov. 5:19). The husband is not just to be sexually aroused (the meaning of the Hebrew) during fertile times, but always and at all times. Even if there was no ejaculation, the sexual arousal itself would cause sperm to begin to be secreted into the urethra. Thus, it would be impossible to fulfill the command of Proverbs 5:19 without “wasting” seed most of the time.

Paul implies that sexual fasting should be no longer than the periods of prayer and fasting from food (1 Corinthians 7:5). This would mean sexual relations would need to be maintained after pregnancy is achieved and after menopause, both of which times would be “wasting seed.” The reason Paul gives for this regularity in sexual relations is not so as to achieve pregnancy, but lest Satan “tempt you.” Unless we are willing to call all sex sinful (see objections in the next section), wasting sperm is irrelevant. Sperm is always wasted in Biblically governed sexual relations.

It is not just the man’s seed that is wasted. Think also of the woman’s “seed” or eggs. The average woman is born with 2 million egg follicles. By puberty, a majority of those follicles close up and only about 450 get released as mature eggs, ready for fertilization. Even those 450 mature eggs are far more than could possibly be raised. Has God wasted eggs? Apparently He doesn’t think so. There are other reasons for the production of sperm and eggs than reproduction. Indeed, they play a very important part of a man and a woman’s overall health.

The law itself allows “wasted” seed

It is not as if the law of God is silent on this question. The law supports the BLCC position. That spilling seed (in and of itself) was not what was considered to be the sin of Onan is confirmed by showing that the Law of God did not treat emission of semen via intercourse with the wife (Lev. 15:18) to be morally different from emission of semen where no vaginal intercourse had occurred (Lev. 15:16-17). Even “stopped up” semen was in exactly the same category, though it touched no one (Lev. 15:3).⁹⁹ Though there was a ceremonial uncleanness (now removed in the New Covenant – Heb. 13:4), there was no moral condemnation in either case. Instead, both were treated equivalently. For the emission of semen without intercourse, verse 16 says, “he shall wash all his body in water, and be unclean until evening.” For the emission of semen with intercourse, verse 18 says, “they shall bathe in water, and be unclean until evening.” Both situations are described with identical language. If one is sin then the other must be sin. This confirms that something else than spilling of seed was at the root of Onan’s great wickedness. We have already demonstrated that the “something else” involved six laws of God that had been violated. The spilling of the seed was only the means to the sin.

Three possible counter-claims that have been made in the history of the church

There are three potential objections to this understanding of Leviticus 15. The first objection is that all spilling of seed in Leviticus 15 is said to make the man “unclean,” and this uncleanness should be interpreted as a moral uncleanness rather than as a ceremonial uncleanness. The second objection is the claim that Leviticus 15:16-17 is describing an involuntary nocturnal emission, and is therefore quite different from Onan’s voluntary and very deliberate emission. The third objection is that if there is no distinction between “spilling seed” outside a woman’s body and “spilling seed” inside a woman’s body in terms of moral uncleanness, then this verse could be used to justify masturbation (solo sex). We will see how each of these potential counterclaims are wrong.

Possible counterclaim one – all sex is sinful

The first possible counterclaim is that Leviticus 15:16-18 makes all sex and all emission of semen morally sinful. This position would say that because children are a greater good, sex is permitted as a necessary evil, and that the act of sex always contaminates one morally. Though I don’t know any modern NCC advocates who hold to this, there seems to be such an underlying guilt over things that God praises that it warrants dealing with this issue at length.

In any case, there have been many in history (both heretical¹⁰⁰ and orthodox¹⁰¹) who have taken the word “unclean” in each verse as a moral judgment of sin rather than simply a statement of ceremonial uncleanness. They would agree with Huguccio when he said that intercourse

can never be without sin, for it always occurs and is exercised with a certain itching and a certain pleasure; for, in the emission of the seed, there is always a certain excitement, a certain itching, a certain pleasure.¹⁰²

Ambrose represented many when he taught that the first sin was sexual pleasure, and all sexual sin since that time has been tainted with sin.¹⁰³ Jerome (and many with him) could not conceive of Adam and Eve engaging in sexual relations before the Fall. Some allowed that it was possible to produce children without sin (theoretically), but insisted that it would have been done without pleasure and by a mere act of the will. Thomas Aquinas did not have a very healthy view of sex himself,¹⁰⁴ but he did at least try to oppose the common viewpoint that sex could never be engaged in without sin. He said,

Some say that whenever pleasure is the chief motive for the marriage act it is a mortal sin; that when it is an indirect motive it is a venial sin; and that when it spurns the pleasure altogether and is displeasing, it is wholly void of venial sin; so that it would be a mortal sin to seek pleasure in this act, a venial sin to take the pleasure when offered, but that perfection requires one to detest it. But this is impossible, since according to the Philosopher (Ethic. x, 3, 4) the same judgment applies to pleasure as to action, because pleasure in a good action is good … as the marriage act is not evil in itself, neither will it be always a mortal sin to seek pleasure therein… If, however, he seek pleasure within the bounds of marriage, …it is a venial sin.¹⁰⁵

As Chrysostom pointed out in his day,¹⁰⁶ this is falling into the error of failing to distinguish between ceremonial law and moral law; ceremonial defilement and moral defilement. It also ignores a large body of Biblical materials that call a husband and wife to find great sexual delight in each other.¹⁰⁷ So what was the “unclean” nature of the sexual relations? How does it differ from moral uncleanness?

First, we must make an important distinction between sexual sin that is vile, and unclean in itself¹⁰⁸ and the emissions of semen described in Leviticus 15 that resulted in a state of being temporarily unclean. The first is inward, the second is outward. The first flows from the heart,¹⁰⁹ while the ceremonial uncleanness flows from contact.¹¹⁰ Moral uncleanness is only possible with a person whereas ceremonial uncleanness can make non-personal things unclean, such as a “bed” (Lev. 15:5), “clothes” (v. 6), a “saddle” (v. 9), a “vessel of earth” (v. 12), a “vessel of wood” (v. 13), “any garment and any leather” (v. 17), etc. Moral uncleanness cannot be cleansed without the blood of Christ¹¹¹ whereas ceremonial uncleanness can be cleansed with ceremonial water (Heb. 9:13-14; Lev. 15).¹¹² Ceremonial uncleanness was simply a God-given type or picture of moral uncleanness, but the Scripture never confused the two. F. D. Lindsey’s commentary on Leviticus 15 says,

It is noteworthy that while the normal sexual process between husband and wife (15:18) made both partners ceremonially unclean, it did not make them sinful—no guilt was involved and no sacrifice was required. So the chronic discharges which required a sin offering were not necessarily related to personal sin.¹¹³

Second, this uncleanness ceremonially separated from the temple, but not from God Himself.¹¹⁴ It was a picture of sin, but not sin itself. God had surrounded Israel with word pictures of sin, cleansing grace, and the need for the perfect righteousness of Jesus in order to approach God’s presence. Anything and anyone that was unclean was prohibited from entering the temple, whether that was an “unclean” God-fearing Gentile, a eunuch, a man who had a discharge of semen, a menstruating woman, a person with a runny nose, or someone who had been spit upon (Lev. 15:2,4,6-9,11,19,25-26,32-33; 22:4; Numb. 12:14). People could become unclean by contact with an insect, a mouse, a lizard, etc. (Lev. 11:29-31). If a dead insect fell on you or on a piece of wood or into a pot you could become unclean (Lev 11:32-35). It was impossible to keep oneself from ceremonial uncleanness for very long. It is no wonder that Peter told the Ecumenical Council in Acts 15, “why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?” God did not intend for those laws to be “keepable” – He intended the ceremonial law to drive people to Christ (Gal. 3:24).

Many antinomian arguments against the Law of God fail to distinguish between the moral law of God and the ceremonial laws of the Mosaic economy, but it is obvious that believers in the Old Testament understood this distinction (cf. Ps. 40:6-8; Is. 56; 66:21; Jer. 7:22-23; etc.). Many Scriptures make no sense without understanding that moral laws are quite different from ceremonial laws (eg. 1 Cor. 7:19). The BLCC position is not advocating the reinstitution of the ceremonial laws of the Mosaic economy (though such laws continue to teach us of the Gospel and Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ). However, it does teach that all of God’s moral laws (including the case law applications in the Pentateuch) continue to be the “Perfect Law of Liberty” (James 1:26). Every jot and tittle of the moral law (even the “least of these commandments” that is found in Deut. 22:6) continues to be binding till the end of history (Matt. 5:17-19; Luke 16:17). The following chart helps to clarify the major differences between the moral law and the ceremonial law of Moses.

Contrasts Between Moral Law & Ceremonial Law

Matthew 5:16-19 says of the moral law,

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven. Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

What is most significant for our study is that after Christ fulfilled the ceremonial law, God has removed all of the ceremonial uncleanness restrictions from the church, except for one.¹¹⁵ In the Old Covenant, every sexual encounter defiled the bed, and until the bed was ceremonially cleansed, that bed would defile anyone who sat upon it (Lev. 15:4-5,21,23-25). Consider the stark contrast between the Old Covenant statement, “his discharge is unclean [and] every bed is unclean on which he who has the discharge lies” (Lev. 15:2-3) and the New Covenant statement, “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4). Moral transgressions continue to be judged by God, but only four non-moral laws continue into the New Testament (Acts 15:18-31). We will address the significance of one of these laws when we deal with the prohibition of vaginal intercourse during the woman’s menstrual period (see chapter 12), but the evidence against counterclaim one is very strong.

Possible counterclaim two – Leviticus 15:16-17 is involuntary, Gen 38 was voluntary and deliberate

The second possible counterclaim against our thesis is that Leviticus 15:16-17 is describing something involuntary, such as a nocturnal emission, whereas Genesis 38 is describing something voluntary and very deliberate. The argument would be that if it was a nocturnal emission of semen we would not be guilty of the death of children (though if there was an evil dream connected with it, there would be some guilt), but if it were a deliberate spilling of seed, we would be guilty. For example, Matthew Poole says,

Go out from him; not through weakness of the parts, as that ver. 3; but in his sleep, which is called nightly pollution, which, though involuntary, might arise from some lustful dream or imagination. But if it was voluntary, and by a man’s own procurement when awake, it was esteemed abominable, and a degree of murder. See Gen. 38:9.¹¹⁶

Likewise, B. A. Levin says,

As Ibn Ezra explains, this statement pertains to an involuntary emission of semen. In Deuteronomy 23:11 this is called mikreh lailah, “a nocturnal emission.”¹¹⁷

Exegetical Problems with this theory

However, there are three exegetical problems with this theory. The most important exegetical problem is that this theory still falls short of showing any prohibition in the law of God. Matthew Poole has not shown a contrast within the law. The most he has shown is that there is an emission in Leviticus 15 that does not have moral culpability and there is an emission in Genesis 38 that does have moral culpability. Both sides of the debate agree with this observation. That is not the issue. The issue is, “Where in the law of God does it prohibit sexual relations that do not produce a pregnancy?” That has not been exegetically demonstrated. It has only been asserted.

Second, the Hebrew grammar contradicts the notion that the emission in Leviticus 15 is involuntary (passive) and the emission in Genesis 38 is voluntary (active). First, the phrase “emission of sperm” (שִׁכְבַת־זָ֑רַע) is identical in Leviticus 15:16 and in verse 18. Everyone agrees that the ejaculation in verse 18 is consciously engaged in. Since the phrase for “emission of sperm” is the same in verse 16, what makes it an involuntary ejaculation? That is reading something into the text that is not there. Second, the verb indicating a spilling outside (תֵצֵא) in verse 16 is in the Qal stem, indicating an active tense rather than a passive tense.¹¹⁸ This parallels the active tense for intercourse (יִשְׁכַּב) that is used in verse 18. When we deal with the next objection we will see that the main difference is that the spilling out (תֵצֵא) of the emission (שִׁכְבַת) of sperm (זָרַע) in verse 16 is outside the woman and doesn’t touch her body and the emission (שִׁכְבַת) of sperm (זָרַע) in verse 18 does touch the woman’s body (implication of the word for intercourse - יִשְׁכַּב) and therefore defiles both the man and the woman.

This is in decided contrast with the nocturnal emission in Deuteronomy 23:10 where no woman is present (the man is on the battlefield) and where something “happens” to the man or an “occurrence” takes place. The phrase, “becomes unclean by some occurrence in the night” clearly indicates that the man is passive and that this is a normal nocturnal emission in which he is not the conscious or deliberative agent.

Thus Deuteronomy 23 and Leviticus 15 solidly support the BLCC position and contradict the NCC position. Those passages demonstrate that there are three different cases of “spilling seed” that the law of God speaks to without any moral condemnation: 1) First, there is the case of nocturnal emissions (Deut. 23:9-11), which is God’s biological provision to release the pressure of sperm buildup. 2) Second, there is the case of non-fertilizing marital relations (Lev. 15:16-17), which are undefined (but which could be premature ejaculation or manual arousal by the wife without intercourse).¹¹⁹ 3) Third is the case of marital relations with the potential for fertilization (Lev. 15:18), but which do not specify that they need to occur within the fertile time of a woman’s cycle. None of those three things had any moral blame, though all three equally made the man ceremonially unclean and therefore unable to enter the temple until after the simple cleansing and wait until evening.¹²⁰

Possible counterclaim three – “This would justify masturbation, which we know is wrong.”

This brings up the last objection potentially made by NCC advocates. The claim could be made that if our thesis is true, and if Leviticus 15:16-17 is an active spilling of seed (as the Qal stem seems to imply), then the passage could just as easily justify masturbation. Since masturbation is clearly wrong, the claim could be made that the BLCC exegesis of Leviticus 15:16-17 must also be wrong. This argument is the logical extension of the repeated claim that Onan’s action was equivalent to masturbation and thus the label of “Onanism” for masturbation.

While I agree that masturbation (solo sex) is wrong, chapter 3 has already demonstrated that we must derive our belief in its wrongness from the law of God alone, and not engage in eisegesis. The bottom line is that if this text taught that masturbation was lawful, then we must submit to its liberty. However, I believe it teaches the opposite. Beyond the counterclaim’s novel definition of masturbation (which is technically solo sex),¹²¹ this objection also fails to take into consideration three terms in the Hebrew.

The first term is שִׁכְבַת.¹²² Though it is translated as “emission” in the NKJV, the root word from which it comes is “marriage bed” or “to lie down,” and when connected with sexual arousal means “to sexually lie with a person.”¹²³ Indeed, many dictionary definitions give only a meaning that is compatible with twosome-sexuality rather than mono-sexuality.¹²⁴ This word is used in verses 16 and 18, which implies that verses 16-17 speak of sexual arousal with one’s wife in the marital relationship (or if the root word is emphasized, “on the marital bed”) where the seed is spilled outside of the woman and without contacting the woman and verse 18 speaks of intercourse in the same marital relationship (or marital bed) where there is a spilling of seed inside the woman (or at least in a way that the sperm contacted the woman).

It is an awkward Hebrew structure to translate. The reason it is awkward is that there are two words that could be taken as emission, and unless there is a deliberate reason for adding the term שִׁכְבַת to the term for תֵצֵא, we should investigate the reason why the term for a mutual sexual relationship (שִׁכְבַת) is used in both verses. Interestingly, the ancient Jews who translated the Septuagint (LXX) saw the same thing that I am pointing out. The Septuagint translation of the Hebrew literally translates verse 16 as “And a man, who, if it goes out of him, the sperm of the marriage relationship [or marriage bed - koite] goes out of him, he shall bathe his whole body in water.”¹²⁵ This is more literal, with שִׁכְבַת being translated with κοίτη, a word that has as its primary meaning “the marriage-bed” or “conjugal bed” and points to a sexual relationship with another person.¹²⁶ So the vocabulary of these verses is clearly not talking about masturbation, a term that should only be used to describe solo-sex.

This means that the two words are not a redundancy, but a clarification of what kind of emission verse 16 is talking about. There is an emission (תֵצֵא) of a lawful-marital-bed-type of emission (שִׁכְבַת) of sperm (זָרַע). In other words, this law is clarifying that this is not solo-sex or auto-eroticism. Both verses 16-17 and verse 18 are dealing with ejaculation that comes as a result of a man being highly aroused by his wife’s-marriage-relationship (שִׁכְבַת), but the spilling out (תֵצֵא) of the lawful-marriage-emission (שִׁכְבַת) of sperm (זָרַע) in verse 16 is outside the woman and doesn’t touch her body and the lawful-marriage-emission (שִׁכְבַת) of sperm (זָרַע) in verse 18 does touch the woman’s body (implication of the related word “lie with” or “intercourse” - יִשְׁכַּב) and therefore defiles both the man and the woman. Therefore, far from supporting any kind of masturbation (solo-sex), verses 16-17 are highlighting either premature ejaculation that does not touch the woman or the kind of mutual stimulation described in the Song of Solomon.¹²⁷ This conclusion is strengthened with the following observations:

Elsewhere שִׁכְבַת־זָ֑רַע seems to imply a conscious emission of semen (Gen. 19:34; Lev. 15:17-18; 18:20; 19:20; Numb. 5:13), though two other passages are undefined (Lev. 15:32; 22:4).

The “also” at the beginning of verse 18 makes clear that there are two different scenarios involved. The difference is not the act of lying down with the woman (שִׁכְבַת) so that semen results (זָ֑רַע). The only difference is that in verses 16-17 the semen is emitted “outside” (תֵצֵ֥א) making only the man unclean and in verse 18 the semen touches the woman’s body making both unclean. The contrast between “outside” and touching the woman implies that premature ejaculation or any other form of emission that does not touch the woman was in mind.

In conclusion, however the seed was spilled (whether a nocturnal emission, or a mutual satisfaction of husband and wife without intercourse, such as Song of Solomon seems to speak of), the law does not treat such spilling of seed on the same level as it treats the spilling of Onan’s seed. This is positive evidence that spilling of seed was not the primary thing in mind in Genesis 38:9. Onan was judged for six unlawful reasons for spilling his seed.

If those in the NCC camp believe we have missed an additional sin (the sin of sterile emission) then they should be able to show an explicit prohibition for sterile emissions in the law of God. We have already demonstrated (chapter 3) that apart from explicit prohibition in the law of God, sterile emission of semen within a lawful marriage relationship is not sin. The burden of proof is upon the NCC exegetes, for “where there is no law there is no transgression” (Rom. 4:15). Though it is not required of us, we have gone one step further – we have demonstrated that the law actually mentions sterile emission of semen within a marriage relationship (Lev. 15:16-17) as being no different than normal sexual intercourse (v. 18). Thus we have positive evidence that BLCC is lawful.

For more on Provan’s exegesis of the Onan passage and the logical implications, see chapter 2. That chapter deals with charges that wasting seed is equivalent to murder and with the contention that all conception control is worthy of death.

Discussion questions

1. Where in the law of God can you find a passage that condemns spilling of seed for godly reasons (to give a wife rest, to space babies, to protect the life of the mother, etc.)? Keep in mind that chapter 3 had demonstrated that “where there is no law there is no transgression” (Rom. 4:15). Narrative passages illustrate the law but should not be confused with the law.
2. Can you describe the six sins of Onan from the law of God?
3. How does Onan’s fourth sin directly relate to the conception control debate? How does God’s anger contradict Antinomian Birth Control (ABC) attitudes towards having no children or few children?
4. If BLCC people studiously avoid Onan’s six sins, is it really fair to say they are guilty of “Onanism?”
5. Give some reasons why “wasting seed” is not a valid argument.
6. Why does the law of God treat the ceremonial uncleanness resulting from all sexual union (Lev. 15:18) in exactly the same way that it treats the ceremonial uncleanness resulting from spilling seed without sexual intercourse (Lev. 15:16-17)?
7. What are some distinctions between moral uncleanness and ceremonial uncleanness?
8. What changes are implied when Hebrews 13:4 says, “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.” What things defiled the marriage bed in the Old Covenant?
9. Distinguish the differences between the three passages, Deuteronomy 23:9-11, Leviticus 15:16-17, and Leviticus 15:18.
10. What verses show that desire in sexual relationships is not sin?
11. Why do you think some church fathers thought that all sex is sinful?
12. Why is Leviticus 15:16 not describing masturbation?