www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodoxy and Contraception

Thanks, Theophilos.


I guess my point was this (now here I go off the thread topic ):

There are all the "Catholic" heretics running around--like the ones you mentioned by name. They are many. But the "official" Catholic position is defined not by them but by the Megisterium.

Do the Orthodox have an equivalent to the _living_ Magisterium? As we've seen on this thread, the Holy Canons and Councils can be argued this way and that (just like the prots argue scripture itself, this way and that). I was wondering where Orthodox turn for the "official" position when something (like the prohibition on contraception) is challenged.

Inquisitively,
LatinTrad

Latin Trad (and all other serene Brothers and Sisters),

Good to return to the discussion. Hurricane Isabel seems to have passed .

Thanks for taking the time to again clarify Latin teachings and ethical methodology. Certainly, the Latin one is not historically part of Eastern thinking.

While I have explained what I consider to be an Eastern ethical methodology (which obviously arrives at some different conclusions from the one that you explained) there may also be other Eastern ethical methodologies with which I'm not familiar.

You are correct to point out that some of the differences may lie in the different decision-making processes of the two Churches. The Eastern conciliar model is one that lends to allowing each bishop define the faith in his diocese, but under check from his brothers on the synod. They may elect any new bishop, but the President/Metropolitan/Archbishop of the synod may repeatedly veto their elections. When they need a new President, they elect their own, and no outside synod intervenes. Outside intervention is a most serious thing, basically charging a whole synod with going astray, and is extremely rare. Thus the number of autocephalous synods determines the "shades" of teaching on numerous NON-DOGMATIC issues.

But probably much, much more of the difference is rooted in the Eastern apophatic approach to theology. By saying what something is not, we come to a closer understanding of what may be an ultimately unknowable subject (God or the Trinity, for two examples). I would imagine you to be familiar with this approach from a theological standpoint, but less familiar with it from an ethical perspective.

In eastern ethical discourse, there definitely tends not to be absolutes attached to physical action alone and, as I explained, a corollary dependence upon context and purpose to come to moral conclusions and categories. A friend of mine in Opus Dei (Yes, I have devout RC friends ) used to refer to it as "the inscrutable mysticism of the East." So don't feel alone. I don't expect you to agree, but hope that you and others may understand.

Our Eastern understanding of sin, (which all humans are subject to from our inheritance of mortality as the result of Adam's disobedience) also leads us toward the same approach. In this, it is an inheritance from which we suffer, but not something for which we carry personal responsibility.

[If this is all "old hat" for you, obviously a learned man, I apologize, but perhaps some other participants may be edified. I don't mean to say that there aren't other learned participants, although I am now sure that there are few who are not.]

This approach to sin leaves us asking for forgiveness for sins "both voluntary and involuntary, in word or in deed, in knowledge or ignorance, whether manifest or unseen." The "voluntary and involuntary" part is usually the thing that trips Western thinkers.

For example, if I were to involuntarily strike and kill a child with my automobile, having driven below the limit and taken all precautions, I would be disqualified according to the canon to be ordained or serve at the altar since I would be guilty of manslaughter. Oikonomia may allow them to ordain me (God help them ) or let me continue serving if the need were exceedingly great, etc.

If I were to strike and kill the boy (same action as above) while speeding like a demon and heading for him, I would be guilty of murder and would likewise be disqualified according to the canon from ordination and service. But in this case oikonomia may not be used to ordain me or allow me to continue serving. There is nothing to manage here but a murderer. In the first example, the oikonomia is applied to a manslaughterer. Again, same action, different contexts, purposes, names, and responses.

We see ourselves trapped in sinful actions (Paul: but I find it to be a rule that I do the thing that I do not want to do). Our lifelong attempt is to avoid making our lives a hell (for ourselves and others), not to create a heaven on earth, if I may again paraphrase Archbishop Demetrios of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese.

The very fact that we are mortal indicates that we are in sin. (Thus my comments on the "sinlessness" of the Theotokos in another thread.)

So the whole methodology is linked with context and purpose in a way that takes some of the responsibility out of our own hands. Everyone's context around every action includes the presence of sin. So the Lord can say, "Men are caught up in an evil age as fish are caught up in a net."

A common greeting amongst my friends in seminary was, "see you tomorrow, God willing." Now any religious person could say that, they needn't be Eastern Christian, but the pervasiveness of its use allows one to understand how the fact that we aren't so sure that we'll see each other tomorrow extends to the concept that we also aren't so sure that we have all of the correct answers for every situation all of the time.

Perhaps Western seminarians do.

Apophatic ethical methodology, or so I call it. We know that given such and such action in such as such circumstance and purpose, we can call it wrong. Obviously we have acres and acres of common ground (East and West) on what is clearly right and clearly wrong, far exceeding the tiny space for disagreement, a space wherein, or so I contend, the Orthodox are not always willing to declare one way or the other.

Again, the two extremely narrow examples that I offered were not examples where I would expect or want the Church to affirm and bless the usage of non-abortifacient contraception, but rather decline to condemn such usage. Nor do I insist that the Church refuse to condemn these two examples, but that I could easily see wherein why the Church might decide be silent and "accept" in these two cases.

I would never consider myself out of communion with an Orthodox jurisdiction that condemned use of non-abortifacient contraception in these two narrow examples, but would probably look to see the roots of their exclamation in "Western influences" such as we find in the Slavic Churches, especially the Russian one. The ROCOR is the best example of that, as the OCA jurisdiction is not "Great Russian" like ROCOR but largely "Carpato-Russian" in its baseline composition. So we find ROCOR intolerant of any artificial contraception and the OCA much more tolerant in certain situations. Obviously, if we go to the Mediterranean Churches, we find even greater tolerance, to the point where even an old liberal like me ( I just used mental reservation!) is in disagreement.

These various Orthodox positions, and my disection of them, will be forthcoming, God willing, in the week(s) ahead. (The books and my access to a computer are not in the same location.)

I look forward to your commentaries and all others' that speak "the truth in love."

In my prayers with love in Christ,
Andrew

Andrew in Christ:

Thank you for your post. Thank you, also, for calling me a learned man. Actually, I am a young man, but I hope to be really learned some day.

I would still like to take issue with your analogy of "physical action", purpose, and circumstances.

We MUST distinguish more clearly between voluntary and involuntary sin. In the manslaughter case described above, your will did not consent to the killing of the child (hence, the Church might ordain you out of oikonomia). In the murder case, you freely and willingly chose to speed. I submit that use of contraception is a voluntary act, and therefore more closely analogous to the second case than to the first. I respectfully submit also that we cannot alabi our free, sinful choices by pointing to our general fallen state.

Looking forward to further discussion (I probably will have to catch up after the weekend).

LatinTrad

Theophilos,
I seem to remember a book put out by the Greek Orthodox Church in America which teaches that both birth control and abortion are allowed for orthodox under certain circumstances.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
But how can this be? Contraception is one matter, but to justify abortion is another.

Stephanos I
My book shelf is still in a state of chaos after the move. But will provide the source later.

Andrew and LatinTrad,

It is not called "sin" if one's will is not in consent with the deed, thought, or word. So accidentally running over someone in a car is not sin, it's simply an accident for which one is not morally responsible in the eyes of God.

Logos Teen

Dear L.T.,

Actually, sin is defined a little differently by the historic Christian East than it is in the West. All wrong doing is sin, whether we meant it or not. Thus in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, we pray for forgiveness of our sins both deliberate and indeliberate. Much more could be said but I just wanted to point this out to you.

Ghazar

Dear Brother Andrew and Friends of Christ,

You guys are still writing about this??? Wow.

I'd like to get back to some foundational points here. I'm not persuaded by the "situational ethics" some are presenting. To me the truth is the truth. You do not conform the truth to meet the demands of a situation. Rather, a true Christian conforms the situation to meet the demands of the truth.

For the most part I can really appreciate the original position which Andrew enunciated, namely: that contraception is certainly missing the mark in Orthodox Christian marriage. Its a sign that something is lacking in that relationship. This is a far cry from the many modern day Orthodox writers who unabashedly affirm the "Orthodoxy of Contraception," e.g. Bishop Kallistos Ware, Stanley Harakas and John Meyedorff to name a few. His view is very close if not identical to the one presented by Fr. Thomas Hopko in his book "The Orthodox Faith" (aka "The Rainbow Series"). In it, the V. Rev. Fr. Hopko writes:

"True love in marriage supposes the bearing of children. Those who truly love in marriage will naturally have children as the fruit of their love and the greatest bond of their union. Those who despise children and refuse to offer them care and devotion do not truly love.
"Of course there are those whose marriages will be childless because of some tragedy of nature brought on by the "sin of the world." In such marriages perfect love can exist, but the mutual devotion in the service of God and man will take on other forms, either the adoption of children or some other good service for the sake of others, The childless marriage, either by voluntary choice or natural tragedy, which results in self-indulgence is not a spiritual union.
"The voluntary control of birth in marriage is only permissible, according to the essence of a spiritual life, when the birth of a child will bring danger and hardship. Those who are living the spiritual life will come to the decision not to bear children only with sorrow, and will do so before God, with prayers for guidance and mercy. It will not be a decision taken lightly or for self-indulgent reasons.
"According to the common teaching in the Orthodox Church, when such a decision is taken before God, the means of its implementation are arbitrary. There are, in the Orthodox opinion, no means of controlling birth in marriage which are better or more acceptable than others. All means are equally sad and distressing for those who truly love. For the Christian marriage is the one that abounds with as many new children as possible."

This is a beuatiful way of looking at it for sure, and except for the allowance of any means of conception control (presumably excluding one which is abortafacient), one that all who seek to be faithful to the teaching of the Fathers should accept. Yet it does not go quite as far as the Orthodox view presented by the OCA priest Fr. John Schrodel on his site: http://www.paratheke.net/stephanos/ where this Orthodox priest takes many of the modern day Orthodox writers to task for their infidelity to Orthodox Tradition and the teaching of the Church Fathers.

As much as I'd like to agree with Andrew and Fr. Hopko (because we are so very close here) there are a few things which prevent me from accepting what they are stating about the permissability of contraception, despite its regrettability. The reasons are:

1. The Holy Scripture's condemnation of contraception in the Onan account (as is the standard, traditional interpretation by the Fathers of the Church, (cf. St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Epiphanios, St. Ephrem, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Cyril of Alexandria, ancient interpreters of Judaism, etc.).

2. The Fathers condemnation of contraception in all instances. (not just because of sinful motives and circumstances as Andrew is claiming -see below).

3. The fact that there is proof contraception has been condemned in the penitentiarys of all the major ancient Christian communions: Greek and Slavic Churches (EO), Latin Churches (RC) and the Armenian Church (OO).

4. No Father ever approved of the practice. Rather all who spoke to the issue condemned it in the strongest terms -in every situation.


Andrew wrote:
"I think that Ghazar has amply provided us with some of the more ancient opinions. Some of the modern commentators that I will post also speak to the ancient sources. As I commented upon them, they largely refer to the abortifacient potions, etc, (pharkakeia), which I think we ALL agree to be abhorent in ALL cases. In some cases they refer to purely contraceptive actions, but give a context wherein a man is trying 'to cheat his wife out of a child.' Again, an abhorent use of ABC or NFP. "

reply: I can't reduce the unanimous teaching of the Fathers against contraception to a simple collection of "opinions." As the Orthodox Fr. Azkoul states about the Fathers of the Church, �Their place in the Orthodox religion cannot be challenged. Their authority cannot be superseded, altered or ignored.� They do NOT "largely refer to the abortifacient potions." This is a fabrication and manipulation of their teaching. Many Orthodox writers acknowledge what you claim to be simply untrue. Rather in referring to "Pharmakeia" the Fathers clearly distinguished against Pharmakeia which destroyed the fetus and other Pharmakeia which prevented its conception (often called "drugs of sterility") and they condemned them both in the strongest terms. So, please, lets not misrepresent their teachings. The Fathers condemn any act which sterlizes the normal marital act of its God-given properties and renders a potentially life-giving act sterile, thus frustrating its God-given design.

�there is a quotation of Rabbi Johanan de Nappala, the founder of a school at Tiberias in the third century, on the deadly sin of Onan, and the sin here is clearly his contraceptive act.� He is quoted as saying, �whoever emits semen in vain deserves death.� (Contraception, p.10, 50)

Against contraception St. Clement of Alexandria remarks, "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" (The Instructor of Children).

Lactantius in A.D. 307 attested to the Christian belief that abstinence is the only licit means of limiting family size. He spoke of those who "complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power... or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife... the genital [generating] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring" (Divine Institutions 6.23.18).

So I can't see any salvaging of contraception here in any form. The Fathers, like the Jews before them, clearly condemned it for whatever reasons including what you would see as justifyable ones (those who "complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children"). Abstinance is cited as the only licit means of controlling births in Christian marriage. Period. I don't see how anyone can get around this clear fact.

Trusting in Christ's Light,
Wm. DerGhazarian
Looys Kreesdosee
www.geocities.com/derghazar [geocities.com]

Dear Logos Teen,

Eastern soteriology holds that we are responsible for all sins, "voluntary or involuntary." We pray this at every single divine liturgy or at home as "The Prayer Before Communion."

Latin Trad is correct that we distinguish between them, but they (voluntary and involuntary sins)are all part of our inheritence of a fallen humanity, to which most of us do a great deal of adding by sinning even more.

In Christ,
Andrew

PS: When you are no longer a "teen" will you change your name?

Dear Brethren,

As I promised to post some of the current Orthodox teachings, I first want to thank Ghazar for his lengthy post in which he again invested much effort and wisdom, along with a sincere disagreement which expresses with Christian love. I especially appreciate his posting of Protopresbyter Hopko's teaching, my own Dogmatics instructor at seminary. He said really well and succinctly what I wish I had said.

I also wanted to comment on the story of Onan in Genesis. My reading is that the primary sin of Onan is failing to give his brother offspring. He used a sinful means (spilling his seed on the floor) to accomplish this. So my exegesis is that the story is not presented to us for the purpose of condemning wastage, spillage, or contraception per se, but that this is a tangential aspect. Remember that in Jewish tradition it is the brother's obligation to take in his brother's wife should his brother die (in common Western parlance The Law of the Levite) so that his brother's children would not be fatherless. This is a variation upon that theme. He certainly is "cheating" her out of a child and committing a sin in the OT context.

My example given previously is far from this example.

Nonetheless, as I have repeated over and over, I'm not arguing that contraception doesn't fall short of the model, only that it may be an alternative in some narrow cases to prevent greater sin.

Now excerpts from the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America meeting with the clergy and lay delagates (post 1992 or later) titled, "On Marriage, Family, Sexuality, & the Sanctity of Life:"

".....Married couples are encouraged to abstain from sexual union at times for the sake of devotion to prayer (as, for example, on the eves of the eucharist, and during lenten seasons). They are to do so, however, only "for a season by agreement" since their bodies are not their own but belong to each other; and they are to "come together again lest Satan tempt" them (1 Corinthians 7:2-7)......"

".....married couples may express their love in sexual union without always intending the conception of a child, but only those means of controlling conception are acceptable which do not harm a foetus already conceived."

"Married couples may use medical means to enhance conception of their common children, but the use of semen or ova other than that of the married couple who both take responsibility for their offspring is forbidden......"

".....Those finding themselves with tragic circumstances where the lives of mothers and their unborn children are threatened, and where painful decisions of life and death have to be made- such as those involving rape, incest, and sickness- are to be counselled to take responsible action before God, who is both merciful and just, to whom they will give account for their actions......"


COMMENTARY: To me, the document, while on the whole excellent, leaves too much fog. While holding to the Orthodox view that conception control is not illicit in all contexts, it does not give enough understanding of how that useage falls away from the model of married sexual relations. In fact, it doesn't affirm at all that those means are outside of the model. It doesn't distinguish between artificial and natural means, and doesn't instruct in why natural means are closer to the model.

The statement seems to even allow room for abortion in cases of incest, rape and sickness since these are thrown in with cases where the mother and child are both sure to lose their lives. The statement should clearly state that in such cases (incest, rape, and sickness) abortion is not defendable and should be considered prohibited.

The case of an ectopic pregnancy falls into this permissable category where context and purpose do not allow me to call it "an abortion." In that nothing is gained by allowing both mother and child to die, an attempt to move the child to the womb where he or she may attach (although with a small success rate) is acceptable. [The case where doctors remove a child from the womb that is already dead of natural causes, an equally traumatic one for the mother, is also not rightly called "an abortion."]

The Gospel has an allowance for expediency, when there is nothing to lose and something to gain and that expediency does not employ "intrinsically" evil means (such as apostacy, murder, rape, incest, abortion, etc.), Support for the practice of acceptable expediency comes from that most difficult parable of the Corrupt Manager. Thus my reasoning on picking examples wherein something sacred may be lost (the models of married sexual relations and natural childbirth) but wherein something even more sacred may be gained (fidelity to a spouse or the life of the mother).

In general, this document is one of the more conservative ones that I have found, but not conservative enough for my understanding of the Gospel.

I'll try to post others during the week.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Thanks for sharing this, brother Andrew. I appreciate your insights and perspective on this topic. I think many Orthodox and Catholics have something to gain from what you write.

I think the fact that the Fathers which I mention above, clearly thought that the text on Onan spoke to the issue of contraception, I must also. When you consider that ancient Jewish interpreters and the Fathers: St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Epiphanios, St. Ephrem, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Cyril of Alexandria, all saw this narrative as a Divine condemnation of contraception, who am I to reject their teaching?

IN Christ's Light,

Wm. DerGhazarian

Andrew, I have to get the exact citations for you--but it is important to note that Onan was NOT punished merely for violating the Leverite law. The punishment for violating the Levirite law is specified elsewhere in the Torah, and is actually pretty mild.

Onan, on the other hand, was struck dead by God BECAUSE HE SPILLED HIS SEED. The Bible and ALL the Fathers are clear about that. Those Christians who would use hazy and shifting justifications for doing the same thing should beware. One would never want to give scandal (in the full sense of the term!) by encouraging such an abomination.

LatinTrad

Dear Latin Trad, Ghazar, et al.,

Thanks! I'm definitely interested in the citations. As I forgot to point out, "the Law of the Levite" is a misnomer since there were 613 Levitical laws. Even I don't know them all .

perhaps the citation can show us whether the Onan text speaks more toward Onan's breaching of his obligation to give his brother offspring or his sin of "spilling his seed."

Another point, doesn't Onan "precede" the establishment of the Levitical Law? I didn't have the time to study this second point very well.

I'm not in any way second guessing the Lord's judgement against Onan, simply pointing out that we need to be clear with what ruler we are measuring his sin. God makes all the rulers and may use whichever he pleases.

What is also certain is that the Levitical laws do not apply to Gentiles, certainly. The majority of Christian theologians would argue that they don't apply to Christians, even if one is of Jewish origin and keeps the Jewish traditions, which Christians are entitled to do to some degree, although, the keeping certain traditions has been declared "anathema."

[This whole area gets misty starting from the Quartodecima Controversy on forward. Christian clergy (only clergy?) aren't canonically allowed to see Jewish doctors, etc. But what of the Jewish apostles' healing of Christian believers?]

Peter's dream through which he understood the Levitical restraints lifted along with the moment of truth and retreat when Paul "confronted him to his face," for imposing Levitical Law upon Gentile Christians should tell us where we can put the Levitical Law, at least if we are Gentiles (I consider myself one).

Having said that, the Church does impose canonical sentence upon those who "spill their seed" intentionally, the implication being that they are alone when they do this. The canonical sentence, should it happen on the eve of the eucharist, is to abstain from receiving. And that is that, although it could be interpreted further.

Obviously, spilling one's seed in the context of the sacred marriage bed/marital relations for the purpose of cheating one's wife out of a child is much more serious, although I can't think of a specific canon for this sort of thing beyond what I cited above. However, I would entertain the contention that it would fall into the category of "porneia" or "sexual immorality" and ultimately be grounds for divorce (yes, divorce, the famous "Matthean Exception") if it were repeated for the goal of denying the procreation of children. In this case, I would think that the perpetrator would suffer the penalties for wrongfully divorcing his or her spouse.

Clearly, Onan's action in its context and pupose is a sin, and a very serious sin in his context and purpose. But in exegeting it for Christians, we need to remind them that the Levitical Law has been superceded by Christ's Law as lived out in his Church.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Andrew, I will have to reply tomorrow since I am a little busy at work today.

Just fyi: you are confusing "Levitical" or "Levite" law with the "Leverite" law--something specific. The Leverite law says to marry one's brother's widow and raise up children to one's brother. The children from this second marriage would "belong" to the deceased brother--not to Onan. That is why Onan did not want to have children with his new wife.

I think this passage shows that the immorality of contraception does not depend on the reason why it is chosen--the Scripture says that Onan was slain "because he spilled his seed," which is an abomination before God. Not because he didn't want to have children for his brother.

LatinTrad

Dear Brothers,

Here are the authors I quote from in my treatment of the question of the "Levirate Law." I'm sure there are better treatments of this but in lieu of them, I hope this suffices.

From: Is Contraception Orthodox: see link below

CHAPTER THREE - The Teaching of Holy Scripture

There is ample evidence in the Holy Scriptures to give us guidance to the authentic Orthodox view of contraception. John Kipley is a leading western lay moral theologian and founder of the Couple to Couple League. This organization is devoted to helping married couples live in accord with the historic Christian teaching on contraception. It is important to understand, as John Kipley writes in his book Birth Control and Christian Discipleship, �the Bible has a general call to generosity in the service of life, as for example Genesis 1:28, Psalms 127 and 128.� Yet, Scripture not only gives us positive information of the great gift and blessing that children are, the Holy Book also addresses the issue of unnatural forms of birth control. Thus, in the first book of the Bible, it states in the Greek Septuagint translation,

�And Judas said to Onan, �Go in to thy brother�s wife, and marry her as her brother-in -law, and raise up seed to thy brother.� And Onan, knowing that the seed should not be his - it came to pass when he went in to his brother�s wife, that he spilled it upon the ground, so that he should not give seed to his brother�s wife. And his doing this appeared evil before God; and he slew him also� (Gen 38:8-10, LXX).

Here is a clear example, in Holy Scripture, of a man choosing the unnatural practice of contraception and receiving death as punishment from God Almighty.
Because of the importance of this passage in that it speaks directly to an act of contraception, it is critical that we have a clear and thorough understanding of it. I�ve seen no better treatment of this passage by a modern theologian than Kipley�s, in the above mentioned book. Therefore, I will quote him at length:

�In that account Onan follows an ancient Near Eastern custom known as the Law of the Levirate. According to this custom, if a married man died before he had children, his brother was obliged to marry the widow; their children would be considered as the deceased brother�s children [cf. Deuteronomy 25:5-6].
�Onan�s brother died, so Onan married the widow Tamar. However, he practiced the contraceptive behavior called withdrawal and deliberately ejaculated outside the [woman]. For centuries the general term among Christians for unnatural forms of birth control was �Onanism;� indeed, the principle form of unnatural birth control was that of Onan. ...The Onan account was seen as God�s condemnation of unnatural methods of birth control.
�However, when belief and practice [of recent modern Christians] changed, the Onan account was an embarrassment, to say the least. Thus, a new interpretation was developed which said his guilt was only in his failure to provide a son for Tamar. Which interpretation is correct -the one of centuries or the one that has found recent favor among proponents of contraception?�

Kipley then lays out some fundamental rules for the accurate interpretation of this text:

�The first rule of biblical interpretation is that a text must be considered in itself. In the case at hand, the key sentence is, �What he did was evil in the sight of the Lord, and He slew him also.� Second, the text must be interpreted in the immediate context of the entire account, namely, all of Chapter 38. Third, it must also be seen in the wider context of other biblical condemnations for violations of the Law of the Levirate. Fourth, it must be interpreted in the context of related teaching. Last but not least, it must be seen in the context of the Church�s traditional teaching over the centuries lest a person think that the Holy Spirit became operative only today in his guidance of the Church.
�1. Biblical scholar Manuel Miguens has pointed out that a close examination of the text shows that God condemned Onan for the specific action he performed, not for his anti-Levirate intentions. The translation �he spilled his seed on the ground� fails to do full justice to the Hebrew expression. The Hebrew verb shichet never means to spill or waste. Rather, it means to act perversely. The text also makes it clear that his perverse action was related towards the ground, not against his brother. �... His perversion or corruption consists in his action itself, not precisely in the result and goal of his act... In a strict interpretation the text says that what was evil in the sight of the Lord was what Onan actually did (asher asah); the emphasis in this sentence of verse 10 does not fall on what he intended to achieve, but on what he did.�

As mentioned above, very recently, some have introduced the idea that God did not kill Onan because he wasted his seed, but instead because he broke the Levirate Law. Besides the fact that this interpretation directly contradicts the interpretation of the Church Fathers (as we shall see) and the living Tradition of the Church (thus rendering it unacceptable), it is also illogical. If we consider the Biblical legislated punishment for the breaking of this law, it becomes manifest that God did not punish Onan for breaking it, but rather for something much more heinous, something which �appeared evil� in a much greater way than the simple breaking of the �Levirate Law.�
God specifically commands in Scripture how the transgressor of the Levirate Law was to be punished. The law states,

"And if the man should not be willing to take his brother�s wife, then shall the woman go up to the gate to the elders, and she shall say, �My husband�s brother will not raise up the name of his brother in Israel, my husband�s brother has refused.� And the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him; and if he stand and say, I will not take her: then his brother�s wife shall come forward before the elders, and shall loose one shoe from off his foot, and shall spit in his face, and shall answer and say, �Thus shall they do to the man who will not build his brother�s house in Israel. And his name shall be called in Israel, the house of him that has had his shoe loosed.� (Deut 25:7-10 LXX).

It is evident that the divinely ordained punishment for transgressing the Levirate Law, however harsh it may appear to us, is exceedingly less than the punishment of �death� which Onan received. There is no comparing the two punishments. Thus it is clear that the �something� which "appeared evil before the Lord� for which He slew Onan, was not his refusal to raise children for his brother but instead was his evil act of contraception. We shall see that this is precisely what the Church Fathers taught and what Orthodox Christians of every generation have believed: contraception is evil. Considering this, it should be apparent that those who know and reject God's Law, like Onan, run the risk of becoming spiritually dead in sin if they do not repent, confess and reform their lives.

Kipley continues his biblical exegesis:

�2. In the context of the entire chapter, Genesis 38, it is clear that Onan is only one of three persons who violated the Levirate. His father, Judah, and his younger brother, Shelah, also violated the Levirate law, and Judah openly admitted his guilt in verse 26. After Tamar had tricked Judah into having intercourse with her and getting her pregnant, thus getting Tamar accused of harlotry, he admitted, �She is in the right rather than I. This comes of my not giving her to my son Shelah to be his wife..�
�When three people are guilty of the same crime but only one of them received the death penalty from God, common sense requires that we ask if that one did something the others did not do. The answer is obvious: only Onan went through the motions of the covenental act of intercourse but then defrauded its purpose and meaning; only Onan engaged in the contraceptive behavior of withdrawal.�
�3. It must also be remembered that Deuteronomy has no hesitation about the death penalty for serious sexual sins: chapter 22-23 prescribes the death penalty for adultery and rape. Thus the context of Deuteronomy provides utterly no support for the Levirate-only interpretation of Genesis 38:10. On the contrary, it supports the traditional interpretation that the crime for which Onan received the death penalty was his directly contraceptive behavior.�
�4. ...It can be stated without fear of contradiction that the teaching against unnatural forms of birth control is in perfect harmony with the biblical teaching against immoral forms of sex such as sodomy, fornication, and adultery. It is also in the most perfect harmony with the biblical teaching on love, marriage and discipleship.�

Kipley also shows this condemnation of contraception is also supported by the New Testament:

�In the New Testament, the Greek �pharmakeia� probably refers to the birth control issue. �Pharmakeia� in general was the mixing of various potions for secret purposes, and it is known that �pharmakeia� were mixed in the first century A.D. to prevent or stop a pregnancy. The typical translation as �sorcery� [or witchcraft] does not reveal all of the specific practices condemned by the New Testament. In all three of the passages in which it appears, it is in a context condemning sexual immorality; two of the three passages also condemn murder (Galatians 5:19-26, Revelation 9:21, 21:8, 22:15).�

Thus it is known by scholars that, �the etymology of the word, �witch-craft� has derived from the Greek �pharmakeia� is associated with a knowledge of herbs and roots used for abortion and contraception.� (Witchcraft and the Culture of Death, by Jameson Taylor, HLI Reports vol.1 #2 p. 14)

In conclusion, Kipley sums up the Biblical record, stating:

�The interpretation that Onan�s sin was only the violation of the Levirate custom is a recent accommodation for the practice of unnatural forms of birth control. It is not upheld by the text or the context. On the contrary, the Onan account provides a powerful biblical basis for the traditional Christian teaching that unnatural forms of birth control are immoral. This interpretation is reinforced by certain New Testament passages, and it is certainly confirmed by centuries of usage� (pgs. 23-28).

As the great Father St. John the Golden-Mouthed (Chrysostom) put it:

"The procreation of children in marriage is the �heritage� and �reward� of the Lord; a blessing of God (cf. Psalm 127:3)." It is the natural result of the act of sexual intercourse in marriage, which is a sacred union through which God Himself joins the two together into �one flesh� (Genesis 1-2, Matthew 19, Mark 10, Ephesians 5, et. al.). The procreation of children is not in itself the sole purpose of marriage, but a marriage without the desire for children, and the prayer to God to bear and nurture them, is contrary to the �sacrament of love� (Orthodox Marriage Service; St. John Chrysostom, On Ephesians, Homily 20).

In the next chapter, we will consider what Kipley refers to as �centuries of usage� by examining the teaching of the great Church Fathers who are the torchbearers of the authentic Tradition of the Church.

http://www.geocities.com/wmwolfe_48044/apologetics.html

final note: When you couple these above considerations with the standard anti-contraception interpretation of this passage by the Fathers, I think we have a powerful witness against the practice of contraception.

Trusting in Looys Kreesdosee,
Wm. DerGhazarian