Onanism refers to the sin of “spilling one’s seed” through masturbation or withdrawal during sexual intercourse. This term comes from the biblical story of Onan in Genesis 38.
In this chapter, Onan’s brother Er died without having any children. According to ancient Jewish custom, Onan was expected to marry his brother’s widow Tamar and have children with her to carry on his brother’s line. However, during intercourse with Tamar, Onan withdrew and “spilled his seed on the ground” to avoid impregnating her (Genesis 38:9). This was deemed wicked in God’s sight, so the Lord put Onan to death (Genesis 38:10).
Based on this account, onanism has historically been used to describe the act of masturbation, coitus interruptus, or any form of non-procreative sexual activity. The sinfulness of onanism has been debated extensively throughout church history. Here is an overview of the biblical evidence regarding this issue:
Old Testament Teachings
The story of Onan in Genesis 38 has been interpreted as a prohibition against misusing God’s gift of sexuality for selfish pleasure rather than openness to life. Some also point to Leviticus 15:16-18, which declares a man unclean after seminal emission, implying this was sinful. However, these verses refer to ritual impurity, not necessarily moral impurity. Still, many Jewish writers condemned the “spilling of seed” as contrary to God’s creative purposes for sexuality.
A few other Old Testament passages have been cited as relevant:
– Exodus 20:14’s prohibition against adultery, interpreted as a broad warning against all non-marital sexual acts.
– Deuteronomy 23:9-10’s command for men to keep themselves ritually pure when going to war, taken as an injunction against masturbation which could cause impurity.
– First Corinthians 6:18’s call to “flee sexual immorality” and honor God with your body, seen as applicable to masturbation.
Overall, the Old Testament lacks definitive moral teaching about onanism itself. But it does lay a framework of sexual ethics in marriage that informs the later Christian view.
New Testament Principles
The New Testament does not explicitly mention masturbation or speak directly to the morality of non-procreative sex acts. However, several passages provide principles applicable to the discussion:
– Matthew 5:27-28 condemns lustful thoughts as adultery of the heart. This suggests that sexual desire separated from openness to life and genuine relationship is sinful.
– First Corinthians 6:12-20 teaches that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, so we should glorify God with them. Misusing sexuality for purely selfish pleasure could violate this principle.
– Ephesians 5:3 instructs believers to avoid all forms of sexual immorality and impurity. The exact implications for onanism are debated, but it indicates some restrictions on sexuality.
– First Thessalonians 4:3-5 commands people to control their own bodies in holiness and honor, not in lustful passion. Unrestrained indulgence in non-marital sexual behavior would conflict with this.
While these passages do not provide absolute proof one way or another, they do emphasize sexual self-control and purity as virtues for followers of Christ. This provides a basis for viewing certain non-procreative sexual acts as morally problematic. But the specifics are not explicitly spelled out.
Views Within Church History
Throughout Christian history, views on onanism have varied significantly even as most condemned the practice in some form:
– Many early church fathers such as Clement of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, and Augustine strongly renounced onanism as sinful based on their reading of the Onan story and Jewish views of sexuality.
– Thomas Aquinas later argued that “spilling seed” violated the purpose of sexuality and was equivalent to adultery against future spouses. His influential natural law theory reinforced absolute bans on non-procreative sex.
– During the Reformation, leaders like Martin Luther and John Calvin affirmed marital procreation as the primary purpose of sex but did not unanimously condemn onanism. Views remained mixed in the modern era.
– Conservative Protestant traditions have tended to forbid masturbation and non-procreative sex as immoral perversions of God’s design for intimacy. Groups like Puritans and Victorian-era Evangelicals preached strongly against “self-pollution.”
– In contrast, some more liberal Protestant and modern Catholic thinkers believe mutual, loving acts between spouses are morally acceptable even if non-procreative, within limits. They do not universally condemn onanism.
– Many modern believers have moved away from earlier fundamentalist stances against all birth control or non-procreative sex. But debate continues around moral complexities related to sexuality and marriage.
This historical overview shows a diversity of opinion within Christianity on the ethics of specific sexual practices. There is no singlesettled “Christian view” that emerges. Some ambiguity exists.
Ethical Considerations
Several ethical factors should be weighed as Christians seek wisdom about God’s design for sexuality:
– Marriage – Sexual intimacy is presented in Scripture as a gift for husband and wife to enjoy and strengthen their covenant bond. Extra-marital sexual activity raises moral concerns.
– Lust – Sexuality should express genuine love and service, not simply selfish pleasure. Lustful thoughts or objectification of others are warned against.
– Life and Procreation – The miraculous creation of human life is a fundamental purpose of sex. But non-procreative sex is not always viewed as inherently immoral.
– Self-control – Scripture urges discipline over bodily passions. Unrestrained indulgence in pleasure-seeking can be problematic. But absolute asceticism is not necessarily required.
– Conscience – Moral discernment is always needed to apply principles in specific situations. Not all reach identical conclusions on debatable matters.
– Holiness – Christians are called to be pure and honor God with their bodies, though definitions of purity vary significantly.
– Spirit vs Flesh – Overindulgence in physical pleasures to the neglect of spiritual health is warned against. But bodiliness is not inherently evil.
– Freedom – Obedience to moral law should arise from love, not external compulsion. Legalistic control over others can be unwise or coercive.
– Wisdom – Seeking the Lord’s guidance is essential when navigating sensitive subjects. Humility and openness are needed in moral discernment.
These factors require careful reflection and prayer. They point to moral concerns that require discernment, but do not necessarily forbid all non-marital or non-procreative sexual expression in an absolute sense.
Alternative Perspectives
Some Christians today offer alternative viewpoints on onanism that question traditional assumptions:
– They argue that God designed human beings as sexual creatures, so sexual desire itself cannot be immoral since it is part of our makeup.
– They claim modern biology disproves earlier views about the medical dangers or physical/social consequences of masturbation or non-procreative sex.
– They contend that moral judgments should consider the relational context, not just physical acts. A loving act could be moral where a lustful act is not.
– They see biblical texts often cited against onanism as addressing different historical concerns, not consenting adults privately expressing intimacy.
– They emphasize passages about God’s grace and freedom that supersede legalistic restrictions that lack explicit biblical support.
– They say the primary concern should be living out Christian virtues like love and prudence, not regulating private behaviors that Scripture does not forbid outright.
These perspectives warrant consideration, but evangelical scholars often critique them as tending toward excessive permissiveness that undervalues the moral concerns discussed previously.
Conclusion
In summary, the ethics of onanism and non-procreative sexuality remain complex biblical issues with a diversity of viewpoints throughout church history. Sincere Christians can thoughtfully arrive at different conclusions. While traditional interpretations have emphasized prohibitions against misusing gift of sexuality, alternative perspectives highlight relational context and God’s grace.
This requires wisdom and nuance. Absolute dogmatism on either side is unwise. As with many sensitive matters, Christians should discuss this issue with humility, honesty and openness to varied experience. They should also seek the Spirit’s guidance for how to apply biblical principles in their specific life context.
Sexuality is a precious gift from the Creator to be celebrated. But Scripture does warn against divorcing intimacy from covenant faithfulness and life-giving love. Christians are called to honor God with their bodies, though flexible. Wisdom and moral discernment are needed when evaluating sexual ethics amidst changing times.
Above all, the church should avoid legalistic control over private matters best left to conscience. And it should show grace to those who sincerely seek to follow Christ while understanding morality differently. In unclear matters, “speaking the truth in love” and focusing on the heart behind one’s actions may be as important as the outward behaviors themselves.
