by jimwalton » Sat Nov 01, 2014 10:31 pm
Great question. I'll do my best and give you an honest answer.
The options we have for birth control (pill, IUD, diaphragm, condoms, spermicide, etc.) are largely modern inventions. (Whether condoms were used in ancient civilizations is debated by archaeologists and historians.) During the days of the Bible, about the only choices they had were the rhythm method (also known as the "You'll be pregnant in no time" strategy), and pulling out (aka "Hm, didn't work"). The Bible is silent on the issue of birth control. Humanity was blessed by God and encouraged to "be fruitful and multiply" (Gn. 1.28). But there's more to talk about here.
Genesis 1.28 is a blessing, not a commandment. It's not as if one HAS to have children to please God, or that one must have as many children as possible to please God. Procreation is a blessing from God to and through humanity, but there is nothing in this verse that would even suggest that contraception is against God's will. Brownson says, "Procreation is not the essence of marriage but rather the well-being of it. Marriage does not cease to exist in the absence of procreation, nor is a marriage without children always portrayed in a negative light (1 Sam. 1.5)." Genesis 2 and the one-flesh union doesn't mention procreation; Jesus' teachings about marriage never include any mention of procreation, and Paul never teaches the necessity of procreation. So my point is that there's nothing biblically wrong with contraception.
In Genesis 38.8-10, there is an incident where Onan pulls out rather than impregnate Tamar, and the Lord put him to death for it. Some take this to mean that God judges contraception. I have a few things to say about this. First, most biblical scholars agree that the sin was neither masturbation nor coitus interruptus, but rather the failure of Onan to practice the Levirite law in the covenant. The issue is that Onan was deliberately disobeying the Mosaic Law and cheating Tamar of her social and legal right to an heir.
I'm going to add a lengthy quote by Dennis Hollinger here, because I think it will be helpful to you:
"Historically in the church there have been two primary biblical texts utilized to morally reject the use of contraceptive devices: Gen. 1.28 and Gn. 38.8-10. Some have taken the mandate to be universal in nature so that the human race is given the task of procreation. Others have understood it to be particular in nature, so that the task is incumbent upon every married couple, implying that nothing can be utilized to prevent contraception. However one interprets the mandate, two things should be observed. First, there is no direct teaching here with regard to contraception, and even a particular interpretation does not necessarily preclude contraceptives. Second, the text can and should be taken to imply that sexual intimacy between a man and a woman is by nature procreative. But the procreative nature of sex does not necessarily preclude the use of artificial methods of family planning.
Contraception can be used in light of the stewardship role that God has granted to human beings. The procreative mandate is given in the context of the larger cultural mandate to care for and steward God’s good creation. That is, the procreative mandate is given in a context that actually calls for the intervention into nature and working with nature. In all of this (Gn. 1.28-2.20) there is a clear understanding of human stewardship in relationship to nature, and the cultural and procreation mandates are linked in this text.
Man is sovereign among creatures. His sovereignty, however, is not absolute but derived. He is sovereign under God. Hence the divine mandate to subdue and rule is a kingly function seen in the organization and government of society, in the taming and domestication of animals for advantageous use, in the agricultural arts, in the molding and manufacturing of tools, and in the harnessing of the elemental forces and energies of nature. … God has granted and indeed commanded human beings to intervene into the natural processes of this world. “Be fruitful and increase in number” is sent in the context of and linked to this larger cultural mandate. This would at least hold open the possibility of an ethical form of contraception."
OK, so at this point we're pretty clear on the point that the Bible doesn't say anything about contraception, and therefore the Bible doesn't forbid it. As you've read above, some feel that contraceptives are a way we can be good stewards of God's gifts to us.
But the last sentence of the Hollinger quote requires a little explanation: "ethical form of contraception." Ethical forms? Yes. The question of contraception takes on a new form when it intersects with the sphere of abortion. There are contraceptive strategies that allow that sperm and egg to join, in other words, so that conception occurs. And now if we eject the zygote, many scholars believe that we have murdered a viable human life, since conception has already occurred. These are very difficult conversations, and really branch into the larger discussion of abortion and "what does life begin". But you should know that many Christians believe that the "day after pill," RU486 (the abortion pill) and possibly other methods of contraception are really early abortion strategies and are unethical because conception has taken place and a human being is formed. These are complex and difficult discussions, and Christians disagree about them. I'll add my two cents, though, just briefly.
No one but NO ONE knows when life begins—not scientists, not philosophers, not theologians. No one but NO ONE knows when a human is invested with a soul. In my opinion, though, life begins at conception and ensoulment happens at conception. I believe that there are biblical reasons for taking such a stance, but I know that not everyone agrees.
We can discuss any of these things further and deeper as you wish, but for now I'll let you digest all of this and decide what you want to talk more about, if anything.
Great question. I'll do my best and give you an honest answer.
The options we have for birth control (pill, IUD, diaphragm, condoms, spermicide, etc.) are largely modern inventions. (Whether condoms were used in ancient civilizations is debated by archaeologists and historians.) During the days of the Bible, about the only choices they had were the rhythm method (also known as the "You'll be pregnant in no time" strategy), and pulling out (aka "Hm, didn't work"). The Bible is silent on the issue of birth control. Humanity was blessed by God and encouraged to "be fruitful and multiply" (Gn. 1.28). But there's more to talk about here.
Genesis 1.28 is a blessing, not a commandment. It's not as if one HAS to have children to please God, or that one must have as many children as possible to please God. Procreation is a blessing from God to and through humanity, but there is nothing in this verse that would even suggest that contraception is against God's will. Brownson says, "Procreation is not the essence of marriage but rather the well-being of it. Marriage does not cease to exist in the absence of procreation, nor is a marriage without children always portrayed in a negative light (1 Sam. 1.5)." Genesis 2 and the one-flesh union doesn't mention procreation; Jesus' teachings about marriage never include any mention of procreation, and Paul never teaches the necessity of procreation. So my point is that there's nothing biblically wrong with contraception.
In Genesis 38.8-10, there is an incident where Onan pulls out rather than impregnate Tamar, and the Lord put him to death for it. Some take this to mean that God judges contraception. I have a few things to say about this. First, most biblical scholars agree that the sin was neither masturbation nor coitus interruptus, but rather the failure of Onan to practice the Levirite law in the covenant. The issue is that Onan was deliberately disobeying the Mosaic Law and cheating Tamar of her social and legal right to an heir.
I'm going to add a lengthy quote by Dennis Hollinger here, because I think it will be helpful to you:
"Historically in the church there have been two primary biblical texts utilized to morally reject the use of contraceptive devices: Gen. 1.28 and Gn. 38.8-10. Some have taken the mandate to be universal in nature so that the human race is given the task of procreation. Others have understood it to be particular in nature, so that the task is incumbent upon every married couple, implying that nothing can be utilized to prevent contraception. However one interprets the mandate, two things should be observed. First, there is no direct teaching here with regard to contraception, and even a particular interpretation does not necessarily preclude contraceptives. Second, the text can and should be taken to imply that sexual intimacy between a man and a woman is by nature procreative. But the procreative nature of sex does not necessarily preclude the use of artificial methods of family planning.
Contraception can be used in light of the stewardship role that God has granted to human beings. The procreative mandate is given in the context of the larger cultural mandate to care for and steward God’s good creation. That is, the procreative mandate is given in a context that actually calls for the intervention into nature and working with nature. In all of this (Gn. 1.28-2.20) there is a clear understanding of human stewardship in relationship to nature, and the cultural and procreation mandates are linked in this text.
Man is sovereign among creatures. His sovereignty, however, is not absolute but derived. He is sovereign under God. Hence the divine mandate to subdue and rule is a kingly function seen in the organization and government of society, in the taming and domestication of animals for advantageous use, in the agricultural arts, in the molding and manufacturing of tools, and in the harnessing of the elemental forces and energies of nature. … God has granted and indeed commanded human beings to intervene into the natural processes of this world. “Be fruitful and increase in number” is sent in the context of and linked to this larger cultural mandate. This would at least hold open the possibility of an ethical form of contraception."
OK, so at this point we're pretty clear on the point that the Bible doesn't say anything about contraception, and therefore the Bible doesn't forbid it. As you've read above, some feel that contraceptives are a way we can be good stewards of God's gifts to us.
But the last sentence of the Hollinger quote requires a little explanation: "ethical form of contraception." Ethical forms? Yes. The question of contraception takes on a new form when it intersects with the sphere of abortion. There are contraceptive strategies that allow that sperm and egg to join, in other words, so that conception occurs. And now if we eject the zygote, many scholars believe that we have murdered a viable human life, since conception has already occurred. These are very difficult conversations, and really branch into the larger discussion of abortion and "what does life begin". But you should know that many Christians believe that the "day after pill," RU486 (the abortion pill) and possibly other methods of contraception are really early abortion strategies and are unethical because conception has taken place and a human being is formed. These are complex and difficult discussions, and Christians disagree about them. I'll add my two cents, though, just briefly.
No one but NO ONE knows when life begins—not scientists, not philosophers, not theologians. No one but NO ONE knows when a human is invested with a soul. In my opinion, though, life begins at conception and ensoulment happens at conception. I believe that there are biblical reasons for taking such a stance, but I know that not everyone agrees.
We can discuss any of these things further and deeper as you wish, but for now I'll let you digest all of this and decide what you want to talk more about, if anything.