A biblical approach to the use of contraceptives among Christian couples has been a perennial debate over decades. Contraceptive or contraception ‘is the intentional prevention of pregnancy by artificial or natural means’ (Idris 2021:5). The use of contraceptive gives couples the opportunity to control the occurrence of pregnancy in order to maintain optimum family size as opposed to overpopulated families languishing in poverty. Using contraceptive by couples encourages family planning and its benefits. The World Health Organization (2019) states that family planning, most fundamentally, advances human rights. The use of contraceptive has been a strong contention among different Christian denominations across the globe and has divided them into two groups with opposite and contending views. Whereas one group advocates the use of contraceptives, the other group frowns at its use. The bone of contention remains that contraceptives and their applications are not natural, hence against the natural method approved by God. On the other hand, it is argued that the use of contraceptives is a divine endowment through which married couples could curb the overbearing of children. These two opposite views and beliefs have gone a long way to bring perennial conflicts between Christians in the contemporary dispensation. For instance, Zion (1992) and Srikanthan and Reid (2008) argue that in Eastern Orthodox, contraceptives may be used only within marriage; however, a mentality that excludes children on principle is unacceptable. However, according to LoPresti (2005), the Protestant church disapproves of the use of contraceptive as they maintain that it violates the divine command to multiply. The menace of this issue concerns itself with Christians quarrelling among each other in this regard; for the proponents who argue against the use of contraceptives, overbearing of offspring may be inevitable, and therefore contributing to overpopulation.

Contributing to the foregoing, Anyacho (2013) contends that some Christians probably reject methods of birth control other than natural methods because it is believed to be an inimical act against their object of worship (Ugwuewo & Chukwuka 2023). According to Oderinde (2001), the Catholic Church and some other Christian denominations such as Eastern Orthodox hold that responsible family planning is an important objective which can be pursued only within the context of the moral law, which teaches that there is an unbreakable union of the unitive (or relation) and procreative meaning of material sexuality (Ugwuewo & Chukwuka 2023). Ugwuewo and Chukwuka (2023) posit that families with a large number of members struggle more than those with an ideal number to endure the economic downturn and some moral illnesses. There have been several attempts to limit the number of children once partners have had as many as their financial means will allow as couples may not be able to afford to give up their sexual duty to one another.

Most critics of the use of contraceptives by Christian couples base their contention on the Christian Scriptures, especially Genesis 1:28 and Genesis 38:8–10, but their inability to give a thorough exegetical study of these two texts remains a puzzle. Various views on contraceptive methods from biblical perspectives are put forward. Ugwuewo and Chukwuka (2023) observe that:

Oderinde (2001:5) avers that ‘some Christians are of the view that [the] practice of birth control is to disobey God’s command to propagate the race, quoting Genesis 1:28’. Iwe (1979) opines:

Anyacho (2013:19) argues that ‘birth control or family planning should be encouraged so that the quality of the future generation may not be jeopardized’. Nevertheless, the researchers would give a biblical position on contraceptive use by studying its context in the Old Testament text (Gn 38:8–10).

The research methodology adopted in this study is the historical–critical method of exegesis. This method contends that a biblical text is not written out of nothing. There is an event or occurrence that triggered the need for such passage. Obiorah (2015:90) notes that ‘[the] [h]istorical–[c]ritical method takes cognizance of the historical development of the biblical passage, which ha[s] diverse audiences in the course of time’. This approach is considered appropriate since this study inquires to know an actual context of Genesis 38:8–10 in regard to the use of contraceptives. The researchers contend that better understanding of the use of contraceptives from the above study texts would enhance Christians’ knowledge on the phenomenon as well as curb unnecessary contention and the wrong approach to it.

28 וַיְבָ֣רֶךְ אֹתָם֮ אֱלֹהִים֒ וַיֹּ֨אמֶר לָהֶ֜ם אֱלֹהִ֗ים פְּר֥וּ וּרְב֛וּ וּמִלְא֥וּ

אֶת־הָאָ֖רֶץ וְכִבְשֻׁ֑הָ וּרְד֞ו בִּדְגַ֤ת הַיָּם֙ וּבְעֹ֣וף הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וּבְכָל־חַיָּ֖ה ּ

הָֽרֹמֶ֥שֶׂת עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃

The English translation (New Revised Standard Version [NRSV]) reads as follows:

The English translation (NRSV) of the verse reads as follows:

Looking at various English translations and the Hebrew text of Genesis 38:8–10, one would observe that there are difference(s) in the use of a few words. For instance, the Hebrew word וְשִׁחֵ֣ת translated as ‘he spilled it’ in KJV and LXE, ‘he wasted his seed’ in NAS, and ‘he spilled his semen’ in NRSV does not give the actual representation of the original manuscript. The Hebrew word or phrase וְשִׁחֵ֣ת means ‘and he spilled’. In the Hebrew text, the word ‘spilled’ does not have a direct object as indicated in various English renditions. The addition of the elements ‘it’, ‘his seed’ and ‘his semen’ is implied. According to Guzik (2018), the word ‘marry’ is used in the English version, while in the Hebrew text, the word ‘אִסְתַּלְתָּהּ’ [istaltah] is used, which means ‘to take as wife’ or ‘to marry’. The word ‘seed’ is used, while in the Hebrew text, the word ‘זַרְעָהּ’ [zar’ah] is used, which means ‘offspring’ or ‘descendants’. The word ‘displease’ is used, while in the Hebrew text, the word ‘רָע’ [ra’] is used, which means ‘evil’ or ‘bad’.

The provenance of sex and procreation is traced to Genesis 1:28 as a divine command. Sexual satisfaction and subsequent fertilisation, pregnancy and giving birth are natural law from Yahweh to Jews, and the entire human race. In addition, Magnuson (2000) contends that:

Arguably, Genesis 38:8–10 shares a theological affinity with Genesis 1:28. Clifford and Murphy (1989) posit that the event in Genesis 38:8–10:

Ugwuewo and Chukwuka (2023) aver that:

Sexual intercourse with one’s deceased brother’s wife under levirate was a prevalent cultural practice.

The narrative in Genesis 38:8–10 is set in the context of the patriarchal age, likely during the early second millennium BCE. It reflects the social structures and norms of the time, including kinship ties, inheritance practices and the significance of family honour. The narrative also occurs in Canaan, the Promised Land, which underscores the importance of land, inheritance and the continuity of family lines in the covenant community. The passage reflects the patriarchal structure of ancient Near Eastern societies, where women often had limited agency. Tamar, as the widow, is left vulnerable without a husband or children. The levirate marriage custom aimed to protect women’s rights and social status, which were directly tied to their ability to bear children and maintain family lineage. Tamar’s situation illustrates the societal pressures on women to produce heirs and the consequences of failing to do so (Guzik 2018).

Arguably, Genesis 38:8–10 shares a theological intention with Genesis 1:28. The theological content of Genesis 1:28 affirms divine approval for procreation and development of humanity. Genesis 38:8–10 condemns an attempt to stop perpetuation of one’s generation through inhuman act. Looking at the texts, one can observe that there is agreement in divine approval of begetting of generation. Hence, the event in Genesis 38:8–10 could be traced to the divine command in Genesis 1:28.

There is a contention on the use of the Hebrew word ‘to fill’ used in Genesis 1:28. One proponent wrote that the Hebrew verb ‘to fill’ means ‘fill up the world to overflowing’. God’s blessing is not zero population, but maximum population. They also point out that there is no place in Scripture where God rescinds this command (Campbell 2003:1; Grisanti 2012). Birth control represents disobedience to this command to fill the earth. They grant that God does not require unmarried people to have children, but contend that all married couples must regularly pursue having children. A key assumption is that procreation is the primary purpose of marriage (Grisanti 2012; Owen 1990). Moreover:

The three important Hebrew words in this text פְּר֥וּ וּרְב֛וּ וּמִלְא֥וּ אֶת־הָאָ֖רֶץ translated as ‘be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth’ need to be elucidated in the context of the text. The Hebrew word פְּר֥וּ which is imperative in the text means ‘to bear fruit’ or ‘to be fruitful’. The usage suggests that bearing fruit is not only in the aspect of reproduction. There are numerous aspects of life where man can be fruitful. According to Koehler and Baumgartner (2000:99), פְּר֥וּ refers specifically to ‘the fruit of the vine, or of the fig tree but more importantly to the fruit of the womb, resulting from intercourse between the male and female’. Moreover, the second Hebrew word וּרְב֛ו translated as ‘multiply’ is also a qal imperative denoting command. The word is used to mean ‘to be many which could be interpreted in the context of [an] increase in number’, or ‘to become great’. Ahiamadu (2010:100) concurs that the word is a qal imperative and it means ‘to be many’ or ‘to be great’. The root ‘is a word used mostly in quantitative contexts, but sometimes also in a metaphorical sense’, meaning ‘to have many children’. However, to increase in number may not literally be in the context of human population only. It could extend to knowledge and other material possessions. The third crucial Hebrew word וּמִלְא֥וּ which means ‘to fill’, ‘to be full’, or ‘to be filled’ is also imperative, and is used to designate that it is a divine order that the earth would not be empty of human existence. According to Hamilton (1990), God gives mankind in Genesis 1:28 two key assignments through five imperatives: procreation (be fruitful, increase in number and fill) and dominion (subdue and rule) (Grisanti 2012). Magnuson (2000) avers that:

Genesis 1:28 is also interpreted from a theological perspective. On this note, Magnuson (2000:27) contends that ‘ in Christian theology, Genesis 1:28 is often interpreted as “a moral command expressed in terms of a creation mandate”’. Wenham (1987:33) posits that following Genesis 1:27, the imperative to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ in verse 28 is a pointer to procreation as the divine purpose of marriage. Genesis 1:28 is also interpreted in terms of ‘the propagation of the race, which was an unconditional command’ (Ademiluka 2020). However, none of the three important Hebrew words in the original text of Genesis 1:28 gives the impression that it is a divine command for one man and one woman in the circle of marriage to bear children beyond the number they can cater for morally, economically and otherwise. It is noteworthy to state that the text is used to address mankind other than a particular single man as some interpreters wrongly surmise. The imperative nature of the text is specifically used to refer to the common reproductive duty as well as other related duties of man on earth. Those Hebrew words are deliberately used to denote that every husband and wife has the responsibility of procreating another generation through sexual intercourse. However, it does not necessarily imply that each husband and wife must give birth to a specific range of children. The text is silent on that. It is unnecessary and out of place to impose on married couples the responsibility of making the reproduction of offspring the prime purpose of every sexual intercourse.

The most important verse in Genesis 38:8–10 that needs insight and clarification is verse 9. The close reading will therefore focus on this crucial verse for the purpose of this study. Verse 9 narrates that Onan used the coitus interruptus method while meeting his brother’s wife sexually. He has inherited his brother’s wife as his wife through levirate marriage in accordance with the prevalent tradition of that time. The contention that usually ensues from this text is whether Onan was killed because God does not advocate the use of contraceptives or not. The Hebrew sentence וַיֵּ֣דַע אוֹנָ֔ן כִּ֛י לֹּ֥א ל֖וֹ יִהְיֶ֣ה הַזָּ֑רַע וְהָיָ֞ה אִם־בָּ֙א אֶל־אֵ֤שֶׁת אָחִיו֙ וְשִׁחֵ֣ת אַ֔רְצָה rendered in the English translation as ‘but since Onan knew that the offspring would not be his, he spilled his semen on the ground whenever he went in to his brother’s wife’ shows self-centredness. Ugwuewo and Chukwuka (2023) assert that:

According to Clifford and Murphy (1989), Onan’s offence is obvious; he selfishly refuses the responsibility of fulfilling his duty to his brother, as the law provided. Leale (2025:1) asserts that Onan’s action was prompted by a low motive. It was as selfish as it was vile. Onan’s design was to preserve the whole inheritance for his own house. Henry (1996) avers that even though Onan agreed to marry the widow, he refused to raise seed for his brother because he was obligated to do so, despite the fact that he had severely abused his own body, his wife and his brother’s memory. Onan’s primary motivation was not to raise children for his deceased older brother as tradition dictates.

Nelson (1997) interprets the text as follow: Because Onan knew that he would not perpetuate his own name but the family of the deceased, he selfishly avoided conception by spilling the semen. Not only did he fail to honour his dead brother, but he was also stealing his brother’s inheritance by taking his wife without producing offspring for him. In a similar vein, Walvoord and Zuck (1985) posit that by the custom of the levirate marriage, Onan was to marry Tamar, the widow of his brother, and raise up offspring for his brother. However, Onan repeatedly used that law for sexual gratification. He took advantage of the situation but refused the responsibility that is associated with it. Consequently, the LORD took his life. It was Onan’s action in verse 9 that led to his death in verse 10. The LORD considered his selfishness as an evil act; therefore, it cost him his dear life. The Hebrew word וַיֵּ֛רַע translated as ‘displeasing’ means in other words ‘to break, to be evil, bad’. This gives an indication as to why the LORD considered Onan’s act as an act of wickedness or evil, and therefore his life was taken instantly.

It is crucial to understand the text from its contextual point of view. The use of contraceptive method, particularly the coitus interruptus method or also called the withdrawal method, by Onan is not the reason for his demise. In addition, Ugwuewo and Chukwuka (2023) contend that according to the reading of the text’s social context, Onan was not called ‘wicked’ or ‘evil’ because he employed the withdrawal method to avoid getting pregnant during sexual activity, but rather because he had a sinister and hidden reason for doing so. On the contrary, Augustine (2024) argues that the story of Judah and Tamar (Genesis 38) is meant to illustrate the importance of procreation and the rejection of birth control. According to Augustine, the passage shows that God is the one who determines the number of children a couple will have, and that human attempts to control or limit conception are a form of pride and disobedience. Giving allegiance to this claim, Aquinas (2024) also interpreted the passage as a rejection of birth control. He argues that the story of Judah and Tamar is meant to illustrate the importance of the conjugal act being open to the possibility of conception. Aquinas (2024) further contends that the use of contraception would be a form of ‘unnatural’ behaviour that goes against God’s plan for human reproduction. However, the context of the text does not substantiated any of the ideas presented by Augustine and Aquinas respectively. The total rejection of the contraceptive method used in agreement by married partners is therefore unsubstantiated and could not be read into the text. Such submission fall outside the context of the study of the text. The finding of the exegesis shows that the text focussed on the reason for the use of the contraceptive method, not necessarily on the contraceptive itself. Moreover, it is the ulterior motive for using the contraceptive that may make it evil or callous. The text as shown from the discovery of the exegesis does not disapprove of or forbid the use of contraceptives by married couples during sexual intercourse, especially when the married couple do not want to have a baby at the moment.

As was earlier shown in the context of the study of the text, Genesis 38:8–10 shares a theological intentionality with Genesis1:28 that gives the husband and wife a divine imperative to procreate for subsequent generations. However, the three crucial Hebrew words did not emphasise the bearing of fruit and being multiplied in terms of human populace only. Although some interpreters of the text gave the impression that it is all about the increase in population of human beings as the sole duty of man and his wife, it is not the only thing that can be harnessed from the text. Husband and wife are divinely commanded to make being productive point of duty and reason for their existence virtually in all aspects of human existence. Arguably, married couples are not given licence to overpopulate society. The imperative to procreate does not imply that married couples must give birth to children more than their financial and economic capacity can carry.

Genesis 38:8–10 remains a good background to educate members of contemporary society, particularly married partners. The use of contraceptives by married couples to control birth is not prohibited in the text. From the exegetical discovery of the text, it is the motive behind the use of contraceptives that determines whether it is ethical or evil. It does not form part of the findings of the exegesis that married couples may not use any contraceptive method to control birth and space childbearing. It is an ulterior motive as well as selfishness and other related reasons that make the use of contraceptive immoral or wicked as revealed from the exegesis.

The chief character in the narrative, Onan, was killed by the LORD because of his ulterior motive for using the withdrawal method. It is not indicated that he was killed for attempting to use the method. Married couples are warned to desist from any ulterior motive of using contraceptive method against one another. The result of the exegesis also shows that Onan did not consider his sexual partner before making the choice to use or not to use the contraceptive. This is highly selfish. Married couples must be in agreement when they use the contraceptive method during vaginal sex.

Moreover, it is revealed that Onan was more interested in taking the primogeniture of his elder brother. It was the reason why he decided to use the coitus interruptus method to obstruct his sexual partner (his levirate wife) from getting pregnant. He did that blatantly against the will of his levirate wife. Such an action is highly inconsiderate and inhuman. It shows a high level of callousness. Husband and wife should consider each other before making a choice of using any contraceptive method while fulfilling their sexual duties as married couples.

In line with the findings of this study, the researchers make the following recommendations:

The article explored Genesis 38:8–10 in the context of the use of contraceptives among Christian couples. The study provided insight into the importance of familial duties in ancient Israelite society and its contextual relevance for Christian couples in contemporary society. The use of contraceptive has remained a controversial discourse across the globe. This study contended that Genesis 38:8–10 is not against the use of contraceptives and birth control; it is rather the motive behind the use of contraceptives by married couples that determines whether it is ethical or evil. Christian couples are strongly advised to carefully examine the impact of the use of contraceptives to maximise the benefits and avert the precarious side effects.