11

This is my first question here! I'm Christian and I've read the Bible for a while, but I haven't seen anything related to birth control.

I know that Paul says that husband and wife can agree to refrain from sexual intercourse for a while, whenever it is for dedicating more time to pray. But I don't know something more specific. On the other hand, God calls us to sexual purity, so I'm a bit confused about it.

Peter Turner
  • 34,505
  • 19
  • 118
  • 289
Charlie
  • 545
  • 4
  • 13

3 Answers3

3

But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother."

Genesis 38:9 - New International Version (©2011)

This is the scripture I think of when birth control is brought up. Onan's brother had died so his brother's wife came to belong to him (as was the custom then). He wasted his sperm though and God killed him for what he had done.

Children are a gift from God and were particularly seen as such in the Bible times (for instance barren women would be miserable and pray for offspring). Purposefully remaining childless while in a married relationship is something apparently common today, but not exactly natural.

If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life

Exodus 21:22,23

The unborn are alive and seen by God as individuals - here causing the death of one carried the death penalty as for murder. They carry the potential to grow, as does every human, and have that potential right from the moment they were conceived (even before, as sperm).

Therefore the only form of "birth control" that I would see as Biblically OK is abstinence. If you really do not want children then it is best to stay single, as Paul advised.

Community
  • 1
Tarina
  • 57
  • 1
  • 5
3

As Jon commented, we covered the topic in the Christianity.StackExchange Blog last year. I took the Catholic position on the subject but will now attempt to conjure up anti-birth control hermeneutic that even folks who consider Catholicism to be yet another brand of Christianity might consider plausible.

First, the non-existence of explicit references to the regulation of birth as something universally condemned along with the other 613 commandments using the most complicated algorithms to search the text of the Bible, the Deuterocanonicals and the Apocrypha might lead you to think that Birth Control is amoral. But, what it should really do is make you question it's existence. Birth Control is a clearly a euphemism, and an evil one at that.

The name of Birth-Control, for instance, is sheer nonsense. Everybody has always exercised birth-control; even when they were so paradoxical as to permit the process to end in a birth. Everybody has always known about birth-control, even if it took the wild and unthinkable form of self-control. The question at issue concerns different forms of birth-prevention;

G.K. Chesterton – On Evil Euphemisms

As a euphemism, it's not something that actually exists. What does exist are its antithets

  1. Birth
  2. Self-control

Birth is in the Bible, hundreds of people including [Jesus] were born in the Bible. Cursing ones birth:

Keep your father and mother in mind when you sit among the mighty, Lest in their presence you commit a blunder and disgrace your upbringing, By wishing you had never been born or cursing the day of your birth.

Sirach 23:14 NABRE

is not a good thing. Jeremiah and Job, started out lamenting:

because he did not kill me in the womb! Then my mother would have been my grave, her womb confining me forever. Why did I come forth from the womb, to see sorrow and pain, to end my days in shame?

Jeremiah 20:17

Why did I not die at birth, come forth from the womb and expire?

Job 3:11

But Job and Jeremiah found out that it's better to be born because life, including suffering, is a great mystery and it connects us to Christ.

Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.

Matthew 16:24

The self denial which makes us followers of Christ leads to Chesterton's second point about self-control.

For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, virtue with knowledge, knowledge with self-control, self-control with endurance, endurance with devotion, devotion with mutual affection, mutual affection with love. If these are yours and increase in abundance, they will keep you from being idle or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Peter 1:6

and all these virtues, borne of faith in Christ, blossom in their fullness in the context of a marriage that always is open to God's creative power.

The above mentioned verse is a veritable blueprint for Natural Family Planning. It starts with Faith in God's providence, it goes on to knowledge about the natural systems that regulate ovulation then requires self-control during fertile periods and the endurance to be continent month after month followed by a devotion to one another and to Christ and a deepening love between all members of the family!

Community
  • 1
Peter Turner
  • 34,505
  • 19
  • 118
  • 289
  • Quibble: it would have been better for Judas not to have been born (Matt. 26:24). –  Jul 09 '13 at 11:56
  • @Paul that's a good quibble! I'd reply that there might be a difference between cursing your own birth. I think saying "I wish I never was born" is a lot like saying "I wish my children never were born" because in 50-100 years the effect is the same. And saying, I wish evildoers were dead is a lot like saying, I wish evildoers never were born. – Peter Turner Jul 09 '13 at 12:22
2

The biblical text contains no explicit references to birth control, either for or against. Since you did not reference a particular tradition, this is the simplest answer.

However, some groups, through the lens of particular traditions, attempt to infer God's plan about such issues based on various texts. Baptist Fundamentalist and other anti-birth-control traditions use at least two lines of reasoning.

Regarding pre-conception birth control, an oft-used passage is:

Children are a heritage from the Lord...Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them (parts of Psalm 127:3-5, NIV)

This line of reasoning is: if children are a reward of God, who are mere mortals to refuse the gift? Since the reward is given by God, the decision to bestow the "blessing" is his and his alone. Those who practice birth control are "standing in the stead of God."

Regarding post-conception birth control, a passage in Jeremiah is oft used. In 1:5, God is quoted as saying:

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.

This passage is seen by some as having general applicability to the human condition, and implies the existence of a soul before the existence of the body. Some Christians take this to mean that the soul is present in the body at the moment of conception, so any action that destroys body at any stage (morning-after pills, abortion, etc) is necessarily murder.

As a former Christian, it is my opinion that the above passages are overly stretched to cover the topic and that you should choose the way that works best for you. For a many years of my life I subscribed to the ideas above; as the father of six children, I strongly urge you to consider that the consequences of such an approach will have an impact on your life that is impossible to measure in advance. Birth control properly used can help you to form a happier, more productive life for all the members of your family, however many you choose.

George Cummins
  • 802
  • 8
  • 13
  • Sorry to issue a spiteful -1, but you totally contradicted yourself. You said people infer the Bible as speaking about Birth Control. You might as well say people infer the Bible is referring to the Holy Spirit from time to time. Or that Jesus taught his Disciples all the parts that infer him.. – Peter Turner Jul 08 '13 at 21:20
  • @Peter One definition of infer is "Deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements." The Bible makes no explicit statements about birth control. Any conclusions on the matter that attempt to use the Bible as a source must be inferred. Conversely, there are explicit mentions of the Holy Spirit in the Bible (John 14:26 and others), and a direct quote from Jesus that the OT passages are about him (John 5:39). – George Cummins Jul 08 '13 at 21:23
  • 1
    @GeorgeCummins The Bible also doesn't say we can't rub sandpaper on our neighbors' eyeballs for the purpose of good times with sandpaper; but, I think our Biblically based inferences about such an activity are well-founded. – svidgen Jul 08 '13 at 21:31
  • @svidgen I don't think that there is any debate in the Christian community about rubbing people's eyeballs with sandpaper, because the explicit statements (be ye kind one to another, etc) would specifically exclude such behavior. The reason there is debate about birth control among the various Christian circles is because the Bible is silent on the issue, and various groups choose pet verses that are stretched to address the situation. If I have overlooked a passage that you feel is explicit on this subject, I will look forward to hearing about it. – George Cummins Jul 08 '13 at 21:33
  • @GeorgeCummins Firstly, it's not "silent." It's interpreted differently. Secondly, sandpaper is not explicitly mentioned in the bible. And as "small" of an inferential leap it is from "being kind" to "don't rub sandpaper in peoples' eyes" as you feel it is, it's an inference nonetheless. – svidgen Jul 08 '13 at 21:35
  • @GeorgeCummins There's no "one" passage you've overlooked. Some traditions simply apply an entirely different lens than you seem to. From the lens of a Catholic tradition, virtually every other page of scripture denounces artificial birth control. – svidgen Jul 08 '13 at 21:37
  • @svidgen I understand that people use different lenses with regard to this and many other topics. The OP asked, however, what the Bible says. The answer is "nothing." – George Cummins Jul 08 '13 at 21:40
  • @GeorgeCummins "Nothing" from what tradition? From a Catholic standpoint, the answer isn't "nothing." ... If I asked what the Bible said about "rubbing sandpaper in peoples' eyes" the answer would likewise not be "nothing" from the Catholic tradition. I suspect not from yours either. In either case, state your tradition. An unqualified "nothing" is pretty horrendously misleading. – svidgen Jul 08 '13 at 21:42
  • @svidgen Perhaps we are not understanding each other. I am reading the OP's question as a request for an authoritative Biblical answer. He does not mention a particular tradition. Most traditions add a "lens" to issues. If the OP's wanted the Catholic view on the subject he would have asked for it. Therefore, we can only say what the Bible says without adding "tradition" to the mix. If you can show where the Bible addresses the issue, these comments would be relevant. – George Cummins Jul 08 '13 at 21:45
  • 1
    @GeorgeCummins "Biblical" answers should support (or at least align with) a well-known or widely-accepted Christian belief. Otherwise, a so-called Biblical answer has no relation to real Christianity. – svidgen Jul 08 '13 at 21:50
  • That seems (to my mind) as a bit of "cart before the horse," don't you think? Where does Christian tradition arise, if not from the Bible? You have said that "From the Catholic standpoint, virtually every other page of scripture denounces artificial birth control" but that there is "no 'one' passage" that addresses the issue. From whence does your tradition arise, and how is that relevant to a question that asks specifically for a "Bible" answer? – George Cummins Jul 08 '13 at 21:53
  • @GeorgeCummins Scripture (of any religion) requires interpretation. Religion doesn't pop out of scripture. Scripture is generated by religion. Hence, the interpretation of a religion's scripture is only relevant if it correlates with pre-scriptural beliefs -- or in the very least, wide-spread, well-accepted beliefs. ... I'm really not insisting that your answer is wrong, per se. Only that it's wrong disjoint from a tradition; since the "Biblical" interpretations on the matter are pretty sharply divided along lines of tradition. ... Just state a tradition or two. – svidgen Jul 08 '13 at 21:59
  • @GeorgeCummins This isn't a "truth" site, after all. It's not even a hermeneutics site (SE has one of those too!). It's about Christianity. What do Christians believe, why, and what's their history. A blanket "Biblical" answer that ignores the actual Christian dynamic doesn't belong here. – svidgen Jul 08 '13 at 22:01
  • As an aside, there is one tiny little piece of scripture that pretty explicitly refers to birth control (the "pulling out" method): http://usccb.org/bible/genesis/38:8 – svidgen Jul 08 '13 at 22:03
  • @svidgen I think you'll find that I did address tradition, to an extent, with my references to "inferences" and "Some Christians." I did not name a particular tradition and am unwilling to do so, because then I would be obligated to either take sides or present all possible traditions. You can do that in your answer, if you wish. – George Cummins Jul 08 '13 at 22:10
  • Regarding the Onan passage, the result was "What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too." What is not included was why the LORD was angry: Because he engaged in birth control? Because he didn't want to give offspring to his brother? Because of sanitation issues? The passage doesn't indicate which reason is correct. – George Cummins Jul 08 '13 at 22:12
  • @GeorgeCummins Your refusal to "infer" the obvious is astounding. ... Needless to say, until your answer is updated to more accurately reflect a fuller Christian dynamic, sans condescension, you've got a -1 from me. – svidgen Jul 08 '13 at 22:15
  • @svidgen It is only obvious to those looking through a particular lens. I do not share your lens. – George Cummins Jul 08 '13 at 22:17
  • @GeorgeCummins Ok. In either case, your answer is transparently one-sided, even bordering on condescension, I feel, for the 'opposing' inferences. Which is mostly OK if you're representing a particular tradition or group-of. It's not OK to present your personal opinion as "the biblical answer." ... particularly after preaching how the anti-birth-control loonies are just "inferring" things. – svidgen Jul 08 '13 at 22:21
  • And may God and C.SE forgive me caring so much that someone on the internet is wrong. – svidgen Jul 08 '13 at 22:23
  • 1
    @svidgen Ah, I think I am beginning to see what has upset you. You have connected the first line of my answer ("Nothing") with my opinion as stated at the end of the answer. As a result, you see the middle as a poke at a particular brand of Christianity. It isn't. The "Nothing" refers to the actual, explicit mentions in the text. The middle section represents the views that I held for a number of years as a practicing Fundamental Independent Baptist (but it is not limited to that group). The last paragraph is my personal opinion as a non-Christian. (cont'd) – George Cummins Jul 08 '13 at 22:31
  • I will consider updating my answer to make the three sections distinct. – George Cummins Jul 08 '13 at 22:32
  • 3
    FWIW, I read the initial statement in this answer as merely saying that there's no verse that reads "thou shalt not use condoms", not that the no-birth-control position is un-Biblical, since the main body of the answer does go on to present Biblical support for that view. @svidgen, perhaps you'd consider writing an alternative answer if you think that this one is (still) wrong? – James T Jul 08 '13 at 23:53
  • 1
    @svidgen can't believe you didn't take the bait when George said Where does Christian tradition arise, if not from the Bible. It's like he doesn't know that the Bible itself is a product of Catholic Tradition :D – Peter Turner Jul 09 '13 at 02:58
  • @Peter I regretted asking that almost as I was typing it. I am glad svidgen chose (wisely) not to address it here. :) – George Cummins Jul 09 '13 at 03:01
  • @PeterTurner Yeah ... I pretty intentionally avoided it. One argument at a time! – svidgen Jul 09 '13 at 03:04
  • 2
    See, I almost agree with you, but the problem is artificial contraception that doesn't ask for self denial. I think you are giving someone very bad and potentially destructive personal advice at the end of your post and furthermore you're doing so "as a former Christian". This is a secular website so that kind of counseling is off topic. If you want to help write for the new blog you'd certainly be able to lend an interesting perspective. – Peter Turner Jul 09 '13 at 03:49