The centerpiece of Jewish and Christian masturbation theology unfolds in Genesis chapter 38. Judah, one of Joseph’s brothers, marries a bride with Canaanite history.  Canaan was the offspring from the incestuous assault of Ham against his mother. Tbe region of Canaan is often an image of unhealthy sexuality and coercion in the Bible.  The vocabulary for sexual health and intimacy, YDA, does not appear in Genesis 38. The Hebrew words for genital sexual intercourse in this piece are, “he took her and went into her,” LQH, and BO. (BLB, Genesis 38:2; Strong’s H3947 and H935) This may connect a sense of unhealthy sexuality to the marriage.  Judah’s marriage yields three sons, Er, Onan, and Shelah.   Onan is the principle player in Christian masturbation theology.

Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death.

Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” 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. What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also. (Genesis 38:8-10)

This unhealthy sexuality snap shot forms one of the most prolific misuses of Scripture over the last 3500 years. From this singular verse of the Bible Jewish and Christian theologies of masturbation developed impacting the current era. The plain reading of the text states that the Lord killed Er for unspecified evil acts. The word evil in the Book of Genesis up to this point means coercion or sexual abuse. The younger brother, Onan, refuses to impregnate his sister in law according to tribal custom. Onan too commits acts of coercion and dies.  The final scene in the snap shot shows Tamar coercing a pregnancy with her father in law Judah. She poses as a sacred sex trade worker to seduce Judah unknowingly for sex. Religious writers from many faith traditions for over 2000 years have mistranslated this single line of Scripture into a theology negatively effecting sexual health education for billions of people. 

As overview of culture in Genesis 38, ancient near eastern sexual health codes permitted a surviving family member to marry a brother’s widow.  This sexual health practice called levirate marriage occurs in many cultures for thousands of years until the present. The purpose brought financial stability for the widow with tribal protection. (Wikipedia_levirate marriage, 2021)

Deuteronomy 25:5-10 permits the brother of a man who dies childless to marry the widow.  This marriage of mutual consent called a YBM, or levirate marriage, allows  either party to refuse the union.

If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her.  The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.

However, if a man does not want to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to carry on his brother’s name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me.” Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, “I do not want to marry her,” his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, “This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother’s family line.” That man’s line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled.

  Islamic Sharia Law too encourages similar consensual sexual health practices.

 O you who have believed, it is not lawful for you to inherit women by compulsion. And do not make difficulties for them in order to take [back] part of what you gave them unless they commit a clear immorality. And live with them in kindness. For if you dislike them – perhaps you dislike a thing and Allah makes therein much good. (al-Nisa 4:19, Sahih)

The purpose of the consensual Jewish YBM and Sharia Law protected the widow ensuring  provision and protection. Offspring created inheritance rights, status, and security. Both sexual health traditions required mutual consent for the marriage of the widow to the brother in law.

The Judah unhealthy sexuality snap shot paints a picture of coercive sex beginning with Er and Onan through Judah and Tamar.  Er acts wickedly, RA, רע.  The  meaning of RA, evil, in the Book of Genesis is coercion or violent sexual abuse.   The text clearly states that God kills Er for unnamed acts of coercion and perhaps abuse. The snap shot then describes Judah forcing Onan, his son, to have intercourse with Tamar fulfilling the YBM or levirate marriage law. Onan does not consent to the forced marriage by Judah.  Onan practices coitus interruptus, withdrawing his penis from the vaginal barrel before ejaculation, when having intercourse with Tamar. He chooses not to conceive with Tamar and “spills his seed” at ejaculatory inevitability. The Hebrew words for, “spills his seed” are SHT ZRH, שחת זרע. The word for seed or semen is, ZRH, זרע.  (Strong’s, H2233)  SHT, שחת, appears 147 times in the Old Testament. All of the uses of this word carry the nuance of corruption or coercion.  (Strong’s, H7843) 

The intent of the Judah unhealthy sexuality snap shot may teach children about coercive non consensual sexuality. Er’s evil was unnamed acts of coercion. Judah manipulated Onan without consent to marry and conceive with Tamar.  Onan too according to the text bears guilt for coercive action.  Based on the limits of the text, the coercion appears to be that Onan did not assume the responsibility of fulfilling the levirate marriage law or YBM.  

What follows however, appears to be thousands of years of forced personal bias and sexual politics attached to this one line of Biblical text. Religious writers  assumed that Onan’s death sentence for evil was, “spilling the seed” or withdrawing the penis at ejaculatory inevitability called coitus interruptus. Church fathers, Popes, Christian medical professionals, and Evangelical authors then connected coitus interruptus with ejaculation of any kind. Numerous authors have ascribed the death sentence for ejaculation based on the misuse of a single line of Scripture called proof texting. 

The word masturbation did not appear in literature until the 17th century AD. The Latin word masturbation is a non Biblical term meaning, “destruction by the hand”. Theologians began to connect the made up term, masturbation, to Onan’s death sentence for coitus interruptus.  The context of the passage, however, appears to be another lesson reinforcing the evil of coercive sexuality and abuse. The Onan incident is not a genital self stimulation narrative. In addition there exists no support from other Biblical passages that God killed Onan for coitus interruptus. The judgment against Er and Onan has clear textual support on the basis of coercive sexuality and or violent abuse. No Biblical evidence supports the death sentence for coitus interruptus or genital self stimulation to orgasm with ejaculation. The non Biblical term masturbation appears to be a political word misused by sex negative theologians. The 17th century word, “masturbation”, does not appear in or reflect the authoritative text of the Bible…anywhere. 

The translation method this work uses is called Biblical theology. This time tested process uses Scripture interpreting Scripture. When a passage requires clarity, other relevant texts compare for meaning. One can think of Biblical theology as a scientific way to study sacred literature with integrity.  The tension in this passage focuses on historic interpretations that God put Onan to death because he spilled his seed during intercourse, coitus interruptus. Therefore according to many authors any transmission of semen except for procreation is condemned by death. 

The circumstance of Onan’s death appears four times in the Old Testament. (Genesis 38:9-10; 46:12; Numbers 26:19; 1 Chronicles 2:3) Two of the passages state that Onan simply died. (Genesis 46:12; Numbers 26:19) The Hebrew verb form used in these two passages is called, the Qal. This verb form shows that God did not act to end Onan’s life.  The text of Genesis 38:10 states that someone or something killed Onan. The final Onan passage of 1 Chronicles 2:3 mentions Onan, but does not state that the Lord killed him.  Rather, Er his brother was terminated by God. The author of Chronicles omits Onan from the consequences of direct judgement by God. The four texts agree that God did not kill Onan.

The one verse in question does not clearly state that Onan’s death was caused by God. The verse literally says in the Hebrew language, “He (Onan) did evil in the eyes of the Lord, and the thing which he did, killed him, even him.” Hebrew to English translators added the words as subject,“The Lord” to verse ten as the one doing the killing. The corruption and misuse of this passage began with the editing of the text by an unknown translator from the Hebrew text to English adding the name, “The Lord” as Onan’s executioner.  There are no direct statements in the Bible supporting that God put Onan to death.  All Biblical citations  state that God did not terminate Onan because he withdrew before ejaculation, also called coitus interruptus.

The energy spent on this verse matters for billions of people who look to the Bible for sexual health education. What the reader will see in the following history of masturbation theology is the threat of  divine death sentence and disease for ejaculation. Specifically, according to numerous historical writers, any sexual arousal or transfer of semen except for conception may bring the same consequences for death as Onan received.   One misused proof- texted verse of Scripture without support from the entirety of Biblical revelation created 3500 years of threat, violence, and sexual shame among people of faith.

A Brief Christian History of Masturbation Theology

The first part of the word, masturbation, derives from the latin word, manus, meaning “hand”.  The second part of the latin term, disturbare, means to disturb, demolish, or destroy.  Stupere connects to this word, meaning stupid or shameful.  The latin word masturbor then follows the meaning, “I shamefully defile myself, I masturbate.  The word masturbation first appears in 1711. Mastupration preceded the use of the term  masturbation first appearing in the1620’s. (Etymonline, Etymologygeek)

The Evangelical Christian books Every Man’s Battle and Every Women’s Battle reflect thinking on genital self stimulation to orgasm with ejaculation from the 90’s.  Arterburn, the primary author for these books, reflects the cultural and Evangelical sexual politics of the era. Panic and crisis of the  80’s AIDS epidemic may have driven religious and political leaders to teach abstinence in favor of sexual health. Arterburn reflects,“Masturbation is a symptom of uncontrolled eyes and free racing thoughts.” He counsels that masturbation ceases when a man can “bounce” his eyes and take thoughts captive. (Arterburn, p. 112) He states that the only release from genital tension for a single man is the nocturnal emission. Arterburn does not permit males to masturbate/genital self stimulation even though he admits the Bible does not speak to it. Ethridge, Arterburn’s female counterpart and co author for Every Woman’s Battle, too instructs her readers not to masturbate.  She states, “Believe it or not no one ever died from not having an orgasm…once the sin of masturbation does know you by name , it will call, and call and call.” (Ethridge, p. 40.) Is it possible that the author may imply, “Believe it or not, some have died from an orgasm….” specifically Onan?  Etheridge states that treatment for masturbation is to “starve it to death.” (Etheridge, p. 41) Neither author believes genital self stimulation to orgasm with ejaculation is an acceptable practice even though both admit the Bible gives no direction on the matter. 

The 19th and 20 centuries featured religious and medical practitioners contributing to the conversation of  genital self stimulation to orgasm with ejaculation.

Doctor John Harvey Kellogg of the Battle Creek Corn Flakes fame (February 26, 1852 – December 14, 1943)  passionately campaigned against genital self stimulation. Kellogg legitimized his views by using medical language with citations proclaiming, “neither the plague, nor war, nor small-pox, nor similar diseases, have produced results so disastrous to humanity as the pernicious habit of onanism,” according to his source Dr. Adam Clarke. Kellogg made strong warnings against masturbation claiming  genital self stimulation could be fatal, “such a victim literally dies by his own hand.”  Kellogg believed the “solitary-vice” caused uterine cancer, urinary diseases, nocturnal emissions, impotence, epilepsy, insanity, and mental and physical pathologies, and dimness of vision.  In Plain Facts for Old and Young, Kellogg warns of the evils of sex. He crafted treatment plans to cure children from acting out in  the “solitary vice”. Kellogg prescribed as means of prevention: restraining a child’s  hands, protecting the genitals with patented cages preventing sexual contact, stitching the foreskin shut with wire, electrical shock, and circumcision without anesthesia. Kellogg himself underwent circumcision at the age of 37. (Wikipedia_history of masturbation, 2021) 

Following are Kellogg’s verbatim prescriptions preventing genital self stimulation.

“A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed.  Further, a method of treatment [to prevent masturbation] … and we have employed it with entire satisfaction. It consists in the application of one or more silver sutures in such a way as to prevent erection. The prepuce, or foreskin, is drawn forward over the glans, and the needle to which the wire is attached is passed through from one side to the other. After drawing the wire through, the ends are twisted together, and cut off close. It is now impossible for an erection to occur, and the slight irritation thus produced acts as a most powerful means of overcoming the disposition to resort to the practice. In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid (phenol) to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement.”

In Kellogg’s  Ladies’ Guide in Health and Disease for nymphomania, he recommended

“Cool baths; the cool enema; a spare diet; the application of blisters and other irritants to the sensitive parts of the sexual organs, the removal of the clitoris and nymphae….” (Wikipedia_wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg#Masturbation_prevention, 2021)

Swiss physician Samuel-Auguste Tissot published L’Onanisme in 1760,  a  comprehensive medical treatise on the negative effects of genital self stimulation to orgasm with ejaculation. Tissot believed that seminal fluid was an “essential oil” and “stimulus.”  According to Tissot, the loss of semen in large amounts could cause, “a perceptible reduction of strength, of memory and even of reason; blurred vision, all the nervous disorders, all types of gout and rheumatism, weakening of the organs of generation, blood in the urine, disturbance of the appetite, headaches and a great number of other disorders.” (Wikipedia_Samuel-August Tissot, 2021)

In the 17 century masturbation became synonymous with the Onan unhealthy sexuality snap shot of Genesis 38.  Although different behaviors, Coitus interruptus and genital self stimulation now become one idea. (Etymonline, 2021)  A 17th-century Puritan law code for the colonies of New Haven, Connecticut outlawed blasphemy, homosexuality, and genital self stimulation. The consequences for offenders? Capital punishment, the death penalty.  (Wikipedia_history of masturbation, 2021)

Before masturbation terminology appeared in the 17th  century early Christian church fathers contributed volumes of commentary. Many church authorities taught that genital self stimulation was a secret sin, injurious, prohibited, and corrupt. In the 14th century AD, Jean Gerson, crafted a confessional manual entitled, On the Confession of Masturbation. Gerson’s manual directs clergy to, ”insist that (male) penitents admit to the sin of masturbation, which…was deemed…even more serious sin than raping a nun, incest, or abducting and raping virgins and wives.”  (Wikipedia_masturbation, 2021) 

Thomas Aquinas, (1225-1274 AD) distinguished scholastic of the Catholic Church, authored the Summa Theologiae or Summa Theologica, The Summary of Theology.  “The Summa” intended to instruct seminarians and literate church members.  In Article Five, Aquinas discusses 13th century attitudes on the sinfulness of dreams producing nocturnal emissions. 

Article 5. Whether nocturnal pollution is a mortal sin?

“Objection 1. It would seem that nocturnal pollution is a sin. For the same things are the matter of merit and demerit. Now a man may merit while he sleeps, as was the case with Solomon, who while asleep obtained the gift of wisdom from the Lord (1 Samuel 3:5). Therefore a man may demerit while asleep; and thus nocturnal pollution would seem to be a sin.”  (Wikipedia_Summa_theologica, 2021)

Beginning in the 11th century Pope Leo IX regarded genital self stimulation as, “unnatural sex, murder, a diabolical practice, and the cause of two-thirds of all diseases and disorders including insanity, neurosis, and neurasthenia. ”  (Patton, 1985)

Epiphanius of Salamis in 375 AD stated that, ”They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption” (Medicine Chest Against Heresies 26:5:2, 375 AD).  Lactantius, advisor to Roman Emperor Constantine the Great, in the fourth century AD added, ”God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, 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” (Medicine Chest Against Heresies 6:23:18).  Clement of Alexandria in 191 AD stated that, “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, “ and, “To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature.” (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2; 2:10:95:3, 375 AD)

Jesus does not speak on the matter of genital self stimulation to orgasm with ejaculation. Neither New Testament writers nor Old Testament authors rule on genital self stimulation. Again, the primary Christian authoritative sources and accepted body of sacred literature do not regulate genital self stimulation.  The Old Testament passages connecting to transmission of seminal fluids can be found in the Levitical sexual hygiene code.

“‘When a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body with water, and he will be unclean till evening.  Any clothing or leather that has semen on it must be washed with water, and it will be unclean till evening…When a man has sexual relations with a woman and there is an emission of semen, both of them must bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening…These are the regulations for a man with a discharge, for anyone made unclean by an emission of semen….(Leviticus 15:16,17,18, and 32)

No mandates or commentary exist for genital self stimulation to orgasm with ejaculation in the entire Bible. The focus of transmission of fluids in Leviticus falls under the heading of hygiene and in this case sexual health hygiene. There are no death penalties in the Leviticus sexual hygiene code for the transmission of seminal fluids by any means.

Four characteristics frame the post modern sex addict in North America. According to Carnes (2016) the typical person with problematic sexuality comes from a Bible believing family with black and white shame based rules, deprivation, and sex negativity.  This work attempts to counter these underlying drivers of addict behaviors with sexually healthy Biblical conversations. The goal is to teach children that the sexual health positive big picture of the Bible reflects intimacy with God. This spiritual intimacy is beautiful, pleasurable, present in compassion, balanced, sexually healthy, and reconciles relationships. Rather than rigid shame based compliance to mandates, this work teaches children the health of consent with boundaries.  Instead of deprivation thinking, children are shown how to love and care for the image of God within themselves and others through sexual health hygiene. Sexual health can be only good reflecting the omni benevolence or complete goodness of the Creator. Sexual health is not a state of sin.

Clarke (2021), the author of Connection Theory, mentors clinical sexologists to examine, “the meaning” of a behavior in the assessment of sexual disorders. Does the meaning of one’s sexual health hygiene connect to the image of an omni benevolent Creator? Does the spirituality of one’s sexual health follow clear Scriptural support? Does the hygiene promote beauty and pleasure as opposed to neglect and shame?   Does the hygiene practice bring balance with compassion, or does the behavior become obsessive, problematic, and cause harm?  Is the outcome of one’s sexual hygiene restoration of health? Does sexual hygiene connect to the values of one’s family and community?  These questions of spiritual significance transcend the black and white shame based approach of many religious writers over the last 2000 years. Replacing shame based rules with compassionate boundaries, promoting sexual health hygiene in place of deprivation, and  connecting intimacy to sexual health  may help children by treating the underlying drivers of problematic sexuality.