I'm pronatal, 4 kids... With all due respect to Luther, this is no more than deliberate disobedience to God in refusing to produce a son to continue his brother's name. God placed an obligation on His people to protect the widow. and orphan and providing a son to the widow was the best security she could have. Onan rejected the lovingkindness of God in order to protect his own wealth, which itself was a gift from God.
There is plenty of support for God's intent that we be fruitful and fill his good earth. I believe it is unwise, if not dangerous, to repurpose a text to support a cause, no matter how worthy. It is enough to say that God expects to be obeyed and will not overlook rebellion.
You might have to extend your respects to more people. The view that Luther expresses here seems to have been the common view in the church until about 1930.
I appreciate the offer but I'm not gifted in that way. I do understand, and agree with, your point about not lightly abandoning the teaching of the elders. That said, I am very concerned about hanging weighty doctrine on small nails. The Levirate law was not about fruitfulness, it was about the physical welfare of widows and the integrity of property. The death of Onan at God's hand was prequel to NT teaching about true righteousness being the care of widows and orphans.
Ah, but that is not what the elders did here. They hung it on very large nails indeed.
First of all, I think they would disagree with you on the meaning of the levirate law. As would I. Long discussion.
Secondly, this was not the levirate law, but its proto-form before the law was given.
Thirdly, it is perfectly possible to disobey one law while disobeying another. And even a third.
The judgement of God here could well be seen as a punishment for adultery. I would be willing to make that case, myself.
Now, as for ‘abandoning the teaching’ that was not quite my point. My point would be that whenever the modern world all assumes something about something, and you open the old commentators and find something else… that should cause you to read more and say, “Why did they all believe this? How did they relate it to the rest of Scripture?? What happened that modern commentators don’t believe this???”
We agree on your closing point. I take the fathers seriously, but they are not Scripture. I'll have to do some digging and refresh my thinking on the levirate issue.
I'm pronatal, 4 kids... With all due respect to Luther, this is no more than deliberate disobedience to God in refusing to produce a son to continue his brother's name. God placed an obligation on His people to protect the widow. and orphan and providing a son to the widow was the best security she could have. Onan rejected the lovingkindness of God in order to protect his own wealth, which itself was a gift from God.
There is plenty of support for God's intent that we be fruitful and fill his good earth. I believe it is unwise, if not dangerous, to repurpose a text to support a cause, no matter how worthy. It is enough to say that God expects to be obeyed and will not overlook rebellion.
Blessings.
You might have to extend your respects to more people. The view that Luther expresses here seems to have been the common view in the church until about 1930.
As Luther noted, popes and councils often err.
He did indeed. It is possible that the entirety of Christendom before 1930 was wrong. Including Luther, Calvin, etc etc.
But that conclusion should only be reached, I would think, after a long study. As Luther did. And fear and trepidation… as Luther did.
I’m totally open to a letter exchange on the subject. I would be taking the far, far easier position.
I appreciate the offer but I'm not gifted in that way. I do understand, and agree with, your point about not lightly abandoning the teaching of the elders. That said, I am very concerned about hanging weighty doctrine on small nails. The Levirate law was not about fruitfulness, it was about the physical welfare of widows and the integrity of property. The death of Onan at God's hand was prequel to NT teaching about true righteousness being the care of widows and orphans.
Ah, but that is not what the elders did here. They hung it on very large nails indeed.
First of all, I think they would disagree with you on the meaning of the levirate law. As would I. Long discussion.
Secondly, this was not the levirate law, but its proto-form before the law was given.
Thirdly, it is perfectly possible to disobey one law while disobeying another. And even a third.
The judgement of God here could well be seen as a punishment for adultery. I would be willing to make that case, myself.
Now, as for ‘abandoning the teaching’ that was not quite my point. My point would be that whenever the modern world all assumes something about something, and you open the old commentators and find something else… that should cause you to read more and say, “Why did they all believe this? How did they relate it to the rest of Scripture?? What happened that modern commentators don’t believe this???”
We agree on your closing point. I take the fathers seriously, but they are not Scripture. I'll have to do some digging and refresh my thinking on the levirate issue.
I have several posts on the subject, if that interests you :)
Sure. Post the links if that's easy.
Well, you might want to start here:
https://vonwriting.substack.com/p/always-open