• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Be fruitful and multiply...a general command ?

NeoPatriarch

NeoPatriarch

Member
Real Person
Male
Gen 1:28a And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:

So was this a general command to every man?
Or was this a specific command to specific men? (Adam, Noah)

Ones understanding of this command can color how we understand scripture.
What do you think?
 
All of the major theologians from both traditions of the two theological spectrums (continuity and discontinuity) agree that there are eras of time or ages recognized in Scripture. In this discussion virtually all of us agree that some commands were specific to the individual and did not carry over exactly through to every other age of Scripture. Of course there is debate as to how much carried over from every age to another. Some hold to a higher degree of continuity and others hold to a higher degree of discontinuity.

As to this question the issue can be seen by the two statements themselves.

First, if the command to Adam had applied in particular to every single human being throughout the earth from his time until the end then there would have been no need for it to be repeated unless it had been repealed or understood by the current audience to have been only a specific command for an earlier period.

Second, since we do see it was repeated to Noah this gives us a strong weight of evidence that this command was meant for a specific situation in which the earth needed a "boost" so to speak. Both in Adam's day and in Noah's day there was a specific need for this urgent and particular command. If the command to Adam was for all times at all places in all circumstances then there would have been no need for this command to be restated to Noah, he would already have known this. Thus, this command being re-stated is to show the need for this particular moment in time when the earth's population was in need of being developed just like in Adam's day.

Third, because you have laws and recognition of the celibate status in Scripture this command could not be to every man in all times in all places in all circumstances, because if so then every celibate man would need to hbe seeking to leave his celibate condition and find a mate to have children. Thus at the very minimum we know there is a qualification to this passage which makes it not applicable to all in all places in all times in all circumstances. Granted, one could argue that if a man marries it then applies. But in light of the other points above it seems the weight of evidence is on these two commands being a command to a specific set of men in a specific set of circumstances, at least when looking at these two verses contextually within their given era of time.

Fourth, this would not preclude some other command from Scripture from building the case for the goal of a man and woman having children, but it just limits that these two passages alone cannot with good weight behind them be carried over to every other man in all other circumstances. In other words, these verses are qualified by the need in which they were given.

Dr. Allen
 
in my perusal of some small amount of jewish thought i ran across the information that this command was understood by them to be the first commandment given to mankind, specifically to males and within marital boundries.

if you are called to be celibate, then follow your calling.
if you have not found a mate yet, continue to grow in the Lord and it will happen in His timing

i do not see where choosing to be celibate honours our creator.
where paul talks of it, the words "in this present distress" seem to define the time frame. otherwise it seems at odds with the rest of scripture and more in line with todays narcissism.
 
What do I think? It is a general command to all humans that endures. God likes people, and he likes us making more of them. Gen 1:28 is one of my primary motivators for biblical marriage. the world population is not going to increase forever anyway, when I last checked it was going to peak sometime around 2050 at 9 billion or so, and then start declining. And the western nations are not fruitful, while the islamic nations are multiplying like crazy. a good christian is a breeding christian. ylop the crazed fundamentalist who does not believe in birth control and doesnt have a tv (lethal combination).
 
I did consider (a long time ago in the past) that perhaps this command was not so much an oral command. Rather it was a metaphor for the sex drive installed in man. After all do the birds, fish, and other animals need a command to breed, or is it part of how they are built.

Has anyone considered that besides me???

In recent years I have taken a much more literal approach to the creation story.

After all, if the first command is a metaphor, what about the command to Noah? Then things really break down. What is a metaphor, whats not, it gets rather messy...until finally churches are ordaining lesbians...as priest no less...

Though I still wonder how with both the desire and the command why there is no record of Adam "knowing" Eve before they ever noticed the tree.

For the record, I believe the command to be fruitful and multiply are specific commands to specific individuals.
 
a good christian is a breeding christian.
Click to expand...
i will stand (hang?) with the crazy guy :D
 
It is suggested for widows under sixty years old and possibly all woman

No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband,[a]
A. 1 Timothy 5:9 Or has had but one husband
1 Timothy 5:9 NIV
[NOTICE how the structure reminds me of the deacon one woman debate]

So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander.
1 Timothy 5:14 NIV

I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
1 timothy 5:14 KJV


How likely is a "saved" woman who is married tell her husband, "honey let's make sure we do not have any children, no more than zero."

But women[a] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
A. 1 Timothy 2:15 Greek she
B. 1 Timothy 2:15 Or restored
1 Timothy 2:15 NIV

Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
1 Timothy 2:15 KJV

Can married people do what God has chosen them for if they do not try to produce the godly offspring God was seeking?

Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. [e] So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.
[e]Malachi 2:15 Or 15 But the one {who is our father} did not do this, not as long as life remained in him. And what was he seeking? An offspring from God
Malachi 2:15 NIV

Will married people miss out on a blessing, reward and heritage if they intentionally have less sons?
3 Sons are a heritage from the LORD,
children a reward from him.

4 Like arrows in the hands of a warrior
are sons born in one's youth.

5 Blessed is the man
whose quiver is full of them.
They will not be put to shame
when they contend with their enemies in the gate.
Psalm 127:3-5 NIV

Did these verses apply to Adam only even though they were written after Adam died? Who do these verses apply to?
 
It is without a doubt that if the command is understood to be a general command to all men that all men of God should be married.

However there are further implications...that have to be addressed.

1) The presumed celibacy of both Jesus and Paul.
2) Any man of God who was similarly single and celibate.
3) Eunuchs for the kingdom of Heaven's sake.

Similarly, women are given a command by Paul to marry and have children. How does this obligate the men of the church? Certainly we understand with the practice of polygyny, some men may never marry. The "gift of singleness" (sarcastically quoting MOPs) transfers primarily to men.
 
How about a surrogate mother?

Genesis 30:1-5 When Rachel saw that she bore Jacob no children, she envied her sister. She said to Jacob, "Give me children, or I shall die!" Jacob's anger was kindled against Rachel, and he said, "Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?" Then she said, "Here is my servant Bilhah; go in to her, so that she may give birth on my behalf, that even I may have children through her." So she gave him her servant Bilhah as a wife, and Jacob went in to her. And Bilhah conceived and bore Jacob a son.

A woman can act as a wet-nurse if she is lactating. It was once believed that a wet-nurse must have recently undergone childbirth. This is not necessarily true, as regular breast suckling can elicit lactation via a neural reflex of prolactin production and secretion. Some adoptive mothers have been able to establish lactation using a breast pump so that they could feed an adopted infant.

Dr Gabrielle Palmer states:
"There is no medical reason why women should not lactate indefinitely or feed more than one child simultaneously (known as 'tandem feeding')... some women could theoretically be able to feed up to five babies."

Not only can a woman allow another woman to give birth to a child for her, she can actually breast feed the infant herself and thereby bond maternally with the infant. Debi Pearl cites this phenomenon in her book "Created to be His Help Meet" as well. It seems however that our culture is vastly unaware of this.
 
I don't think that would solve the problem. And besides, I am 46. My childbearing days are all but over. I just hate that everyone says this command in a way that makes childless women (at least this one) the feeling that they are less in God's eyes somehow. I would have given anything to have children of my own and now I feel like some awful sinner because I didn't.
 
"I don't think that would solve the problem."

Should you be blessed some day to nurse and bond with your surrogate child/children I think that your opinion would quickly change. Your age is not a deterrent to this type of thing, in fact your maturity would be an asset to any children you would rear.

Who has more influence over a child? Certainly if a woman submits to her husband her children will learn to respect their father and submit to him in like fashion, therefore they will also submit to their mother when they struggle with their faith and the temptation to follow the world.

James 5:19-20 My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

This is why a woman can be saved by childbearing.
 
Since the problem is not me, a surrgate is not going to fix the problem. And other options are exhorbitant and have little chance of success. It would cost $13,000 (approx) to try in vitro one time. That is with NO guarantee. That is NO solution. Three years ago (age 42) I checked into it and they said then that I had a 10% chance of conceiving because of my age, and that chance goes down every month. And the odds of me having a handicapped child are astronomical at my age. So if I had a disabled child, who would care for it when I die.

I just wish that people who say stuff like "we are all supposed to follow this rule" would think about the people who are not able to fulfill it through no fault of their own. It is painful and I for one feel like I have failed enough in this life without others telling me that I have failed this too. And I don't know many women who can't have children who don't feel like a failure, so these proclomations are not kind.

I was going to have a dozen children. I didn't get one. It hurts so deeply to hear people imply that childless women are not following God's commandments.
And in a polygamous family, it is highly unlikely that I would be able to adopt. So I get to be "auntie" to everyone else's children.
 
Lissa,

It seems pretty simple to me. There is no command or law that you you should or have to have children. For those who claim that because you simply are a woman and thus you need or must have children they fail to see the totality of Scripture. Four quick facts are:

1. Men who are celibate by God's calling are still men with all of the physical organs of a man. That still does not mean they are in sin if they do not have children. But if the command to have children applied to all people at all times in all places then God could not call some men (and some women) to celibacy. God could not call all men to reproduce if he also calls some to celibacy.

2. A woman who in concert with her head does not have children, even though she has female organs, is not in sin because her head, just like the believing celibate man under Christ his head, has guided her in the direction and action. The idea that all women are to have children does not take into account that a woman is under the headship of her husband.

3. The command to Adam and Noah were specific commands to two specific individuals, not to the whole human race and every man and woman in it. Thus those that do apply it to all are indeed over extending the purpose and context of the particulars by making them extend to all in general without exception.

4. Male and female genders were created this way to be more than just for reproduction. Some who latch on to the "must have children view or it is sin" have adopted ideas about sexuality that just do not fall in line with the comprehensive view of God's purpose for gender. Children can be one purpose but not the ultimate or whole purpose, just one of several reasons why God made each gender for each other.

In any case, no woman need to fill that she has failed God just because she has no children of her own. And those who teach in such ways to make women feel that way have missed the boat on this subject. Ultimately the conception of a child is just like our salvation, within the hands of the Lord!

Dr. Allen
 
lissa,
simply put, the command is to the men so there should be no pressure on you.
the command would also be about natural sex, if you had to go to artificial means than it becomes an option between the family and the Lord, as i understand it.

of course, if the Lord appears to you and you husband and tells you that He wants you to use invitro and that He will supply the money, it would not be a good time to start quoting "steve" ;)
 
1. Men who are celibate by God's calling are still men with all of the physical organs of a man. That still does not mean they are in sin if they do not have children. But if the command to have children applied to all people at all times in all places then God could not call some men (and some women) to celibacy. God could not call all men to reproduce if he also calls some to celibacy.
Click to expand...
do you honestly believe that God can give a general rule, law, directive, whatever you want to call it and then He is allowed no exceptions? He cannot make exceptions to His own rules?
2. A woman who in concert with her head does not have children, even though she has female organs, is not in sin because her head, just like the believing celibate man under Christ his head, has guided her in the direction and action. The idea that all women are to have children does not take into account that a woman is under the headship of her husband.
Click to expand...
i agree, and the husband will have to answer to the Judge of the universe
3. The command to Adam and Noah were specific commands to two specific individuals, not to the whole human race and every man and woman in it. Thus those that do apply it to all are indeed over extending the purpose and context of the particulars by making them extend to all in general without exception.
Click to expand...
this is an assumption that cannot possibly be proven and furthermore was impossible for those two to fulfill
4. Male and female genders were created this way to be more than just for reproduction. Some who latch on to the "must have children view or it is sin" have adopted ideas about sexuality that just do not fall in line with the comprehensive view of God's purpose for gender. Children can be one purpose but not the ultimate or whole purpose, just one of several reasons why God made each gender for each other.
Click to expand...
and what unatural means will you use to circumvent God's design of your bodies? i am not refering to slowing down the production process, having fewer and spacing them out. how will you control the natural processes of your bodies? a thread that discusses this subject does exist on this board. it is quite thorough and intense (not to mention, hotly debated). i see no need to reproduce it here
In any case, no woman need to fill that she has failed God just because she has no children of her own. And those who teach in such ways to make women feel that way have missed the boat on this subject.
Click to expand...
i do not, so you must not be refering to me :D
Ultimately the conception of a child is just like our salvation, within the hands of the Lord!
Click to expand...
so i am confused here, if i tell the Lord that i choose to not have children it is somehow in His hands.
if a person has made the specific choice to not give up a certain lifestyle and accept Yeshua as his savior, that is in His hands?
 
Of course God gives all kinds of general laws that also have exceptions to them. It is simple: Hierarchy. Some laws take precedence over other laws in Scripture. Jesus taught us this when he said that there are weighter matters of the law, some sins are greater than other sins, and when he spoke of the two laws concerning love. People are to love God with all of their heart, mind, soul and strength, forst and then love their neighbors as themselves. Love for God is a higher law than love for neighbor. And of course, as most people recognize herein, the laws to oeby government have exceptions to them like whenb a government tells you to do something forbidden by Scripture, or forbids you to do something commanded by scripture. So yes, the Bible is full of commands and exceptions all throughout the Bible.

Ahhh, I think I see, you're coming from what many term as a "quiver full" mentality or position..... i.e. if people use wisdom under God's doctrine of stewardship to plan for their families (including the use of medical technology) that it is not holy, am I reading that right?

As for the last comment, well it all depends upon what theology you adopt regarding God's sovereignty. The positions are: (1) God is sovereign over every single detail of the universe through his active and passive decrees which includes miracles and natural laws that yield to his sovereignty whenever he so pleases, (2) God is partially sovereign over the entire universe and he interacts sovereignly through miracles which cannot be prevented or altered by anything in the universe, (3) God is limited in his sovereignty by man and can be thwarted by man and other elements and thus fail at some plans unless there is some miraculous intervention by God, (4) God is limited both in general rule and in his miraculous intervention by man or other elements in the universe, (5) God governs the universe through natural laws and processes and does not get involved, (6) God is learning and growing just like we are.

Depending upon one's position there it will determine one's answer on children as well as salvation.

I clearly embrace the absolute omnipotence, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent view that produces the view that God absolutely does govern then both children and salvation. Thus position one is where I stand yet even those in position two can still come to the same conclusions regarding children and salvation. Scripture speaks of this type of sovereignty in many verses but here are just a few: Gen. 50:20; Exodus 14:16-17; Joshua 11:20; Judges 9:22-24; 1 Sam. 2:25; Lamentatyions 3:37; Dan.4:34-35; Psalm 33:13-15; 139:16; Job 14:5; Jer. 10:23; Prov. 16:1,9; Matt. 11:27; 22:14; John 6:44; Acts 2:23; 13:48; Rom. 9:11-22; 11:7-10; Gal. 1:15; 2 Thess. 2:11-12; 1 Peter 2:7-8.
 
Ahhh, I think I see, you're coming from what many term as a "quiver full" mentality or position..... i.e. if people use wisdom under God's doctrine of stewardship to plan for their families (including the use of medical technology) that it is not holy, am I reading that right?
Click to expand...
no, i asked a specific question. let me rephrase it: how will/would you subvert the way that your Creator made your bodies in order to impose your will in having no children?

(1) God is sovereign over every single detail of the universe through his active and passive decrees which includes miracles and natural laws that yield to his sovereignty whenever he so pleases
Click to expand...
i agree 100% but the devil is in the details. whenever he so pleases is the key to understanding our relationship with Him.
 
steve said:
1. Men who are celibate by God's calling are still men with all of the physical organs of a man. That still does not mean they are in sin if they do not have children. But if the command to have children applied to all people at all times in all places then God could not call some men (and some women) to celibacy. God could not call all men to reproduce if he also calls some to celibacy.
Click to expand...
do you honestly believe that God can give a general rule, law, directive, whatever you want to call it and then He is allowed no exceptions? He cannot make exceptions to His own rules?
Click to expand...
Of course God gives all kinds of general laws that also have exceptions to them. It is simple: Hierarchy. Some laws take precedence over other laws in Scripture. Jesus taught us this when he said that there are weighter matters of the law, some sins are greater than other sins, and when he spoke of the two laws concerning love. People are to love God with all of their heart, mind, soul and strength, forst and then love their neighbors as themselves. Love for God is a higher law than love for neighbor. And of course, as most people recognize herein, the laws to oeby government have exceptions to them like whenb a government tells you to do something forbidden by Scripture, or forbids you to do something commanded by scripture. So yes, the Bible is full of commands and exceptions all throughout the Bible.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
so which statement do you stand by?
 
Natural processes fall underneath and lower in rank under the doctrine of personal stewardship, which is sometimes through natural options or through means of technological advancements that God has given to us through his work of providence.

In other words, if God gives to us more than natural means to govern our bodies then that is a part of the doctrine of stewardship. In short it simply is a theology that says God rules first and foremost through the mind not through the biological means. Mind takes precedence over body even though the two are joined together for this age. Or stated in another way, the Mind should control/govern the Brain. The biology of a person is subject to the will of a person, not the other way around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top