Be Fruitful and Subtract

God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." (Gen 1:28)

Welcome to the First Command. This is the very first instruction God gave to Man. Well, to Adam. Whose name, of course, means "Man". God created male and female in His own image and then you have this prime directive, so to speak.

There are many today who would argue that it is not our directive. It is not an imperative that relates to modern man. This would mean that contraception is a great idea and any couples who aim to never "be fruitful and multiply" for whatever reason they choose are perfectly fine in doing so. "Back off! That was a command to Adam, not to everyone!" Or so. Well, not quite. It was a command to Noah (Gen 9:1) when they exited the ark. And it was a command to Jacob (Gen 35:11) when God changed his name to Israel and sealed His covenant with Israel. But, look, that's just three guys in the history of the world. No longer applicable. Set that aside.

I'm having a real hard time with that. For multiple reasons.

First, there is the content of the first command. It isn't, as it turns out, only to be fruitful and multiply. The command has an "and". Along with filling the earth, Man (Adam) was commanded to subdue the earth. It was, in fact, part of God's design. "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule ...'" (Gen 1:26). It was the plan before it was the command. And it was part of God's first command to humans. Rule the earth. If, however, we are willing to set aside the "be fruitful and multiply" command, we would also need to set aside the "rule the earth" command as well. They were given in tandem and connected to each other.

Second, the repetition of the command when given to Noah was part of a covenant. It was part of God's covenant with Man following the Flood. That covenant included the command not to eat blood, carried over in the New Testament (Acts 15:29). It included the command to execute murderers, carried over into the New Testament (Rom 13:4). In both the Adamic and Noahic versions, then, there are components of the command that are 1) tied to the command and 2) still in effect. Trying to set one part aside seems to be arbitrary.

Third, the Bible doesn't seem to change its view on the topic at any point. Nowhere do we find the suggestion, say, in the New Testament, that this is no longer an issue. What we do find is a repeated command (three times) and things like this:

Behold, children are a gift of the LORD, The fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, So are the children of one's youth. How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them; They will not be ashamed When they speak with their enemies in the gate. (Psa 127:3-5)

Today's generations are suggesting precisely the opposite. Children are a burden -- an unnecessary burden -- and really ought not be thought of as anything really positive. "I mean, sure, if you want them go ahead, but don't try to tell us that there is anything fundamentally good about having children. We're just not buying it. Not when we can be so much better off without them." God seems to disagree.

There is the other consideration from Church history. All of Christendom prior to the 20th century or so agreed that this command remained in effect. They viewed marriage as aimed at offspring and sex as primarily reproductive. They saw no reason to suggest it was no longer in effect. This new view that it is not valid today is just that, a new view. Seems strange, as in so many other cases, that it took Christianity 2000 years to figure out what we know today when Jesus promised His Spirit would lead His disciples into all truth. Well, maybe, but it takes a really long time.

There are all sorts of problems with continuity and rationality if we discard this command. What others are not applicable? Take, for instance, that broad command given to Jesus's disciples: "Go, therefore, and make disciples ..." Now, that was actually given to Jesus's 12 disciples. (Okay, they were down to 11 by then.) Why would we assume it relates to us? Paul indicated that the Gospel had already been taken to the whole world in his day (Rom 1:8). Mission accomplished. Why make it our problem, too? And if you say it is, on what basis? And now we're going to have to pick through every single command and think, "Is that one in? Is that one out? Can I get away with this now?" Gets a bit messy. On the other hand, if we understand it to have been given not to Adam, but to Man, not to Noah, but to Man, not to Jacob, but to God's people, and we understand that God commends it, it would seem that we would do well to continue to pursue it without having to pick and choose what other commands to jettison because it wasn't given to me. There are indeed reasons to say that some of the Old Testament commands are no longer in effect today. The primary reason would be that specific New Testament commands or statements remove an Old Testament command. (An example would be about "clean foods", specifically addressed by both Jesus and God to Peter.) Since there is no biblical indication that this command was just for Adam or Noah or Jacob and there is no later passage that rescinds it, I have a problem.

Some things to clear up. First, commands apply only to people to whom they apply. For instance, a "eunuch" (Matt 19:12) must not have children because they are perpetually unmarried. Nor would the command apply to people who cannot have children. Hannah desperately wanted to have children. The Bible is quite clear that God prevented it (1 Sam 1:5-6). In Gen 29:31 God opened Leah's womb and in Gen 30:22 He opened Rachel's womb. God opens and closes the womb, so the inability to have children doesn't constitute a failure to obey such a command. Second, it says "Be fruitful and multiply" and goes on to indicate that "multiply" means "a minimum of 2.5 children per couple" ... right? No, of course not. There is no command regarding numbers. If it is in effect, it simply says to try. It speaks to willingness, not ability. Beyond this, a married couple can be fruitful and multiply. Perhaps it's by natural birth. Perhaps it's by adoption. But it is possible. And all Christians -- even the single ones -- can be fruitful and multiply by making disciples. Certainly neither Jesus nor Paul had offspring, but I cannot begin to classify them as not being fruitful and multiplying, even if it wasn't physical children. It doesn't have to be limited. But I can't bring myself to suggest that it is no longer applicable. Because then I can wonder, "Well, look, that whole 'Man was made in the image of God' thing was given to Noah and I don't see any reason I shouldn't be allowed to murder now. Can you?" Ridiculous? Of course. But hard to argue against once you start that way. And I won't recommend expelling couples who refuse to have children, but I can't seem to find a reasonable argument to agree with the view that this Prime Directive is no longer applicable. So, I'll stick to it and recommend others to do the same.