Well-- off the top of my head, I don't think so, not directly. But it is certainly a command to be obeyed wholeheartedly. I'd be interested to know if you think it is, and why.

Perhaps in a spiritual application...I think of Paul calling Timothy his son, for example...but Genesis 9:7 is also God's declared purpose for mankind: procreate wildly!

I should note that this is something about which I've speculated and I don't as yet profess any certainty about the matter.

In its immediate context, the command in Genesis 9:7 is to Noah, not necessarily "all of humanity". I don't think this fact is trivial, either. After all, the covenant line was to come through him and for that to happen, he had to have children. Furthermore, if we were to interpret the commandment to "be fruitful and multiply" as a rule applicable to all of humanity, why would God go against this by wiping out 95% of the world's population in an act of judgment? It wouldn't make sense for him to issue a command only to actively thwart its fulfillment in the future. Clearly, there's more to this than meets the eye.

Also, in the New Testament, Christ fulfills the law and the church replaces the nation of Israel as God's covenant community. Material blessings are superseded by spiritual blessings and commandments take on a more nuanced character, and I don't believe that the command to procreate is an exception. That is, it is no longer binding on Christians to marry and have children as it was for the ancient Jews, but the "rule of life" for the church is to bear spiritual children by fertilizing the world with the gospel and nurture those in whom it takes root.

All of what you say is true. The danger would be for Christians to take the non-procreation thing to an extreme (and some always do). But it also removes "failure" from those who have never married or who have and not had children, especially in light of what Paul says to those who face persecution in the early church. You'd have to make it a strong both/and as opposed to the either/or that so many of us are wont to assume. Interesting ideas.

@anathaniel - 

That's a huge slippery slope...and most of Christianity has adopted your view...heck, if the command was to Noah to be fruitful and multiply...well, then it's not for *anybody else*.

Fortunately, be fruitful and multiply is a Creation mandate:

Gen 1:28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Athaniel: "Furthermore, if we were to interpret the commandment to "be fruitful and multiply" as a rule applicable to all of humanity, why would God go against this by wiping out 95% of the world's population in an act of judgment? It wouldn't make sense for him to issue a command only to actively thwart its fulfillment in the future. Clearly, there's more to this than meets the eye."

Craig: God wiped out humanity b/c of their depravity. Essentially what you're arguing is "pre-emptive judgement"...which is ridiculous. Clearly, what you're doing is eisiogesis.

Athaniel: "Also, in the New Testament, Christ fulfills the law and the church replaces the nation of Israel as God's covenant community. Material blessings are superseded by spiritual blessings and commandments take on a more nuanced character, and I don't believe that the command to procreate is an exception. "

Craig: I can't help but see this as neo-gnosticism. If the Church is Israel (which she is), and we believe in paedobaptism (which we do), then how do you manage this interpretation you're suggesting without a feat of acrobatics? What you're proposing isn't dissimilar to a dispensationalist or an OT/NT dichotomy/abrogation.

The only thing you're right about is that we may not marry...but you went too far and suggested that it is not necessarily ideal for marriage to produce offspring.

You have a more difficult task at hand...how has Christ abrogated the Creation mandate?

Mr. Nequam, I'm not sure I see the continuum from my thoughts to yours; however, they are tentative thoughts and not quite worthy of the labels you attach to them. It should be safe to air one's thoughts without encountering a firestorm, at least not right away. Lighten up.

Mr. Ellachie,

I assure you I didn't write that comment as a "firestorm". I do believe, however, that words like neo-gnostic, and dispensational are quite appropriate. I briefly showed why. I didn't just throw out those as ad homs...the progression of my thought seemed rather clear. Also, eisiogesis was clearly employed by Athaniel. If someone is willing to put out strange things, they must be ready to hear what someone else has to say.

If one thinks, as Athaniel suggests, that the context of God wiping out most of humanity has a direct application to population control...he needs to demonstrate this from the text. What he has to argue, essentially, is that God judged the man for having too many offspring...which turns the text on its head. He may say "Well, if God wants us to procreate, why would He kill off so many people?" but all he has to do is read that God saw that mankind did evil...non stop. That is why God killed them.

So I've already demonstrated blatant eisiogesis. How 'bout neo-gnosticism:

If someone believes "Material blessings are superseded by spiritual blessings and commandments take on a more nuanced character, and I don't believe that the command to procreate is an exception" then it is quite clearly a rejection of the goodness of material blessings (like family), things God has called good in the past, and commanded "be fruitful", isn't really as good as we once thought...in fact, it's not as good as saving souls...

Dispensational:

The same quote which demonstrates neo-gnosticism also demonstrates a dispensational mindset. It is clearly not Reformed. There is the aspect that the Law is fulfilled...but he is actually promoting an abrogation of God's Law. "God worked this way in the OT, now He works such and such way in the NT".

Further, his initial assumption was wrong: that the mandate of being fruitful and multiplying was a command to Noah and nobody else...it was commanded at Creation. This creates a big problem for him in that he must now demonstrate how Christ abrogated this command. He will also have trouble affirming man's headship as that is also established at Creation (maybe Christ abrogated that). He will also need to explain why it is that saints throughout the OT were considered blessed when they had numerous children...how the faith was deposited from generation to generation and sealed by circumcision...how today it is done through baptism...he will have to essentially reject Covenant theology.

I'm not being extreme in the least, Mr. Ellachie. I just scratched the surface.

It appears that I need to further clarify myself in this matter.

First of all, I must reiterate that what I'm saying is hypothetical. In other words, it's a possible interpretation that I'm attempting to verify through both Scripture and discussions such as these. I suppose it's analogous to a scientific experiment; if the facts (i.e. the Bible) support my theory, then I can safely conclude that it is correct. If not, then I must reject it. It's that simple.

Having said this, I am willing to accept anyone's thoughts on this matter, provided that they are well-informed and that they are contributed in a spirit of charitable, rational discussion. This includes criticism.

Now on to the subject at hand...

You have a more difficult task at hand...how has Christ abrogated the Creation mandate?

I don't believe that Christ "abrogated" any part of the law (in the sense of annihilating it); he "fulfilled" it. This is to say that the functions of those laws are still applicable for today even though their forms have changed. That is why I said that the law takes on more of a "nuanced" character in the New Testament.

Consider this: the Israelites were commanded, in the Old Testament, to wage war against unbelieving nations, even going so far as to kill women and male children (Numbers 31) in order to expand their territory and establish the kingdom of God on Earth. Now, fast forward to the New Testament. The church has replaced Israel as the covenant community. All of the stipulations and promises of the Old Covenant have been passed on to us. However, do they retain precisely the same character? Not exactly. Is the church commanded to form its own army and set out to vanquish the unbelieving foe and establish its presence on Earth? Answer: not in the same way the Israelites were. Instead, we equip our church members with the gospel and send them out to engage in spiritual warfare with the enemy in order to win souls to the kingdom.

I can't help but see this as neo-gnosticism.

I'm not entirely certain of what "neo-gnosticism" is but I can assure you that simple observation confirms that the material blessings promised to the Israelites in the Old Testament do not necessarily apply to us today. For example, God promised in the Old Testament that if the Israelites remained faithful, he would bless them with an abundant agricultural harvest. Does that necessarily apply to us today? Does the church have a monopoly on bumper crops? Not exactly (hey, I could be wrong).

However, God does promise us that if the church remains faithful to the pure preaching of the gospel, we will reap a spiritual harvest of souls and add more people to our ranks - and THAT is clearly observable. So-called "conservative" churches have increased in numbers whereas liberal churches have been on the decline for years.

This is not to say, as you've suggested, that I believe that what God called good in the past is no longer good. This is to say that our understanding of it shouldn't be so banal as to restrict it, for example, to physical procreation. Just because something is nuanced doesn't make it any less true.

in fact, it's not as good as saving souls...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that our chief concern?

Further, his initial assumption was wrong: that the mandate of being fruitful and multiplying was a command to Noah and nobody else...

What I said what that in the immediate context this passage applied to Noah. I didn't say it applied only to him. My point was that God's commandment to procreate (in the Old Testament) applied strictly to the covenant community, not necessarily humanity at large. I've attempted to prove this by using the example of God wiping out most of humanity in the flood. Logically speaking, if the command to procreate applied to all of humanity, God wouldn't have done this as he would be thwarting his own agenda. Furthermore, the command placed upon the Israelites to kill every single Canaanite in order to establish the kingdom of Israel also proves that God is not interested in the physical multiplication of the unbelieving community. In fact, the precise opposite appears to be true.

Now, does this command to "be fruitful and multiply" apply to the covenant community for today? My contention is that it doesn't, at least not in the same way as it did for the ancient Israelites. Of course, I'm not suggesting that there's anything wrong with getting married and having children; however, I believe that binding that on the believer is legalistic, especially since not everyone is meant for and cut out for marriage - and I've seen where this mindset leads: a stratification of peoples within the church. Those who are married are considered "a cut above" those who aren't because they've won the contest of sexual selection. The epistle of James clearly labels this (in both thought and deed) as pugnacious.

Although I disagree with you, I still think you owned Mr. French in the debate. Congrats.

Hi Tom,

I appreciate the vote of confidence, but you know that I'm naturally going to defer to a more skilled theologian such as yourself, whether I get owned or not. Since you disagree, feel free to tell me where I went wrong.