7

In Genesis 1:28 God says to the male and the female he had created :

פרו ורבו ומלאו

... be fruitful and multiply and replenish ...

Although this is stated as an imperative, can it be seen as an invitation (or even permission) rather than obligation ?

Does this wording preclude any male or female desiring to be celibate ?

Does it refer, specifically, to the two persons to whom it was addressed in order to take the very necessary first step in the continued propagation of the race ?

2
  • 1
    Great question. I forgot to check if was asked previously so apologies to the moderators if it is a duplicate. Commented Oct 13 at 16:23
  • I have changed 'permission' to 'invitation' (in the header question) because I think it better expresses what I have in mind. But I have left the word 'permission' in the body of the question so as not to disrupt previous answers.
    – Nigel J
    Commented Oct 14 at 3:27

2 Answers 2

5

As the OP points out, the verse is stated as an imperative. It should be understood as both a blessing and a commandment - a mitzvah. The blessing (certainly more than mere permission) is given to the unnamed man and woman in Gen. 1, so is often taken to apply to humankind generally.

However, it is important to keep in mind that this blessing/commandment was given prior to the first sin (also called the Fall). In the OTA Jews generally understand Gen. 1:28 as applying to everyone and thus Jewish men were taught it was their duty to marry. Paul, however, understood humanity as essentially fallen. For him, even the children of Christians are not born under God's blessing but require a savoir. Jesus, the new Adam, did not marry but went to the Cross to save those who believe in him. Thus Paul taught that marriage was a secondary choice for those awaiting the Second Coming.

1 Corinthians

8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Conclusion: Religious Jews see marriage as both a blessing and a duty commanded by God. However, following Paul's teachings, Christians often interpret Gen. 1:28 as being given specifically to Adam and Eve as the parents of humankind. Because of the urgent need for procreation, it was a commandment to them as well as a blessing. But for Christians it is not a commandment. Those who await the return of Christ need to decide for themselves whether to follow Paul's preferred course and remain single, or to marry.

2
  • 1
    Fetterman - referring to 1 Cor and the widows, Paul does say that it is better for them not to marry specifically due to the persecution that they are enduring. This was not spoken to all people in the new cov. Just like God prevented Jeremiah from marrying so that he would not have to have increased hardship in the midst of destruction. The duality of OT examples and NT examples should be made. OT = population of earth, NT = population of the Kingdom. OT seed = seed of man, NT seed = seed of the word, or Messiah's seed. This is why those born of the spirit are eternal and blessed. + 1
    – Biff
    Commented Oct 14 at 1:48
  • Yes. The answers and comments so far demonstrate that God's pronouncement might not be binary opposites and can actually be a blessing.
    – Dieter
    Commented Oct 14 at 15:24
5

Gen 1:28 actually contains five verbs that are imperative commands as follows:

And God blessed them and said to them:

  • be fruitful
  • and multiply
  • and fill the earth
  • and subdue it
  • and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air and over everything living

Now, whatever one says about any one of these imperative commands must be said about them all. I note that none of these can apply to any one person but the human race as a whole. It is also equally significant that these commends are addressed to "them", ie, to Adam and Eve collectively and not to them individually.

Therefore, I do not read these commands as addressed to individuals but the mankind generally.

Further, as we know, some are born as eunuchs (Matt 19:12) who cannot or choose not to personally fulfil one of these commands. I do not believe God will punish people for what they cannot control.

2
  • @ Dottard - The eunuch's are by vow and not by mutilation, correct? My understanding is that they could marry by their own will but choose not to as a commitment to God, as opposed to cannot or physically unable to produce children.
    – Biff
    Commented Oct 14 at 1:52
  • 1
    @Biff asks "The eunuch's are by vow and not by mutilation, correct?" — Why would you think that? Strong's Hebrew Lexicon defines the Hebrew word as "from an unused root meaning to castrate; a eunuch; by implication, valet (especially of the female apartments), and thus, a minister of state:—chamberlain, eunuch, officer". Commented Oct 14 at 3:06

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.