Just a few brief comments on the Bible verses being used in this discussion. Forgive me if this has been covered previously, I haven’t had time to read all the posts in great detail.
[list][*]Gen 1: Procreation here is in the context of subduing the earth, i.e. fulfilling the significance of being in God’s image. As such, in a fallen world, procreation alone is an inadequate way to fulfil the command.

(I am also of the opinion that the earth is full!)

If this alone is applied to married couples to argue that it is their responsibility to bear children, it is difficult to see how it should also not apply to single people as a call to be married and so fulfil the command by bearing children as well!

[*]Gen 2: It is clear from the language used in Gen 2 that a family is created in the covenantal relationship established between a man and a woman when they become husband and wife. The first man and woman are spoken about in Gen 2 in familial terms prior to the birth of any children.

[*]Mal 2: These verses are notoriously difficult and (I would argue) mistranslated in the majority of English versions (I agree that it is likely that verse 15 as it stands in the MT is corrupt, but I wouldn’t go as far as Stuart in saying that no sense can be made of it). Certainly the rendering in verse 15 “And what was the one God seeking?” is not warranted (the word “God” is not present in the Hebrew). At least the translation quoted by Dani correctly rendered verse 16 (instead of the usual but unlikely “God hates divorce” translation)!

[*]NT: When Paul discusses marriage, I don’t recall him ever doing so with a view towards having children. Rather, it is for the benefit of the man and woman, and ultimately for the gospel (e.g. 1Cor 7:8-9).[/list:u]

My mind is still churning all of this over (and i have had to reduce it to a lower setting to cope with lack of sleep and low levels of energy!!!) but just one quick question for the moment and I will reply in greater length later today or tomorrow-

Sorry Dani, I should have been clearer. By “Old Covenant Imperative” I am referring specifically to the imperative to marry & procreate - to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.

By “New Covenant Imperative” I am referring to the focus on the resurrected reality as a priority that overcomes at least the marriage imperative, and (in my view) the procreation imperative also.

Matt, I understand where you are coming from a little clearer now. But can I ask why the Old Covenant Imperative was for all people to marry and then be fruitful and multiply, not allowing for some to choose singleness over marriage?

I’m not sure where exactly we get that from.

Hi Dani,

Dani Treweek wrote:

Matt, I understand where you are coming from a little clearer now. But can I ask why the Old Covenant Imperative was for all people to marry and then be fruitful and multiply, not allowing for some to choose singleness over marriage?

I’m not sure where exactly we get that from.

I get it from Genesis 1, where the command to be fruitful and multiply is given to male & female - i.e. this is the law that no-one should abstain from keeping (and can only be kept, we later discover, within marriage).

And from Genesis 2, where God says “it is not good for man to be alone”, where singleness is clearly contrary to what is ‘good’ for mankind as God intends it.

And from the rest of biblical Judaism, which uniformly favours marriage.

So much so that many scholars find Paul in 1 Cor 7 completely rejecting his Jewish heritage and creating his own contradictory way. I agree with Rosner that they go too far, but certainly Paul has seen the New Covenant priority subject the marriage imperative to a new freedom in Christ.

And then, as Enkidu said with his inimitable precision:

If this (the universal procreation imperative) alone is applied to married couples to argue that it is their responsibility to bear children, it is difficult to see how it should also not apply to single people as a call to be married and so fulfil the command by bearing children as well!

That’s what I was trying to say in about a thousand words above! The creation imperative is absolute. If it survives the New Covenant, our tightly-controlled 1-3 children is a pharisaic obedience. If the New Covenant brings freedom from the procreative & marriage imperatives because of the focus on the life to come, then the freedom applies to all, married & single, twenty children or none. IMHO (where the ‘H’ stands for ‘hobby-horsical’)!!

Cheers
Matt