"Be fruitful and multiply" -- Command, Blessing or Something Else?

[MysticMissMisty]

Salvete, omnes!

Is God’s statement to Adam and Eve (and to others) in Genesis a command for everyone (or, at least, those without a vocation to celibacy) to bear children and bear as many as possible? Or, rather, is it merely a blessing in the sense that God is giving the “go-ahead” for man to be fruitful and multiply, in a kind of encouraging manner: “Go ahead and be fruitful, multiply and fill the Earth! It is yours for the enjoyment!” – something along those lines? Or, are these statements something else entirely?

I believe I read a Catholic commentary that state these “be fruitful and multiply” statements were more a matter of blessing rather than of command, since, for instance, Paul himself said that he wished that all men were as he was, i.e., unmarried and, implicitly, celibate.

Has the Church any official (and even infallible) declaration on these “be fruitful and multiply” statements? If not, what do you guys think? Is there any other support (besides that which I have provided above) which you might give to the “blessing” position? To the “command” position? Why do you support either position? Or, if you support some other interpretation, why do you support that?

Furthermore, even if God, say, in Paul’s time, did not intend the statement as a command, was there ever a time when He may have intended it as a command rather than as something else such as a blessing?

I say this as a 31-year-old women who has no desire–and has no desire to have desire–for sexual contact (what some might consider “asexual” in “orientation”). Understand that I am not celibate, therefore, because it is any “sacrifice” of mine; my desire simply does not exist. Without getting into here whether so-called “asexuality” is disordered or legitimate, can a woman or man who wishes to live a single life mrely because he/she has no desire for sex and/or children be living out God’s will, especially if the "be fruitful"s statements are not commands? Is not wanting sex/children too “selfish” a reason not to bear children, as there is really no directly religious component to this lack of desire? Or, rather, if you consider “asexuality” legitimate, could this not be some way of God rather “choosing your calling to singleness for you” for whatever reasons He might have?

(I know these latter questions veer slightly from the main questions of this post above, so, even if you chose to answer these questions, please try to bring it back to the “be fruitful” statements in some way so that we don’t get too much off-track in this thread!)

Gratias maximas!

 

[Corki]

“Understand that I am not celibate,…”



Celibate has a religious meaning of “not married” and a common usage meaning of not sexually active.

Do you mean that you are married or that you are sexually active but do not desire sex?

If you are married, you cannot willfully exclude children permanently. But chilren are not a burden but a gift. It is therefore BOTH a blessing AND a command.

If you are not married, you can choose to remain unmarried (celibate) and therefore childless.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

It is certainly not a universal command, for, as you note, Paul praises the celibate life. The Church has never taught that all, or all without a religious vocation, should marry. Having said that, marriage and having children is certainly is certainly highly valued by God. The contraceptive/abortive anti-child mentality so common in the West today is very profoundly evil.

 

[truthquester]

That’s a really interesting question. IMHO, it is a blessing. Even if it was a command, it doesn’t apply today. Christians were released from all of the old covenants and Jesus said the only new commandment was to love one another.

We have filled the earth, there are 7 billion + on the earth as of today, when that was given I wonder how many people were on the earth? I am guessing not very many.

 

[Tomdstone]

IMHO, it is a commandment applying in a general sense: Be fruitful and multiply. Perhaps it is a general commandment, which if being fulfilled, does not require that each person obey individually. At the present time, it looks like the world’s population is growing by leaps and bounds, so a particular individual would not be required to observe the command. However, if it appeared that the world’s population were decreasing and humanity was in danger of dying out, IMHO, the commandment would require everyone who is able, including religious, to observe its command.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

“Understand that I am not celibate,…”



Celibate has a religious meaning of “not married” and a common usage meaning of not sexually active.

Do you mean that you are married or that you are sexually active but do not desire sex?

I am and always have been celibate, in the non-religious sense of the term because I have no desire for sex.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

It is certainly not a universal command, for, as you note, Paul praises the celibate life. The Church has never taught that all, or all without a religious vocation, should marry. Having said that, marriage and having children is certainly is certainly highly valued by God. The contraceptive/abortive anti-child mentality so common in the West today is very profoundly evil.

Would you, then, consider my particular stance to be an “anti-child” one akin to that within the secular culture? Is not marrying/having sex/children simply because I lack desire to be considered an “anti-child” mentality that is to be condemned? So, then, even if I’ve no desire, I should just “buck up”, marry and have kids?

 

[MysticMissMisty]

That’s a really interesting question. IMHO, it is a blessing. Even if it was a command, it doesn’t apply today. Christians were released from all of the old covenants and Jesus said the only new commandment was to love one another.

We have filled the earth, there are 7 billion + on the earth as of today, when that was given I wonder how many people were on the earth? I am guessing not very many.

If we take this position, then, and if, for the sake of argument, we believe the Genesis statements to be commands, when, precisely, would you say that God thought the Earth was full enough?

 

[ChibiViolet]

“Chaste” is the word you should use for what you describe rather than “celibate.” It implies that you are not engaging in sexual actions–at least not those outside your vocation (which of course implies no sex for those not married.) I would not say being asexual is at all disordered, but a great blessing because it helps people that are asexual to be chaste.

Not everyone is called to get married and the single life is certainly a legitimate vocation and not all married couples are capable of bearing children; God would not ask the impossible.

 

[ChibiViolet]

Would you, then, consider my particular stance to be an “anti-child” one akin to that within the secular culture? Is not marrying/having sex/children simply because I lack desire to be considered an “anti-child” mentality that is to be condemned? So, then, even if I’ve no desire, I should just “buck up”, marry and have kids?

That’s not what they were saying at all and please don’t put yourself through that. You’ll hurt yourself if you do.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Would you, then, consider my particular stance to be an “anti-child” one akin to that within the secular culture? Is not marrying/having sex/children simply because I lack desire to be considered an “anti-child” mentality that is to be condemned? So, then, even if I’ve no desire, I should just “buck up”, marry and have kids?

I don’t see anything in the Gospel message requiring any such step. We are commanded to follow Christ above all, not to any particular vocation, even marriage and children.

 

[cjforJesus]

Salvete, omnes!

Is God’s statement to Adam and Eve (and to others) in Genesis a command for everyone (or, at least, those without a vocation to celibacy) to bear children and bear as many as possible? Or, rather, is it merely a blessing in the sense that God is giving the “go-ahead” for man to be fruitful and multiply, in a kind of encouraging manner: “Go ahead and be fruitful, multiply and fill the Earth! It is yours for the enjoyment!” – something along those lines? Or, are these statements something else entirely?

I believe I read a Catholic commentary that state these “be fruitful and multiply” statements were more a matter of blessing rather than of command, since, for instance, Paul himself said that he wished that all men were as he was, i.e., unmarried and, implicitly, celibate.

Has the Church any official (and even infallible) declaration on these “be fruitful and multiply” statements? If not, what do you guys think? Is there any other support (besides that which I have provided above) which you might give to the “blessing” position? To the “command” position? Why do you support either position? Or, if you support some other interpretation, why do you support that?

Furthermore, even if God, say, in Paul’s time, did not intend the statement as a command, was there ever a time when He may have intended it as a command rather than as something else such as a blessing?

I say this as a 31-year-old women who has no desire–and has no desire to have desire–for sexual contact (what some might consider “asexual” in “orientation”). Understand that I am not celibate, therefore, because it is any “sacrifice” of mine; my desire simply does not exist. Without getting into here whether so-called “asexuality” is disordered or legitimate, can a woman or man who wishes to live a single life mrely because he/she has no desire for sex and/or children be living out God’s will, especially if the "be fruitful"s statements are not commands? Is not wanting sex/children too “selfish” a reason not to bear children, as there is really no directly religious component to this lack of desire? Or, rather, if you consider “asexuality” legitimate, could this not be some way of God rather “choosing your calling to singleness for you” for whatever reasons He might have?

(I know these latter questions veer slightly from the main questions of this post above, so, even if you chose to answer these questions, please try to bring it back to the “be fruitful” statements in some way so that we don’t get too much off-track in this thread!)

Gratias maximas!

As far as how the Catholic Church interprets “be fruitful and multiply” I do not know for certain, but it sounds more like a blessing.

Not everyone is called to the vocation of marriage though.

 

[truthquester]

If we take this position, then, and if, for the sake of argument, we believe the Genesis statements to be commands, when, precisely, would you say that God thought the Earth was full enough?

I didn’t say that God thought the earth was full enough, that’s why I used the IMHO meaning in my humble opinion. How would I know if God thinks that the earth is full enough, I use my best judgement and discretion based on the information that is out there in the world like population stats, facts like some Asian countries are only allowed to have one child ect. ect. so if some people out there don’t feel like getting married and having children it’s really no big deal at all.
I also pointed out that if it were a command, we are no longer under the old covenant laws so why does it even matter? Have children, don’t have children; it really makes no difference one way or another.

 

[grannymh]

Personally, I look at the context of Genesis 1: 25-28, especially at the dramatic shift form Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1:26.

We have gone from the creation of an abundance of living creatures, including great sea monsters, winged birds, cattle, and my favorite, all kinds of creeping things of the earth. There is a bolt of lightning and God says: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” The human creature is now a spiritual being because “in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds;” (CCC 355-356)

Personally, I see Genesis 1: 28 as a view of the future. God gives us a guarantee that in the future, all humans will be in the image of God, no exceptions. He says that the first two humans, male and female, lovingly known as Adam and Eve, will be that guarantee because all humankind will descend from them as the two sole real first human parents of humankind.

Each of us has a special role in the Mystical Body of Christ. (Information source. 1 Corinthians 12: 12-31. Continue with 1 Corinthians, chapter 13) God’s blessing in Genesis 1: 28 is initially for our first two parents. The blessing continues for us in an expanded manner. As St. Paul wrote: "the eye cannot say to the hand , ‘I do not need you.’ " Those who are “fruitful” with children need all of the Mystical Body.

Each of us continues to receive God’s blessings especially at the Catholic Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. We receive the blessings of God’s graces through the Catholic Sacraments. As St. Paul wrote: "Or if an ear should say, ‘Because I am not an eye I do not belong to the body,’ it does not for this reason belong any less to the body.’ "

Each part of the Mystical Body of Christ needs to be themselves, knowing that God loves us and knowing that we can bring Christ to others as we imitate our Christ, the Head of the Mystical Body.

 

[MarcoPolo]

As I understand it, scripture teaches children are a blessing, normatively speaking.

Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are children born in one’s youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them.*(Psalm 127:4-5)

In a sense, during times of persecution where children suffer before their mothers and fathers, the barren are also said to be blessed:

For the time will come when you will say, ‘Blessed are the childless women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!’ (Luke 23:29)But these latter are only considered blessed in the sense of being spared the suffering of their peers with children, not that being barren itself is automatically a blessing.