the cultural mandate

[sarxweh]

Let's start with the Creator and his choice for a "king" over what he made. Bear with the format while I define terms.

The Creator - Yahweh creates:

The "King" - "Man" (boys + girls = man) who is to have/do the following:

A) ROI? - "BE FRUITFUL"
B) Offspring - "MULTIPLY, FILL THE EARTH"
C) Dominion - "SUBDUE IT, HAVE DOMINION OVER [ANIMALS] FISH OF THE SEA, BIRDS OF THE AIR, EVERY LIVING THING THAT MOVES ON THE EARTH"
D) Eat seed plants - "EVERY PLANT YIELDING SEED, EVERY TREE BEARING SEEDED FRUIT" (he also gives these plants to the animals... except for fish)


With this in mind, here are some questions: (Feel free to attack the macro perspective of this information or discuss the particulars as you see fit. the following questions are my immediate reaction.)


1. Biblically, the command-to-man nature of the mandate means that to be man means to be responsible for the well-being of "God's Creation efforts." How are we doing with this? Is this possible?

2. What do we make of the specifics of the mandate, given present day details of culture: economic, political, religious, scientific, psychological, etc.? How are we intended to fulfill it "in our day"?

3. Was the command to " fill the earth" a total mistake given current estimates of world population statistical probability?

4. How does your "eschatology" affect your answer to this mandate/these questions? (For those who don't care or have no definition for this: eschatology simply implies "your view of the meaning/direction of history" in general.)

5. Okay, this one is completely for fun and please answer honestly: do you personally feel like you have done any of this during your own lifetime, and can you give some examples of the ways you have fulfilled/failed the directive?

Bonus: Why don't fish of the sea get named among the plant eaters in the dietary section of the mandate (gen 1:30)

Feel free to respond to any or all as you see fit

 

[shernren]

I love this OP!

Let me give my take on questions 3 and 5.

Q3 has to do with the meaning of the word "full", and you can see even in ordinary English that the word covers a range of meanings. On one hand, if you tell me that your pasture is "full of cows" and I see one miserable animal in an acre of dry grass, I will tell you that you are "full of it". But on the other hand, when I say you are "full of it" - the "it" here referring to pride presumably - I do not mean that you spend every single waking moment thinking and acting and speaking pridefully. It is enough if you have a general tendency towards pride that defines you to such an extent that I don't think often of other characteristics to you.

In Biblical thought "full" often has a rather related meaning, which comes across in the English relationship between the words "full / fill" and "fulfilled": something is fulfilled - fully filled! - when it achieves its purpose. If you think that an iPad's purpose is to display wonderful pictures, and your iPad has unseemly cracks across its screen, then your iPad's purpose is not fully achieved because of those cracks - it's not fully an iPad, it's only partially an iPad, it needs to be fixed!

So I don't think the Earth needs to have humans on every nook and cranny for the Earth to be full of humans. On one hand, humanity clearly has an ecological footprint, which we are only becoming aware of today because only today has humanity been able to exploit nature to its full extent. For the Earth to be stuffed full of humanity only to all die out fifty years hence from pollution and starvation - that cannot be God's good plan!

On the other hand, however, humanity has a clear cultural mandate that goes beyond mere nomadism. The Bible, after all, begins with a garden but ends with a city. Humanity is called to create something utterly unique in all the cosmos as human upon human upon human pile onto together, relationships exponentially multiplying in number and complexity, until society can bring forth culture and art and religion and science in the image of God. Note that the Bible never romanticizes the "primitive state" or "unsullied nature": punishment upon nation-states in the Old Testament, for example, is often depicted as the removal of civilizing influence upon the lands once occupied by people, so that jackals and vultures roam the uncultivated wastes.

As for Q5, I'm a scientist! My work is to understand the world God created, so that humans can live better lives in it. Yay!

 

[miamited]

Let's start with the Creator and his choice for a "king" over what he made. Bear with the format while I define terms.

The Creator - Yahweh creates:

The "King" - "Man" (boys + girls = man) who is to have/do the following:

A) ROI? - "BE FRUITFUL"
B) Offspring - "MULTIPLY, FILL THE EARTH"
C) Dominion - "SUBDUE IT, HAVE DOMINION OVER [ANIMALS] FISH OF THE SEA, BIRDS OF THE AIR, EVERY LIVING THING THAT MOVES ON THE EARTH"
D) Eat seed plants - "EVERY PLANT YIELDING SEED, EVERY TREE BEARING SEEDED FRUIT" (he also gives these plants to the animals... except for fish)


With this in mind, here are some questions: (Feel free to attack the macro perspective of this information or discuss the particulars as you see fit. the following questions are my immediate reaction.)


1. Biblically, the command-to-man nature of the mandate means that to be man means to be responsible for the well-being of "God's Creation efforts." How are we doing with this? Is this possible?

If we are using only your bullet points. I don't necessarily agree that your words here are confirmed in your bullet points. Exactly where in all of these points do you find that man is to be 'responsible for the well-being' of " God's Creation efforts"?

The Scriptures say 'subdue' and have 'dominion over' the earth. I would say that considering all things, man has subdued and does have dominion over the earth.

2. What do we make of the specifics of the mandate, given present day details of culture: economic, political, religious, scientific, psychological, etc.? How are we intended to fulfill it "in our day"?

I wouldn't think that God is particularly impressed with our 'economic, political, religious, scientific, psychological, etc. ideas. I'm not even certain that He even considers all that important. God just asks us to love Him. If we, individually and singularly, love God with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength - it will go well with each of us individually and singularly who do so. If as a group we join in together in a similar and complete love for God, it will go well with that group. Beyond that, a few here and one or two over there, then those will be blessed of God, the rest will get what God has promised for those who don't love Him.

Quite frankly, the older I get and the more I study and pray for God's wisdom, it seems to always come back to hearing God ask, "Do you love me with all that you are?"

3. Was the command to " fill the earth" a total mistake given current estimates of world population statistical probability?

No. God doesn't make mistakes. God has everything under control. According to the Scriptures, He has set a number of people who will love Him (See above). When that number comes in, no one will have to worry or concern themselves that we have overpopulated the world or destroyed the ozone or about to be obliterated by some comet.

4. How does your "eschatology" affect your answer to this mandate/these questions? (For those who don't care or have no definition for this: eschatology simply implies "your view of the meaning/direction of history" in general.)

5. Okay, this one is completely for fun and please answer honestly: do you personally feel like you have done any of this during your own lifetime, and can you give some examples of the ways you have fulfilled/failed the directive?

I see history, and the future, following in lock step with all the things that the Scriptures have told us.

Bonus: Why don't fish of the sea get named among the plant eaters in the dietary section of the mandate (gen 1:30)

Feel free to respond to any or all as you see fit

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

 

[Chesterton]

Bonus: Why don't fish of the sea get named among the plant eaters in the dietary section of the mandate (gen 1:30)

I know, right?

Arthur: Yes... fish all bathe together. Although they do tend to eat one another. I often think... fish must get awfully tired of seafood. What are you thoughts, Hobson?

Hobson: Pardon me... [rises, removes Arthur's top hat and smacks him upside the head]

 

[sarxweh]

You obviously have a wonderful economy with words, gloria

 

[wisaak]

Bonus: Why don't fish of the sea get named among the plant eaters in the dietary section of the mandate (gen 1:30)

Because Adam lived in the garden of Eden.

 

[sarxweh]

Bonus: Why don't fish of the sea get named among the plant eaters in the dietary section of the mandate (gen 1:30)

Because Adam lived in the garden of Eden.

That doesn't follow for me. Care to explain?

 

[wisaak]

Adam and Eve lived far away from any sea. They would have no idea that plants lived in the sea. They wouldn't even know about all the different sea animals, except for some fish they might see in the river. They weren't even required to name the animals in the sea.

Another suggestion is that they weren't named as plant eaters, because they were meat eaters. Many fish eat other fish. Perhaps it was that way from the beginning.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Speaking of culture, do you know the difference between yoghurt and Los Angeles? Yoghurt has an active culture. :rimshot!:

1. Biblically, the command-to-man nature of the mandate means that to be man means to be responsible for the well-being of "God's Creation efforts." How are we doing with this? Is this possible?

God tells Adam and Eve they are 'in charge' of the Earth. A notation from the NET expounds a bit as follows:

Elsewhere the Hebrew verb translated “subdue” means “to enslave” (2 Chr 28:10; Neh 5:5; Jer 34:11, 16), “to conquer,” (Num 32:22, 29; Josh 18:1; 2 Sam 8:11; 1 Chr 22:18; Zech 9:13; and probably Mic 7:19), and “to assault sexually” (Esth 7:8). None of these nuances adequately meets the demands of this context, for humankind is not viewed as having an adversarial relationship with the world. The general meaning of the verb appears to be “to bring under one’s control for one’s advantage.” In Gen 1:28 one might paraphrase it as follows: “harness its potential and use its resources for your benefit.” In an ancient Israelite context this would suggest cultivating its fields, mining its mineral riches, using its trees for construction, and domesticating its animals.

So 'taking care and use' is the intent more than 'rip, tear and shred'.

How are we doing? Not as well as we might. I see much waste, more in the 'uncultured' areas of the world. As much as the 'west' is blamed for devastation, it is the unlearned areas which have vast tracts of land made unusable for cultivation by neglect and over-use.

Is this possible? Seeing humanity has rebelled against God and a great deal of mankind has no serious regard for God, I think it may not be possible. The great bulk of humanity seems to live by 'me first' philosophy, they don't bother considering if actions deprive others, either now or later.

2. What do we make of the specifics of the mandate, given present day details of culture: economic, political, religious, scientific, psychological, etc.?

I find the rebellion against God affects humanity's prospects more than what you list. However, that does not excuse me from obeying and honoring God in what I do.

I would also make the distinction between 'religion' and Christianity. Frankly, those geo-political entities controlled by the 'religions' of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Socialism are far more depressed, impoverished and benighted than areas observing Christianity. Not to mention 'happy' and 'hopeful'.

Likewise, the portions of the world living under some form of Socialism or Feudalism (much of Central/South America and Africa come to mind) are far more impoverished and hopeless than the sections 'ground down' by greedy capitalism.

Does anyone else note that those opposed to Christianity is also opposed to capitalism?

How are we intended to fulfill it "in our day"?

I'm not sure we can. Due to the Fall of Man, we are limited in our ability to do many things. All the same, as followers of God, we are obliged - blessed, perhaps? - to strive to make things right as God would have it.

3. Was the command to " fill the earth" a total mistake given current estimates of world population statistical probability?

Not a 'mistake' but perhaps mis-understood. I think 'fill the Earth' should be understood to mean 'populate to a comfortable level' rather than 'keep breeding until no one can fall over for the crowding'.

4. How does your "eschatology" affect your answer to this mandate/these questions? (For those who don't care or have no definition for this: eschatology simply implies "your view of the meaning/direction of history" in general.)

My view of history tells me humanity gets most things wrong. My self-awareness tells me I'm no exception. I attempt to live as God directs me, in accord with His will. I trust His view of eschatology.

5. Okay, this one is completely for fun and please answer honestly: do you personally feel like you have done any of this during your own lifetime, and can you give some examples of the ways you have fulfilled/failed the directive?

Not a clue. I raised my kids with respect and love for God through Jesus. I did my best to teach them the principles of 'citizenship', good manners and critical thinking - searching past the obvious.

Bonus: Why don't fish of the sea get named among the plant eaters in the dietary section of the mandate (gen 1:30)

Too hard for trout to graze on prairie grass. And no one wants sharks in one's garden.

 

[juvenissun]

Let's start with the Creator and his choice for a "king" over what he made. Bear with the format while I define terms.

The Creator - Yahweh creates:

The "King" - "Man" (boys + girls = man) who is to have/do the following:

A) ROI? - "BE FRUITFUL"
B) Offspring - "MULTIPLY, FILL THE EARTH"
C) Dominion - "SUBDUE IT, HAVE DOMINION OVER [ANIMALS] FISH OF THE SEA, BIRDS OF THE AIR, EVERY LIVING THING THAT MOVES ON THE EARTH"
D) Eat seed plants - "EVERY PLANT YIELDING SEED, EVERY TREE BEARING SEEDED FRUIT" (he also gives these plants to the animals... except for fish)


With this in mind, here are some questions: (Feel free to attack the macro perspective of this information or discuss the particulars as you see fit. the following questions are my immediate reaction.)


1. Biblically, the command-to-man nature of the mandate means that to be man means to be responsible for the well-being of "God's Creation efforts." How are we doing with this? Is this possible?

2. What do we make of the specifics of the mandate, given present day details of culture: economic, political, religious, scientific, psychological, etc.? How are we intended to fulfill it "in our day"?

3. Was the command to " fill the earth" a total mistake given current estimates of world population statistical probability?

4. How does your "eschatology" affect your answer to this mandate/these questions? (For those who don't care or have no definition for this: eschatology simply implies "your view of the meaning/direction of history" in general.)

5. Okay, this one is completely for fun and please answer honestly: do you personally feel like you have done any of this during your own lifetime, and can you give some examples of the ways you have fulfilled/failed the directive?

Bonus: Why don't fish of the sea get named among the plant eaters in the dietary section of the mandate (gen 1:30)

Feel free to respond to any or all as you see fit

God's creatures can be maintained on themselves perfectly. Adam simply lived in the Garden. His job is not to maintain the Garden, but is to subdue and to dominate everything in the Garden.

In the cursed earth today, all we Christians need to do is not to abuse the earth. Since we need to plough the field in order to survive, everything on the earth since the curse is deteriorating anyway. Nothing we can do to maintain it.

Good question. Having no better answer, I would only argue that fishes creep (move without using legs) "on the earth" too.