# Is the Creation Mandate Still in Binding Today?



## Hamalas (Mar 21, 2013)

I know there has been discussion ad nauseum about the two-kingdoms debate but I have a narrower question concerned with a specific exegetical and systematic question. Basically, I'm curious to hear whether people believe that the cultural/creation mandate is still in effect for us today? Most of the teachers I have heard proceed on the assumption that it is, but David Vandrunen has argued that it is not? Thoughts?


----------



## Peairtach (Mar 21, 2013)

Does God command us to work?

Van Drunnen conflates Adam's probation in the Covenant of Works with the Creation Mandate.


----------



## Miss Marple (Mar 21, 2013)

Yes, because any commandment not cancelled or fulfilled is still in effect.

Consider animal sacrifice. That, and all the details about it, were commandments, certainly. But they are no longer in effect, because Christ came and is our sacrifice. They were but a type and shadow.

I can't think of anything that fulfilled or cancelled the creation mandate.


----------



## ThyWord IsTruth (Mar 21, 2013)

-Work six days 
-Rest on the Sabbath (Lord's Day)
-Subdue the earth
-Procreate (Be fruitful and multiply)
-Marriage
-Obedience (in following the ordinances given by the Creator)

If the above is the creation mandate given to Adam in the "Covenant of Works" then of course. Which one of these would be abrogated by the "Covenant of Grace"?


----------



## littlepeople (Mar 21, 2013)

The devil is in the details of course; all sorts of things get thrown onto the creation mandate wagon that don't belong there. i.e. What exactly does it mean to subdue the earth?


----------



## Sgt Grit (Mar 21, 2013)

5-Point Baptist said:


> -Work six days
> -Rest on the Sabbath (Lord's Day)
> -Subdue the earth
> -Procreate (Be fruitful and multiply)
> ...



Thank you, shot and to the point.


----------



## ThyWord IsTruth (Mar 22, 2013)

littlepeople said:


> The devil is in the details of course; all sorts of things get thrown onto the creation mandate wagon that don't belong there. i.e. What exactly does it mean to subdue the earth?



It clearly is a mandate from God:

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:28 KJV)

We have been given dominion over the earth to subdue it. 

Webster's defines subdue as such:
sub·due\səb-ˈdü, -ˈdyü\
transitive verb
1 : to conquer and bring into subjection : vanquish
2 : to bring under control especially by an exertion of the will : curb <subdued my foolish fears>
3 : to bring (land) under cultivation
4 : to reduce the intensity or degree of : tone down
synonyms see conquer
Other forms: sub·dued; sub·du·ing

In this instance #3 fits nicely but I would say that after the fall #1 and #2 apply.


----------



## littlepeople (Mar 22, 2013)

What I mean is that other than wrestling bears and planting vegetables, we have to work out what the details are. Doug Wilson and Tim Keller both believe that the creation mandate is in effect, but would have completely different trajectories in its fulfillment.


----------



## ThyWord IsTruth (Mar 22, 2013)

littlepeople said:


> What I mean is that other than wrestling bears and planting vegetables, we have to work out what the details are. Doug Wilson and Tim Keller both believe that the creation mandate is in effect, but would have completely different trajectories in its fulfillment.



Well I would say that the only one that would be in contention for debate is the "subduing the earth".

Here is how I see it and I may be wrong. 
Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. We are made in the image of God. God is THE Creator therefore being made in his likeness we are to subdue the earth and create with what He has given us but in all things to His glory and in obedience to his mandates. His way not our way. Exploring the world he gave us is glorifying to Him. The sciences, arts, wisdom, these things are all gifts from God. But because of the fall and entrance of sin, it has all been perverted to our own selfish desires and sinful man does not do these things for the glory of God but for the pride of man.


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Mar 22, 2013)

5-Point Baptist said:


> Well I would say that the only one that would be in contention for debate is the "subduing the earth".


We should also include Benny Hinn's definition as well. According to mr exegete himself, subdue meant that Adam could fly and he often did so all the way to the moon. I like his definition


----------



## Hamalas (Mar 22, 2013)

Well then, to narrow the question a bit, what does it mean to "subdue the earth"?


----------



## Peairtach (Mar 22, 2013)

*Jason*


> If the above is the creation mandate given to Adam in the "Covenant of Works" then of course. Which one of these would be abrogated by the "Covenant of Grace"?



I think it's important to distinguish between the Creation Mandate under the CoW and the CM under the CoG.

If Adam had fulfilled the probation, Mankind would still have had the CM and would have carried it out sinlessly. 

Since Adam's Fall, Mankind still has the CM, and each one of us, and Mankind collectively fulfill it sinfully and imperfectly. 

Only Christ obeyed it sinlessly. The Church i.e. Christian people, make a small start in obeying the CM in a sanctified manner, as Mankind was originally supposed to.

Some of the most wonderful products of the CM, of course, have been produced by unbelievers in God's common grace to them.

I don't really understand how Van Drunnen could have got the Probation of the CoW and the CM mixed up, unless spurred by antagonism to being exposed to some kind of extreme neo-Calvinism. But I would have to read his books!


----------



## Hamalas (Mar 22, 2013)

Peairtach said:


> *Jason*
> 
> 
> > If the above is the creation mandate given to Adam in the "Covenant of Works" then of course. Which one of these would be abrogated by the "Covenant of Grace"?
> ...



That's helpful. I briefly looked back at what Van Drunen has to say about this in his book "Living in God's Two Kingdoms" and it sounds like what you've articulated is close to what he said. I may have been inaccurate when I said that he sees the cultural mandate as fulfilled. (Although I'm open to being corrected if I've misunderstood.) Perhaps Dr. R. Scott Clark could clarify?


----------



## littlepeople (Mar 22, 2013)

I haven't read the book, so I don't know if this is helpful or not: it's Van Drunen's response to this the issue here discussed. 

"A key aspect of my biblical-theological case for the two kingdoms is my interpretation of the continuing applicability of the cultural mandate in light of Paul’s Two Adams paradigm and the Noahic covenant…. It is not as if Christians have no cultural mandate (as Kingdoms Apart suggests I claim), but that the cultural mandate comes to the human race only as refracted through the covenant with Noah after the flood. It comes thereby to the human race as a whole (not to Christians uniquely) and is geared for life in a fallen world and holds out no eschatological hope of reward."


----------



## Peairtach (Mar 22, 2013)

Adam would have observed the Creation/Cultural Mandate perfectly as part of the CoW, had he not sinned. And so would his offspring.

Christ did observe the Creation/Cultural Mandate perfectly as part of obeying God's commands for us in a CoW.

Like all God's principles and commands, we will never observe the CM perfectly, but that doesn't mean that it is not still the basic divine pattern for Mankind, including believers.


----------



## Peairtach (Mar 22, 2013)

> It comes thereby to the human race as a whole (not to Christians uniquely)



I would have to read Van Drunnen's book, and not just Keith Mathison's review of it, but the CM came to humanity as a whole from the very beginning.

Christians are relearning, very imperfectly, how to follow it in a sanctified way as prophets, priests and kings in Christ.

Non-Christians are following it in an unsanctified way, not that we despise many of their efforts and the products of Common Grace.


----------



## littlepeople (Mar 22, 2013)

Richard am I understanding you correctly to be saying that confusion for VanDrunen is that the cultural mandate was given to Adam outside of the CoW, but VanDrunen sees it as being only within the the CoW (As far as Adam->Jesus->Us are concerned)?


----------



## Loopie (Mar 22, 2013)

If I may ask, is there a sense in which Christ's fulfillment of the creation/cultural mandate was different, or more spiritual than Adam's? What I mean is, Adam was commanded to be fruitful and multiply (implying physical reproduction). Yet how did Christ ever fulfill that if he never had any physical children? It would seem that he fulfilled that in a spiritual sense, since he has spiritual children as numerous as the sands on the seashore. 

This also brings me to another related question. If the creation/cultural mandate is still obligatory upon us today, then how are we to understand Paul's arguments in 1 Corinthians 7 that those who are unmarried should remain unmarried, or that nothing is wrong with remaining a virgin and devoting your life to serving God? 

I guess my questions can be summarized in the following way: Are ALL aspects of the cultural mandate obligatory for us today, or just some aspects? (and if only some, then why some and not all?) Furthermore, if ALL aspects are obligatory today (such as being fruitful and multiplying), how are we to reconcile that with Christ's example and the words of Paul to the Corinthians?


----------



## Peairtach (Mar 22, 2013)

*Eric*


> This also brings me to another related question. If the creation/cultural mandate is still obligatory upon us today, then how are we to understand Paul's arguments in 1 Corinthians 7 that those who are unmarried should remain unmarried, or that nothing is wrong with remaining a virgin and devoting your life to serving God?
> 
> I guess my questions can be summarized in the following way: Are ALL aspects of the cultural mandate obligatory for us today, or just some aspects? (and if only some, then why some and not all?) Furthermore, if ALL aspects are obligatory today (such as being fruitful and multiplying), how are we to reconcile that with Christ's example and the words of Paul to the Corinthians?



This can be answered in that the creation mandate is given to the human race _as a whole_, and it is not for everyone in that race to get married, or to engage in every specific aspect of the mandate.See e.g. what Jesus says about "eunuchs", and of course that there was no-one suitable for _Him_ to marry. A bachelor who is a scientist can contribute to the creation mandate of the human race without having a wife and/or children. If he is also a Christian, he can _do his bit_ for the CM in a sanctified way.

I won't get into speculation about whether there would have been a wife for everybody if Man hadn't sinned.

It is also not for everyone to subdue the Earth directly as a farmer or gardener - as was Adam. Some are involved in the creation mandate by being e.g. accountants or musicians.



> If I may ask, is there a sense in which Christ's fulfillment of the creation/cultural mandate was different, or more spiritual than Adam's? What I mean is, Adam was commanded to be fruitful and multiply (implying physical reproduction). Yet how did Christ ever fulfill that if he never had any physical children? It would seem that he fulfilled that in a spiritual sense, since he has spiritual children as numerous as the sands on the seashore.



Jesus fulfilled the CM in a way appropriate to Himself, while on earth. We believe there was no woman suitable for Him because all women are sinners. His initial calling as _tekton_ seems to have been as a carpenter.

Christ has completed the probation of the CoW, which included his CM tasks, which he carried out sinlessly to God's glory.

The Church doesn't have the probation of the CoW; that has been finished by Christ. She is still under the law as a pattern of life not as a CoW, and as Christ's spouse, the spouse of the Last Adam, she continues to carry out the Great Commission and the Creation Mandate - with a proper sanctified motive, unlike the rest of humanity - with Christ's help, to God's glory.


----------



## MW (Mar 22, 2013)

"Marrying in the Lord," "covenant children," "the Lord's day Sabbath," among other things, are clear evidence substantiating both the eschatological fulfilment and the unique Christian practice of the cultural mandate. Gnostics dichotomise ethics for the purpose of promoting their "esoteric" salvation. True Christians, however, confess from the heart that Jesus Christ is the Lord of heaven and earth, the Saviour of the world.


----------



## Loopie (Mar 23, 2013)

Peairtach said:


> *Eric*
> 
> 
> > This also brings me to another related question. If the creation/cultural mandate is still obligatory upon us today, then how are we to understand Paul's arguments in 1 Corinthians 7 that those who are unmarried should remain unmarried, or that nothing is wrong with remaining a virgin and devoting your life to serving God?
> ...



Thank you Richard for your helpful response. It definitely did help to answer my questions, and I will certainly think on these things and take a look at some of the books recommended on this topic. God bless!


----------



## jwithnell (Mar 23, 2013)

The creation mandate, as _a creation_ mandate is largely destroyed by the fall but restored in Christ. Any doubt about its ongoing mandate for us is seen in its repetition, such as after the flood. The fall results in the chaos of death and destruction (can you imagine what the earth must have looked like after the flood?). We are to labor to restore the order of creation in whatever small way God has given us to do. By aligning ourselves with Christ, we will be fruitful, as long as we abide in Him.


----------

