Has the Creation Mandate Been Replaced by the Gospel Mandate?

I often hear the idea that the creation mandate in Genesis 1:28 was for the OT Israelites, but that mandate has now been replaced by the gospel mandate. The argument is usually something like this: The OT emphasizes the physical aspect of the kingdom and is therefore entered by physical birth, whereas the NT emphasizes the spiritual aspect and is entered by a spiritual birth. Hence, we obey the creation mandate that was once given to literally make children by obeying the gospel mandate now that is given to make spiritual children.

There are a few problems with this line of thinking. The first is the divorce of the two as though the one is not an extension of the other. It should seem obvious that to have spiritual children born of the gospel, one actually needs people to exist first in order to make them into children born of the gospel. This means that to join God in being creational is more than having children, but it is not less than having children.

The second problem with this argument is that the creation mandate is not given to Israel alone. In fact, it is given to mankind in general. The fact that God reveals His will at creation (what I call a priority argument) even in the descriptive, as affirmed by Jesus' use of the narrative, is especially true in the prescriptive command given in the creation mandate. It means that this is God's will for all mankind for the entire time during the creation process. Hence, it is repeated again after the flood to Noah, and is meant to exist as a foundation for all other ethics God expects mankind to follow. Humanity in general, however, fails to follow God's will, but Christians, as restored humanity, certainly should.

The third problem is that all biblical ethics are rooted in the creation mandate as it is applied to the physical world, not just spiritual realities alone. Sexual immorality has to do directly with whether a sexual act is ordered for childbirth. However, if the physical aspect of the creation mandate no longer applies, then neither should any prohibition against sexual immorality and Christians should feel free to indulge.

Likewise, there is no need to preserve physical life in any way, since the goal of filling up the earth physically no longer applies. Hence, feeding and sheltering the poor, refraining from murder, stealing, and all of the injustices that have to do with preserving physical life in the law, which is all of the moral and civil commands, are no longer necessary observances. Abortion would be fine. This, of course, would be absurd.

Instead, the church grows through birth and rebirth, and one must occur in order for the other to occur as well. As an example, the Shaker movement (as cultic as they were) once existed in the thousands with 18 different communities throughout the country. They were, however, a celibate movement that believed that the creation mandate had been fulfilled, and that the community should grow through the preaching of the gospel, i.e., just concentrating on making spiritual children. They now exist only in one small village with their remaining members dying out.

The creation mandate has not been replaced by the gospel. It has been established by the gospel. The gospel is the final means through which the earth can forever be filled with covenant children but the obedience to the creation mandate is the first and necessary means that allows those children to receive the gospel in the first place.