A Commentary on the Modern World

Perverting Liberty at the Expense of Life
May 13, 2010, 6:31 am
Filed under: Uncategorized

Recently, on the eve of New Year’s, British celebrators welcomed the New Year, not merely with cheers of joy.  They found it a pleasurable thing to drink the hardest of beverages to incapacitate their body’s ability to process alcohol to such an extent that thousands of individuals were treated for alcohol poisoning, hypothermia, and frost bite.  Their pleasure is their source of being and doing, and as such, they find no restraints in what might bring about such pleasure.  The objective belief that an American presupposition demands is that the body is the vessel you have been given to enjoy life, live freely, and earn property.  When the pleasure of the vessel undermines one’s ability to live or earn property, a perversion of the exercise of man’s right to liberty has occurred.

No man’s freedom should be used to destroy another’s life, liberty, and property.  This is because all men are created with value from the Creator.  As such, it is  just as equally wrong for an individual to use his freedom in such a way that he undermines his ability to live his  life, live in liberty, and earn property.  Surely, one has freedom to do as he sees fit, but the freedom that the Creator endowed in the creation of man is regulated by a common love for one’s self and mankind, lest we find ourselves destroyed by what we want in ignorance to what we need.   If liberty is used to destroy life, liberty is always restrained and eventually taken.  Thus, you must never forget the love God placed upon your person, and always value your life as He would value your life, for if He loves you as He claims, He will surely hold you accountable, not only for how you treat others but how you have treated yourself.


Getting past certain Sins (A Principle from James 2:10)
May 13, 2010, 5:55 am
Filed under: Uncategorized

Some individuals act as if it were necessary to be rude to those who are rude to them.  Is someone talking about you behind your back?  Has someone you love betrayed you?  Is someone in the family treating you particularly bad? It seems as though the world is what the world is, and because the world has habitually evil practices, an understood right to treat them as bad as they treat you emerges.  Well, if you live in a manner that seeks to do as the world does then treating them as they treat you is understandable.  Yet, do you not claim Christ as your Lord and Savior?  If you do, you know Christ has said not to murder, steal, rape, or lie.  You practice the lack of these things, and then you act as if it was your boast.  Yet, you still talk about people behind their backs, encourage fights, sexual immorality, anger, resentment and jealousy.  Are these things of God?  Truly, if you think simply because you do not go to the extremes with your evil behavior that you are not acting in a sinful way than you mustn’t forget that it is written:

James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.

Truly, the one stirs up jealousy, fights, gossip, and thing such as these are, in the eyes of God, just as condemned and criminal as murderers, rapists, and thieves.  Moderation in your evil behavior is still evil behavior. This is of your flesh, is it not?  The flesh that motivates you to do that which God forbids will always find justification in motive to administer their evil devices.  Yet, the Spirit that motivates you to restrain and refrain the evil inclinations of the flesh always finds justification through the blood of Christ.  Submit to the Spirit, and you fulfill the law.  The Spirit will tell you to not stir up the passions of other’s flesh by participating in gossip.  You say you want less drama, but you do not do what is necessary to stop it.  Submit to the Spirit. Love those who do not love you for it is the example of our Savior.

A Great Commission Resurgence? SBC, I’m either confused, wrong, or insulted.
May 12, 2010, 6:51 am
Filed under: Uncategorized

The Southern Baptist Convention has just unveiled a plan that they believe will bring about a resurgence of obedience to the great commission in Matthew 28:18-20. Dr. Johnny Hunt constructed a task force, at the request of the convention, to see what things could be done to make the convention reach more souls for Christ.

Now this task force has returned, and they have concluded that there are nine things that the Southern Baptists need to come together to do if they are to win souls to Christ like they did in the 50s and 60s. The points are as follows:

  • A Commitment to the Lordship of Jesus
  • A Commitment to Gospel-Centeredness
  • A Commitment to the Great Commandments
  • A Commitment to Biblical Inerrancy and Sufficiency
  • A Commitment to a Healthy Confession Center
  • A Commitment to Biblically Healthy Churches
  • A Commitment to Sound Biblical Preaching
  • A Commitment to a Methodological Diversity
  • A Commitment to a More Effective Convention Structure
  • A Commitment to Distinctively Christian Families

Here is where I find myself absolutely dumbfounded by the various implications this “Great Commission Resurgence” is making.  All of these commitments should already be embodied by the pastors of the Southern Baptist Convention.  If you are a pastor, are you not committed to the Lordship of Jesus?  If you are a pastor, are you not committed to “love your neighbor as your self” and “love God?”  Are you a pastor who is not committed to sound Biblical preaching or having a God honoring family?  Basically, all of these commitments are commitments that a Southern Baptist pastors should have already made, and if they are not committed to these foundational aspects of the faith, I must ask why they would be a pastor within this denomination in the first place.

There is but one commitment that stands apart from the rest.  It is point nine, which is a “commitment to a more effective convention structure.”  In their explanation for its necessity, they conclude with the following statement:

We believe the local church must be “ground zero” in a Great Commission Resurgence, and that our associations, state conventions and national agencies exist to serve and assist the churches in their divine assignment.

Immediately prior to making this statement, the authors of this manifesto say that “some of our convention structures at all levels need to be streamlined for more faithful stewardship of the funds entrusted to them.”  The solution to this problem for them is to, ultimately, eliminate structures that are unnecessary.  However, this will supply more finances to their North American Mission Board.  In light of the fact that they say they “believe the local church must be ‘ground zero’ in a Great Commission Resurgence” it seems either hypocritical or contradictory, whichever you prefer, to eliminate programs that are closer to the local churches themselves and require those finances be relinquished to the hands of the North American Mission Board so they can spend them in the manner they think it is most effective.  Effectively, this insures that the local church will actually be spending less and less for their own causes of mission so that the North American Mission Board can accomplish theirs.

Thus, I conclude with these thoughts.  I could be wrong in my thinking that pastors of the Southern Baptist Convention are not committed to very basic foundations of our faith, such as the Lordship of Christ, sound Biblical teaching, and the Great Commission. Or maybe I am not wrong at all and I should be angry, if not insulted, that after the pastors concerned for the Gospel sent these men to find out what is being done wrong, these men return to tell them they are NOT committed to Jesus, the Bible, their families, and their churches.  If it is true, I wonder why these pastors would send them out in the first place, unless they sincerely cared about these principles all along.

Maybe I am confused about how the Great Commission Task Force plans to institute these commitments in any way differently than they are right now. All, but one, are personal commitments that every Christian should have already made.  There is but one commitment that they could have a great deal of control over, and that commitment is for you to be committed to their abilities to change the Southern Baptist Convention so that the North American Mission Board would dictate what churches receive what money for their specific reasoning.

It seems this Great Commission Resurgence is not about ten commitments, but one commitment to change the Southern Baptist Convention among 9 other commitments that the Southern Baptist Pastors already embrace. I fear advocates will suggest that if you reject the one point that the convention needs to be restructured then you will crucified to appear that you reject all the other points.  The Senate did this with the Hate Crimes Bill that was attached to the funding of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, for those who rejected the Hate Crimes Bill were made to appear as if they rejected the funding of soldiers and the War against terrorism.

I pray that this committee will explain their intent in such a way that they do not need to staple one unbiblical idea to 9 biblical ideas just to try and make it more acceptable.  I find that kind of behavior unacceptable.

Now please note. This is my first impression of the GCR.  I am still studying this program, and Dr. Ronnie Floyd is e-mailing me some clarifications to help me better understand his vision and the components that are represented.  My verdict is out right now, but first impression isn’t exactly positive.  Regardless, I pray God’s truth and desire be accomplished. Until then… ..

The Un-lost Value of Mankind
May 11, 2010, 6:47 pm
Filed under: Uncategorized

Does man still bear the image that God inscribed upon him at his origination?  This commentary on the passage of Gen. 9:1-7 illustrates that man, even today in spite of all his evil, deserves to be treated with the respect that is demanded from the image of God. Here is a basis for how to treat your neighbor.

Original Meaning:

The context for chapter 9 is set well by the words of Murphy. “Noah is saved from the deluge. His life is twice given to him by God.  He had found grace in the eyes of the Lord, and now he and his family have been graciously accepted when they approached the Lord with burnt-offerings.”[1] These burnt offerings are purposed to bless God and request his blessing and favor.[2]Indeed, Noah’s receives a blessing from God apparently in response to Noah’s sacrifice.  Genesis 9:1-7 provides God’s proclamation of the blessing, affirmation from the blessing, and protection from the blessing.


This is the continuation of God’s covenantal promise to Noah that begins in 8:21and 22.  God “…makes a covenant with them that he will not undo the blessing again as he had just done in the flood.”[3] “This is the second time this command has been given to Noah, the third time to mankind in general. ….This covenant will reestablish man’s position before God and His creation.  To once again fill the earth restores the relationship that man has to his planet.”[4]


The text of verses 2 to 4 presents the status from the authority ascribed to man (2a), the proclamation of the authority ascribed to man (2b), and the reach and limit of that authority in regards to what man can and cannot eat.  It is logical to only understand that these verses refer to all mankind because Noah and his descendants would be the only individuals left upon the planet if the flood is considered to be universal.  Looking to specifics, the status of man’s authority brings a reaction to the animal kingdom. “The fear…and the dread, which every beast of the earth and every fowl of the air and all the fish of the sea would have toward Noah and his family re-establishes man’s dominion over the animal kingdom.  This is a time of new beginnings; and thus, God deems it appropriate now to sanction the eating of meat as well as the green herb.”[5] Man’s status as an authority over the animal kingdom results with the animal kingdom’s fear of man, for man now has a right to hunt them for meat.[6] This exercise of authority is proclaimed from God for man in verse 3. “The only restriction given here was that man should not eat of the blood of the animal.”[7] Hence, the blood would be drained to supposedly return the life to God in permission to eat the meat.[8] It also indirectly implies that “…the qualification is that the animal is living.”[9]


For the final two verses of this passage, God establishes a precedent to protect Noah and His descendants by referencing the protection (5a), establishing a range of protection (5b), making a proclamation for the protection (6a), and providing a basis for the protection. (6b-7) Murphy states boldly that on the basis of verse 5 “The shedding of human blood is sternly prohibited.”[10] Nothing has a right to shed the blood of man, be it beast or man.  “The command was given that the murderer should be executed…”[11] Hence, the life of the murderer is required be it beast or man for the life of their human victim. This is proclaimed in verse 6a: “whoever sheds man’s blood, will by man his blood be shed.”  The basis for this protection is given in verse 6b-7. Man is sacred and purposed to multiply and fulfill the earth. “The sacredness of human life is based on the fact that man was made by God in His own image and for that reason  the murderer must be executed….”[12] Hence, murder ignores the sacred image of God in man ,and murder destroys the sacred purpose of God for man to multiply in the Earth. Thus, the murderer is not concerned for what God has created or intended and should be executed.

Bridging Context:

Genesis 9:1-7 has been examined to illustrate the proclamation of the blessing, affirmation from the blessing, and protection from the blessing that God gave Noah and all his descendants. There are a few general principles that can be drawn from what has been shown from the study of the previous section.

First and foremost, the proclamation of the blessing is a recurring theme to the book of Genesis[13] that shows God’s intent for mankind is for man to be faithful to his desire for them to “be fruitful and multiply.” This blessing seems to be provoked by Noah’s offering after he exits the ark.[14]. Thus, God‘s intent is for man to “be fruitful and multiply,” and Noah was faithful to be the man in which God could use to bring this intention about.

A second principle comes from the affirmed authority of man over the animal kingdom. Man is affirmed to have the authority to hunt, kill, and eat other animals.  This provides more ability for Noah and his descendants to “be fruitful and multiply” as a food supply is essential to the multiplication and fruitfulness of a family. This special placement of man puts every animal in an inferior placement. This can be seen to be a point of means by which the first principle is fulfilled.

A final principle should be drawn from the section where God provides protection for Noah and his descendants. This passage teaches that mankind is created in the image of God and they are commanded to be “fruitful and multiply.”  Thus, when one murders a human, they are destroying the image of God and completely undermining God’s intent for man. Multiplication implies creating life, where as murdering implies taking life.  Hence, the fact that God requires the life of those who murder defines that God is providing protection for man. . So overall God blesses man to be fruitful and multiply, provides a means for man to be fruitful and multiply through placement and authority, and creates a precedent to protect man so man can be fruitful and multiply.

Contemporary Significance:

In this passage, God’s blatant affection for mankind is seen. He takes pleasure in their multiplication. He takes steps to ensure they have the authority needed to thrive in the world. He also establishes a precedent to provide protection to ensure they have security to thrive in the world.  God is intentionally illustrating His love for mankind in that He wants mankind to flourish, as he not only tells man what He wants.  God blatantly provides man with the basic needs to fulfill His desire with food and protection. In light of this and the fact that this passage of scripture begins and ends with “be fruitful and multiply,” it becomes easily evident that all that is between these statements are geared towards ensuring that man will be able to do this very thing. God establishes that man is the greatest of his creation being created in the image of God,[15] and man is provided with food to fulfill the calling of God.  Hence, anything that a person does to mar the image of God and undermine the lives of any individual God takes very seriously.

Some other points of application can be made in regards to what is acceptable to eat. God provides no preference for either vegans or carnivores in this passage, for it provides support for both.

In addition to this, man is firmly established as the authority over the animal kingdom.  At no point should animals be allotted rights equal to the human status.  Although man is executed for killing man, at no point in time should man be executed for killing an animal, for man is the authority over the animal kingdom.  This does not prescribe that man can rampantly abuse animals though.  In  light of the fact that the draining of an animal’s blood before cooking could be considered an act of compassion to keep the animal from an in humane method of prolonged death.[16] It is assumed that if man’s authority over the animal kingdom is established that this authority is expected to be exercised responsibly.

A final point of emphasis that needs to be made is that God is intent to protect the life of man, and he instituted a precedent to protect man.  Many scholars argue this is the institution of the human government[17]; yet, the text is not blatant enough to prescribe this suggestion. Rather, what can be seen in this context is that God prescribes execution to be necessary to protect the sacredness of man that is from the image of God. While later God would provide more protection on this issue, one can be assured that they should do nothing against the blood of another human being, for God values both of these image bearers equally.  John 3:16 provides that God loves the entire world, presumably because they bear his image.  Christ would die for the world of image bearers in spite of their sin to express his love for them.[18] This provides a basis for why Jesus would command his followers to even love their enemies.[19]

Thus, believers must be bold to enjoy their special placement in creation having authority to eat freely of the both meat and tree careful not to undermine the lives of fellow image bearers for God values them all.


Davis, John James. Paradise to Prison: Studies in Genesis. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1975.

Dobson, Ed. Bible Commentary: King James Version. [Nashville, Tenn.]: Nelson Reference & Electronic, 2005.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1983.

Murphy, James G. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Genesis, With a New Translation. Boston: Estes and Lauriat, 1873.

Phillips, John. Exploring Genesis: An Expository Commentary. The John Phillips commentary series. Grand Rapids, Minn: Kregel Publications, 2001.

Walton, John H. Genesis. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2001.

Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1-11: A Commentary. Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House, 1984.

[1] James G. Murphy, ( A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Genesis, With a New Translation. Boston: Estes and Lauriat, 1873.) 226

[2] John H. Walton, (Genesis. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2001.) 315

[3] Ibid., 340

[4] Ed Dobson,. (Bible Commentary: King James Version. [Nashville, Tenn.]: Nelson Reference & Electronic, 2005.) 33

[5] Ibid., 34

[6] John H. Walton, (Genesis. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2001.) 342

[7] Ed Dobson,. (Bible Commentary: King James Version. [Nashville, Tenn.]: Nelson Reference & Electronic, 2005.) 33

[8] John H. Walton, (Genesis. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2001.) 343

[9] Ibid., 342

[10] James G. Murphy, ( A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Genesis, With a New Translation. Boston: Estes and Lauriat, 1873.) 227

[11] John. Phillips (Exploring Genesis: An Expository Commentary. The John Phillips commentary series. Grand Rapids, Minn: Kregel Publications, 2001.) 91

[12] Ibid., 91

[13] Ed Dobson,. (Bible Commentary: King James Version. [Nashville, Tenn.]: Nelson Reference & Electronic, 2005.) 33

[14] John James Davis,( Paradise to Prison: Studies in Genesis. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1975.)127

[15] John. Phillips (Exploring Genesis: An Expository Commentary. The John Phillips commentary series. Grand Rapids, Minn: Kregel Publications, 2001.) 91

[16] James G. Murphy, ( A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Genesis, With a New Translation. Boston: Estes and Lauriat, 1873.) 227

[17] Ibid.,228

[18] Romans 5:8

[19] Matthew 5:44