Dr. White shares his 2011 travel plans and writing projects.
CBTS Faculty fully subscribe to the 1689 Confession of Faith, hold an advanced
degree in their field of instruction, and possess significant pastoral experience.
Beale notes, “The prophet Ezekiel portrays Eden on a mountain (Ezek. 28:14, 16). Israel’s temple was on Mount Zion (e.g., Exod. 15:17), and the end-time temple was to be located on a mountain (Ezek. 40:2; 43:12; Rev. 21:10).”[1]
“In light of these numerous conceptual and linguistic parallels between Eden and Israel’s tabernacle and temple, it should not be unexpected to find that Ezekiel 28:13-14, 16, 18 refer to ‘Eden, the garden of God…the holy mountain of God’, and also alludes to it as containing ‘sanctuaries’, which elsewhere is a plural way of referring to Israel’s tabernacle (Lev. 21:23) and temple (Ezek. 7:24; so also Jer. 51:51). The plural reference to the one temple probably arose because of the multiple sacred spaces or ‘sanctuaries’ within the temple complex (e.g., courtyard, holy place, holy of holies)… Ezekiel 28 is probably, therefore, the most explicit place anywhere in canonical literature where the Garden of Eden is called a temple.”[2]
The fact that the Garden is viewed as the place of the first mountain is very interesting in light of the Bible’s emphasis on mountains and temples. Beale notes that early Jewish commentary also saw a unique relationship between Eden, a high mountain, and Israel’s temple. He references 1 Enoch 24-25 and comments:
The early Jewish book of 1 Enoch says the tree of life would be transplanted from Eden, which was on a ‘high mountain’, to the ‘Holy Place beside the temple of the Lord’ in Jerusalem…, implying that the tree’s former location in Eden was also a sanctuary.[3]
The entry for “Mountain” in Dictionary of Biblical Imagery reads:
Almost from the beginning of the Bible, mountains are sites of transcendent spiritual experiences, encounters with God or appearances by God. Ezekiel 28:13-15 places the *Garden of Eden on a mountain. *Abraham shows his willingness to sacrifice Isaac and then encounters God on a mountain (Gen 22:1-14). God appears to Moses and speaks from the *burning bush on “Horeb the mountain of God” (Ex 3:1-2 NRSV), and he encounters Elijah on the same site (1 Kings 19:8-18). Most impressive of all is the experience of the Israelites at Mt. *Sinai (Ex 19), which *Moses ascends in a *cloud to meet God.
A similar picture emerges from the NT, where Jesus is associated with mountains. Jesus resorted to mountains to be alone (Jn 6:15), to *pray (Mt 14:23; Lk 6:12) and to teach his listeners (Mt 5:1; Mk 3:13). It was on a mountain that Jesus refuted Satan’s temptation (Mt 4:8; Lk 4:5). He was also transfigured on a mountain (Mt 17:1-8; Mk 9:2-8; Lk 9:28-36), and he ascended into heaven from the Mount of Olives (Acts 1:10-12).[4]
Jesus also designated a mountain in Galilee from which he gave the Great Commission to the eleven (Matthew 28:16). Jesus is both the tabernacle of God among men (John 1:14) and a temple (John 2:19-22) who builds the new temple (Ephesians 2:19-22 [his body, the church]). Hebrews 12:18-24 contrasts Mount Sinai and Mount Zion in the context of the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. God’s people have gone from one mountain to another. Surely these mountains are symbols of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant and have their foundation in the first mountain-temple, the Garden of Eden.
[2] Beale, Temple and the Church’s Mission, 75-76.
[3] Beale, Temple and the Church’s Mission, 79.
[4] “Mountain” in Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarstiy Press, 1998), 572-74.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
James White discusses the issue of evangelizing Muslims. Notice his shirt. 🙂
CBTS Faculty fully subscribe to the 1689 Confession of Faith, hold an advanced
degree in their field of instruction, and possess significant pastoral experience.
When my lecture on the relation of the church and family was originally posted on the Reformed Baptist Fellowship’s blog, I believed that the whole family-integrated church movement was happy to say that the church should be “family-based” or that the church should be a “family of families.” I also assumed that I knew what this meant. I soon learned that men like Scott Brown and Voddie Baucham did not mean to say what this terminology seemed straightforwardly to affirm. Voddie, for instance, in his blogs on this very subject even admits that calling the church a “family of families” is easily misunderstood. In another blog post I want to take up this terminology and the way these men interpret it and try to answer the question, What does saying the church is a “Family of Families” mean for this more moderate wing of the family-integrated church movement?
But in all fairness it needs to be said that other wings of the family-integrated church movement are actually saying and doing the kind of things which properly expose them to the critique I gave of the family-based church movement in my lecture. The following statements come from www.patriarch.org.
The nation is a reflection of its communities and churches; a community or a church is a reflection of its families….Patriarch aims specifically 1) to develop Christ-like character and behavior in men; 2) to equip men to direct, protect, and provide for their families; 3) to enable men to lead the church back to its New Testament, family-based patterns….2. The church is simply an extension of the family….A redefinition of the Christian family has resulted in a redefinition of the Church as well as the entire learning process. May we continue to yield to the Lord’s leading as we pioneer….Unfortunately, most home educators have not seen the need to connect their renewed family to a renewed church; and cell churches have not seen that the church must be founded on godly family units. What we need is a return to the family-based church. …. These two institutions (SW—the family and the church) are God’s means of spreading his kingdom in the world. It is time they began working together again. I can foresee home educating families gathering together across the nation (and the world) to form churches of the cell church model. It is a natural combination. And it is a model that can be reproduced without limit all over the globe . Call them family churches; call them house churches; call them anything you like. But the family-church combination could be the basis of a thorough renewal and revival….The family-based church idea may sound new to most modern ears, but to ears attuned to the Word of God it is an old idea whose time has returned.
I think the NCFIC would take issue with a number of things in this statement. Furthermore, I believe it deserves the critique I gave it in my lecture. Here is part of it:
The constant refrain of the quotations cited above is that the church is family-based and should be home-based. While one cannot deny that generally speaking, the strength of a church will often be in exact proportion to the strength of its families, it appears to me that this movement means much more than this by asserting that the church is family-based. It means rather that the church is actually “the extension of the family.” This simply is not true in any strict sense. It is certainly not true for those who hold the view (all Baptists, for instance) that the church is composed only of regenerate individuals who give credible profession of their faith. In the strict sense families do not belong to churches at all. Individuals on the basis of their personal, credible profession of faith belong to churches. The rights of church membership are not conferred on families or heads of household, but only on individual believers as individual believers. The church is not a collection of families, but a collection of believers. It is not an extension of the family, but a completely different and sovereign institution. The family was instituted at creation and is a creation institution, while the church in its present and final form was instituted after the work of redemption accomplished by Christ and is a redemptive institution. This means that the head of the household in virtue of his being the head of the household has no authority in the church. His rights and liberties as to church membership and as a church member are no different than those of his 20 year old son who lives at home but is also a member of the church. The family-based church idea might make some sense from a paedobaptist and Presbyterian standpoint. They often have held that only heads of households should vote in the church. They have always held that the membership in the church is family-based and composed of families. (But I need to note that even Presbyterians who hold the traditional views of Presbyterians on voting and church membership have been critical of the family-based churches concept. See the critical review of Eric Wallace, Uniting Church and Home (Lorton, VA: Solutions for Integrating Church and Home Inc., 1999) by Joe Morecraft III.) But family-based churches are a specific contradiction of a Baptist view of the church and make no sense within a Baptist viewpoint.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
The gospel is not my experience of grace, not ordo salutis (i.e., the application of salvation to my sin-sick soul), but a message about what God *has done* in Christ for sinners. It is not what God *does* in sinners, what he does for me in my life experience, but what God *has done* for sinners in Christ. We can’t live the gospel, but we sure can believe it, preach it, enjoy the benefits of it and the fruit it produces in and through us. But those things aren’t the gospel. I do not tell people to believe in adoption, or union with Christ, or justification, or sanctification, or glorification (as wonderful as those blessings are!) in order to be saved. I tell them the old, old story – to believe in Christ because of who He is and what He *did* in history past for sinners.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.