Knowing What You’re Looking for in The Bible
by
Michael Horton
We all know what it’s like when we’re leaving our driveway and have to
return to the house for something we forgot. And then, for some of us, we
forget what we were looking for in the first place. We waste time and energy
looking for something when we have forgotten even what that something is.
The same is true when we come to the Bible. I would not be surprised if one
reason for the popularity of practical “how to” guides to personal Bible
reading is that the Scriptures, though revered, are generally regarded as
incomprehensible. In the past, we talked about the Bible’s “perspicuity”
that is, its clarity or straightforwardness. But many today, if they express
their true feelings about it, think of the Bible as the _Encyclopedia
Britannica:_ if you know what you’re looking for, fine, but it cannot be
read like any other book, hav-ing its own plot which is presented and
developed by an ordinary reading of the text.
In that sense, the popular guides to Bible reading, not to mention the
myriad “study bibles” (a proliferation we should understand as motivated
largely by financial considerations), actually undermine the study of
Scripture, in most cases. The writers often assume that the Bible does not
have its own clear and distinct message, so they find hidden messages
between the lines. Ironic, isn’t it: many of those who charge confessional
folks with imposing their systems on Scripture end up only imposing a
shallow substitute, a “system” that does not arise naturally from the text
itself, but emerges from the life-experience of a single individual and his
or her friends?
As the late Yale theologian Hans Frei explained, the blame for interrupting
this reading of the biblical text as a single story is not the fault only of
the higher critics but of conservatives also, as both tried to get above or
behind the narrative in order to discover what really hap-pened or what
really mattered. In other words, the reader decided what he or she was
looking for and then found it. But what was found was no longer the story of
God’s saving work in Christ. So Frei, his colleagues and students in the
trend of so-called “narrative theology” have called for a return to a
pre-critical way of reading Scripture. This doesn’t mean that they have
rejected the last two centuries of biblical criticism. Rather, they argue
that the modern way of reading Scripture has missed the whole point.
While we would have significant concerns about the way some narrative
theologians read this text, given their generally Barthian view of
Scripture, there is some indi-cation that the insistence on: (a) the Bible
as a narrative of saving events, (b) its Christ-centered focus, and c) the
unity of the canon as a presupposition of the promise-fulfillment pattern of
the testaments, at least points us in the right direction. As Hans Frei,
Brevard Childs, and other representatives of this school insist, we need to
get past the Enlightenment hangover and begin to read the Bible the way
Luther and Calvin did again. So how did Luther and Calvin read the Bible?
More importantly, how was the Bible meant to be read? What are we looking
for when we open the Bible or hear a sermon?
*”The Scriptures Testify of Me”*
If anyone is qualified to answer that question it is surely Jesus Christ,
the Living Word himself. And, in fact, he does. To the religious leaders who
highly revered but failed to truly understand this book, Jesus declared,
“You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and
these are they which tes-tify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me
that you may have life” (John 5:40). I am reminded of the type of preaching
I often heard growing up in which the answer for nearly everything was: read
the Bible more. The last thing I wanted to read was the Bible, since it had
become a talisman. It is ironic that as much as these brothers and sisters
recoil at any suggestion of an _ex opere operato_ (literally, “by doing it,
it is done”) view of the Sacraments, there seems to be a similar view of
devotions and Bible reading the “quiet time.” Just do it, and everything
will be better.
But this vague approach to the Scriptures fails to recognize that Scripture
itself tells us loudly and clearly what we should come to it to find each
time. The Bible is not an end in itself, but a means to a greater end: to
lead us to the living person of Jesus Christ and to unite us to him by the
Spirit. It is possible to be a “Bible-believer,” but not a Christian — that
is, not someone who reads this as a book about the person and work of
Christ. But, some will say, not all of Scripture can be about Christ. After
all, the Book of Revelation, for instance, is about the end times, right?
Yes and yet, Revelation is a rich tapestry bringing together the threads of
redemptive history around Christ: nothing could be more obvious from the
text itself. Furthermore, Jesus was criticizing the religious leaders for
not under-standing that the Scriptures were all about him when the only
Scriptures to which he had reference consisted of the Old Testament. If
Christ is the center of the Old Testament, then is he any less central in
the New? If there is any doubt, we are reminded of our Lord’s appear-ance to
his disciples on the road to Emmaus. Not under-standing the meaning of
Jesus’ death, these disciples were utterly despondent. Jesus told them, “‘O
foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have
spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into
his glory?’ And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, he expounded to
them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself’ (Luke 24:25-7). No
wonder their hearts burned within them as he opened up the Scriptures. It
could happen on a broad scale today, too, if the Scriptures would only be
approached this way in preaching.
Through the Scriptures, Peter says (again referring to the Old Testament),
the Spirit revealed “…the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would
follow” (I Pet. 1: 11).
The sermons in the Book of Acts all reflect this way of preaching the
Scriptures: Christ is proclaimed from the Old Testament. The first Christian
sermons, therefore, do not proclaim Moses as a great Christian leader, nor
is the purpose to set forth the example of Joshua’s courage or David’s
“heart for the Lord,” nor is Gideon’s fleece a parable of seeking the Lord’s
will for our lives. Rather, Scripture is all about Christ, from beginning to
end: his sufferings, and the glories that would follow.
Too often in conservative hermeneutics, there is a biblicism which is
unbiblical: the naive (not to mention tautological) assumption that we’re
simply looking for what is there. Each time we go to the text, we are
start-ing from scratch, as if we had no blinders, no presuppo-sitions. This
is not only impossible, it blinds us to our presuppositions so that we
cannot critique them. To say that all of Scripture is about Christ and that,
therefore, whatever does not proclaim Christ is not sufficiently bib-lical,
is not to impose expectations on the text. Rather, it is to come to have
certain expectations of the text because it is the text itself which tells
us to expect it! One con-servative evangelical pastor told me, “I just
preach the Word. If I’m in Galatians, I sound like an antinomian if I’m in
the Sermon on the Mount, I sound like a legalist.” The assumption here, of
course, is that one is just stick-ing close to the text, preferring exegesis
(reading out the meaning) rather than eisegesis (reading the meaning into
the text). But in reality, one may be simply engaging in the higher critics’
tendency to view the Bible as a patch-work quilt of disparate pieces rather
than as a single bolt of fabric. It is ironic when Brevard Childs, at Yale
Divinity School, argues for reading the Bible as a single book while my
conservative evangelical friend insists on reading it as a collection of
fragments.
But if we know what we’re looking for (the “big pic-ture”), because the
Bible itself clearly sets forth that goal, we sound like neither an
antinomian nor a legalist. God speaks with consistency. Therefore, there is
a “system” which arises naturally from the Bible itself, a coherent
discourse concerning Gods redemptive drama. Reading the parts (individual
passages) in the light of that whole (redemptive- historical interpretation)
becomes a fruitful process. As Jesus himself reminded the religious leaders,
it is possible to read the Bible and yet not read the Bible. In other words,
it is possible to read the words of Scripture without “getting it,” without
recognizing that Christ and his saving office is the point of it all.
Another temptation in reading/hearing the Scriptures is our impatience. For
something to be useful reading, we unwittingly think that it has to either
entertain or inform us. Thus, Scripture somehow has to fit into one or both
of those categories. A practical lot, Americans don’t like “wasting” their
time on subjects whose usefulness cannot be easily and quickly measured. The
problem is, Scripture is divided into “Law” and “Gospel,” as our Reformed as
well as Lutheran forebears insisted. These are categories, not sections, of
the Bible. So, for instance, often even the same verse is, in one sense,
Law, and in another, Gospel. “I will be your God” may be “Law” to me when I
realize God’s righteousness and how prone I am to doing things my way, while
it may be “Gospel” to me when I recognize that in the covenant of grace God
not only promises eternal life to sinners, but grants repen-tance, faith,
justification, sanctification, perseverance, and glorification.
Consequently, nothing not even my unfaithfulness will keep God from being my
God. But what happens when we demand that our reading or hear-ing of
Scripture must be either entertaining or practical? Necessarily, it subverts
this Law-Gospel distinction. Good news becomes entertainment and the Law is
reduced to practical tips. As a result, the bad news isn’t really that bad,
and the good news isn’t really that good. The bad news is that we are not as
faithful as we should be in our discipleship; the good news is that God has
provided us with clear instructions as to how we can love him from the
heart. From the heart, mind you! After all, the good news is that while the
Old Testament required obedience to a lot of rules, the New Testament
requires heart-religion: that we love God and our neighbor. That is what we
hear often these days, but it is not good news. Jesus summarized the entire
Law in terms of loving God and neighbor. All along, the Law had been a
matter of the heart and not just of the hands, as the judgments against
Israel in the prophets indicates.
Even if such a contrast were legitimate, it is not good news that God used
to require adherence to external commands and now enjoins an internal love
of God and neighbor. Rather, this is the most rigorous center of the Law
itself: it demands far more, not less. So when people preach (or read) the
Bible as a handbook of helpful tips or as a practical guide for happier
living, they are not really encountering the Bible at all, despite their
appeal to it. If one comes to the Bible always looking for the “practical,”
that usually means that one will come looking for watered-down “Law.”
Remember, this is already our tendency, as Calvin’s successor, Theodore
Beza, reminds us: “Me Law is natural to man…. But the gospel is a
supernatural doctrine which our nature would never have been able to imagine
nor able to approve without a spe-cial grace of God.”1
This doesn’t mean, however, that one should preach (or read) every passage
as a direct republication of “Law” and “Gospel,” “Guilt, Grace, and
Gratitude,” or even ofChrist ‘and redemptive history. These latter
classifica-tions are hermeneutical (i.e., interpretive) clues, guardrails,
and categories, but not the _content_ itself. Each passage has its own life
within a larger context of its own place in both Scripture and redemptive
history. If every sermon sounds the same, then these categories have become
the content rather than the method, rendering every sermon “topical” instead
of being genuinely exegetical and redemptive-historical. To say that all of
Scripture points to Christ is not to suggest that we can trample on the
immediate context and content of a pas-sage. It is more like a light
illumining all of Scripture than a vacuum inhaling all of it. The revelation
of Christ in the history of redemption is the reference point for
inter-pretation, but should in no way mute the specifics of a given passage,
If we fail to recognize that each passage has its own place and must be
given its due, we risk turn-ing “preaching Christ,” “Law-and-Gospel,” or
“redemp-tive-historical interpretation” into new ways of doing merely
topical preaching. In other words, it is possible to understand
“redemptive-historical” preaching in a way that undermines all sense of real
history and a genuine sense of an unfolding plot.
A related temptation is the tendency to regard the Bible as a handbook of
timeless principles: Genesis as handbook of science; Leviticus as handbook
of worship, Deuteronomy as handbook of government; Proverbs as handbook of
helpful tips for life; Daniel and Revelation as handbooks of end-times
predictions; the Sermon on the Mount as the handbook of discipleship; Romans
as hand-book of doctrine. Some people, therefore, read the whole Bible as if
it were the Book of Proverbs and others as if it were the Book of Romans:
timeless eternal principles of living or of doctrine. But Scripture is full
of many differ-ent genres, chief among them narrative. Thus, they are to be
read as a divinely inspired and authorized account of redemption, from
Genesis to Revelation.
Let’s use an example from a widespread interpretive mistake: “If my people
who are called by my name will humble them-selves, and pray and seek my
face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heav-en, and
will forgive their sin and heal their land” (2 Chr. 7:14). This verse is
often used as a proof-text for America’s restoration as Gods favorite
country. But this ignores both the immediate and the wider context. As to
the immediate context, this oft-quoted slogan does not even begin at the
beginning. The first part of the severed verse reads, “When I shut up heaven
and there is no rain, or command the locusts to devour the land, or send
pestilence among my people, _if my people who are called by my name_….”
This verse’s historical context is discarded so that it may more easily
serve as a universal and timeless moral principle, to be applied at will. In
terms of the wider context, it ignores the covenantal structure of biblical
revelation. In the Old Testament, there are two covenants running
concurrently throughout the story: the Abrahamic and the Mosaic. The former
represents the covenant of grace, while the latter is strictly conditional
on Israel’s obedience in the land. To misapply the threats or blessings
which God directs to the theocratic kingdom of Israel is to confuse the
covenant of grace with the covenant of works. This passage must be
understood in the light of its covenantal framework and its place in
redemptive history.
While doctrinal and ethical truths are clearly gleaned from this Word, they
are subordinate to the central plot and the principal character of this
drama. As theologian Richard Gaffin observes,
Revelation never stands by itself, but is always concerned either
explicitly or implicitly with redemptive accomplishment. Gods speech is
invariably related to his actions. It is not going too far to say that
redemption is the raison d, etre of rev-elation. An unbiblical,
quasi-gnostic notion of rev-elation inevitably results when it is
considered by itself or as providing self-evident general truths.
Consequently, revelation is either authentication or interpretation of
God’s redemptive action. 2
*Recovering the Narrative*
As noted earlier, it is not only confessional folks who are currently
talking about the Bible’s plot and the drama of God’s salvific action. In
reaction to the “scorched earth” policy of the higher critics toward the New
Testament documents (characterized by an obsession with getting above,
behind, or underneath the biblical narrative), some academic theologians
have decided that it is time again to take the Bible’s story seriously.
These “postliber-als” or “narrative theologians” trace their lineage back to
Hans Frei’s insightful Tbe Eclipse of Biblical Narrative (1974).
While we must not forget the problems associated with this movement
(especially the Barthian reluctance to address the relationship between the
narrative and factual history or other truth-claims), it has helpfully drawn
atten-tion once again to the Bible’s narrative character. Applying literary
theory, of course, is nothing new. In fact, Frei saw himself and recent
biblical theologians as reiterating the approach to interpretation embodied
in the history of the church’s most ordinary Bible reading and preaching.
Long before a minor modern school of thought made the biblical “history
of salvation” a special spiritual and historical sequence for
histo-rio-graphical and theological inquiry, Christian preachers and
theological commentators, Augustine the most notable among them, had
envisioned the real world as formed by the sequence told by the biblical
stories.
The most dominant form of interpretation, says Frei, was the ‘literal and
historical reading’; or, if you will, the _sensus literalis_ (literal
sense), which is not to be confused with literalism. “It actually received
new impetus in the era of the Renaissance and the Reformation when it became
the reg-nant mode of biblical reading.”, Reading the Bible for something
other than the story a strategy employed by liberals and conservatives alike
has led to a colossal distraction and a lengthy hiatus from the most common
prac-tice throughout church history. After the Enlightenment, it is
demanded, “But to what does this narrative refer?” Both liberals and
conservatives tended to see the Scriptures as a source for “what really
happened’ (i.e., outside of the biblical narrative itself). As a result, the
meaning and signifi-cance shifted from the dramatic plot of redemption
itself to the evidence for or against certain claims, requiring this
particular narrative to serve in its own way the metanarra-tive of universal
reason, experience, and morality. At the end of it all, the biblical story
was little more than an illus-tration of universal truths which were already
true and knowable apart from revelation.
In some ways, Frei’s project was anticipated three decades earlier by his
Yale colleague, H. Richard Niebuhr, in the latter’s _The Meaning of
Revelation_ (194 1). Especially in the chapter titled, “The Story of Our
Life,” Niebuhr defends a contrast between “outer history” (history as told
by an “objective” bystander) and an “inner history” (history as told by a
participant in that history). Note the following example he uses:
Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address begins with history: “Fourscore and seven
years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation,
con-ceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are
created equal.” The same event is described in the Cambridge Modern
History in the fol-lowing fashion: “On July 4, 1776, Congress passed the
resolution which made the colonies independ-ent communities, issuing at
the same time the well -known Declaration of Independence. If we regard
the Declaration as the assertion of an abstract polit-ical theory,
criticism and condemnation are easy. It sets out with a general
proposition so vague as to be practically useless. The doctrine of the
equality of men, unless it be qualified and conditioned by reference to
special circumstance, is either a barren truism or a delusion.”
It hardly seems that Lincoln and the _Cambridge Modern History_ could have
been describing the same founding event in our national memory, the former
speaking from within that history while the latter is detached and dis-tant.
“Hence we may call internal history dramatic and its truth dramatic truth,
though drama in this case does not mean fiction.” Furthermore,
The inspiration of Christianity has been derived from history, it is
true, but not from history as seen by a spectator; the constant
reference is to subjective events, that is to events in the lives of
subjects. What distinguishes such historic recall from the private
histories of mystics is that it refers to communal events, remembered by
a communi-ty and in a community. Subjectivity here is not equivalent to
isolation, non-verifiability, and inef-fability; our history can be
communicated and per-sons can refresh as well as criticize each others
memories of what has happened to them in the common life; on the basis
of a common past they can think together about the common future.
To be sure, there are dangers here of reverting to the classic liberal
tendency to see claims such as the Resurrection as statements concerning
what happened to the disciples rather than to Jesus: in other words, the
“Easter faith” of the apostolic community rather than any truth claim about
the empty tomb. Ever present in an Evangelicalism dominated by pietism is
the tendency to concentrate on the act of faith rather than on the object of
faith; our experience with Jesus Christ rather than the person and work of
Jesus Christ himself; the testimony of what happened to us rather than the
apostles’ testimony of what happened to Christ. “My Story” begins to take
precedence over “His Story.”
Nevertheless, that which links us here and now to the founding events then
and there, and ties us to everything in between, is the fact that My Story
has now become part of His Story. I have been written into the script,
joining the cast of players, running the race to the cheering throngs of
glorified saints until, one day, 1, too, join those satis-fied spectators in
the stands (Heb. 12:1-2), It is the bib-lical eschatology of the
“already/not yet” which keeps all of this in balance, reminding us that all
of us who are baptized into Christ belong already to the “new cre. ation,”
but that this new creation is not yet consummat-ed. Our “story” is no longer
“a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”
(Shakespeare’s A4acbetb). In other words, it is not a merely chronological
life (“one damned thing after another,” or that which Peter calls “your
aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers”), but is new,
eschatological life: “…even while we were dead in trespasses, [God] made
us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us
up together, and made us sit togeth-er in the heavenly places in Christ
Jesus, that in the ages to come he may show the exceeding riches of his
grace in his kindness toward us in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:6-7).
So in Baptism, the Story of Jesus incorporates My Story. The eyewitness
accounts of the apostles focus on the Story of Jesus: how he fulfilled the
role of Messiah in Israel’s history by conquering sin, hell, and death.
Almost entirely absent from the Gospel narratives is a description of what
happened to the disciples: so focused are they on being witnesses to the
Story of Jesus. And yet, all along in the accounts their lives’ plots are
rewritten, their characters recast, their roles transformed: Matthew the
greedy tax- collector is no longer to exist, but is to be made one of the
Twelve, each of whom is to the New Testament what the twelve tribes of
Israel are to the Old. Although Jesus Christ’s living, dying, and rising are
vicarious acts of redemption, my identity, from character to plot, is
inserted into the identity, from character to plot, of this other person and
his story. No longer a spectator to this remark-able story, suddenly
[–gentile, outsider, “nowhere man living in his nowhere land, making all
his nowhere plans for nobody” get written into the elevated story of chosen
Israel, of which Jesus Christ is the crucial character. The outcast gets
“re-scripted” as a privileged one. “In Christ,” and with his whole body, I
am elect and precious, redeemed, justified, sanctified, bodily raised on the
last day and glorified forever. Many metaphors hint at this amazing reality:
grafting wild branches onto the fruitful vine, living stones being built
into the heavenly sanctuary of Christ’s body, those “who once were not a
people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now
have obtained mercy” (I Pet. 2: 10). I’m not making this up:
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?
Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do
you not know that as many of us as were bap-tized into Christ Jesus were
baptized into his death? Therefore we were buried with him through
baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the
glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For
if we have been united in the likeness of his death, certainly we also
shall be in the likeness of his resurrection, knowing this, that our old
man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away
with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin…. Now if we died with
Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him, knowing that
Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer
has dominion over him. For the death that he died, he died to sin once
for all; but the life that he lives, he lives to God. Likewise you also,
reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ
Jesus our Lord (Rom. 6:1 -11).
But before we get too carried away with “narrative” approaches, let us
remember that the Story of Jesus can-not be separated from the truth claims
of Jesus and his disciples. This narrative is true not merely in the sense
that a poem is true or Steinbeck’s _Of Mice and Men_ is “true to life.” So
“history-like” versus “historical,” a distinction often employed by Frei and
other narrative theologians, cannot prove very beneficial for those of us
who regard the bibli-cal narrative(s) as thoroughly historical. Nor are we
imposing an Enlightenment criterion of external reference or rationality
upon the narrative, for it is the narrative itself which makes claims to
final, external, historical truth.
Nor should this recognition of the power of narrative, which has been
emphasized already by such conservative biblical theologians as Geerhardus;
Vos, Herman Ridderbos, and Meredith Kline, be used by faddish preachers. As
Johann Baptist Metz warns, “This is why, in giving renewed emphasis to
narrative, it is important to avoid the possible misunderstanding that
‘story-telling’ preachers and teachers will be justified in their narration
of anecdotes, when what is required are arguments and rea-soning. After all,
there is a time for story-telling and a time for argument.”7 Drawn to the
Life and, by the power of the Holy Spirit working through the Word, drawn
the Life, all other stories fade-not away, but into the background. Rival
narratives which threaten to misshape us and ulti-mately lead to death are
exposed for the shallowness of their plot, the narrowness of their vision,
and the hope-lessness of their characters. His Story becomes My Story, and
vice versa, while both become Our Story, the witness of the New Humanity to
its Living Head:
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have
seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have
handled, concerning the Word of life-the life was manifest-ed, and we
have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which
was with the Father and was manifested to us-that which we have seen and
heard we declare to you, that you also may have fel-lowship with us; and
truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.
And these things we write to you that your joy may be full (I John 1: 1
-4).
————-
*TIPS FOR READING AND PREACHING THE BIBLE IN A CHRIST-CENTERED WAY*
*In the reading of Scripture*, whether privately or in public worship,
consider including both an Old Testament and a New Testament reading, the
former selection related to the latter as promise to its fulfillment. We
begin to think in terms of this pattern by hearing the connections.
*Ask yourself: *What’s the stage of redemptive history at which we find
ourselves in this passage? If this ques-tion were asked each time, it could
clear up the tendency to convert a significant event in redemptive history
into an unhistorical pattern for us today (viz., the theocracy in Israel,
temple worship, tongues in Acts, etc.).
*How do I find myself in Christ* (and therefore with his church) in this
story? Make your life conform to this story, not vice versa. And be willing
to allow it to critique its rivals, such as the narrative of
self-fulfillment, consumerism, etc.
*Read with the Church.* Creeds, confessions, a good systematic theology, can
all help you to see the limitations of your own narrow range of ideas,
presuppositions, experiences, and longings. Instead of trying to start from
scratch, join the conver-sation that has been in progress since Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob.
*Read/hear prayerfully*. The Holy Spirit, who inspired the Scriptures,
illumines believers so that they may understand their significance.
Interpretation is never simply an intellectual exercise, but involves the
imagination, the heart, and the will. In every act of interpretation, we are
entirely dependent on the Spirit who reveals Christ to us, as our Savior
said: “…he will testify concerning me” (John 15:26).
——–
*Dr. Horton is associate professor of historical theology at Westminster
Theological Seminary in California, and serves on the Council of the
Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals.*
Reprinted by permission of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, 1716
Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103
13 Comments. Leave new
golf company website @ 2015 05 14 17:12:14Thank you for the good writeup.
Duvetica Ace Anti-pilling [url=http://www.cafeworkshops.com/Serungffuma/en/yurongfuzonhe-10/fdwolbky-p-550.html]Duvetica Ace Anti-pilling[/url]
Another organization formed for the purpose of investigating psychical research was the Institute for Religious Psychology, founded by Hiroshi Motoyama.
Moncler Soft Safran [url=http://www.ouchpain.com/Serungffuma/en/yurongfuzonhe-3/wwwoxkhh-p-799.html]Moncler Soft Safran[/url]
Pomocou klávesov so šípkami sa presúvate po obľúbených položkách na pracovnom priestore.
Moncler 2015 Hyacinth [url=http://www.cafeworkshops.com/Serungffuma/en/yurongfuzonhe-10/dzubsuba-p-569.html]Moncler 2015 Hyacinth[/url]
Your customer personas should always come first.
Bogner Fausto-D 3101 Keep Warm [url=http://www.akrabellohotel.com/Serungffuma/en/yurongfuzonhe-8/jxymvsdh-p-547.html]Bogner Fausto-D 3101 Keep Warm[/url]
Zmeniť predvolené nastavenia widgetu.
Moncler Vanneau Eco-Friendly [url=http://www.collsfarmstand.com/Serungffuma/en/yurongfuzonhe-6/yxizctkn-p-796.html]Moncler Vanneau Eco-Friendly[/url]
“There was a CPS notice on the door saying, ‘Don’t go pick up your daughter.
Duvetica Waterproof Men [url=http://www.voxhumanitatis.com/Serungffuma/en/yurongfuzonhe-7/dkgywipo-p-841.html]Duvetica Waterproof Men[/url]
Edit Your Comment (2000 Characters only.
Moncler Windbreak Lyons Blue [url=http://www.kryptonale.com/Serungffuma/en/yurongfuzonhe-1/uhtrhhxw-p-095.html]Moncler Windbreak Lyons Blue[/url]
s system could include particular day to day menu schemes, among them appetizers.
Belstaff Soft Sheepskin Leather [url=http://www.cafeworkshops.com/Serungffuma/en/yurongfuzonhe-10/uazgsade-p-735.html]Belstaff Soft Sheepskin Leather[/url]
Sgt Matt Tschopp 10 Nov 2012 07:31This is Matt again The persons name I couldn’t remember and finally remembered is Willie.
Belstaff Coated Cotton Keep Warm [url=http://www.someofmyeggs.com/Serungffuma/en/yurongfuzonhe-4/ljraqltm-p-759.html]Belstaff Coated Cotton Keep Warm[/url]
Thanks for putting it in perspective.
Moncler Bresle Waterproof [url=http://www.ouchpain.com/Serungffuma/en/yurongfuzonhe-3/nyzutczb-p-083.html]Moncler Bresle Waterproof[/url]
Immediately around the edge of the black hole’s disc is a different story.
Belstaff Biker Jacket [url=http://www.cafeworkshops.com/Serungffuma/en/yurongfuzonhe-10/veaapuax-p-938.html]Belstaff Biker Jacket[/url]
Are you presently striving to pretend that practically nothing is wrong and hiding the problem from those people all around you.
Wellensteyn Windbreak Soft [url=http://www.snjacademics.com/Serungffuma/en/yurongfuzonhe-2/ckwarrns-p-712.html]Wellensteyn Windbreak Soft[/url]
Join forces Enterprise must put their people first.
Belstaff Lady Anti-pilling [url=http://www.bepgarinnai.com/Serungffuma/en/yurongfuzonhe-5/vexuifzh-p-411.html]Belstaff Lady Anti-pilling[/url]