Biblical Eschatology Presentation by: D. Paul Beck May 4, 2016 Ground Rules
Download 174.72 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- The Jews await a Kingdom…
- Israel and the Church
- Kingdom Views
- The Olivet Discourse
- Daniel’s Seventy Weeks
- The Day of the Lord
- Daniel’s 70
Covenants:
The Jews await a Kingdom… The Lord Jesus Christ, early in His ministry, made an offer; He made an offer to be the King. If Israel would acknowledge Him as King, it would have their much-anticipated Kingdom as promised to the Jews throughout the Old Testament. The cross works out of the rejection and rebellion against Jesus being King. Here’s where there’s a split in theology and why people, those who tend to be in the Reformed theological camp, get very nervous when they hear somebody like me talking this way. They get nervous because in their eyes Christ came to die, period. That was His whole mission, to come and give atonement. With that we don’t quarrel. What the Dispensationalist is saying, however, is that it wasn’t a straight line to the cross. Jesus arrived at the cross as a result of cause-and-effect, cause-and-effect, cause-and-effect, and part of the cause-and-effect was that He was rejected by the nation of Israel, clearly taking place in Matthew 12, and it was that rejection that propelled Him to the cross. If you stop to think about the history laid out for us within Scripture, you think of the fact that it starts with creation - God offered a sinless environment to man. What did man do with it? He trashed it. So we have the Fall. Had man not trashed the environment and had he not rebelled, would Christ have had to have died? So you see that the set up for the crucifixion works out of a genuine situation of cause-and-effect in Eden. Then we have the Flood. You get to the Flood and Noah has an ark of a finite size. Suppose when Noah preached during the 120 years and everybody believed. Would the ark then have become necessary? Cause-and-effect. It’s speculation, but the point we need to realize is that in every one of these historical junctures there’s a pattern that you want to see, and it’s that pattern that occurs in the Gospels. So what occurs in the Gospels isn’t new, it’s just a repeat of the same sort of pattern. God presents a positive option to the human race and the human race always rebels against it, which of course God predestined. As a result of the rebellion against His positive offer, we move to the next step in His plan. Granted, from all eternity God set this up to get to the cross; that’s a given, He did that. But it’s by means of these things, these events, this cause-and-effect, that we get to the Cross. So we want to recognize how this works out in the Gospels. Now in those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." [Mat 3:1-2 NASB] Here is where the Gospels begin - they don’t begin with Jesus - all four Gospels begin with John the Baptist. Why do the Gospels begin with John the Baptist? In the Old Testament history who chose the kings? Did the kings come upon the scene and anoint themselves? No, there were king-makers. The prophets were the king-makers. Who ordained the kings? It was the prophets. How did they ordain the King? Well what did Samuel do to David? He anointed him with oil in 1 Samuel 16. That’s the anointing, that’s Mashach (to anoint) and it is the root to the Hebrew word Mashiyach, from which we get our term “Messiah.”
What does the word Messiah mean? The word Messiah means the anointed one. Who was the anointed one? The one the prophet had chosen to be king. That’s the background. So now comes the prophet, the king-maker, and in Matthew 3:2 what is the message of the king-maker? The message isn’t “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” for He’s going to atone for your sins – that’s not the message here at this time in history. It’s true that John the Baptist knew that the Messiah would suffer, he knew that from the Old Testament and there was some type of primitive understanding that somehow the Messiah would die, that’s true. But there’s an offer being made here to the nation of Israel. John the Baptist says, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,” it’s here, it’s at hand; it doesn’t mean it’s come, it means it is at the door, so to speak, it’s near here. So the nation is called to repent because Israel was operating on its own program that involved a bunch of religious works and an apostate religious system. John the Baptist recognized all that and his message was to the house of Israel, to change their attitude and their ways and he challenged them on the basis of Scripture to prepare themselves for the promised Kingdom. We need to recognize that here in verse 2, within the early chapters to all four Gospels really, John the Baptist never defines what the Kingdom is and that’s critical to understanding the New Testament. The New Testament never stops to define the content of the Kingdom, which means one thing. It means the Kingdom must have been known. Where did the Jews find out the content to the word “Kingdom” from? From the Old Testament. That’s where they got the content for what the Kingdom is. “Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,” he says in verse 2. In verse 3, we have confirmation of this train of thought. For this is the one referred to by Isaiah the prophet when he said, “THE VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS, ‘MAKE READY THE WAY OF THE LORD, MAKE HIS PATHS STRAIGHT!’” What was Isaiah prophesying about? The kingdom; the ideal kingdom that would surely come. So when you see the Old Testament quote in verse 3, that tells you that John the Baptist was communicating what any Jew of his day would have understood from Isaiah’s writings. What did Isaiah talk about? He talked about a regenerated cosmos, he talked about Jerusalem being the everlasting temple, he talked about making straight the crooked paths – the fact is that the Jews looked forward to a Kingdom and a rebirth of nature and all things contained within. So John the Baptist is stating, by his use of Isaiah’s writings, “this is it, the Kingdom is at hand – get ready!” So the point is that it wasn’t necessary for John the Baptist and then Jesus to go into great detail about the nature of the Kingdom. Everybody at this time knew what the Kingdom was. John the Baptist was preaching about a major event in world history, the long anticipated culmination of Israel’s reason for existence. That’s what is meant here in the beginning of Matthew, chapter 3; “Repent, for that kingdom is at hand,” the last hour of history is near. At the end of Matthew chapter 3, we have Jesus’ baptism. In Matthew chapter 4, we have Jesus’ 40 days of fasting in the desert. Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory; and he said to Him, "All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me." [Mat 4:8-9 NASB] From that time Jesus began to preach and say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." [Mat 4:17 NASB] Notice what Jesus does. What is His first message? His message is “Repent; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Again, the same message, the prophet and the King have the same Gospel, the same message, to the same people, over the same issue, “repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Where this is even more profoundly expressed is within the Synoptic Gospel of Mark: Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." [Mar 1:14-15 NASB] Mark records the preaching of this “Gospel.” Now it is at this point within this discussion that a very important factor needs to be stressed. This discussion is in no way suggesting that there are or that there were two different ways of salvation. My use of the term “Gospel” (Gr. euaggelion) simply means “good news.” 
When the disciples were sent out they preached the “good news” that the Kingdom of God was at hand. That was a specific message to the nation of Israel that was understood and expected via covenant by every Jew at this point in history. We, Christians, preach the “good news,” which includes the finished work of Christ. This does not suggest that there is one Gospel for the Jews and one Gospel for Gentiles. Indeed, the nature of the good news was different when it was an offer of the Kingdom to Israel compared to when the salvific work of Christ was completed, but salvation has always been by one means - Christ’s finished work was anticipated before it was accomplished, but it is now remembered ever since it was accomplished - that being faith. This Gospel of the Kingdom, at this point in history, is a message of urgency at the end of Israel’s history. Though as profound as it is to imagine that if the nation of Israel had accepted Jesus’ offer, history as we know it would have concluded roughly 2,000 years ago, this Gospel is not the good news that the Christian declares today: For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. [Rom 1:16 NASB] Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, [1 Cor 15:1-4 NASB] The death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is the Christian’s Gospel. Again, the nature of the “good news” was contextually different when it was an offer of the Kingdom to Israel, but salvation has always been by faith (Rom 4:3, Gen 15:6, Hab 2:4, Gal 3:11, Heb 11, Eph 2:8-9). People are not saved today by the preaching of a Gospel centered upon a coming Kingdom. A person is saved by their acceptance (belief) in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That said, the original Gospel, the good news, the offer that Jesus made to the nation of Israel for the fulfillment of the Old Testament covenants did not have as its content the death, burial, and resurrection of their awaited Messiah. Jesus was going through all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness. [Mat 9:35 NASB] Later on in Jesus’ ministry, He started to pick up heavy resistance from the “establishment” (the Pharisees, Scribes, Sadducees, and ultimately the Nation). Jesus sent out His disciples, and they ultimately confirmed that the Nation was rejecting Christ’s offer: These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: "Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. "And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.' [Mat 10:5-7 NASB] So halfway through Jesus’ ministry He’s commissioning the disciples, and He says in verse 5 “do not go to the Gentiles, do not go to the Samaritans.” We can conclude that in addition to two contexts of “good news”, Christ gave two distinct commissions to His disciples. When He initially gave them the Gospel, He commissioned them to go to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel“ but not to the Gentiles and the Samaritans - Matthew 10:5-7. Later, in conjunction with the full Gospel, He commissioned them to preach to all creatures - Mark 16:15 - and to make disciples of all nations – Matthew 28:18-20. Further in Matthew’s communication of the Gospel, chapter 10, verses 9 and 10, we read that Jesus also commanded distinct preparations for the ministries of the disciples. When He commissioned them to preach the Gospel to Israel, He ordered the disciples not to take money, a bag, two tunics, sandals, or a staff. However, when it became obvious that Israel would reject Jesus and His Gospel of the Kingdom and when the Gospel was about to become complete, Jesus commanded the disciples to take a purse, a bag, and even a sword - Luke 22:35-38. At the end of the four Gospels, when it’s all said and done, and Christ’s finished work has been realized and He’s risen from the dead, now all of a sudden the rules have changed; now we’re doing something different. What is going on in Matthew 28 is not the same as what is happening in Matthew 10. Here He says I don’t want you to go to the nations, I don’t want you to go to the Gentiles, I don’t want you to go to the Samaritans. Verse 6 of Matthew 10 basically states “I want you to concentrate your ministry efforts on the house of Israel.” So this is a Jewish topic, not a “Christian” topic at this time in history. Matthew 10:7 captures for us the message of John the Baptist; it was the message of Jesus, and it’s the message of His disciples at this time in history. This is not a message to the Gentiles and it is not the complete Gospel that we know today. This is a Gospel that was projected during the time of Jesus’ ministry to the house of Israel exclusively. We can call it a special announcement that the kingdom was right at their door. "Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist! Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. [Mat 11:11 NASB] "And if you are willing to accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come. [Mat 11:14 NASB] Here is one of the dilemmas of the Gospel. In Matthew 11:14, notice what it says, this is where John was in prison and he was kind of doubting things and Jesus said in verse 11, “Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist,” and then in verse 14 He says, “And if you care to accept it,” the it being italicized (you have to supply the object of the verb) and what “it” is is the Gospel message of “repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” - if you will accept this Gospel, then John is Elijah and the prophecy has been fulfilled in John the Baptist. "Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD. [Mal 4:5 NASB] What was the Old Testament prophecy? That Elijah would come and then there’d be the Kingdom. So if the Kingdom is going to come in Jesus’ day, you’ve got to have Elijah there? Well who’s the Elijah figure? He says if you accept it, John is the Elijah figure. But the Nation doesn’t accept it. And He answered and said, "Elijah is coming and will restore all things; but I say to you that Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands." [Mat 17:11-12 NASB] The idea is that Jesus is saying that Elijah is coming but he’s already come. There’s a contingency stated here. God offers the Kingdom, He offers John the Baptist, John the Baptist could have been Elijah, but the Nation, in rejection and rebellion, turns away. So we have this negative volition toward the Lord Jesus Christ that sets up the cross. That leads to the First and Second Advent. After Christ has died and risen again, we’ve got the First Advent and the Second Advent split apart. But in splitting them apart, now we’ve got an age in-between; we have an inter-advent age that is caused by the rebellion of Israel and because it wouldn’t accept Him, the Kingdom is postponed, it’s still waiting for its fulfillment, but it hasn’t come yet. What I have just outlined is a highly offensive representation to those who subscribe to the Reformed/Covenant Theology camp. They will ask “did Jesus come to die on the cross?” Yes, He most certainly did. The cross was not a peripheral act and if He hadn’t died on the cross we would not have salvation. Reformed Theology is correct soteriologically. When they say “you’ve got to make the cross of Christ the center of Jesus’ ministry,” they are correct. Thus, their idea of Dispensationalists is that when we argue that when Jesus was actually inviting Israel into the Kingdom prior to the cross, prior to being rejected, and then the cross comes in because of the rejection, they think that we’re saying that that is “Plan B.” They’re thinking the cross is sort of an after-effect of this rejection, that if Messiah had walked into Israel and said “accept Me as your King and you can have your Kingdom,” there would never have been a cross. In that, they are correct. What bothers the Reformed Theologian’s mentality is the fear that God has decreed something and that it goes to waste. They demand that “Israel’s rejection of Christ marked the end of that Nation’s position in God’s plan and hence the Kingdom promises to it. That was fundamental, it was part of the decree to go to the cross, and that decree to go to the cross meant that Christ had to be rejected. If Christ had to be rejected the Nation had to be ended; that was it, it’s over, period.” The idea that Jesus made a genuine offer to bring the Kingdom to Israel prior to the Cross and that Israel rejected this offer, but will one day still receive the Kingdom, is repulsive to Reformed Theology. Proponents of this theology believe that this approach makes the Cross a mere “Plan B” in history because it results from the negative side of a choice. Such theology, however, forgets that very similar “offers”, “rejections”, and “Plan B’s” have occurred in past history. As I mentioned earlier, in Eden the offer to man to dominate and subdue the Earth was rejected and brought about our present fallen mortal history with the need for the Cross (the result of a negative choice). What if Adam and Eve hadn’t have disobeyed? Would Jesus have had to go to the Cross? Then didn’t Jesus go to the Cross because of a negative decision on Adam and Eve’s part? So there’s a clear-cut case, right there. Next case: In the centuries after the flood the offer to build a new civilization was rejected and resulted in the calling out of a counter-culture in Abraham (the result of a negative choice). Nimrod and all the people apostatized in Noah’s family, they destroyed civilization, they paganized it; as a result of a negative choice God had to call Abraham. The next case: after Mt. Sinai what did God offer Israel? Entrée into the land. Did they take the entrée into the land or did they wait forty years and try it again? They waited forty years and tried it again, so there was an offer and there was a negative choice involved and it resulted in God’s plan. Immediately after Mt. Sinai the offer of Canaan to Israel was rejected and resulted in a second miraculous invasion under Joshua (the result of a negative choice). In the days of Samuel the offer of a politically simple theocracy was rejected and resulted in the rise of the monarchy and it was this monarchy that defined the role of Messiah (the result of a negative choice). Each of these examples, and there are others, could be similarly criticized as bringing about “Plan B’s”, but that is the clear pattern of God’s working in history. Luke 18:31-33, however, clearly indicates to us that the Cross was not “Plan B” – it was prophesied in the Old Testament and it was God’s plan before the foundations of the Earth were laid. So when Dispensationalists talk about Christ offering Himself, offering the opportunity of the Nation to inherit the Kingdom, we’re doing nothing else than anybody would have done in any of the other passages within Scripture - it’s the same argument. Jesus gave two distinct messages of good news for his disciples to preach. The content of the first Gospel was “the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Paul defined the second Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. An examination of these Gospels indicates that their contents were different. This was made quite apparent within Matthew’s Gospel, as we have seen. After the disciples had been out for some time preaching the first Gospel, they returned to Christ to report on their ministry. Matthew records: From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day. [Mat 16:21 NASB] The language indicates that although the disciples had already been preaching one message of good news up to this point, Jesus had never told them about His coming death, burial, and resurrection. Therefore, the first Gospel contained nothing concerning Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection. Peter’s negative reaction to Jesus' new teaching emphasized the distinction between the two messages very strongly: Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, "God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You." [Mat 16:22 NASB] If Peter had already been preaching Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection he would not have reacted so negatively when Christ referred to these coming events. As we proceed further within the four Gospels, we see clearly the expectation that the Jews held for the coming Kingdom: Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; [Luke 17:20 NASB] While they were listening to these things, Jesus went on to tell a parable, because He was near Jerusalem, and they supposed that the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately. [Luke 19:11 NASB] Luke 19:11 records that the disciples still “supposed that the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately.” The destruction of the temple that Jesus spoke about within His Olivet Discourse (Mt 24:2) did not fit the eschatological scheme the disciples envisioned, so they asked the Lord for clarification. Jesus addressed their questions in reverse order, describing the prophetic sign of His coming (actually a series of signs) in Matthew 24:4-35 and then addressing their question about the timing of these events beginning in Matthew 24:36. When they asked about His coming (Gr. parousia), they did not envision a second coming in the far-off future. They were speaking of His coming in triumph as Messiah, an event which they no doubt anticipated would occur at that present time. All of this expectation for the Kingdom led up to Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem. The Jews thought the Kingdom was coming and they thought it was coming then and there. Post-Cross, post-resurrection, post-rejection, Acts 1 records for us that during the forty days after His resurrection, Christ spoke about a very important subject: To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God. [Act 1:3 NASB] Verse 6 then records a very telling question that was on the minds of the disciples: So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?" [Act 1:6 NASB] The disciples were not asking the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ “why have you canceled the Kingdom?” The disciples had just received 40 days of instruction regarding the Kingdom of God. After 40 days, the disciples had but one question – “is the Kingdom coming now?” The question was not “why did you cancel the Kingdom?” or “why is the Kingdom now spiritual and not for Israel?” Jesus must have affirmed to the disciples during those 40 days that the Kingdom promised to Israel was indeed still coming. The only question was “when?” Jesus’ response to His disciples is recorded in Acts 1:7 – He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority; [Act 1:7 NASB] Jesus’ answer was that it was not for them to know the timing. Notice that Jesus did not say “where did you get such a bizarre idea about a Kingdom?” Jesus did not correct them in any way or suggest that the Kingdom was not coming. Jesus only told them that they did not need to worry about the timing. This was the perfect opportunity for Jesus to correct their theology, but that was not needed. There is a Kingdom coming. It has been postponed during the Church Age. Israel has been set aside while Christ focuses His attention upon the building of His Church. Israel is currently apostate, has rejected their true Messiah, and is experiencing a partial hardening (blindness) until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in (Rom 11:25). Israel, however, will never be forsaken by God. These and all other Biblical distinctions must not be ignored, watered-down, or explained away if an exposition of the Biblical philosophy of history and a proper understanding of Biblical Eschatology and the coming Kingdom, with Christ reigning as King, is to be appreciated correctly. Thus far we have reviewed the emphasis that the Bible places upon the Kingdom. We have reviewed why it is that our personal eschatology matters. We have looked at the differences found between Reformed Theology and Dispensational Theology. We have looked at the covenants, the binding contracts that God made with the nation of Israel. And we have surveyed the message and the offer that our Lord Jesus Christ made to the nation of Israel during the first half of His ministry. Throughout this presentation thus far, we have emphasized a clear distinction between Israel and the Church. Unfortunately, within a growing segment of the Church today, that distinction is blurred, misrepresented, and quite often denied. The distinction between Israel and the Church must be understood if we are to get our Eschatology correct. Israel and the Church:
Kingdom Views:
In summarizing these three predominant views, we ask the questions, “is the future triumphant Kingdom to be inside mortal history or is it essentially the eternal state?” After Christ came and was rejected, the controversy became more complex because of the rise of the Church and its relationship to the Kingdom and Israel. “Was the Church a ‘spiritualized’ version of Israel and the Kingdom (the Amillennialist view)?” Or, “was it actually a nation-like entity replacing Israel that was to conquer the world and bring into existence a physical-political kingdom to hand over to the Messiah (the Post-Millennialist view)?” Or, “was the Church a ‘new body’ distinct from Israel which somehow prepared the way for the yet-to-be-realized Kingdom (the Pre-Millennialist view)?” The debate rages on between theologians, but unfortunately, the average Christian spends little time studying this subject area and thus limits the hope and the joy promised to them within Scripture. "Be like men who are waiting for their master when he returns from the wedding feast, so that they may immediately open the door to him when he comes and knocks. "Blessed are those slaves whom the master will find on the alert when he comes; truly I say to you, that he will gird himself to serve, and have them recline at the table, and will come up and wait on them. "Whether he comes in the second watch, or even in the third, and finds them so, blessed are those slaves. [Luke 12:36-38 NASB] The Olivet Discourse: As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?" [Mt 24:3 NASB]
Daniel’s Seventy Weeks: The Scope Dan 9:24 (490 year prophecy concerning Israel) The 69 Weeks Dan 9:25 (Contiguous) The Interval Dan 9:26 (A 2,000 year gap) The 70th Week Dan 9:27 (ToJT, The 7-year Tribulation period) Dan 9:24
Dan 9:25
Dan 9:26
–or–
Dan 9:27
Synonymous Usages:
The Day of the Lord:
Daniel’s 70th Week (the Tribulation): "Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued. [Dan 12:1 NASB] Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob's trouble; but he shall be saved out of it. [Jer 30:7 KJV]
The 42 months refers to the reign of the Antichrist, specifically, the last half (3.5 years) of the seven-year Tribulation. At the beginning of that time period, the Antichrist will break his covenant with Israel and set up “the abomination that causes desolation” (Mk 13:14; cf. Dan 9:27) - an act that links the Antichrist to Antiochus Epiphanes, who similarly defiled the temple. The Antichrist will then turn his attention to the genocide of the Jews (Zech 13:8). During that persecution, Israel (the woman of Rev 12) will be protected by God in the wilderness (Dan 11:41). Also during that troubled time, God will send two witnesses to perform miracles and proclaim the truth of Christ in the face of the Antichrist’s lies (Rev 11:1-14).
37 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. 38 "Behold, your house is being left to you desolate! 39 "For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, 'BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!'" [Mat 23:37-39 NASB]
Directory: media media -> Applications to Drill media -> Unicef voices of Youth Chat Theme: Children and aids nigeria and Zimbabwe 13 October 2006 Background media -> Tsunami Terror Alert: Voices of Youth media -> Guide to completing the collection using the Omnibus system media -> The milk carton kids media -> Events Date and Location media -> The Gilded Age: The First Generation of Historians by H. Wayne Morgan University of Oklahoma, April 18, 1997 media -> Analysis of Law in the United Kingdom pertaining to Cross-Border Disaster Relief Prepared by: For the 30 June 2010 Foreword media -> Cuba fieldcourse 2010 media -> Hurricane Facts and Dates Download 174.72 Kb. Share with your friends:
|
