The Apocrypha: Reading Between the Testament an Overview

I post this to fulfill a favor for a friend ... the image to the right is of the table of contents for a real King James Version ... this one from 1611



I. What is the Apocrypha?



For many the Apocrypha is a collection of books that have been added to the Bible because (it is assumed) these books support some sort of false doctrine. Such a perspective, however is not balanced. Far from being a threat to our faith, the Apocrypha is a witness to the faith of God’s People living in the third and second centuries before Jesus. The works called “Apocrypha” come from Palestine or Egypt. The language of the Apocrypha is Hebrew with some being written in Greek and some possibly in Aramaic. A list of the Apocrypha and a one line “snap shot” of their theme follows:



1) Tobit: Better is Almsgiving with Justice

2) Judith: God saves Israel through a Widow

3) Additions to Esther: The Aid of the All-Seeing God and Savior

4) Wisdom of Solomon: The Righteous will live Forever

5) Sirach/Ben Sira: All Wisdom come from Doing the Word of God

6) Baruch: Return with Tenfold Zeal to the Lord

7) Letter of Jeremiah: They are Idols, not Gods, Do not Fear Them

8) Additions to Daniel: Let Them Know That You Alone are God

9) 1 Maccabees: The Family through Which Deliverance Was Given

10) 2 Maccabees: There is Some Power of God about this Place

11) 1 Esdras: Leave to us a Root and a Name

12) Prayer of Manasseh: The God of those who Repent, The God of Mercy

13) Psalm 151: He Made Me Shepherd of His Flock

14) 3 Maccabees: Blessed Be the Deliverer of Israel

15) 2 Esdras: The Mighty One Has Not Forgotten Us

16) 4 Maccabees: Noble is the Contest



II. Value in Studying the Apocrypha



Whether one accepts the Apocrypha as canonical Scripture is almost to miss the point in the value of this body of literature. Of course many Christians around the world, and down through the ages, certainly regard these texts as Scripture. This is simply a fact of history. Others (after the Protestant Reformation, 1517-1560) have rejected the Scriptural status of these books but remained unwilling to cast them aside as “ordinary” or “mundane” or “useless.” Rather many of these texts remained part of the devotional life of Protestant Christians and even part of worship. What follow are four “good” reasons for reading the Apocrypha as a Christian.



A first reason that motivates us to study these books is that they shed considerable light on the faith of God’s People “Between the Testaments.” This was a period of intense growth intellectually and spiritually for God’s People and it was also a time of intense hardship. Lots of questions, lots of thinking, lots of theology was fashioned during this time that has a direct impact on our understanding of Jesus and the early Church. The exaltation of the Torah was in many ways a result of persecution and 1 and 2 Maccabees floods the Gospels (as well as Galatians) with light. The development of notions about demons, angels, afterlife (both heaven and hell) is seen in the Apocrypha. The personification of Wisdom (which provides John and the early Church with language to talk about the Son’s relationship to the Father) is greatly developed in this literature. Much more could be said here.



A second compelling reason for studying the Apocrypha is that the authors of the NT are themselves familiar with these texts and thus our knowledge of them enhances our understanding of the NT. The NT authors refer to these writings in a variety of ways just like they do the Hebrew Bible. They make allusions through themes and stories. They borrow words and phrases and at times they directly quote these materials. An example of the latter would be Jude verse 14 quoting the Apocryphal writing 1 Enoch 1.10.



A third reason (valued more by some than others) for studying these writings is that they were formative for early Christian theologians, preachers and ordinary folk. They constitute the shared “heritage” of Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Slovonic and Coptic branches of Christianity. The only exposure some of these Christians had to stories like Daniel or Esther were from the Septuagint (for centuries). Some of the “formative” influence I speak of can be demonstrated with Hebrews and the Wisdom of Solomon. Hebrews uses concepts drawn from Wisdom to elaborate on the identity of Jesus and his relationship to God the Father. The italicized words show the correspondence:



“In these last days [God] has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir

of all things, through whom he also created the worlds, He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word” (Hebrews 1.2-3).



Wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me . . .

[Wisdom] is a breath of the power of God, and a pure emanation of the glory of

the almighty . . .

She is a reflection of eternal light, a spotless mirror of God, and an image of his

Goodness . . .

She is an initiate in the knowledge of God

and an associate in his works.” (Wisdom 7.22, 25-26; 8.4)



The Hebrew Writer has “paraphrased” and reworded the description of Wisdom so it now describes the nature and work of the Son, not only as he was experienced in the flesh but also before the Incarnation. To close this section I will quote from David deSilva’s work on the Apocrypha on the value of reading these works:



“I would also emphasize at this point, however, that the value of the Old Testament Apocrypha is not merely historical. These texts have not only informed people of faith but also have inspired them throughout the millennia. . . . these texts add fuel to the fire in the soul sparked by God in the face of adversity, the commitment to choose obedience to God over succumbing to the passions or weaknesses of the flesh, the experience of God’s forgiveness and expectation of God’s deliverance – all these are strengthened by these texts, which one could approach with confidence at least as the best devotional literature to have withstood the test of time.” (Introducing the Apocrypha, pp. 40-41).



III. The Apocrypha in the History of the English Bible





In this section we can hardly trace the history of the English Bible with any satisfaction; but we would be remiss to overlook this material all together. The Apocrypha has been a part of almost every major English Bible since the first one in 1384. Here is a list of the translations and their date:



1) John Wycliff (1384). The first English Bible (based on Latin Vulgate)

2) Myles Coverdale. First complete printed Bible. Based largely on William Tyndale’s work and published in 1535.

3) John Rogers Bible known as “Matthew’s Bible” of 1537.

4) The Great Bible of 1539. This was the first “authorized” version.

5) The Geneva Bible of 1560. This is the Bible of Shakespeare and the “Pilgrims.” The Geneva Bible places “The Prayer of Manasseh” after Chronicles. Rarely in the history of English has there been an “anti-Catholic” work like the Geneva Bible, yet it contains these words about the Apocrypha:



“These books that follow in order after the Prophets unto the New Testament, are called Apocrypha; that is books, which were not received by common consent to be read and expounded in the Church, neither served to prove any point of Christian religion . . . but as books proceeding from godly men, were received to be read for advancement and furtherance of the knowledge of the history, and for the instruction of godly manners: which books declare that at all times God had an especial care of his Church and left them not utterly destitute of teachers and means to confirm them in the hope of the promised Messiah, and also witness that those calamities that God sent to his Church, were according to his providence . . .” (Preface to Apocrypha, quoted in Bruce M. Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha, p. 187).



6) The Bishops Bible of 1568.

7) The King James Version of 1611. The KJV directs readers of the NT to the pages of the Apocrypha eleven times in its marginal notes:



Matt. 6.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . Sirach 7.16

Matt. 23.37 . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Esdras 1.30

Matt. 27.43 . . . . . . . . . . . .Wisdom 2.15, 16

Luke 6.31 . . . . . . . . . . . . .Tobit 4.16

Luke 14.13 . . . . . . . . . . . . Tobit 4.7

John 10.22 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Maccabees 4.59

Romans 9.21 . . . . . . . . . . . .Wisdom 15.7

Romans 11.34 . . . . . . . . . . . Wisdom 9.13

2 Cor. 9.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . Sirach 35.9

Hebrews 1.3 . . . . . . . . . . . .Wisdom 7.26

Hebrews 11.35 . . . . . . . . . . 2 Maccabees 7.7



8) Revised Version/American Standard Version of 1881/1901

9) Revised Standard Version of 1946.

10) New Revised Standard Version of 1989.



The Apocrypha is available today in the following modern English versions: New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, Today’s English Version, Revised English Bible, God's Word, English Standard Version, as well as the classic King James Version



Related Posts:

Apocryphal Myths: Great is the Truth and Mighty Above all

Book of Judith: God Saves Through a Woman

Susanna: Legendary Woman on the Family Tree

Praying with Romans and Manasseh

Jesus the Jew and Hanukkah

Jewish Traditions in Hebrews 11: The Cloud of Witnesses

The Worship of God: Insight from the Apocrypha

Read More

Ancestry of the King James Version # 9: John Wycliffe and the First English Bible

Other posts on Ancestry of the King James Version #1; #2; #3; #4; #5; #6; #7; #8;

Something new was being passed around in the 1380’s, in a world lit only by fire. It was an eagerly copied, extremely large book – a book the English language had never had before. It was the Bible, the whole Bible, translated from the Latin Vulgate. It was believed to be the primary work of Oxford scholar John Wycliffe.

Morning Star of the Reformation

Scholars are not sure of the exact date of Wycliffe birth but sometime around 1330 A.D. is often suggested as reasonable. Not much is known of his early life but we know he participated in a revival of learning and was thus educated at Oxford University receiving his Master’s in 1358 and his Doctorate in 1372.

Barbara Tuchman has christened the 1300s as the “calamitous century” [1]. It was the age of the “Black Death” when all thought the Apocalypse had finally arrived. Over a third of the population of Europe died in two short years from 1348 to 1350. Over 200 people a day were dying in London alone from the plague. It was the century of the Hundred Years War. It was the day of the Avignon Papacy and the great Papal Schism in 1378 with two, and then three, Popes at the same time. The institutional church was powerful and corrupt. The fears and hopes of the age are captured well by Wycliffe's younger contemporary Geoffrey Chaucer in his Canterbury Tales. In this dark and dangerous world John Wycliffe emerged as a political and religious reformer in England. He had both powerful allies and powerful enemies. The “establishment” tried him for heresy in 1378 but failed. Undaunted they tried again in 1382 and he was condemned and forbidden to teach and preach. He would enter the joys of his Lord on Christmas Day 1384. But Wycliffe had the last laugh over against the powerful bishops who felt the sting of his attack on their power. His disciples, the “Lollards”, were busy copying and distributing the Bible … soon it would be illegal in the extreme to even own an English Bible. The powers of the “church” ordered his bones exhumed and burned in 1415 … his ashes were thrown into the River Swift.

Wycliffe's Bible

Wycliffe's Bible is in Middle English. Anyone who recalls memorizing portions of Chaucer in high school or college immediately knows the language of Wycliffe's Bible. The history of the English language is usually divided into three major eras: Old English (from the invasion of the Angles to 1066 – the Battle of Hastings); Middle English typically dated from 1066 to 1500; and Modern English from 1500 to the present. Each of these periods witnessed great changes in the vernacular. Old English is so foreign requiring translation to understand. Middle English is often very difficult to read or understand without “learning it.” Even so called Modern English from the earlier time can be considerably different from the language of Harry Potter today.

David Daniell notes four prominent characteristics accompanying the Lollard Bible movement. First is that the manuscripts are not “romantic” expansions of Bible stories mixed in with the lives of the saints but rather the Bible itself. Second is the large number of Wycliffe Bible manuscripts or partial manuscripts. This is even more surprising given “the whole Bible with Apocrypha is a text of great size, disguised by modern techniques of paper making and printing.” Third is that there is nothing to identify the translator of the text.

Fourth the manuscripts produced violent opposition from the institutional church [2]. Indeed such opposition has been described as "unprecedented." Every confiscated Bible was burned along with its owner. Many Lollards (a pejorative term meaning "poor preachers," used to describe those who supported Wycliffe) were burned alive. William Sawtre was martyred in 1401. A special prison was erected for Lollards at Lamberth Palace in which many were burned in the name of God. One such disciple was Sir John Oldcastle who was murdered in 1414. Since possessing a Wycliffe Bible became a capital offense it is surprising the large number that survive. There are 250 manuscripts or partial manuscripts of the Wycliffe Bible known. Since there were massive Bible burnings by the bishops and the price to be paid for owning one was high the number is shockingly high. Just for comparison Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, which endured no such systematic suppression, survives in only 64 manuscripts!

Wycliffe's Bible, as noted earlier, was translated from the Latin Vulgate not from the Hebrew or Greek. Few scholars had the ability to read either of the original languages of the Bible – however Wycliffe was an excellent and thorough scholar. The surviving manuscripts are divided up by scholars into two “versions” of the Wycliffe bible creatively known as the “Early Version” and the “Later Version.” The EV is so literal as to be nearly what is today dubbed an “Interlinear” while the LV is much more of a translation into readable and fluent Middle English.

Though the contemporary witnesses are uniform in attributing this Bible to John Wycliffe, a number of older scholars believed he was not part of it, especially the Old Testament. Yet there is a growing consensus that he had more of a direct hand in the Gospels and perhaps the New Testament as a whole but the Old Testament was the work of his disciples Nicholas of Hereferd, John Purvey and others. On this matter the words of Medievalist and illuminated manuscript scholar Christopher de Hamel are apropos

“There is quite good evidence that he was credited with the translation in the late Middle Ages, but we must balance two historical trends. One is the medieval passion for dogmatically linking texts with the names of famous authors. The other is the modern mania for downgrading the personal achievements of popular heroes of the past.” [3]

Translating the Bible into Middle English was the crowning touch of Wycliffe's reforming career. He had challenged medieval doctrinal and devotional practices like Transubstantiation, secular authority of the church, the efficacy of pilgrimages and praying to saints … putting the Bible itself in the language of his contemporaries was the crown jewel. For Wycliffe the Scriptures are the ground for the church as a whole and the individual disciple as well. Salvation and grace need not be mediated through the priest and the church. Wycliffe wrote

“[T]he New Testament is of full authority, and open to understanding of simple men, as to the points that have been most needful to salvation … That men ought to desire only the truth and freedom of the holy Gospel, and to accept man’s Law and ordinances only in as much as they have been grounded in holy Scriptures.”

The powerful, and threatened, church did not let Wycliffe go unanswered. Wycliffe was summoned to appear before a council of bishops on February 19, 1377 to hear charges of heresy brought against him. The council failed in its attempt to condemn him because of his powerful friends. In the following years five papal bulls were issued against Wycliffe and his teaching. In 1382 he was summoned again and was condemned as a heretic.

In the years following his condemnation any person found with a copy of the "Lollard" Bible would be condemned as a heretic and promptly burned at the stake. The so-called Arundel Constitutions (written by Archbishop Arundel) of 1408 states clearly:

“no one henceforth do by his own authority translate any text of Holy Scripture into the English tongue or into any other, by way of book or treatise now lately composed in the time of John Wycliffe, or since, or hereafter be composed, be read in whole or in part, in public or private, under pain of the greater excommunication … He that shall do contrary to this shall likewise be punished as a favorer of heresy and error.”

Remember there were no printing presses. It took about ten months to reproduce a single full copy of the Wycliffe Bible and cost between 30 and 40 pounds. It is reported that two pennies would buy a chicken and four a pig. Forty pounds was 9,600 pennies – an enormous sum. John Fox wrote that people would provide a load of hay for the privilege of having the New Testament for one day! Some would save for a month to purchase a single page. These people were willing to die to see a copy of God’s word. The pervasive attraction of Wycliffe's tome prompted Bishop Arundel to write to the Pope in 1411 …

This pestilent and wretched John Wyclif [sic] of cursed memory, the son of the old serpent … endeavored by every means to attack the very faith and sacred doctrine of the Holy Church, devising – to fill up the measure of his malice – the expedient of a new translation of the Scriptures into the mother tongue.”

The idea of translating the Bible into English was anathema to the English church of Wycliffe's day. They forgot that the very reason Jerome produced the Latin Vulgate was that so many simply did not and could not read Greek or Hebrew anymore. Wycliffe's greatest justification for translating was, ironically, the existence of the Vulgate itself.

Peering Inside the Bible

When we peel the cover back on a Wycliffe Bible we learn there is an extensive general prologue to the Bible written by John Purvey. The prologue calls upon all people to read "Godis lawes." Then there is a remarkable overview of the story of the “Old Testament” followed by some guidelines or rules of interpretation for the “lewed” reader (common reader). In the prologue the most highly recommended of all Old Testament books for “symple men of wit” to read or hear was the book of Tobit with its wholesome wisdom on marriage and familial relations. Recognizing that Jerome placed the book among the Apocrypha Purvey nonetheless commends it as “profitable to the symple puple to maken hem … to take wyues in [the] drede of god, for loue of children and not al for foul lust.” [4].

The contents of the first English Bible are essentially those of all ancient manuscript Bibles. The books of Moses, what we call the historical and wisdom books, and the prophets are all to be found. Typical of ancient manuscript Bibles, scattered among the writings and the prophets are works Protestants have come to call “the Apocrypha.” Thus Baruch, the Maccabees, Tobit, Judith and the like were all in Wycliffe's Bible. None of this surprises us. What will surprise most readers is that Wycliffe's Bible also contained a book called “The Epistle to the Laodicians.” This medieval forgery found its way into a number of Vulgate mss and obviously in the one used by Wycliffe and his disciples. Laodicians is about the same length as Philemon and seems to be a pastiche of Pauline soundbites put together from various sources.

Here are some texts of more familiar passages as they appear in cyberspace font from Wycliffe's Bible …

“Blessed ben pore men in spirit, for the kyndom of heaenes is herne. Blessid ben thei that mornen, for thei schulen be coumfortid … Blessid ben pesible men, for thei schulen be clepid goddis children … (Matheu 5.3ff)

“Britheren, what schulen we do? And Petre seide to him, Do e penaunce, and eche of ou be baptisid in the hame of Jhesu Crist, in to remissioun of oure synnes; and e schulen take the ifte of the Hooli Goost” (Dedis of Apostlis 2.38)

“For God louede so the world that he yaf his ‘oon bigetun sone, that ech man that beleueth in him perische not, but haue euerlastynge lijf.” (Joon 3.16)

I quote Salmes One in full. I have separated the “verses” to ease reading.

“Blessid is the man, that yede not in the councel of wickid men; and stood not in the weie of synneris and sat not in the chaier of pestilence.

But his wille is in the lawe of the Lord; and he schal bithenke in the law of hym dai and nyyt.

And he schal be as a tree, which is plauntid bisidis the rennyngis of watris; which tre schall yyue his fruyt in his tyme. And his leef schal not falle doun; and alle thingis which euere he schal do schulen haue prosperite.

Not so wickid men, not so; but thei ben as dust, which the wynd castith awei fro the face of erthe.

Therefor wickid men risen not ayen in doom; neithir synneres in the councel of iust men.

For the Lord knowith the weie of iust men; and the weie of wickid men schal perische.

Wyclif and his followers laid the foundation for our Bible. Even some of his renderings have distinct echoes in William Tyndale ... and the King James Version.

NOTES:

[1] Barbara Tuchman, A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century (New York: Knopf, 1978). Tuchman’s work is an outstanding and lively gateway into the world in which Wyclif lived.

[2] David Daniell, The Bible in English: Its History and Influence (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 66-68.

[3] Christopher de Hamel, The Book: A History of the Bible (London: Phaidon, 2001), 170.

[4] For a fascinating study of the prologue and its guidelines, especially in relation to the Song of Songs, see Mary Dove’s "Love ad litteram: The Lollard Translations of the Song of Songs," Reformation 9 (2004): 1-23.

Read More

Tolle lege - Profitable Material on the Net

The net can be a wonderful resource. Let me recommend a few readings that could possibly nourish your mind and your spirit.

Hearing the Word ... How to Benefit Spiritually From Preaching
This piece briefly relates the wisdom of Robert Hall (1764-1831) a powerful Baptist preacher of the 19th century. Some of Hall's suggestions may seem a bit old fashioned but one cannot help but think that here is some sound teaching in the true Pauline sense.

"I'm Just Not that Attracted to Her" by Michael Lawrence

This is a fascinating piece. Right around 40% of Americans are "single." Relationship issues are huge. As churches are we connecting with the sea of single and single again people that God loves? Lawrence really has some insight into attraction and beauty from a Christian perspective.

From Mars: Super Cool Pix Gallery and article on Opportunity and Spirit from the surface of Mars. These little guys have more than earned their money ...

This short essay by N. T. Wright called "The Book and the Story" has plenty meat. Hermeneutics is a task that we cannot escape though many wish they could. But in this short piece Wright shows not simply that biblical text meant something in the long ago but precisely that this "metanarrative" address our postmodern world.

If you have never read Bernard of Clarivaux on "Love" you have missed a great spiritual blessing. Reflect on the four degrees of Love with Bernard and see if you are not enriched.

Tolle lege,
Bobby Valentine

Read More

Will Heaven be on Earth or a "pure spiritual existence"?? Reply to a Letter

Not long ago I received an email with a lengthy critique of my views regarding the New Heavens and the New Earth. Some of the material was simply not what I believe and other parts an attempt to critique it biblically. At first I was not going to reply but I chose to do so. I commend my brother and hope my reply will contribute to a greater understanding. I am hoping that further dialogue will take place with closer attention to the relevant themes and texts. I have removed anything that could identify my correspondent

Dear Brother ...

I at first decided not to reply to your essay but it has sort of gnawed at me. I want to commend you for taking the time for thinking about this subject though it will become obvious that I disagree with the light you cast the position in, your interpretation specific texts and regret your lack of interaction with serious scholarly material on the subject, especially contemporary material.

Yet I want to say clearly I have no, absolutely no, desire to get into a debate on this matter with you. I hope to share my thoughts (briefly) on things I would have liked for you to do differently or expand upon. I by no means know all the truth on this or any other subject under the sun so I remain open to teaching and instruction. I relish learning from you but debate or contentiousness I will not participate in. So I will jump right into it ...

First, it is classic ad hominem reasoning to both open and close your piece with attempts to link renewed earth eschatology with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, “denominational writers,” “millennial doctrines” and “wandering off into sectarian ideology.” This is neither helpful nor is it even relevant.

In fact if by “millennial doctrines” you mean premillennialism then the charge is simply false. Renewed earth eschatology was around long before anything looking like the premillennialism of Tim Lahaye and Hal Lindsey. Anthony Hoekema articulates the view nicely while critiquing the dispensational premillennial point of view in The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views edited by Robert G. Clouse. Further Alexander Campbell and Jonathan Edwards were hardly premillennialists (of any variety). Neither is John Piper or James Packer. New Earth and premillennialism are separate issues and trying to stick them together is nothing but smoke and mirrors and a condemn by guilt by association tactic.

Second. Perhaps this is an extension of the previous paragraph but I think it needs to be said. I found your characterization of the holders of the renewed earth point of view as having a “carnal mentality” to be a massively unfair judgment that you are unable to make. You and I agree that the pioneers of the Stoned-Campbell Movement are not inspired but but neither are you nor any other source you quote. The inspiration or lack there of is not really the issue however. Yet I have a difficult time saying some one like Alexander Campbell, Robert Milligan, Moses Lard, David Lipscomb or James A. Harding were "carnally minded" men, yet they all held this position. Indeed that seems like a grasping at straws to me. Yet all of these men, and many more, not only believed in the renewed earth but taught it as part of the work of Jesus on the cross and his resurrection. At root here is a skewed definition of what "carnal" and "spiritual" mean from a biblical standpoint.

Alexander Campbell’s essay “Regeneration” in the Millennial Harbinger in 1833 is more than worth your effort to read. It is lengthy running from p.337 to p.384. If you do not have access to it I will be glad to mail it to you. This is healthy biblical theology from a man who has discerned the difference between Plato and Scripture.

On the "materiality" that is still very "spiritual" I point to the deep biblical understanding that David Lipscomb had. Lipscomb writes in Salvation from Sin:

“The object of God’s dealing with man, and especially the mission of Christ to earth, was to rescue the world from the rule and dominion of the evil one, from the ruin into which it had fallen through sin, and to rehabilitate it with the dignity and the glory it had when it came from the hand of God” (David Lipscomb, Salvation from Sin, p.114, see the entire essay “The Ruin and Redemption of the World” but esp. pp. 115, 117, 126-128; Check out p.137).

In his commentary on Romans, Lipscomb comments on the meaning of “creation” in 8.19ff. “The ‘creation’ here means the world, embracing all animated nature below man. (p. 152). Later he writes, “then the whole creation will share this deliverance and be freed from the corruption and mortality to which it has been subjected by the sin of man. It shared the corruption and the mortality of man’s sin, and will share his deliverance from it” (p. 153).

Many, many, more paragraphs can be produced from Lipscomb and many from Harding. Knowing what I know about these men I can safely say they were anything but "carnally minded" men. For more on Lipscomb and Harding I recommend the study I published with John Mark Hicks at Lipscomb University called “Kingdom Come: Embracing the Spiritual Legacy of David Lipscomb and James Harding” (Leafwood Press, 2006).

Third, I have to ask, in light of your understanding of "carnal", what the resurrection of Jesus (and our own) is really all about? Was Jesus’ resurrection a “spiritual” or a “bodily” (i.e. "carnal") resurrection? Your closing statement about a “purely spiritual environment” honestly sounds like Gnosticism rather than biblical Christianity. From my own study of the Scriptures I have concluded just the opposite of you. I used to conceive of heaven as a “purely spiritual environment” … of course I think I used the word “spiritual” to mean “immaterial,” which I now think is not only unbiblical but antibiblical. But with such conception the resurrection has no "real" place. Campbell said it well,

“Immortality, in the sacred writings, is never applied to the spirit of man. It is not the doctrine of Plato which the resurrection of Jesus is a proof and pledge … Jesus was not a spirit when he returned to God. He is not made the Head of the New Creation as a Spirit, but as the Son of Man … By the word of his power he created the heavens and the earth; by the word of his grace he reanimates the soul of man; and by the word of his power he will again form our bodies anew, and reunite the spirit and the body in the bonds of an incorruptible and everlasting union.” (MH, 1833, p. 359).

Do we believe that the body comes out of the grave. Paul says that our bodies are to be redeemed—not simply our spirit, Rom 8.23.

Fourth, I wish you would have spent more time with some specific texts. Isaiah 65.17ff you assert refers only to the messianic age of Jesus. But E. J. Young (Isaiah, vol 3. pp. 512ff) suggests it goes beyond that. This is the understanding of most OT scholars. Indeed the very notion that material creation is somehow ‘unspiritual’ needs serious thought. One of the most informative studies I have ever read is by Terence Fretheim called “God and World in the Old Testament” (Abingdon 2005). This is a very lively yet thorough introduction to nearly every passage that speaks of creation and the world in the Hebrew Scriptures. I highly recommend it (with the usual caveat that I do not endorse everything he concludes. Never the less it is a great book).

Returning to Romans 8. This is indeed a profound passage but hardly obscure as you wish. In fact I believe it is crystal clear and in total harmony with the Hebrew Bible, the rest of the NT, and the Jewish “hope” that pervaded second temple Judaism. I know you are a studious man so I recommend N.T. Wright. Wright is without a doubt on of the most influential New Testament scholars of the current generation. He has many works that are both extremely technical and others that you can nearly use in a Bible class. In his book The New Testament and the People of God (Fortress Press) Wright goes to amazing lengths to place the NT in its first century context. He does this to take on the real liberals of the Jesus Seminar and the new Gnostic teachers who make Jesus into something he could never have been. At any rate Wright’s chapter “The Hope of Israel” is essential reading (pp. 280-338). This chapter is expanded in many other works he has published since. (again I don’t agree with everything Wright says but he is incredibly stimulating). C.E.B. Cranfield’s commentary on Romans (among many) is outstanding and his exposition of Rom 8 is worth looking at.

Your treatment of 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 21 I also found wanting. But I have by now gone on for to long.

Before I close, I would have like to see you interact with some outstanding resources that have a different point of view that are hardly sensational or leaving the anchor of the Bible.

Ben Witherington, Jesus and Paul and the End of the World (IVP, 1992)
Albert Wolters, Creation Regained (Eerdmans 1985)
Michael Wittmer, Heaven is a Place on Earth (Zondervan 2004)
Randy Alcorn, Heaven (Tyndale 2004)

If I know my own heart then I can safely deny I am carnally minded as you seem to understand that term. But I am convinced that the Old and New Testaments teach that satan did not win, even a fraction of God's good creation - seen or unseen. God is in the process of redeeming his entire creation to bring glory to himself. Colossians I am certain makes this claim for the work of the Crucified One. The words for salvation in the Bible all point to this conclusion too: redeem; restore; recover; renew; regenerate; reconcile … all of these words point to a return or a bringing back.

I hope that I have not been offensive in anything I have said in this letter. Even if you never agree with me I will hold you in high regard. I simply believe that the renewed earth point of view has far more going for it than what you let on.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Read More

The Bread on the Table: An Ancient Controversy that Changed the Supper

Introduction to a Sad Affair

At about 8 am on Saturday, July 16, A.D. 1054, the church of Santa Sophia was preparing for worship. The congregation was gathering, the priests, the deacons were assembled in the choir. Then three strangers, Latins or Papal legates, entered the building. Passing through the nave, they made their way to the altar. They spoke a few Latin words to the congregation. Turning in silence they placed upon the altar a document and proceeded to the doors. Pausing before exiting they cried in a loud voice, “Videat Deus et judicet!”

What caused this calamitous event? Historians have wrestled with this for centuries. Constantinople and Rome had had less than rosy relationships for quite sometime yet existed in an acknowledged state of unity. Some have pointed to the massive cultural gap that existed between the magnificent intellectual center of the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire and Rome which had become a cultural backwater. Some point to controversies over iconoclasm and the filoque being added to the Creed by the Latins. There was severe political tension at the time as well. All of these things entered into the mix of the time. But the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back was something modern scholars find embarrassing at best. It was the issue of bread, not any bread but the bread on the Lord’s Table. What kind of bread was to be used in the Lord’s Supper . . . leavened or unleavened.[1]

In 1054, and for sometime after, the controversy focused on the use of bread, or more specifically the use of azymes (unleavened bread).[2] In the twelfth century John IV, Patriarch of Antioch, said,

“The chief and primary cause of the division between them and us is the matter of azymes . . . the matter of azymes involves in summary form the whole question of true piety; if it is not cured, the disease of the church cannot be cured”[3]

Briefly, the trouble began in 1050 when some Greek churches in southern Italy (under Byzantine control at this time) were condemned at the reforming Council of Siponto. In retaliation Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, ordered Latin churches closed in the imperial capital. Thereafter Leo, Archbishop of Bulgaria, wrote a letter to John of Trani to be passed on to Pope Leo, containing a stinging refutation of the azymes introduced by the Roman Church. Cardinal Humbert was drafted by the Pope to respond to Leo and finally sent to Constantinople with the sad results of 1054.

The Greeks were adamant about the innovation of the Romans. They believed the Latins had left the apostolic faith, they accused them of Judaizing, and of Apollinarianism. It is amazing the amount of literature the ancients produced on this subject (runs into the hundreds of tracts against each other). The Latins for their part felt the sting of Greek accusations quite strongly. In the century and a half after 1054 several highly influential theologians felt it necessary to address the Greek charges. Here is a short list:

1) Anselm, De azymo et fermentato (PL 158: 541-548)
2) Amalifitan (an anonymous treatise)
3) Bruno of Segni, De sacrificio azymo (PL 165: 1085-1090)
4) Cardinal Humbert, Responsio sive condradicto contra Nicetam (PL 143: 983-1000)
5) Innocent III, De sacro altaris mysterio libri sex (PL 217: 854-858)
6) Alexander of Hales, Summa Theologica IV q. 32
7) Bonaventure, In Sententiis 4. dist. 11, 2.2.1
8) Thomas Aquinas, In Sententiis 4 dist. 11, 2

Whence Comes this Strange Question?

Most of us will be amazed at the charges of the Greeks. If you are like me, it never occurred to me to even question the use of unleavened bread. I have heard all of my life that, even if we somehow weasel out of the alcohol of Jesus’ wine, we must have unleavened bread!

My interest in this subject was aroused through a passing historical comment in the book, The Crux of the Matter. I was literally taken back by this statement by the authors of that book,

“[F]rom the ninth century, the common bread, leavened bread, was replaced by unleavened bread. Using regular table bread had been the practice of the churches for centuries of Christian worship from very early days. Church officials introduced unleavened bread apparently because it would be considered special, set apart, holy. (Church leaders in the East accused the Western church of introducing Jewish practices, of becoming Judaizers because of this innovation; their descendents, the Eastern Orthodox, use leavened bread to this day.).” [4]

Was this accurate? How could this be? I had never heard of it and I had a Master’s degree in Church History! Did the early church, in fact, use common ordinary bread for the Table?

For some unknown, psychological reason, a need was created within me to know . . . There is no doubt that the Greeks use leavened bread in communion. There is no doubt that Rome’s use of unleavened bread was the item that broke fellowship between Eastern and Western Christians in 1054. But is it true that the early church likewise used common, ordinary . . . leavened bread?

Framing the Question

In the history of this debate there have been basically three ways of going at it: 1) etymology and chronology; 2) theological symbolism especially of the Incarnation; 3) the inherited liturgical practice of the church.

A) Etymology and Chronology

The Greeks, whose native tongue is Greek, insisted (and still do) that the common word for “bread” in Bible (artos) always referred to ordinary bread. They insisted (and still do) that artos was plain bread unless it was modified by the word azuma.

Scholars, naturally, are divided on this subject. Most admit that the typical meaning of artos is plain common bread though that it can, on occasion, refer to unleavened bread. Louw and Nida’s Greek-English Lexicon of the NT Based on Semantic Domains states artos “is a relatively small and generally round loaf of bread . . . like a ‘rolls’ or ‘buns’).[5] The Anchor Bible Dictionary, on the other hand, states that artos can apply to unleavened bread but the only example it produces is that which is contested by the Greeks in the institution of the Supper in the Synoptic Gospels.[6]

Undisputed use of artos is Luke 14.1 where artos simply refers to “food” or to “eat” (cf. Mt. 4.4 and Mk 3.20). The use of artos in Mt 14.17, 19 the feeding of the 5000 is clearly ordinary bread. A chapter later in the feeding of the 4000 we see our term again rendered “loaves” and is ordinary food (Mt 15.36). Paul, when on a ship in a storm, took artos and blessed it . . . this is clearly ordinary bread (Acts 27.35). The Lord instructed us to pray for our daily artos (Mt. 6.11/Lk 11.11) again clearly plain bread. Examples in the LXX include Leviticus 23.17; 2 Samuel 13.8; and Ezekiel 4.12 (among many more).

In the LXX (the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible) the Greek argument carries the day. artos alone is never used of unleavened bread. In the case of the Shewbread, for example, it is called artos proqesews. The Latins produced the evidence of Leviticus 7.12 as an example of artos used of “unleavened.” In this passage artous ek semidalews occurs against the Hebrew halecem mazot. (See 7.13 as well.)

This will sound familiar and will probably come up in questions later today too. The Latins appealed to the institution of the Supper itself. Since Jesus was celebrating the Passover he must have used unleavened bread . . . the writers would expect the readers to know that when they encounter the term artos. You will recall that the ABD likewise appeals to this episode . . . but this is almost like circular reasoning. The Synoptics do indeed associate the Supper with the Passover (cf. Mt. 27.62; Mk. 14.12-16 and Lk 22.7-15).

The Greeks, however, did not concede the point. On the basis of John’s Gospel (13.1, 29; 18.28; 19.31) they argue that Jesus did not observe the Jewish Passover but celebrated with his disciples the day before. Hear the words of Peter the Patriarch of Antioch (a contemporary of Cerularius) on this matter:

“But so that I might forsake all other defense, I am able now to prove in Christ – if you are good enough to listen – that when the Lord ate with his disciples on Holy Thursday, the matzo-observance was not yet in effect. For it was the high day of Preparation, which fell on the fourteenth of the month and the Hebrews were just about to celebrate Pesach.” (Letter to Dominic of Grado).[7]

We see more of the Greek contrast of the Jewish Passover and the Christian Eucharist (as he understood it). Peter continues,

For their part, matzos (azuma) were prescribed for the Hebrews in remembrance of the hasty flight from Egypt so that, remembering the wonders that God did among them, they would abide by his commandments and never forget his deeds. But the perfectly leavened (artos) – which through the ritual is made over into the remembrance of His dispensation in the flesh. ‘For, whenever you eat of this loaf and drink this cup,’ he says ‘you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes [1 Cor. 11.26]. . .

Now notice, most holy brother-in-Spirit, that in all these places a loaf (artos) and not matzo, is proclaimed to be the body of the Lord, because it is complete and full (artion). But matzo is dead and lifeless and everyway incomplete. But when the leaven is introduced to the wheaten dough, it becomes, as it were, life and substance in it. Now tell me, how is it not out of place for those who believe in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to receive something incomplete and dead and lifeless as his living and life giving flesh.” (PG 120:764)

The seventeenth century Orthodox scholar and theologian, Eusratios Argenti, published a comprehensive Treatise against Unleavened Bread. He comments extensively on the Synoptic-John issue. He appeals to the Fathers (a sound Orthodox move) and the event of the crucifixion of Jesus,

“The holy Fathers are agreed in teaching that Christ was sacrificed on the Cross on the actual day and hour when the Passover of the Law was sacrificed, so that according to the holy Fathers Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper before the beginning of the period of unleavened bread.” [8]

There is much more but this gives a sense of the flavor of the discussion . . . the Greeks insist that artos means ordinary bread. They also insist that the institution was not on the Jewish Passover. They may be mostly correct on one and mostly wrong on the other. (We do recognize there is at least a conflict between John and the Synoptics on the chronology of the last days of Jesus life. I believe that John is making a theological point rather than an historical point).[9]

B. The Inherited Liturgical Tradition of the Church

I will pass on the Christological symbolism appealed to in this debate for the sake of time (both Latins and Greeks make use of it . . . as do we). However, we did hear some of it from Peter of Antioch above. But what about the history of the church’s worship, this is very relevant to our question? The Greeks claimed (and continue to do so) that they have preserved the true practice of the church and the Romans were innovators (recent ones at that).

How did the early church understand these texts? Or how did the early church practice these texts? Here is the claim of Argenti,

“None of the holy Fathers, eastern or western, ever said, or wrote or imagined anything about unleavened bread, nor did any of them use it in the Holy Eucharist; but on the contrary, most of them speak of common ordinary bread. But if the Papists object, let them produce their evidence and be justified.”[10]

So we must spelunk the tradition. The first text that describes the Bread of the Table outside the NT is the Didache, a work dating around 100-110 A.D. In chapter 10 of this early writing we read, “Then regarding the broken bread . . . As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and being gathered together became one . . .” Woolley comments on this passage, “Here St. Paul’s reference to the ‘one loaf’ is at once recalled to mind, and there would seem to be very little doubt that the writer is thinking of the communicants all receiving from one loaf. If this is so, the bread used was probably . . . a leavened loaf.” [11]

Justin (second century) is the next major writer and devotes significant material to the Supper. In the First Apology ch. 65 we read:

“There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread (artos) and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them gives praise and glory to the Father . . . and offers thanks at considerable length . . .

Justin continues in chapter 66:

“And this food is called among us Eucaristia, . . . not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made . . . flesh and blood . . . so we have been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word . . .”

Justin begins by talking of ordinary food that is blessed and is regarded as no longer ordinary (he cites the words of institution). He carefully says that after consecration the bread is no longer koinos artos. This exact phrase is also used by Irenaeus, Cyril of Jerusalem and Gregory of Nyssa. Hear Irenaeus,

“For as bread from the earth when it receives the invocation of God is no longer common bread (artos) but the eucharist, consisting of two things – one earthly and one heavenly – so also our bodies when they partake of the eucharist are no longer corruptible but have the hope of the resurrection to eternity” (Against Heresies V.ii.2, 3)

Woolley makes this observation about the Fathers, “The attitude of the fathers to the usages of the Jews, and the contemptuous language in which they refer to the use of unleavened bread among the Jews, makes it difficult to believe that the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist was known to the writers in question.”[12] This anti-Jewish (indeed anti-Semitic) attitude is shown in the Eleventh Canon the Council of Trullo (A.D. 680)

“Let none of those enrolled in priestly orders, or a layman, eat the matzos of the Jews, or be associated with them . . . if anyone should seek to do this let him be deposed, if a cleric, excommunicated, if a layman.”

That sounds clear enough. There are many, many, many more examples gathered by Woolley.

Scholars point to Alcuin as the first undisputed reference to unleavened bread on the Table. Alcuin, was an eighth century scholar and theologian in the service of Charlemagne. In 844 Paschasius Radbertus wrote in support of the new doctrine.[13] Bede (7th-8th century), the Ecclesiastical historian for the English tells us that in the time Mellitus, Bishop of London that “panis nitidus” or “white bread” used on the Table. After the death of Saberct, king of Essex, his three heathen sons came to demand of Mellitus that he should give them the “white bread” he gave their father . . . they did not wish to under go baptism but just eat “good refreshing bread.”[14]

The issue of what kind of bread to use on the Table reverberates even through the English Reformation. The Second Prayer Book of King Edward (1552) says,

“And to take away the supersticion whiche any person hathe, or myghte haue In the bread and wyne, it shall suffyse that the bread bee suche as is usuall to bee Eaten at the Table with other meates, but the best and purest wheate bread Conueniently maye be gotten” (Fourth Rubric after the Commentary).

One of the surprises, to me, during this journey was that at least through the 19th century the Anglican church used leavened bread during the communion.[15]

The Orthodox Church, Coptic Church, Syrian Jacobite Church, Nestorians all continue to use leavened bread in the Eucharist.

Concluding Remarks

It is the consensus of historical scholarship that the Christian church (East or West) did not ordinarily use unleavened bread in communion until the 9th century A.D. The only exceptions to this are the Ebionites and the Armenian Church who introduced unleavened bread in the 7th century. The Greeks were right. The received liturgical tradition was in the form of common leavened bread.

The question remains, Why the change? John Erickson argues that the introduction unleavened bread to the Table parallels the rise of views of the Supper as something as other than “ordinary,” something beyond the ordinary experience of worshippers. The unleavened bread fit the mystery the mass. It was sacred and different so the bread was to be different. About this time the chalice would begun to be with held from the laity and the host was beginning to be seen in near idolatrous terms.

The debate regarding "bread on the table" has been lost to the dustbins of history ... and even there primarily to footnotes ... unless you delve into specialized materials. Yet this debate altered the way ordinary Christians experienced the Table every week. For a thousand years the western church for the most part used plain ordinary bread in communion. I would argue that the Greeks are correct that in the NT (in Corinth) the first century church used ordinary artos as well. One truth has emerged from my study ... even when we think we are simply reading the New Testament we are often imposing meanings that simply are not there rather what is there is our tradition that we do not realize is a tradition.

NOTES:

[1] Characterization based on Richard Mayne, “East and West in 1054,” Cambridge Historical Journal 11 (1954), 133.

[2] John H. Erickson, “Leavened and Unleavened: Some Theological Implications of the Schism of 1054,” St.Vladimer’s Theological Quarterly 14 (1970), 156.

[3] Quoted in Jarsolov Pelikan, The Spirit of Eastern Christianity (600-1700) (University of Chicago, 1974), 177.

[4] Jeff Childers, Douglas Foster, Jack Reese, The Crux of the Matter (ACU Press, 2000), 38.

[5] Greek-English Lexicon of the NT Based on Semantic Domains (UBS, 1988), 50

[6] Stephen A. Reed, “Bread,” Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 1: 779

[7] Quoted in Mahlon H. Smith, And Taking Bread . . . Cerularius and the Azyme Controversy of 1054 (Theologie Historique), 34

[8] Quoted in Timothy Ware, Eusratios Argenti: A Study of the Greek Church under Turkish Rule (Oxford, 1964): 117.

[9] This issue has generated mountains of ink: for a good introduction to the subject see especially Robert H. Stein, “Last Supper,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (IVP, 1992): 444-450

[10] Ware, Eusratios Argenti, 119.

[11] Reginald Maxwell Woolley, The Bread of the Eucharist (A.R. Mowbray, 1913), 6.

[12] Woolley, Bread of the Eucharist, p. 10

[13] Ibid, p. 19; See also Erickson, “Leavened and Unleavened,” pp. 158-159.

[14] Bede, The Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Oxford), 79. See also Woolley’s commentary on the Latin of this passage in Bede, Bread of the Eucharist, pp. 15-16.

[15] Woolley, Bread of the Eucharist, pp. 42-43.


Here are some readily accessible (most anyway) sources for those who are "curious."

“Alcuin,” Catholic Encyclopedia (online).

“Azymites,” New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 1, p. 389.

W. B. Bartlett, An Ungodly War: The Sack of Constantinople & the Fourth Crusade (Sutton 2000).

Christopher M. Bellitto, The General Councils: A History of the Twenty-One Church Councils from Nicaea to Vatican II (Paulist Press, 2002).

Louis Brehier, “Attempts at Reunion of the Greek and Latin Churches,” Cambridge Medieveal History, vol 4: The Eastern Empire, Ed. J.R. Tanner, C. W. Previte-Orton, Z.N. Brooke, pp. 594-626.

__________., “The Greek Church: Its Relations with the West up to 1054,” Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 4: The Eastern Empire, pp. 246-273.

John T. Creath, “Alter-Bread,” New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 1, p. 142.

P. Drew, “Eucharist,” New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 4, pp. 195-199.

John H. Erickson, “Azymes,” Dictionary of the Middle Ages, vol. 2. Ed. Joseph R. Strayer (Scribner, 1983), pp. 31-32.

__________., “Leavened and Unleavened: Some Theological Implications of the Schism
of 1054,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 14 (1970): 155-176.

__________., “Schisms, Eastern-Western Church,” Dictionary of the Middle Ages, vol. 2, pp. 44-47.

Everett Ferguson, “Bread,” Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Second Edition. vol. 1, (Garland, 1999) pp. 191-192.

George Galavarius, Bread and the Liturgy (University of Wisconsin, 1970).

J. Gill, The Council of Florence (Cambridge, 1961).

E. J. Gratsch, “Bread, Liturgical Use of,” New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 2, pp.


Richard Mayne, “East and West in 1054,” The Cambridge Historical Journal 11(1954): 133-148.

Mark Noll, Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity (Baker 1997).

Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 3: The Growth of Medieval Theology (600-1300) (University of Chicago, 1978).

__________., The Christian Tradition, A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 2: The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700) (University of Chicago, 1974).

J. Pohle, “The Blessed Eucharist as a Sacrament,” Catholic Encyclopedia (online www.newadvent.org/acthen/05584a.htm).

Steven Reed, “Bread,” Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 1, ed. David Noel Freedman (Doubleday, 1992), pp. 777-780.

Steven Runciman, The Eastern Schism: A Study of the Papacy and the Eastern Churches During the XIth and XIIth Centuries (Oxford, 1955).

Mahlon H. Smith, And Taking Bread . . . Cerularius and the Azyme Controversy of 1054 (Theologie Historique #47, 1978)

R. W. Southern, Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages (Penguin, 1970).

Paul Tschackert, “Ferrara-Florence, Council of,” New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 4, p. 303.

Timothy Ware, Eustratios Argenti: A Study of the Greek Church under Turkish Rule (Oxford, 1964).

Reginald Maxwell Wooley, The Bread of the Eucharist (A. R. Mowbray, 1913).

Read More

Pepperdine Bible Lectures 2011

Pepperdine 2011 has come and has now slipped into the sands of time.

Last Sunday afternoon my beloved bride (Tifani Valentine) and I packed our travel gear into our Saturn Vue to begin the long trek to Malibu, CA. Also being our first anniversary as a married couple Tifani and I decided we would have some fun along the way too. Our little Saturn drove through AZ and CA to Palm Springs on Sunday. We spent the night in the Pepper Tree Inn, walked up and down the downtown streets and had a romantic dinner at Riccio's. We sat in the pool and looked at the stars until late at night.

On Monday we journeyed from Palm Springs to the Inn at Venice Beach. Along the way we realized that we had left VERY IMPORTANT materials at the Pepper Tree ... only my presentation!! At Venice we walked to the beach, ate a nice dinner at C & O's Italian eatery. We went back to the beach and watched some Dolphins play in the water.

On Tuesday we arrived at Pepperdine. We got checked into the Towers and Tifani and I walked around taking it all in. We found my classroom in AMB 105. Through the week we were uplifted by amazing singing. Wyane Atkinson led us in worship ... I thought I was before the throne! Tifani and I were challenged in Rick Atchley's classes. We learned about the heart of the matter from Billy Wilson's presentations. And PaLO VErde's own Diane Reminder was on a panel discussion on the Church of Facebook! Way to go Diane!!

My own classes, "The Holy Spirit Unleashed: Robert Richardson, James A. Harding & K. C. Moser," were well attended. The last night I think I had the largest crowd of all ... must have been the subject matter! Steve Wolfgang graced me with his presence in my class too.

One of the great things about the lectures is meeting with old friends and meeting new ones. Tifani and I enjoyed fellowship with Steve Puckett, Matt Dabbs, Cecil Walker, Joshua Jeffery, Jeremy Hoover, Kurt & Sue Burton, Billy McGuiggan and on and on. Tifani and I had the distinct pleasure of visiting with Harry Fox who had attended my class. Fox was a long time missionary to Japan. It was a pure joy to listen to this 90 year old saint wax eloquent about his memories and his joys in the Lord. Tifani and I were blessed.

Each day we spent some time just to ourselves. We walked on the beach nearly everyday. We met with friends for lunch at Dukes. After my evening classes we wandered down to the cafeteria for coffee, pie and fellowship. I do not think there was a single moment at Pepperdine that was not a blessing.

What a way to celebrate our anniversary and our walk with the Lord ... the journey to Malibu. It was and is a pilgrimage of the heart. Thank you Pepperdine. Thank you Jerry Rushford. Thank you God for the blessing you bestow through this wonderful event known as the Pepperdine University Bible Lectureship.

Read More