Robert H. Roe, Pastor
1 Samuel 21 Lesson #10 June 17, 1979
Beginning today we will talk about David's wilderness experiences. There is talk about his fight with Goliath and occasionally about David and Abigail. Or we flip over to David and his trouble with his son Absalom or his adultery with Bathsheba. But very little is said about his wilderness experiences. Interestingly enough, however, the Scriptures devote probably 10 chapters to his wilderness experiences while devoting relatively few chapters to his victories.
Apparently God is very interested that we learn from what David went through in the wilderness and is not too concerned about what David went through in his victories, since the victories are the fruit of what he learned in the wilderness.
I have spent some time looking at David's wilderness experiences. God used these experiences to make David a man of God and to make him fit to rule, much as he took the nation of Israel out of Egypt and into the wilderness for 40 years to make them a nation fit to manifest God and to rule. There is an interesting parallel here.
The wilderness experiences in our lives are deliberately designed by God to form us into men or women of maturity. As C. S. Lewis says, "God whispers to us in our pleasures, but he shouts to us in our pain." Pain is God's megaphone to get our attention. So our struggles and stresses, which can be emotional, physical or spiritual, are God's way of telling us, "I'm going to make you into a man after my own heart. Don't fight it. Just allow me to mold you and shape you into the image of Christ."
So we will see David have experiences and attitudes that we have. We will see him angry with God, obeying God, making it big, plunging to the depths. We will see all the peaks and valleys that a normal person experiences. This is God's man we are watching, a "man after his own heart." It is a comforting thing.
We left David, in league with Jonathan, fleeing from Saul and heading into the wilderness. Having fled directly from his meeting with Jonathan, he had no weaponry, no food, nothing. So, he had some real needs. The tragedy was that David used what I call "situational ethics" to satisfy his needs. Our modern philosophy says the situation determines the ethics; the end justifies the means. You see it all over; in our government, in our churches, even in our own lives. Well, I have news for you, it did not start in the 20th century. It has been around ever since the fall of man, and 3,000 years ago "a man after God's own heart" used the same tactics.
Granted David's needs were legitimate. He needed food. He needed protection. The needs were real. It was how he supplied them that was wrong.
David was in Gibeah of Saul, a city in the territory of the tribe of Benjamin, about 10-15 miles north of Jerusalem. He fled from there directly to the city of Nob, the city of the priests and the tabernacle, which is probably 5 miles south of Gibeah. He was fleeing to someone with whom he had had a lot of contact. David, as the champion of the armies of Israel, in his wars for Saul's sake, would have gone many times to the high priest to have him find the mind of God, ["whether I should go out in this battle; what I should do in this battle."] David had a very good relationship with the high priest of Israel, and what would be more natural than for him to again go to one of his best friends for advice.
The tragedy was that David fell victim to the tyranny of the urgent. He had once before failed miserably to trust God. Remember when God sent Saul and his three groups of messengers up to seize David and deliberately had them all prophesy. It should have indicated to David, "I can take care of you no matter what happens, no matter how they come after you, no matter who comes after you. Even when Saul came personally, I gave him a double treatment." Saul did twice as much prophesying. In fact he did not even get to Ramah before he began prophesying. He spent 24 hours lying on the ground prophesying. Still David did not get the message. Instead, he ran straight to Jonathan, and they came up with their deceitful scheme. It backfired, and David has now become a victim of his own plotting.
Verse 1 of Chapter 21:
The David came to Nob to Ahimelech the [high] priest;
and Ahimelech came trembling to meet David, and said to him, "Why are you alone and no one with you?"
And David said to Ahimelech the priest, "The king has commissioned me with a matter, and has said to me, 'Let no one know anything about the matter on which
I am sending you and with which I have commissioned you;
and I have directed the young men to a certain place.'
How does it look to Ahimelech? Here is the leader of the armies of Saul, and he is alone. It is a Sabbath. The "Law" forbids travel on the Sabbath. David never traveled alone. He traveled with an army, or at least a band of bodyguards. Ahimelech, knowing the kind of conflict going on 5 miles north, is sure to wonder what is happening. David, knowing Ahimelech probably understands the conflict in the palace and fearful that Ahimelech will not provide his needs, lies to him. He indicates he is coming from the king on a special secret mission and that his young men are in a different place. It is called "situational ethics." David has needs. The needs are real. The needs are legitimate. The process is wrong. Instead of trusting God, he uses his wits. He uses deceit. As we have noticed before, deceit always breeds deceit; the flesh always produces the flesh, and the flesh can never please God [Rom 8:7].
Then he goes on, I Samuel 21, verse 3, to compound his deceit:
"Now therefore, [He acts as though he is truly sent from
Saul and he demands that he be supplied] what do you have on hand?
Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever can be found."
And the priest answered David and said, "There is no ordinary bread on hand, [The city of the priests was apparently very poor at the time.
It may have been that the Philistines had come by and taken the harvest away] but there is consecrated bread;
This was the "bread of the Presence," the twelve loaves that were baked every week on the Sabbath, brought into the tabernacle, into the Holy Place, laid on the table, six loaves in each portion, each loaf representing a tribe of Israel. Each loaf was dedicated to God. They sat there the full seven days, and were sanctified to God. They indicated God was the total provider for all the needs of Israel. At the end of seven days, 12 fresh loaves were brought in to replace the twelve loaves on the table. The high priest, and the priests of the nation of Israel, could eat those loaves which were replaced. They were set apart for the use of the priests but could be eaten only in the Holy Place. So all Ahimelech had was consecrated bread, bread that had come right off the table of the Lord.
To continue, I Samuel 21, verse 4b:
if only the young men have kept themselves from women."
Under the Levitical system, any emission from the body made you ceremonially unclean, including a seminal emission. Anything coming from you, instead of from God, made you unclean. So, Ahimelech can see David is going to demand something of him, and he just hopes it will not violate too much of the ceremonial law. Apparently, however, he is willing to give David what he needs.
So David lies again, verse 5:
And David answered the priest and said to hm, "Surely women have been kept from us as previously when I set out [David is saying that on prior trips he observed the ceremonial law. He made sure that everyone had kept themselves ceremonial clean before going out to battle] and the vessels of the young men were holy, though it was an ordinary journey; how much more then today will their vessels be holy?"
The word "vessels" was not just the body, but anything having to do with life, including clothing, food, whatever. Whenever David went out on a mission for Saul, he went out "holy," ceremonially pure. He wanted God to bless him. So he said, "This has been my practice in the past, and you, of all people, should know that because I consulted with you each time I went out. So, how much more this time when I am on a secret mission for the king and on a Sabbath day. Surely the young men have kept themselves from women. Yes, they are sanctified. Yes, they are holy." He is going to get that bread by hook or by crook, mostly by crook.
So the priest gave him the consecrated bread;
for there was no bread there but the bread of the
Presence [literally the bread of the "Face", the bread that signified the presence of
God] which was removed from before the LORD, [These were the old loaves to be eaten by the priests in the
Holy Place] in order to put hot bread in its place when it was taken away.
So, the priest gave David the bread which, under the ceremonial Law, was to be used by priests and eaten only in the Holy Place. But it was bread which had been given to God, sanctified by God, and given back to the priests to be used for their needs.
Now, let me ask you a question, "Was it wrong for David to eat the consecrated bread?" (Unless you know your gospels you are going to get tricked.) Answer from the audience, "According to the New Testament, it wasn't." That is right! David's actions, which were deceitful, were not condoned by Christ, but He did condone the eating of the bread because that fulfilled a legitimate need. Had David been straightforward and honest, Ahimelech could have given him the bread without violating anything in God's Law. God says, in chapter 12 of Matthew, that the ceremonial Law was never to interfere with real human need. God designed the Sabbath for man's benefit, not demanding man to conform to the Sabbath [i.e., also in Mark 2:27, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath."].
In Chapter 12 of Matthew starting at verse 1:
At that time Jesus went on the Sabbath through the grainfields, and
His disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat.
It was a common practice in those days. All the grain fields had paths through them. Spreading out like spokes from the little villages were these paths which crisscrossed the various fields. Under the Mosaic Law, since everything belonged to God anyway, you could walk along the path, and, anything you could reach with your hands, you could take and eat. That was food for the traveler, for the poor, for the hungry, for the necessity of life, for a legitimate need. You could not take a scythe with you and chop someone else's grain down, but you could reach out and take a person's grain to assuage your hunger. It had to be a legitimate need, though. So, since the crop belonged to God anyway, as the hungry disciples were walking along on the Sabbath, they took some grain, rubbed it in their hands to get the husks off and popped it in their mouths. Well, the Pharisees had so written the Law that that was illegal.
Matthew 12, verse 2:
But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, "Behold, Your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath." But He said to them, "Have you not read what David did, when he became hungry, he and his companions; how he entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those with him, but for the priests alone? Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath, and are innocent?"
When no one was supposed to be working, the priests were in the tabernacle tending to the vessels of the Sabbath, replenishing the incense, replenishing the oil, baking and replenishing the loaves. Their work on the Sabbath was part of their ministry to God.
It is interesting to me to hear people talk about not working on the Sabbath. That is the preacher's busiest day. All preachers take Monday off. Our work is on the Sabbath, if you count Sunday as the Sabbath. Some churches have rules for keeping the Sabbath, and the biggest violator of those rules is the minister of the church that has those rules. He is the one who gets up early in the morning and bones up on what he is to preach; the one who rushes to church to get everything organized. He is busy, busy, busy all day long, marrying, burying, baptizing, while the church's set of rules says, "Thou shall not work on the Sabbath." Who is doing all the work? The minister who wrote the rules.
So the Lord says here, "Have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath, and are innocent?" They work on the Sabbath. They bake bread on the Sabbath. They replenish loaves on the Sabbath. In fact, they circumcise on the Sabbath. According to the Law, a male child had to be circumcised on the eighth day. So they circumcised regularly on the Sabbath in order not to break the circumcision Law. They had to break one Law to keep the other. Circumcision was the mark of a man with the flesh cut off, the old life cut away. God considered this dedication of infants to Himself to be more important than the observance of the minutia of the Law. So the Sabbath was regularly broken by the priests.
Matthew 12, verse 6:
"But I say to you, that something greater than the temple is here?
But if you had known what this means, 'I desire compassion, and not a sacrifice,'
you would not have condemned the innocent.
For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath"
Christ said, "The bottom line on the whole ceremonial law is that God desires compassion, not sacrifice. He desires that man's needs be met and not that the meticulous rules of the Law be kept if they interfere with the needs of men." That was the bottom line of the Levitical system which had been forgotten by the time of the Pharisees.
So it was not wrong for David to eat the consecrated bread. He had a legitimate need. What was wrong was he did not come in an open and honest way. He cheated. In deceiving the high priest, he was actually cheating on God. Legitimate need; wrong methodology. According to Christ's own word, David could have gotten the same consecrated bread from Ahimelech; he could have eaten it with no sin attached and been totally free before the Lord, "For the Lord desires compassion not sacrifice." Instead, he blew it.
The tragedy with the flesh, when it starts snowballing, is that it always gets worse. God gave David a warning though. God is a wonderfully patient and faithful God. You do not have to get up every morning saying, "Lord, I don't want to break the Law. I don't want to do things that are wrong. I am going to get out my check list and consult it all day long being sure I do everything I am supposed to do and abstain from things I am not supposed to do."
The Lord is not like that. You are not under Law you are under Grace. That does not mean you should be sloppy. It means you should so open your mind, your heart and your will to the Holy Spirit of God that He can actually be your mind, your thoughts and your will. Then, as you walk through your day, doing your normal, natural things, you will be sensitive to the Spirit of God, and He will tell you, "Slow down there, or take a left here, or stop that, or watch it." God is the one responsible for my walk each day, not me. My only responsibility is to choose His way. Then He becomes responsible.
Now, I can choose the rules of PBC, go through my little check list, be meticulously "righteous" and be a stench in the nostrils of God. That is self-righteousness. Or I can give my life to Jesus Christ, step out in obedience and do whatever is in front of me, thanking the Lord that when I begin veering in the wrong direction, the Spirit of God will alert me. He is the Holy Spirit of God. His first name is Holy. He will direct my paths. He will even pray through me "with groanings too deep to be uttered." I just have to be the Lord's vessel, and He will warn me when I am veering away. He will also assure me when I am walking with Him by the quiet witness of the Spirit. There is no stress in the authentic Christian life. There will be struggle, but not stress.
Right after David pulls his deceit, God thrusts something in Verse 7 which says, "Hey, wake up." I Samuel 21, verse 7:
Now one of the servants of Saul was there that day, detained before the LORD;
[some reason for purification] and his name was
Doeg the Edomite, the chief of Saul's shepherds.
Why do you suppose God put this little bit of information in here right after David had done his deceitful deed? Why did He suddenly make David see Doeg, the fearful, the cringing, the compromiser, the man who left the Edomites, apparently because Saul had beaten them, to join up with Saul, "Whichever side is winning, that is the side I am on." You know he is going to ingratiate himself by tattling to Saul. [He had become a proselyte to the Jewish faith, even though, as we will see, he did not believe a word of it.] He is a nothing.
Why does God give David a view of Doeg the Edomite, the compromiser, the fellow who lives by his wits, by his deceit, by expediency, chief of Saul's shepherds, "big man on campus" back at Gibeah of Saul? Why right here? David knows Doeg will go back and tell Saul. What position did David put Ahimelech in? Saul is a mad man, remember. He is going to keep the reins of government no matter what YHWH wants, and should YHWH's anointed king, David, get in his way, David dies. Saul is about to embark upon a campaign that destroys Israel in order to destroy David, and David knows that. What do you think goes through David's mind about the chances of Ahimelech coming out of this unscathed? He is assuredly going to get hurt. How much does David care about that? David has now focused totally on himself, "Nobody has it as bad as I do. These are legitimate needs." God deliberately, at this point in time when David first starts his deceit, brings him Doeg, and he has a chance, therefore, to come clean so the right report gets back to Saul. [David admits later on that he knew Doeg would go and tell Saul.] But what does he do? Well, he is too focused on self and cares little about Ahimelech. When you are focused on self, you do not care about anybody else. It is just "My needs. My problems."
So, I Samuel 21, Verse 8:
And David said to Ahimelech, "Now is there not a spear or a sword on hand?
For I brought neither my sword nor my weapons with me, because the king's matter was urgent."
There is a bald-faced lie again. David is a good liar, and this is a "man after God's own heart." This is the flesh of a "man after God's own heart." But the flesh of a believer is no more acceptable to God than the flesh of an unbeliever; in fact it is probably more repugnant as the believer does not have to live dominated by the flesh while the unbeliever has no other choice.
Then the priest said, "The sword of Goliath the
Philistine, whom you killed in the valley of
Elah, behold, it is wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod;
[The ephod was the sacred garment of the priest. It was similar to a fancily embroidered shortie nightgown and ran from the shoulder straps to about the thighs. It was used when uttering oracles to reveal the will of God.] So, in a place of holiness in the sanctuary, wrapped in a cloth, dedicated to God, behind the very ephod of the High Priest was the sword of Goliath. David, you remember, in Chapter 17 had taken the weaponry of Goliath into his tent. So later he apparently took the sword, the weapon with which he actually killed Goliath, and, as a symbol that God had given him victory, dedicated it to God. [The stone knocked Goliath on his back. It crushed his frontal plate, but he was still alive. It was the sword with which David cut off his head that killed him.] Goliath's sword was now in the sanctuary and was no longer David's. It was not Ahimelech's either. It belonged to God alone. As the "bread of the Presence" belonged to God for as long as he wanted it, so the sword belonged to God for as long as he wanted it. God gave back the "bread of the Presence" for human use, but the sword was still behind the ephod, so it still belonged to God alone.
"if you would take it for yourself, take it.
For there is no other except it here."
And David said, "There is none like it, give it to me."
There certainly was none like it. The sword had belonged to a man well over 9' tall. David would have had to use it as a two-handed sword and it would really work in a melee. It would cut in both directions, and you could use a two handed sword like a double bladed axe. It was a beautiful weapon for killing. But what would wearing it say to everyone? David might as well have worn a banner saying, "I killed Goliath of Gath." Nobody in the whole of that area had any sword that looked like Goliath's. This would get David in trouble later on.
Was David wrong to take the sword of Goliath? He had killed Goliath. In the rights of warfare you took your enemy's uniform, his goods, his weapons. They were yours by right of conquest. The only problem was David had given Goliath's sword to God. Was David right, now, to take the sword of Goliath? He was right to take the consecrated bread. [if he had not lied about it] The Lord implies this clearly in the context of Matthew 12:3-4.
No, he was not right because he had dedicated it to the Lord. What had the Lord done with the bread that he had not done with the sword? He had given the bread back for man's use in time of need. He had not done that with Goliath's sword!
Do you see the principle here? There are areas in our lives where we have conflicts, or struggles, or weaknesses, or hang-ups and when we come to Christ, God says, "These must be mine," and he takes them. Now, as we mature in Christ, he will give some of them back, because, as we grow, we can handle them. But have you ever noticed, there are other areas that you can never ever fool with? There are certain areas in your life where you have a weakness that God will never let you fool with again. Do not ever mess with those! When we start our Christian walk, we make rules and regulations, dos and don'ts. We change our whole lifestyle. Then, as we grow in Christ, we begin to get more and more freedom, and some of the things we thought we could not do, God allows us to enjoy again. There are other areas, however, that he never lets us enjoy again because they only gratify and enslave. They do not ever satisfy. And God help you if you take those back. Christ told the man at the pool at Bethesda, "Go and sin no more lest a worse thing befall you." In my own experience, I have taken some of those areas back, and, I have news for you, a worse thing does befall you. God means exactly what he says, and what God has not given back, you do not take. But David took the sword.
I Samuel 21:10
Then David arose and fled that day from Saul, and went to
Achish king of Gath
Is David worried when he flees from Saul and walks into Gath carrying Goliath's sword? Not in the least! He was thinking, "The Philistines are enemies of Saul. I am the enemy of Saul. I am a great warrior. They will welcome me as a mercenary." But he carried this great sword which signified that he had wiped out their champion, who, by the way, had many relatives in Gath. Goliath had at least three or four brothers, we will find out later. Admittedly the closest town was Gath, but David was wearing an advertisement that said, "I am the fellow who wiped out your champion, who humiliated you, who sent you fleeing from the Valley of Elah where we chopped you to pieces. Remember me?" He also had red hair when there were very few red haired fellows carrying huge swords wandering around. Even the Philistines could put two & two together.
When you start messing with deceit, you end up being what? Self-deceived! You cease to think straight. Of all the dumb places for David to go, that was the dumbest, but, of course, it was closest to Nob and all David wanted to do was get away from Saul. So, he walked into a buzz-saw.
I Samuel 21, verse 11:
But the servants of Achish said to him, "Is this not
David the king of the land?
[Don't forget that he is wearing Goliath of
Gath's sword] Did they not sing of this one as they danced, saying.
"Saul has slain his thousands,
And David his ten thousands?'"
And David took these words to heart, and greatly feared
Achish king of Gath [This is where Psalm 56 comes in].
Do you remember the first time all the Israelite women sang that song [I Samuel 18:6-7]? It became very popular. In fact, it became Number 1 on the Israelite's "Hit Parade." Who were the thousands that Saul slew and who were the tens of thousands that David slew? Philistines! They do not think too much of David. In fact, they hate him! Now he is in their hands.
There is a comment from the audience here that, according to this last verse, the Philistines already acknowledged David as king, "the king of the land."
"King of the Land" is probably just a popular expression. The Philistines probably do not know David has been anointed by YHWH as king of Israel. But they do know there is a rivalry going on because they are getting possession of a lot of land as a result of Saul's chasing David instead of them. So, I wouldn't press that expression as far as to say they knew David had been anointed King of Israel, but he sure was an up and coming contender to the throne and was gaining in popularity.
David had slain ten thousands, and now the Philistines had him in their hands. Psalm 56 would indicate they seized him and dragged him into Achish's presence. Poor David. Now he is trapped and in real trouble. He is out of the frying pan into the fire.
So, David, being a sharp young man, does a very tricky thing. In the Orient in those days, a person who was mad was thought to be "seized by spirits." Therefore, everyone was so terrified of them, that they would neither touch them nor harm them. Nebuchadnezzar, when he was King of Babylon, went through a period of madness, and they let him roam around like an animal. They never tried to kill him. His rivals had a golden opportunity to kill him and take over his kingdom, but nobody touched him. We know from ancient Babylonian archaeology that they considered a mad man "seized of a god." If you read Daniel, chapter 4, very carefully, you know that is exactly what God did to Nebuchadnezzar. He was boasting about his vast works and the Babylon he had built when God struck him with madness, fulfilling a prophecy of Daniel's. Nebuchadnezzar became like an animal. He wandered about eating grass, with fingernails like claws and hair like fur, and no one killed him. The ancient Orientals were scared to death of mad men. The gods had seized Nebuchadnezzar. The gods had seized David. Achish did not want any part of him. David knew this, so he played on this superstition.
So he disguised his sanity before them, and acted insanely in their hands [they have taken him and have dragged him into
Achish's presence] and scribbled on the doors of the gate, and let his saliva run down into his beard.
This was the future King of Israel drooling all over his face. This was a "man after God's own heart." He made a complete ass of himself. But he was afraid for his life, and he had left his God behind. He was living by his own wits, now, and he was willing to do anything, no matter how humiliating, to save his skin. All the courage and the beauty of David had disappeared. All that was left was David in the ugliness of his flesh, and all he wanted to do was get out of this predicament alive. Well, it worked!
Then Achish said to his servants, "Behold, you see the man behaving as a madman.
Why do you bring him to me?
Do I lack madmen, that you have brought this one to act the madman in my presence?[more literally "to rave against me."
He is afraid of this man.
Madmen have a tendency to injure people and do violent things of that nature.
Achish wants no part of this man.] Shall this one come into my house?
So Achish sent David away. If you read Psalm 34, when David flees to the cave in Adullam, you will see that God straightens out David's thinking. David finally realizes he did not get away from Achish by his wits. He got away because God took care of him, that God was the faithful one, and that He would have been faithful the whole time. It brings David to repentance.
There are eight Psalms written about this period in the wilderness, and all eight of those Psalms express David's deep trust in and commitment to his God. Yet there is also this strange feeling of undeserved persecution. He struggles between deep trust in God and a feeling of unfair persecution. God is taking him through this wilderness experience to teach him absolute faith. This is one of the places that he learns it; this place where he makes an ass of himself in order to escape death.
There is a question from the audience here as to why the Lord gives us wits and a brain if we are not to handle things on our own.
The answer is, we need to reverse the procedure. God has given us a brain to handle things, but the first thing he wants us to do with that brain is to give it back to Him. The first thing I do is give my life to the Lord, my mind to the Lord, and allow him to think through my mind, for whatever needs to be done according to His processes. We should not start out on our own working hard and then handing the results to the Lord, with a "Lord, please bless this mess." We should start by saying, "Lord, here is my mind, here are my emotions, here is my will, here is my body, here's my person, and here is the day. Think your thoughts through me. Feel your emotions through me. Love your love through me. Empower me to do any of these things." Then away we go! "I am going to do the first thing in front of me, and thank you that you will be doing it through me." The thinking process is exactly the same, but it is controlled by God, and the power to do the process is God's. He tells us we are "to work out our own salvation (Philippians 2:12 which is literally to use something you already have, not to gain it) with fear and trembling, (with the desire to please God, not cringing fear) for it is God who is at work within you ("energeo" in the Greek; God energizing you for this work almost always means supernatural power in the Scriptures) both to will and to do (that is "energeo" again) of his good pleasure." God will supernaturally energize you to choose what he wants you to do, and then he will empower you to do it. But it is up to you to make the choice, to let him be the power. You will still be using your brain, but it will be used of God. Don't get the cart before the horse.
Chapter 22 next time.
Father, we thank you so much for your Word, for the fact that we see a man after your own heart just falling flat on his face, and you still are faithful when he is unfaithful, that you still pick him up and get him out of town, in spite of his nonsense, the ridiculous things he does to try to save his own skin.
And yet, Father, as we read this next chapter, we see that when we live in the flesh, there are consequences that occur that you do not stop.
These are inevitable consequences of sin, Father, that you allow in your wisdom to work out to their own natural end, and we see the tragedy and the horror of them in Chapter 22, so, Father, let us not get smart and play around with flesh and play around with sin, thinking, as long as we confess it and put it away, that we are home free, when there are these consequences, the natural fallout, which inevitably occurs.
Somebody always gets hurts.
so help us to be mindful that there is a Chapter 22 after Chapter 21.
We thank you, Father, in Jesus' name.
Taught in Ambassador's Class of Peninsula Bible Church, Palo Alto, California
April 1979 through December 1979
Copyright © 1979 Discovery Publishing, a ministry of Peninsula Bible Church. This data file is the sole property of Discovery Publishing, a ministry of Peninsula Bible Church. It may be copied only in its entirety for circulation freely without charge. All copies of this data file must contain the above copyright notice. This data file may not be copied in part, edited, revised, copied for resale or incorporated in any commercial publications, recordings, broadcasts, performances, displays or other products offered for sale, without the written permission of Discovery Publishing. Requests for permission should be made in writing and addressed to Discovery Publishing, 3505 Middlefield Rd. Palo Alto, CA. 94306-3695.