Providence, Prayer, and Bad Theology
Introduction: Two Kinds of Faith
In this life, we are constantly confronted with the raw reality of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. And nowhere do we see this collision more clearly than in the lives of Saul and David. These two men represent two fundamentally different approaches to God and to the world He has made. Saul represents the man who wants to use God for his own ends, who sees providence as a tool to be manipulated. David, on the other hand, represents the man who, for all his faults, seeks to be used by God, who sees providence as a reality to be submitted to.
This passage in 1 Samuel 23 is a masterful case study in the difference between carnal, presumptuous religion and true, dependent faith. Saul sees a tactical advantage and immediately baptizes it as "God's will." He has a theology that is convenient, a God who is always on the side of his own ambitions. David, trapped in that same tactical situation, does not presume upon God's favor. He inquires. He asks. He submits his plans to the revealed will of God. One man sees God as a cosmic vending machine, the other as a sovereign King.
We are all, every day, tempted to be Saul. We see a door open, an opportunity arise, a circumstance that looks favorable, and we are quick to say, "God has delivered this into my hand." But is it truly God's provision, or is it simply a providential test of our own hearts? The difference lies in what we do next. Do we, like Saul, summon all the people for battle based on our own interpretation of the circumstances? Or do we, like David, say to the priest, "Bring the ephod here"? This is the central issue. Do we trust our own reading of the tea leaves of providence, or do we go to the Word of God for a clear command?
The Text
Now it happened when Abiathar the son of Ahimelech fled to David at Keilah, that he came down with an ephod in his hand. Then it was told to Saul that David had come to Keilah, so Saul said, “God has delivered him into my hand, for he shut himself in by entering a city with double gates and bars.” Then Saul summoned all the people for battle, to go down to Keilah to besiege David and his men. But David knew that Saul was plotting evil against him; so he said to Abiathar the priest, “Bring the ephod here.” Then David said, “O Yahweh, the God of Israel, Your slave has heard for certain that Saul is seeking to come to Keilah to make the city a ruin on my account. Will the men of Keilah surrender me into his hand? Will Saul come down just as Your slave has heard? O Yahweh, the God of Israel, I pray, tell Your slave.” And Yahweh said, “He will come down.” Then David said, “Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul?” And Yahweh said, “They will surrender you.” Then David and his men, about six hundred, arose and departed from Keilah, and they went wherever they could go. Now it was told to Saul that David had escaped from Keilah, so he ceased going out in pursuit. And David stayed in the wilderness in the strongholds and remained in the hill country in the wilderness of Ziph. And Saul sought him every day, but God did not give him into his hand.
(1 Samuel 23:6-14 LSB)
Saul's Presumptuous Providence (vv. 6-8)
The scene is set with the arrival of the one remaining priest, Abiathar, who brings with him the means of discerning God's will.
"Now it happened when Abiathar the son of Ahimelech fled to David at Keilah, that he came down with an ephod in his hand. Then it was told to Saul that David had come to Keilah, so Saul said, 'God has delivered him into my hand, for he shut himself in by entering a city with double gates and bars.'" (1 Samuel 23:6-7)
Notice the immediate contrast. David has the priest and the ephod, the ordained means of seeking God's counsel. Saul has his own theological commentary on the circumstances. Saul sees David in a walled city and his immediate conclusion is not tactical, but theological. "God has delivered him into my hand." This is the language of jihad, the language of holy war. But it is a blasphemous appropriation of that language. Saul's reasoning is entirely carnal. David is in a trap, therefore God set the trap for me. This is what happens when your theology is driven by your desires. You interpret every event, every circumstance, through the lens of your own ambition.
Saul is a pragmatist with a pious veneer. The city has gates and bars, which makes it a good military target. That is a simple fact on the ground. But Saul cannot leave it there. He must sanctify his bloodlust. He wraps his murderous intent in the language of divine providence. This is a constant temptation for men in power, and for all of us. We want to believe that what is good for us is necessarily what God has ordained. But God's providence is not a blank check for our agenda. Saul's declaration is a classic example of bad exegesis of the circumstances. He reads the providence but ignores the precepts.
And so, based on this faulty theology, he acts. "Then Saul summoned all the people for battle..." (v. 8). Bad theology always leads to bad action. A wrong view of God will inevitably lead to a wrong way of living. Saul's presumption leads him to mobilize an entire army to go and kill the man God has anointed to be king. He is about to launch a holy war against God's chosen one, all under the banner of "God's will." This is the terrifying logic of a reprobate mind.
David's Dependent Inquiry (vv. 9-12)
David operates from a completely different set of presuppositions. He does not trust his own interpretation of the situation.
"But David knew that Saul was plotting evil against him; so he said to Abiathar the priest, 'Bring the ephod here.'" (1 Samuel 23:9)
David hears the intelligence reports, but he doesn't stop there. He knows Saul's intent is evil, but he needs to know God's will. The presence of Abiathar with the ephod is a key providential provision. After Saul slaughtered the priests at Nob, God ensured that the true priesthood and the means of inquiry would be with His anointed king, not with the rejected one. David has access to God's counsel in a way that Saul no longer does.
David's prayer is a model of humble, specific inquiry. He lays out the situation before God. "O Yahweh, the God of Israel, Your slave has heard for certain that Saul is seeking to come to Keilah to make the city a ruin on my account. Will the men of Keilah surrender me into his hand? Will Saul come down just as Your slave has heard?" (vv. 10-11). He is not asking for a sign. He is not asking for a feeling. He is asking for specific, actionable intelligence from the sovereign Lord of history. The ephod, likely containing the Urim and Thummim, was the Old Covenant means for this kind of direct inquiry. It was not magic; it was an ordained sacrament of guidance for the leader of God's people.
And God answers with terrifying clarity. First, "He will come down." Saul's intention is confirmed by God's foreknowledge. Then David asks the second, crucial question: "Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul?" (v. 12). These are the very men David has just rescued from the Philistines. Gratitude and loyalty should bind them to him. But David knows the fear of man is a powerful snare. And God's answer is blunt: "They will surrender you."
This reveals a profound truth about God's sovereignty. God knows what will happen, and He also knows what would happen under different circumstances. He knows the future conditional. The men of Keilah had not yet betrayed David, but God knew their hearts. He knew that if Saul showed up, their fear of the king would override their gratitude to their deliverer. This is a glimpse into the meticulous nature of God's providence. He is not just sovereign over what does happen; He is sovereign over what could happen.
Obedience and Providence (vv. 13-14)
Receiving this clear word from God, David's course of action is immediate and decisive.
"Then David and his men, about six hundred, arose and departed from Keilah, and they went wherever they could go. Now it was told to Saul that David had escaped from Keilah, so he ceased going out in pursuit." (1 Samuel 23:13)
David's obedience to the revealed will of God short-circuits Saul's presumptuous plan. Because David inquired of the Lord, the betrayal of Keilah and the siege by Saul never happened. This is the interplay of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. God's foreknowledge did not make the events inevitable in a fatalistic sense. Rather, God's revelation enabled David to act responsibly and escape the trap.
Saul's "providential" opportunity evaporates. The gates and bars that he saw as a divine gift for his victory are now irrelevant. When the circumstances change, Saul's plan changes. "He ceased going out in pursuit." His entire operation was based on a misreading of the situation, not on a command from God. David's operation, however, was based on a direct word from God, and it resulted in his deliverance.
The final verse summarizes the ongoing spiritual reality of the situation.
"And David stayed in the wilderness in the strongholds and remained in the hill country in the wilderness of Ziph. And Saul sought him every day, but God did not give him into his hand." (1 Samuel 23:14)
Here we see the two wills in conflict. Saul's will: "sought him every day." This was a relentless, obsessive, daily pursuit. And God's will: "but God did not give him into his hand." This is the bottom line. This is the bedrock of reality. Saul can have his plans, his army, his ambitions. He can interpret circumstances to his own advantage. But ultimately, the outcome is determined by the sovereign decree of God. David's safety did not ultimately depend on his tactical skill or the loyalty of his men, which was clearly a fickle thing. It depended entirely on the good pleasure of God.
God's providence is not a matter of interpreting circumstances. God's providence is His actual, sovereign rule over all circumstances. Saul thought providence was something he could read and manipulate. David learned that providence was a Person he must trust and obey.
Conclusion: Inquiring of the Lord Today
We no longer have an ephod with Urim and Thummim. The writer to the Hebrews tells us that in these last days, God has spoken to us by His Son (Hebrews 1:2). The canon of Scripture is closed. We have the completed Word of God, which is sufficient for all matters of faith and life (2 Timothy 3:16-17). We are not to seek new, direct revelation for guidance. So how do we apply this passage?
We apply it by recognizing the fundamental contrast between Saul's mindset and David's. The temptation to be Saul is the temptation to practice circumstantialism. It is the temptation to look at our situation, our opportunities, our bank account, our political climate, and from that, deduce what God wants us to do. This is to walk by sight, not by faith.
The path of David is to bring the ephod. For us, this means we bring the Word of God to bear on our situation. We do not ask, "What do the circumstances suggest?" We ask, "What has God commanded?" We don't pray, "Lord, will my business partner betray me?" We search the Scriptures to understand the nature of faithfulness, integrity, and wisdom in our dealings. We don't ask God for a sign about whether to take a new job. We evaluate the opportunity based on the clear principles of Scripture concerning provision, stewardship, family, and the worship of God.
David's prayer was an act of radical dependence on God's revelation. Our prayer and study of the Word should be the same. We must not be like Saul, who used the name of God to sanctify his own desires. We must be like David, who submitted his own survival to the clear, spoken word of his God. Saul sought God's providence in the circumstances. David found God's providence in His commands. And the end of the matter is this: Saul sought David every day, but God, the God who reveals His will and protects His people, did not give him into his hand.