David’s Doubting in 1 Samuel 27: Observations from Spurgeon

From this week’s Spurgeon reading, sermon #439 “The Danger of Doubting”.  Spurgeon here focused on 1 Samuel 27:1, “And David said in his heart, I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul.”   I have briefly considered this text before in this post, in thoughts from Bible reading.

I also remember this passage, from an example (several years ago) of bad preaching: a pastor preaching through a “David” series, came to this passage and proclaimed the natural man’s way of thinking (and thereby revealing his own superficial and “natural man” thoughts):  that David did this because he didn’t have any other choice, and how hard-pressed and in danger David really was that he had to do this.  Nothing was said about the true significance of what happened here, this as one of several times that we observe of David’s declension.

Within the overall context of David’s life in 1 Samuel this is one of many times of his up and down times, of David’s experiences in and out of fellowship with the Lord — and sixteen months later (1 Samuel 30:6) we see David back in fellowship, after the Amelekites raided Ziklag and the people talked of stoning him:  “But David strengthened himself in the Lord his God.”  Spurgeon’s sermon gets more specific, noting several ways in which David erred here, and how applicable it is to us as well:

1. The thought of David’s heart was false. There certainly was no evidence to prove it. On no one occasion had the Lord deserted His servant; he had been placed in perilous positions very often, but not one single instance had occurred in which God’s strength was not sufficient for him. The trials to which he had been exposed had been varied; they had not assumed one form, only, but many; yet in every case He who sent the trial had also graciously ordained a way of escape. David could not put his finger upon any entry in his diary, and say of it, “Here is evidence that God will forsake me.”

2. It was contrary to evidence:  What reason had he to believe that God would leave him? Rather, how many evidences had he to conclude that the Lord neither could nor would leave him? “Your servant slew both the lion and the bear, and this uncircumcised Philistine shall be as one of them.” That was good reasoning. Why not reason like that now, David?

3.  It was contrary to God’s promises.  Here Spurgeon notes the Davidic covenant:  Samuel had poured the anointing oil on David’s head—God’s earnest and promise that David would be king. Let David die by the hand of Saul, and how can the promise be fulfilled? Many times had God assured His servant David that He had chosen the son of Jesse to be the leader of His people; let him die, and how can that be true? It was, therefore, contrary to the promise of God that David should fall by his enemy’s hand!

4.  It was contrary to what David himself had often said.  A great observation here from Spurgeon’s own personal experience:

I remember on one occasion, to my shame, being sad and doubtful of heart, and a kind friend took out a paper and read to me a short extract from a discourse upon faith. I very soon detected the author of the extract; my friend was reading to me from one of my own sermons! Without saying a word he just left it to my own conscience, for he had convicted me of committing the very fault against which I had so earnestly declaimed. Often might you, Brothers and Sisters, be found out in the same inconsistency.