1 Crônicas 13

1 Crônicas 13

Sproul - Oh, the gymnastics my Old Testament professors went through in seminary when they dealt with this passage. They would say, “That’s the way it seemed to these unsophisticated Hebrews who were watching this incident, but surely the man died of a heart attack generated by his terror that he had ventured to touch the sacred object.” Or my professors would say, “This is evidence that the Old Testament portrays God’s wrath as arbitrary, whimsical, and capricious.” One professor even spoke about the “dark side” of Yahweh, a demonic element within the nature of God Himself. Evidently these professors never had read Numbers 4. Jonathan Edwards preached a sermon on this topic. He said that the sin of Uzza was the sin of arrogance. Arrogance? Didn’t he risk his life to make sure that the ark of the covenant would not be marred or spoiled by coming into contact with the mud? Edwards said that Uzza’s arrogance is seen in his assumption that contact with the mud would be a greater sacrilege than contact with the hand of a sinful human being. What is mud but earth mixed with water? There is nothing innately sinful about earth or mud. If the ark of the covenant had touched the ground, the earth would not have polluted it. But there was sin in Uzza. Contact with his flesh was far more desecrating than contact with the earth. (Holy, Holy, Holy) Walter Kaiser - 6:6–7 Why Did God Destroy Uzzah? Over the years, many have complained that God was unfair to kill Uzzah when he tried to protect the ark of God from damage or shame when the oxen stumbled and the ark slipped. Should not Uzzah have been praised for lunging forward to protect the ark of God? There is no doubt that David’s intentions in bringing the ark to Jerusalem were noble and good. Now that his kingdom was established, he did not forget his earlier vow to return the ark to its rightful place of prominence. But what began as a joyful day quickly became a day of national grief and shame. Why? A significant omission in 2 Samuel 6:1–3 sets the scene for failure. Previously when David needed counsel, for example when he was attacked by the Philistines, the text records that David “inquired of the Lord” (2Sa 5:19, 23). But those words are sadly missing in 2 Samuel 6:1–3. Instead, we are told in the parallel account in 1 Chronicles 13:1–14 that David “conferred with each of his officers.” There was no need to consult these men. God had already given clear instructions in Numbers 4:5–6 as to how to move the ark. It should be covered with a veil, to shield the holiness of God from any kind of rash intrusion, and then carried on poles on the shoulders of the Levites (Num 7:9). God had plainly revealed his will, but David had a better idea—one he had learned from the pagan Philistines. He would put it on a “new cart” (2 Sam 6:3). However, God had never said anything about using a new cart. This was a human invention contrary to the will and law of God. Thus David did things in the wrong way, following his own ideas or those of others instead of God’s ways. Surely this passage warns that it is not enough to have a worthy purpose and a proper spirit when we enter into the service of God; God’s work must also be performed in God’s way. Pursuing the right end does not automatically imply using the right means. But why did God’s anger break out against Uzzah if David was at fault? The Lord had plainly taught that even the Kohathites, the Levite family designated to carry the ark, “must not touch the holy things or they will die” (Num 4:15). Even if Uzzah were not a Kohathite or even a Levite, he still would know what the law taught in Numbers 4 and 7. God not only keeps his promises, but also fulfills his threats! When the Philistines, who had no access to the special revelation of God, sinned by touching the ark and using a new cart to transport it, God’s anger did not burn against them (1 Sam 6). God is more merciful toward those less knowledgeable of his will than toward those who are more knowledgeable. This is why it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than it will be for those who personally witnessed the great acts of the Savior in Capernaum (Mt 11:23–24). Uzzah’s motive, like David’s, was pure, but he disregarded the written Word of God, just as David did. Thus one sin led to another. Consulting one’s peers is no substitute for obeying God when he has spoken. Good intentions, with unsanctified minds, interfere with the kingdom of God. This is especially true of the worship of God and the concept of his holiness. Because God is holy, he is free of all moral imperfections. To help mortals understand this better, a sharp line of demarcation was drawn between holy things and the common or profane. Our word profane means “before” or “forth from the temple.” Thus all that was apart from the temple, where the holiness of God was linked, was by definition profane. However, Uzzah’s act made the holiness associated with the ark also profane and thereby brought disrepute to God as well. It is unthinkable that God could condone a confusion or a diffusion of the sacred and the profane. To take something holy and inject into it the realm of the profane was to confuse the orders of God. Thus in 1 Samuel 6:19 seventy men of Beth Shemesh were killed for peering into the ark. The situation with Uzzah can be contrasted with that of the Philistines in 1 Samuel 6:9. These uncircumcised Gentiles also handled the ark of God as they carted it from city to city in what is now called the Gaza Strip, as they did when they prepared to send the ark back home to Israel on a cart. But where the knowledge of holy things had not been taught, the responsibility to act differently was not as high as it was for Uzzah, who should have known better. In fact, in order to determine if the calamities that had struck each of the cities where the ark had gone (a calamity that was almost certainly an outbreak of the bubonic plague) was merely a chance happening unrelated to any divine wrath from the God of Israel, the Philistines rigged up an experiment that was totally against the grain of nature. They took two cows that had just borne calves, penned up the calves, and hitched these cows, who had never previously been hitched to a cart, to a new cart, and watched to see if against every maternal instinct in the animal kingdom the cows would be directed back to the territory of the Philistines. They were. The Philistines were convinced that what happened to them in the outbreak in each city during the seven months when the ark of God was in their midst was no chance or freak accident at all: it was the hand of God! And they had better not harden their hearts as the Egyptians did years ago (1 Sam 6:6). The Philistines had enough sense for the holiness of God to use a new cart and to send back offerings of reparation, to the degree that they had any knowledge, but they were not judged for what they did not know about the distinction between the sacred and the common. Another case of trivializing that which is holy can be seen in the brief reference to Nadab and Abihu offering strange fire on the altar of God (Lev 10:1–3). It is impossible to say whether the two sons of Aaron, the high priest, erred in the manner in which they lighted their fire-pans, the timing, or in the place of the offering. The connection with strong drink and the possibility of intoxication cannot be ruled out, given the proximity and discussion of that matter in the same context (Lev 10:8–11). If that was the problem, then the drink may have impeded the sons’ ability to think and to act responsibly in a task that called for the highest degree of alertness, caution and sensitivity. The offense, however, was no trivial matter. Nor was it accidental. There was some reversal of everything that had been taught, and what had been intended to be most holy and sacred was suddenly trivialized so as to make it common, trite and secular. Exodus 30:9 had warned that there was to be no “other incense” offered on the altar to the Lord. From the phrase at the end of Leviticus 10:1, “which he did not command them” (literal translation), what was done was a clear violation of God’s command. As a result fire comes from the presence of the Lord and consumed Nadab and Abihu. Again, the fact that they are ministers of God makes them doubly accountable and responsible. Moses then used this as an occasion to teach a powerful lesson on the holiness and worship of God (Lev 10:3). (Page 192 Hard Sayings of the Bible) QUESTION - Why did God strike Uzzah dead for touching the Ark of the Covenant? Watch the associated video. ANSWER - The story of Uzzah and the Ark of the Covenant is found in 2 Samuel 6:1-7 and 1 Chronicles 13:9-12. As the ark was being transported, the oxen pulling the cart stumbled, and a man named Uzzah took hold of the ark. God’s anger burned against Uzzah and He struck him down and he died. Uzzah’s punishment does appear to be extreme for what we might consider to be a good deed. However, there are the reasons why God took such severe action. First, God had given Moses and Aaron specific instructions about the Tent of Meeting and the movement of the Ark of the Covenant. "After Aaron and his sons have finished covering the holy furnishings and all the holy articles, and when the camp is ready to move, the Kohathites are to come to do the carrying. But they must not touch the holy things or they will die. The Kohathites are to carry those things that are in the Tent of Meeting” (Numbers 4:15). No matter how innocently it was done, touching the ark was in direct violation of God’s law and was to result in death. This was a means of preserving the sense of God’s holiness and the fear of drawing near to Him without appropriate preparation. Notice how David took men with him to collect the ark, rather than allowing the Levites to bring it to him. That was a great mistake, since it ought never to have been put upon a cart, old or new. It was to be borne upon men’s shoulders, and carried by Levites only, and those of the family of Kohath (Exodus 25:12-14; Numbers 7:9), using the poles prescribed. Failing to follow God’s precise instructions would be seen as (a) not revering God’s words when He spoke them through those such as Moses, whom He had appointed; (b) having an independent attitude that might border on rebellion, i.e., seeing and acting on things from a worldly, rather than a spiritual, perspective; or (c) disobedience. Second, the ark had stayed for a period of time at Abinadab’s house (2 Samuel 6:3), where his sons, Uzzah and Ahio, may well have become accustomed to its presence. There’s an old saying, “familiarity breeds contempt,” that could apply in this case. Uzzah, having been around the ark in his own home, could very likely forget the holiness that it represented. There are times when we, too, fail to recognize the holiness of God, becoming too familiar with Him with an irreverent attitude. Third, the account tells us the oxen stumbled. The cart didn’t fall and neither did the Ark, just as the boat carrying Jesus and the disciples rocked fiercely in the storm, though it wasn’t necessarily in danger of sinking (Matthew 8:24-27). And yet, just as with the disciples who failed to put their faith in their Master, Uzzah, for a moment, felt it was his responsibility to save the integrity of God, and that our almighty God somehow needed Uzzah’s assistance. He presumed that, without his intervention, God’s presence would be dealt a blow. As Job asks, “Can you fathom the mysteries of God?” (Job 11:7). “His greatness no one can fathom” (Psalm 145:3). “His understanding no one can fathom” (Isaiah 40:28). Moses lost his right to enter the promised land because he felt his intervention was needed when he struck the rock, instead of speaking to it as God had commanded (Numbers 20:7-12). We need to listen carefully to what God has to say to us, and in obedience strive to do all He commands. Yes, God is loving and merciful, but He is also holy and He defends His holiness with His power, and affronts to His holiness sometimes bring about His holy wrath. “It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Hebrews 10:31). Something of God’s presence in the Ark of the Covenant seems to be lost in the church today. In the time of Moses, the people knew the awesomeness of God’s absolute holiness. They had witnessed great miracles when the ark was with them. They respected that God’s ways and thoughts are much higher than ours (Isaiah 55:8-9). In truth, the more we try to bring God down to our worldly way of thinking or reasoning, the further away He will seem to us. Those who would draw near to God and have Him draw near to them are those who approach Him in reverence and holy fear. Uzzah forgot that lesson, and the consequences were tragic.GotQuestions.org 1 Chronicles 13:11 Then David became angry because of the LORD'S outburst against Uzza; and he called that place Perez-uzza to this day. BGT 1 Chronicles 13:11 καὶ ἠθύμησεν Δαυιδ ὅτι διέκοψεν κύριος διακοπὴν ἐν Οζα καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸν τόπον ἐκεῖνον Διακοπὴ Οζα ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης LXE 1 Chronicles 13:11 And David was dispirited, because the Lord had made a breach on Oza: and he called that place the Breach of Oza until this day. KJV 1 Chronicles 13:11 And David was displeased, because the LORD had made a breach upon Uzza: wherefore that place is called Perezuzza to this day. NET 1 Chronicles 13:11 David was angry because the LORD attacked Uzzah; so he called that place Perez Uzzah, which remains its name to this very day. CSB 1 Chronicles 13:11 David was angry because of the LORD's outburst against Uzzah, so he named that place Outburst Against Uzzah, as it is still named today. ESV 1 Chronicles 13:11 And David was angry because the LORD had broken out against Uzzah. And that place is called Perez-uzza to this day. NIV 1 Chronicles 13:11 Then David was angry because the LORD's wrath had broken out against Uzzah, and to this day that place is called Perez Uzzah. NLT 1 Chronicles 13:11 David was angry because the LORD's anger had burst out against Uzzah. He named that place Perez-uzzah (which means "to burst out against Uzzah"), as it is still called today. NRS 1 Chronicles 13:11 David was angry because the LORD had burst out against Uzzah; so that place is called Perez-uzzah to this day. NJB 1 Chronicles 13:11 David resented Yahweh's having broken out against Uzzah, and the place was given the name Perez-Uzzah, which it still has today. NAB 1 Chronicles 13:11 David was disturbed because the LORD'S anger had broken out against Uzzah. Therefore that place has been called Perez-uzza even to this day. YLT 1 Chronicles 13:11 And it is displeasing to David, because Jehovah hath made a breach upon Uzza, and one calleth that place 'Breach of Uzza' unto this day. GWN 1 Chronicles 13:11 David was angry because the LORD had struck Uzzah so violently. (That place is still called Perez Uzzah The Striking of Uzzah today.) BBE 1 Chronicles 13:11 And David was angry because of the Lord's outburst of wrath against Uzza, and he gave that place the name Perez-uzza, to this day. RSV 1 Chronicles 13:11 And David was angry because the LORD had broken forth upon Uzzah; and that place is called Perezuzza to this day. NKJ 1 Chronicles 13:11 And David became angry because of the LORD'S outbreak against Uzza; therefore that place is called Perez Uzza to this day. ASV 1 Chronicles 13:11 And David was displeased, because Jehovah had broken forth upon Uzza; and he called that place Perez-uzza, unto this day. became angry : 2Sa 6:7,9 Jon 4:4,9 to this day: Ge 32:32 De 34:6 Jos 4:9 THE MEMORIAL OF PEREZ-UZZA Then David became angry because of the LORD'S outburst against Uzza; and he called that place Perez-uzza to this day - Hebrew = “because the LORD broke out [with] breaking out [i.e., an outburst] against Uzzah.” The name Perez-Uzza in Hebrew means “the outburst [against] Uzzah.” The giving of a name to the place of this tragedy was a good thing by David, for it would hereafter serve as a reminder to everyone that the LORD God is holy, holy, holy, a true that unholy people are prone to quickly forget! The question arises as where was David's anger directed, to God or to himself? If David's anger was directed against the Lord, it was misdirected, because the tragedy occurred through his own carelessness. Youngblood feels it was against the LORD, writing "David is understandably indignant that the divine “wrath” (lit., “breaking out,” v. 8) has broken out against Uzzah and resulted in his death, a seemingly harsh penalty for so small an infraction" (Ibid) David's giving of a name to the place of this tragedy was a good thing, because Perez-uzzah would hereafter serve as a reminder to everyone that the LORD God is holy, holy, holy, a true that unholy people are prone to quickly forget! When families would walk by this place on the way to Jerusalem, the children could ask why does this place have such a strange name? David