2 Sam 6,6-7 - Why did God kill Uzzah?

  • Thread starter Thread starter zemi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

zemi

Guest
Why did God killed Uzzah in this passage?

He most probably intended only to protect the ark and catch it before it falls.

I know the ark is the most sacred object the Israelites had and no one was supposed to touch it. But also in this case?

But maybe God saw how good his intentions were and called him right into heaven 😉
**
2 Sam 6,6-7**
When they came to the threshing floor of Nodan, Uzzah reached out his hand to the ark of God and steadied it, for the oxen were making it tip. But the LORD was angry with Uzzah; God struck him on that spot, and he died there before God.
 
Tough to say. Of course, Uzzah wasn’t a Levitical priest and hence wasn’t supposed to touch the Ark.

If Uzzah let the Ark fall on the ground, they would have needed to leave it there until the Levitical priests could come and reload it back onto the cart.

Another good question is: why didn’t the Philistines die when they stole it?
 
Penitus said:
Tough to say. Of course, Uzzah wasn’t a Levitical priest and hence wasn’t supposed to touch the Ark.

If Uzzah let the Ark fall on the ground, they would have needed to leave it there until the Levitical priests could come and reload it back onto the cart.

Another good question is: why didn’t the Philistines die when they stole it?
Click to expand...
Good questions, indeed! 👍 Interesting…

As for the former question - yes, probably the Levites would have picked it up BUT… I completely understand Uzzah —> they were going downhill (2 Sam 6,3). What would have happened to the cherubs and the whole ark if it fell off? :eek:
 
Note that the Ark should not have been on a cart in the first place. After the incident they got out the poles and had the Levites carry it correctly.
 
The ark was not supposed to be carried on a cart with oxen. It was supposed to be carried by Levites holding poles to carry it. From Matthew Henry’s Commentary:
Uzzah was a Levite, but priests only might touch the ark. The law was express concerning the Kohathites, that, though they were to carry the ark by the staves, yet they must not touch any holy thing, lest they die, Num_4:15. Uzzah’s long familiarity with the ark, and the constant attendance he had given to it, might occasion his presumption, but would not excuse it.
Click to expand...
 
lak611 said:
The ark was not supposed to be carried on a cart with oxen. It was supposed to be carried by Levites holding poles to carry it. From Matthew Henry’s Commentary:
Click to expand...
Slick. Is that from a Protestant Commentary?
 
Ver. 7. Rashness. Hebrew shal, means also “error, ignorance,” &c. Syriac and Arabic better, “because he put forth his hand.” (Kennicott) — Oza had touched the ark uncovered, (Serarius) shewing too little confidence in God, as if he could not have hindered it from falling; (Rabbins) or perhaps he was the advisor of the ark’s being placed upon a cart, instead of the Levites’ shoulders. (Tirinus) — It is not certain that he was a Levite; and the privilege belonged to the sons of Caath, who could claim this honour only after the ark had bee folded up with three covers. Moreover, the priests seem to have been always selected to carry the ark, after they came into the promised land, ver. 3., and 1 Kings iv. 4., &c. It is hoped that the fault of Oza would be expiated by his sudden death, (Calmet) as his intention was laudable. (Tirinus) — But God would teach his ministers with what caution they were to treat sacred things, (Calmet) and how exactly all his injunctions were to be observed. (Haydock)
Click to expand...
That’s from from the haydock.
 
To make a point. The sacred must be respected even from ignorant, well intentioned actions.

Uzzah was killed, not a big deal as this doesn’t mean he was damned. He just died and what is important is the soul not the body. Our eternal salvation is much more important than our lives, which is why God killing a person isn’t a big deal. Our souls are more important.

This is an important lesson for today, which is unfortunately ignored in the way people act, in regarding Sanctuaries and Tabernacles of Churches.

In Christ
Scylla
 
Penitus said:
Slick. Is that from a Protestant Commentary?
Click to expand...
Yes, but it does not matter in this instance. This is from the Haydock Commentary:
Ver. 7. Rashness. Hebrew shal, means also “error, ignorance,” &c. Syriac and Arabic better, “because he put forth his hand.” (Kennicott) — Oza had touched the ark uncovered, (Serarius) shewing too little confidence in God, as if he could not have hindered it from falling; (Rabbins) or perhaps he was the advisor of the ark’s being placed upon a cart, instead of the Levites’ shoulders. (Tirinus) — It is not certain that he was a Levite; and the privilege belonged to the sons of Caath, who could claim this honour only after the ark had bee folded up with three covers. Moreover, the priests seem to have been always selected to carry the ark, after they came into the promised land, ver. 3., and 1 Kings iv. 4., &c. It is hoped that the fault of Oza would be expiated by his sudden death, (Calmet) as his intention was laudable. (Tirinus) — But God would teach his ministers with what caution they were to treat sacred things, (Calmet) and how exactly all his injunctions were to be observed. (Haydock)
Click to expand...
Also from the Haydock Commentary:
Ver. 15. Vessels of, &c. Some say, not even their coverings. God threatens to punish all idle curiosity or negligence, particularly with respect to the ark, which the Caathites had to carry, till the priests became sufficiently numerous to perform that office, as they generally did, Deuteronomy xxxi. 9. (Calmet)
Click to expand...
Ver. 16. Over them. The sons of Caath, to whose care the more sacred things were entrusted; or Hebrew, “over the oil,” &c. — Sacrifice of flour, wine, &c. These always accompanied the morning and evening holocaust. It hence appears that this law was already in force, and probably all such precepts were observed as were not incompatible with the wandering state of the Hebrews. (Calmet)
Click to expand...
 
lak611 said:
Yes. Uzzah violated God’s commandment that prohibited touching of sacred items. That was the reason for his death.
Click to expand...
Hmm…and did it really literally happen? Or is it something to show us how holy God’s ark is (Mary the New Ark allusion?) / or how seriously we should obey God’s laws?
 
zemi said:
Hmm…and did it really literally happen? Or is it something to show us how holy God’s ark is (Mary the New Ark allusion?) / or how seriously we should obey God’s laws?
Click to expand...
I believe it really happened, just as I believe Ananias and Sapphira really were struck down dead for lying to the Holy Spirit in Acts 5.
 
lak611 said:
I believe it really happened, just as I believe Ananias and Sapphira really were struck down dead for lying to the Holy Spirit in Acts 5.
Click to expand...
I imagined now what a sin it must be… if one takes the Communion in an unworthy manner… 😊
 
zemi said:
I imagined now what a sin it must be… if one takes the Communion in an unworthy manner… 😊
Click to expand...
From the Douay-Rheims Version:
1Co 11:27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
1Co 11:30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you: and many sleep.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top