6<\/strong>. Nachon’s threshingfloor<\/em> ] There is nothing to shew where this place was. It is called in 1Ch 13:9<\/span>, the threshingfloor of Chidon<\/em>. It may have been known by both names, but more probably one of the two forms is due to corruption of the text.<\/p>\n for the oxen shook it<\/em> ] This is the most probable explanation of an obscure word. The Ark seemed to be on the point of falling from the cart, owing to some sudden start or stumble of the oxen, or the roughness of the road.<\/p>\n Shook it – <\/B>The use of the Heb. word here is unusual. Some take the word as in 2Ki 9:33<\/span>, and render the passage: The oxen were throwing, or had thrown it down, very likely by turning aside to eat what grain there might be on the threshing-floor.<\/P> <\/p>\n 2Sa 6:6-7<\/span><\/p>\n Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Uzzah; or the danger of familiarity with sacred things:<\/strong><\/p>\n Some would have us believe that this was an accident; that Uzzah, in the effort to save the ark, dislocated his shoulder, or broke his arm, and died of haemorrhage. We are told, however, that it was a Divine judgment. David so understood it, and he was displeased. Now God intended by this terrible visitation to teach a lesson of great importance. It is one that needs to be uttered even at this day with emphasis, viz., the need that exists for the deepest reverence in all things connected with the Divine service, and the danger that arises from over-familiarity with sacred things.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>Uzzah was a Levite, and he knew or ought to have known the commands of God with respect to the ark. In Num 4:15<\/span>, it is written that those who had to bear the ark were not to touch any holy thing, lest they die, Not only so, but the ark was to be covered, and so kept from the gaze of the irreverent. This had been neglected. Again, that which was to be borne only on mens shoulders was put on a cart. This was a gross piece of neglect.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>Then it is probable that the offence of Uzzah was aggravated by the fact that he had not sufficient reverence for the Divine command. The ark had been for seventy years under the care of his father and family. Eleazar, who had been set apart to take care of it, was probably dead. It may be that neither Uzzah nor Ahio his brother had ever thought that it was important that they should be consecrated to the work. They, presuming on their Levitical descent, may have taken upon themselves informally the position of attendants. Constant familiarity with it may have led them to think of it with even somewhat of contempt. It was like a piece of useless furniture. They may have forgotten how interwoven that ark was with religious and national life. To them it may have seemed a sort of Nehushtan. Others regarded it with expectancy and reverence, but to them it was only so much wood and gold. And thus many regarded Christs cross as so much wood, and His death as a martyrdom, forgetting that they are of infinite value as the sign and seal of the expiation of sin and salvation of the world. There was no virtue in the ark, any more than in the cross itself, apart from Gods appointment. Gods revealed will makes all the difference in respect to any act or observance. Doubtless Uzzah had touched the ark in an over-familiar way before, and it may have been passed over; now he does it publicly, and as evil would result from his example, judgment follows.<\/p>\n (1)<\/strong> Some would say, But how trifling the sin, compared with the severity of the punishment. Sin is never a trifle. Disobedience to God is not a trifle. Peters few words of denial were easily spoken, but they were no trifle in their consequences. A few drops of prussic acid taken into the system are trifling, so far as size and substance are concerned, but not as to results. To touch the ark irreverently was no trifle; it indicated a state of heart not in accord with the office filled.<\/p>\n (2)<\/strong> Besides, the attention of the people had to be arrested, and the need for reverence emphasized. Hence the sin was not passed by. Great benefit arose. As in the case of the men of Beth-shemesh, the exclamation was raised, Who is able to stand before the Lord? so here we find David saying, How shall the ark of God come to me? A deep impression of the need for purity on their part and of unswerving justice on Gods part was made.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>Uzzah sinned with his eyes open. He knew the commands. He sinned with the warning of Beth-shemesh before him. He sinned publicly, and has perished suddenly and miserably. It was a sudden and severe judgment, but that was a stern age, and the people could only be influenced by such means. David saw the reason for the visitation, and so when he summoned courage to move on instead of going up to Jerusalem he turned aside to Obed-edom the Gittite, one who was not only a Levite but probably a Kohathite, to whom it rightly pertained to bear the ark. It may be objected that the punishment was needlessly severe, in that Uzzahs intentions were good. This is very plausible; but good intentions do not always justify wrong-doing. Many have been led astray by this sophistry. We may not do evil that good may come. God will not have His laws broken under pretence of serving Him. We may not bend to a course of expediency under the pretext of glorifying God. Whatever is really wrong must not be permitted, and it was wrong for Uzzah to break the Divine command and thereby perhaps lead others to similar irreverence. Uzzah died by the side of the ark of God. How terrible! Yet what a warning for the ages! Being engaged in religious services or connected with sacred things cannot ensure salvation. We should, therefore, watch any tendency to levity or lightness in Divine worship, or in treatment of sacred subjects. To use Scripture to point a witticism or to regard the Divine book as an ordinary book is not a good sign. There should be no listlessness in worship or in listening to Gods truth. Is not Such carelessness an indication of indifference to the presence of that Divine Spirit in which we believe? Can we be bold and heartless in the presence of the King of Heaven? (F. Hastings<\/em>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Natures penalties for disobedience<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>How many there are who, like Uzzah in our text, profane the ark of God by wilful disobedience to His laws; and, therefore, like him, have to suffer the certain consequences. Death seems a severe penalty for simply touching the ark, but we see just the same penalty inflicted for what seem very small offences against the laws of health almost every day of our lives. Thus for instance there are two great and important laws relating to our bodily health, disobedience to which inevitably brings its proper penalty–one the law that if we would be healthy we must be clean, dean both in body and in dwelling; the other the law that the air we breathe must be pure and fresh. And remember that we can all of us obey these laws if we like–it is not money or the want of money that makes the difference between a healthy and an unhealthy home. There are plenty of houses where the husband earns nothing more than ordinary weekly wages, and yet the cottage and its furniture are clean–the windows are regularly and properly opened, and the air is sweet and pure, and why? Because, while the husband is doing his work outside, the wife is also doing her duty inside, but unfortunately there are some houses where this is not so, and then, Gods laws being broken, as surely as the penalty came on Uzzah so surely does it come on that household. Often it comes in the form of bad health, fever sometimes, or more often that constant languidness and feebleness which makes work a weariness and even life itself a burden.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>There are laws of worship, the first of which is given us by our Saviour Himself. God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. And the second law of worship, if not exactly given us by our Saviour, at any rate comes to us bearing the stamp of His approval. It is the law of a consistent worship, not a worship of the lips only while the heart is far off, but a worship in which heart and voice unite to make one music. Is it so with us? If not, would it not be well to think of the lesson taught us by the fate of Uzzah? To come into Gods house without reverence for the owner of the house; to come joining (or professing to join) with our lips in the confession of sin, while yet we feel no sorrow for sin; to come with the prayer for forgiveness on our lips, while yet we desire none in our hearts; to sing the psalms on the beauty of holiness, and hymns about the joys of heaven, when holiness is distasteful to us, and heaven a home where in heart and mind we never go; what is that but a profanation, and what other penalty can it bring than the penalty of spiritual death? For a cold, heartless, and indifferent service–what is it like but an unhealthy diseased life, a life without either energy or enthusiasm, a life which is really only a living death? What then shall we do?<\/p>\n (1)<\/strong> Two things; first we must amend our lives, and learn to obey that command of St. Pauls, I beseech you, brethren, and<\/p>\n (2)<\/strong> we must remember the lesson contained in the fact that while no blood might be sprinkled on the ark, the figure of this world where law and order reign, yet on the mercy seat, the figure of heaven, where God in mercy is enthroned, the blood of the sacrifice was to be offered. And that sacrifice we must offer according as Christ has commanded. (G. Bladon, B. A<\/em>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n An error and its consequences<\/strong><\/p>\n What said the law? Num 3:29-32<\/span>; Num 4:4-15<\/span>; Num 7:6-9<\/span>.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>Man may forget, but not God. If God has made a thing clear at one time, we must not think (like Balaam) that He will change His mind about it.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>Altered circumstances dont affect truth.<\/p>\n The fate of Uzzah<\/strong><\/p>\n It should be remembered that many hands must have touched the ark that day in the process of lifting it on to the cart; that none of these helpers were smitten, and that therefore it was not the fact of touching, but the spirit in which he touched, that made Uzzah guilty. We shall probably be right if we ascribe to him rash irreverence, entire ignoring of the sanctity of the ark, a regarding of it as an unholy (that is, a common) thing. He had no consciousness of the Divine presence in it. It had been a piece of furniture in Abinadabs house as long as he could remember, and though, no doubt, it had been guarded and set apart there from common uses, he had become used to its presence, and familiarity had worn off his awe. The same cause produces like effects in many of us in regard to holier things than an ark of shittim wood. And an irreverent hand thrust in among such sanctities, even with a design to help them, is sin. Nor must we forget that this incident stands at the beginning of a new epoch in the development of religion in Israel, and that, just as Ananias and Sapphira perished at the beginning of the Churchs history, so- Uzzah lay dead beside the ark, a lesson and a warning for a new age. (A. Maclaren, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Gods view of sin<\/strong><\/p>\n Mr. Hervey thus illustrates the great truth of the different appearance of sin to the eye of God and the eye of man. He says that you may take a small insect, and with the tiniest needle make a puncture in it so minute that you can scarcely see it with the naked eye; but when you look at it through a microscope you see an enormous rent, out of which there flows a purple stream, making the creature seem to you as though it had been smitten with the axe that killeth an ox. It is but a defect of our vision that we cannot see things correctly; but the microscope reveals them as they really are. Gods microscopic eye sees sin in its true aspects. (C. H. Spurgeon<\/em>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n A precise God<\/strong><\/p>\n Why are you so precise, said one to a Puritan. Sir, said he, I serve a very precise God.<\/p>\n Verse 6<\/span>. Uzzah put forth<\/B><\/I> his hand<\/B>] In Nu 4:15-20<\/span>, the Levites are forbidden to touch the ark on pain of death<\/I>, this penalty was inflicted upon Uzzah, and he was the first that suffered for a breach Of this law.<\/P> <\/p>\n Nachon, <\/B>otherwise called Chidon<\/I>, 1Ch 13:9<\/span>. <\/P> The oxen shook it; <\/B>for they stumbled. 1Ch 13:9<\/span>. <\/P> <\/p>\n 6-8. they came to Nachon’sthreshing-floor<\/B>or Chidon’s (1Ch13:9<\/span>). The Chaldee version renders the words, “came to theplace prepared for the reception of the ark,” that is, near thecity of David (2Sa 6:13<\/span>). <\/P> the oxen shook it<\/B>or,”stumbled” (1Ch 13:9<\/span>).Fearing that the ark was in danger of being overturned, Uzzah, underthe impulse of momentary feeling, laid hold of it to keep it steady.Whether it fell and crushed him, or some sudden disease attacked him,he fell dead upon the spot. This melancholy occurrence not only threwa cloud over the joyous scene, but entirely stopped the procession;for the ark was left where it then was, in the near neighborhood ofthe capital. It is of importance to observe the proportionateseverity of the punishments attending the profanation of the ark. ThePhilistines suffered by diseases, from which they were relieved bytheir oblations, because the law had not been given to them [1Sa5:8-12<\/span>]; the Bethshemites also suffered, but not fatally [1Sa6:19<\/span>]; their error proceeded from ignorance or inadvertency. ButUzzah, who was a Levite, and well instructed, suffered death for hisbreach of the law. The severity of Uzzah’s fate may seem to us toogreat for the nature and degree of the offense. But it does notbecome us to sit in judgment on the dispensations of God; and,besides, it is apparent that the divine purpose was to inspire awe ofHis majesty, a submission to His law, and a profound veneration forthe symbols and ordinances of His worship.<\/P><\/p>\n And when they came to Nachon’s threshingfloor<\/strong>,…. Who is called Chidon, 1Ch 13:9<\/span>; he seems to have had two names; or it was a place that had two names, as say the Jews h; according to a tradition of theirs i, Chidon is the name of the place where it was said to Joshua, stretch out the spear or shield in thine hand towards Ai, Jos 8:18<\/span>; so indeed the word signifies, nor was it unusual to stretch out the shield as a signal on occasion. Thus Aeneas lifted up his shield in his left hand, as a token to his Trojans that he was come to relieve them k: where this threshingfloor was is not said; some say l it was the threshingfloor of Araunah the Jebusite; it could not be far from Jerusalem, since Baalejudah or Kirjathjearim was but about a mile from it, according to Bunting m, from whence they fetched the ark:<\/p>\n Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it<\/strong>; to keep it from falling: the reason was,<\/p>\n for the oxen shook [it]<\/strong>; the same word is used in 1Ch 13:9<\/span>; and there it is rendered, “for the oxen stumbled”; and by their stumbling the cart was shaken, and the ark in it, and in danger of falling, as Uzzah thought: or “the oxen shook”, for the word “it” is a supplement; they shook as if their members were plucking asunder and parting, as Kimchi expresses it, because of the holiness of the ark; as if they were sensible it was wrong for them to draw it, when it ought to have been carried on the shoulders of Levites; and by this way, as well as by the death of Uzzah the error committed was pointed out: but others render it, “for the oxen stuck in the clay” n, and could not go on; which Uzzah observing, and fearing that in their struggle to get out the cart should be overturned, or that the procession would be retarded too much, took hold of the ark to take it out, and carry it the remainder of the way, it not being far from Jerusalem.<\/p>\n h T. Bab Sotah, fol. 35. 2. i Hieron. Trad. Heb. in lib. Paralipom. fol. 83. G. k Virgil. Aeneid. 10. ver. 261, 262. Vid. Diodor. Sic. l. 20. p. 787. l Gloss. in T. Bab. Sotah, fol. 35. 3. m Travels, &c. p. 138. n “nam luto haeserunt boves”, Noldius, p. 396. No. 1343. so Bochart. Hierozoic. par. 1. l. 2. c. 37. col. 374. ex Arabica Lingua.<\/p>\n Uzzah Slain for Touching the Ark; The Ark in the House of Obed-edom.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/I><\/span><\/P> <\/TD> B. C.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> 1045.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR> <\/TABLE> 6 And when they came to Nachon’s threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth his hand<\/I> to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it.<\/I> 7 And the anger of the LORD<\/B> was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his<\/I> error; and there he died by the ark of God. 8 And David was displeased, because the LORD<\/B> had made a breach upon Uzzah: and he called the name of the place Perez-uzzah to this day. 9 And David was afraid of the LORD<\/B> that day, and said, How shall the ark of the LORD<\/B> come to me? 10 So David would not remove the ark of the LORD<\/B> unto him into the city of David: but David carried it aside into the house of Obed-edom the Gittite. 11 And the ark of the LORD<\/B> continued in the house of Obed-edom the Gittite three months: and the LORD<\/B> blessed Obed-edom, and all his household.<\/P> We have here Uzzah struck dead for touching the ark, when it was upon its journey towards the city of David, a sad providence, which damped their mirth, stopped the progress of the ark, and for the present, dispersed this great assembly, which had come together to attend it, and sent them home in a fright.<\/P> I. Uzzah’s offence seems very small. He and his brother Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, in whose house the ark had long been lodged, having been used to attend it, to show their willingness to prefer the public benefit to their own private honour and advantage, undertook to drive the cart in which the ark was carried, this being perhaps the last service they were likely to do it; for others would be employed about it when it came to the city of David. Ahio went before, to clear the way, and, if need were, to lead the oxen. Uzzah followed close to the side of the cart. It happened that the oxen shook it, v.<\/I><\/span> 6<\/span>. The critics are not agreed about the signification of the original word: They stumbled<\/I> (so our margin); they kicked<\/I> (so some), perhaps against the goad with which Uzzah drove them; they stuck in the mire,<\/I> by some. By some accident or other the ark was in danger of being overthrown. Uzzah thereupon laid hold of it, to save it from falling, we have reason to think with a very good intention, to preserve the reputation of the ark and to prevent a bad omen. Yet this was his crime. 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,<\/I> Num. iv. 15<\/I><\/span>. 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.<\/P> II. His punishment for this offence seems very great (v.<\/I><\/span> 7<\/span>): The anger of the Lord was kindled against him<\/I> (for in sacred things he is a jealous God) and he smote him there for his rashness,<\/I> as the word is, and struck him dead upon the spot. There he sinned, and there he died, by the ark of God;<\/I> even the mercy-seat would not save him. Why was God thus severe with him? 1. The touching of the ark was forbidden to the Levites expressly under pain of death–lest they die;<\/I> and God, by this instance of severity, would show how he might justly have dealt with our first parents, when they had eaten that which was forbidden under the same penalty–lest you die.<\/I> 2. God saw the presumption and irreverence of Uzzah’s heart. Perhaps he affected to show, before this great assembly, how bold he could make with the ark, having been so long acquainted with it. Familiarity, even with that which is most awful, is apt to breed contempt. 3. David afterwards owned that Uzzah died for an error they were all guilty of, which was carrying the ark in a cart. Because it was not carried on the Levites’ shoulders, the Lord made that breach upon us,<\/I> 1 Chron. xv. 13<\/I><\/span>. But Uzzah was singled out to be made an example, perhaps because he had been most forward in advising that way of conveyance; however he had fallen into another error, which was occasioned by that. Perhaps the ark was not covered, as it should have been, with the covering of badgers’ skins (Num. iv. 6<\/span>), and that was a further provocation. 4. God would hereby strike an awe upon the thousands of Israel, would convince them that the ark was never the less venerable for its having been so long in mean circumstances, and thus he would teach them to rejoice with trembling, and always to treat holy things with reverence and holy fear. 5. God would hereby teach us that a good intention will not justify a bad action; it will not suffice to say of that which is ill done that it was well meant. He will let us know that he can and will secure his ark, and needs not any man’s sin to help him to do it. 6. If it was so great a crime for one to lay hold on the ark of the covenant that had no right to do so, what is it for those to lay claim to the privileges of the covenant that come not up to the terms of it? To the wicked God says, What hast thou to do to take my covenant in thy mouth?<\/I> Ps. l. 16<\/I><\/span>. Friend, how camest thou in hither?<\/I> If the ark was so sacred, and not to be touched irreverently, what is the blood of the covenant?<\/I> Heb. x. 29<\/I><\/span>.<\/P> III. David’s feelings on the infliction of this stroke were keen, and perhaps not altogether as they should have been. He should have humbled himself under God’s hand, confessed his error, acknowledged God’s righteousness, and deprecated the further tokens of his displeasure, and then have gone on with the good work he had in hand. But we find, 1. He was displeased. It is not said because Uzzah had affronted God, but because God had made a breach upon Uzzah (v.<\/I><\/span> 8<\/span>): David’s anger was kindled.<\/I> It is the same word that is used for God’s displeasure, v.<\/I><\/span> 7<\/span>. Because God was angry, David was angry and out of humour. As if God might not assert the honour of his ark, and frown upon one that touched it rudely, without asking David leave. Shall mortal man pretend to be more just than God, arraign his proceedings, or charge him with iniquity? David did not now act like himself, like a man after God’s own heart.<\/I> It is not for us to be displeased at any thing that God does, how unpleasing soever it is to us. The death of Uzzah was indeed an eclipse to the glory of a solemnity which David valued himself upon more than any thing else, and might give birth to some speculations among those that were disaffected to him, as if God were departing from him too; but he ought nevertheless to have subscribed to the righteousness and wisdom of God in it, and not to have been displeased at it. When we lie under God’s anger we must keep under our own. 2. He was afraid, v.<\/I><\/span> 9<\/span>. It should seem he was afraid with amazement; for he said, How shall the ark of the Lord come to me?<\/I> As if God sought advantages against all that were about him, and was so extremely tender of his ark that there was no dealing with it; and therefore better for him to keep it at a distance. Que procul a Jove, procul a fulmine–To retire from Jove is to retire from the thunder-bolt.<\/I> He should rather have said, “Let the ark come to me, and I will take warning by this to treat it with more reverence.” Provoke me not<\/I> (says God, Jer. xxv. 6<\/span>) and I will do you no hurt.<\/I> Or this may be looked upon as a good use which David made of this tremendous judgment. He did not say, “Surely Uzzah was a sinner above all men, because he suffered such things,” but is concerned for himself, as one conscious, not only of his own unworthiness of God’s favour, but his obnoxiousness to God’s displeasure. “God might justly strike me dead as he did Uzzah. My flesh trembles for fear of thee,<\/I>” Ps. cxix. 120<\/span>. This God intends in his judgments, that others may hear and fear. David therefore will not bring the ark into his own city (v.<\/I><\/span> 10<\/span>) till he is better prepared for its reception. 3. He took care to perpetuate the remembrance of this stroke by a new name he gave to the place: Perez-uzzah, the breach of Uzzah,<\/I> v.<\/span> 8<\/span><\/U><\/I><\/span>. He had been lately triumphing in the breach made upon his enemies, and called the place Baal-perazim, a place of breaches.<\/I> But here is a breach upon his friends. When we see one breach, we should consider that we know not where the next will be. The memorial of this stroke would be a warning to posterity to take heed of all rashness and irreverence in dealing about holy things; for God will be sanctified in those that come nigh unto him.<\/I> 4. He lodged the ark in a good house, the house of Obed-edom a Levite, which happened to be near the place where this disaster happened, and there, (1.) It was kindly entertained and welcomed, and continued there three months,<\/I>2Sa 6:10<\/span>; 2Sa 6:11<\/span>. Obed-edom knew what slaughter the ark had made among the Philistines that imprisoned it and the Bethshemites that looked into it. He saw Uzzah struck dead for touching it, and perceived that David himself was afraid of meddling with it; yet he cheerfully invites it to his own house, and opens his doors to it without fear, knowing it was a savour of death unto death<\/I> only to those that treated it ill. “O the courage,” says bishop Hall, “of an honest and faithful heart! nothing can make God otherwise than amiable to his own people: even his very justice is lovely.” (2.) It paid well for its entertainment: The Lord blessed Obed-edom and all his household.<\/I> The same hand that punished Uzzah’s proud presumption rewarded Obed-edom’s humble boldness, and made the ark to him a savour of life unto life.<\/I> Let none think the worse of the gospel for the judgements inflicted on those that reject it, but set in opposition to them the blessings it brings to those that duly receive it. None ever had, nor ever shall have, reason to say that it is in vain to serve God.<\/I> Let masters of families be encouraged to keep up religion in their families, and to serve God and the interests of his kingdom with their houses and estates, for that is the way to bring a blessing upon all they have. The ark is a guest which none shall lose by that bid it welcome. Josephus says that, whereas before Obed-edom was poor, on a sudden, in these three months, his estate increased, to the envy of his neighbours. Piety is the best friend to prosperity. In wisdom’s left hand are riches and honour. His household shared in the blessing. It is good living in a family that entertains the ark, for all about it will fare the better for it.<\/P> <\/p>\n (6) Nachons threshingfloor.<\/strong>This place is entirely unknown. 1Ch. 13:9<\/span> has the threshingfloor of Chidon; but it may be doubted whether the word is a proper name at all. The name, whatever it was, was now superseded by Perez-uzzah <\/em>(2Sa. 6:8<\/span>). The turning aside of the oxen to snatch the scattered grain of the threshingfioor may have caused the trouble.<\/p>\n 6<\/strong>. <\/strong> Nachon’s threshingfloor <\/strong> The familiar mention of such places, now utterly unknown, is evidence of the antiquity, genuineness, and credibility of these sacred writings. <\/p>\n Put forth his hand to the ark <\/strong> This was sacrilegious transgression of the law: “The sons of Kohath shall come to bear it; but they shall not touch any holy thing, lest they die.” Num 4:15<\/span>.<\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> And when they came to the threshing-floor of Nacon, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled.’ <\/p>\n But as they were coming to the threshing-floor of Nacon (or ‘a certain threshing-floor’) a misfortune occurred. The oxen stumbled on the no doubt rough road. There is in fact no suggestion that the Ark was in danger of falling off the cart, although it may well have moved slightly from its place. But what we can be sure of was that initially all Uzzah’s attention would be on the oxen, for he was driving the cart. <\/p>\n Thus his reaching out to the Ark was not the involuntary action of someone who was walking beside it and did not want it to fall off. That would have been far better accomplished by the people surrounding the cart, even though they were probably avoiding touching even the cart, because they recognised the holiness of the Ark. Rather Uzzah’s act was almost proprietary, as though God needed him to look after Him. It seems clear that through familiarity he had lost his awe of the Ark, and probably had the same attitude towards God, for he reached out, possibly to set it back in its place, as though it had just been a common object. He was treating it as if it was his own possession. Indeed he was probably the only one in the large excited crowd who was not totally in awe of it. And that was his undoing. What he should have done, of course, if the Ark needed adjusting, was to call for the travelling poles which were normally used for bearing the Ark (which must have been used in order to put the Ark on the cart and would be required at the end of the journey). But everyone without exception knew that it was forbidden to touch the holy furnishings of the Tabernacle, including the Ark. Thus he was without excuse. <\/p>\n Note that the attention of the writer (and the future listener) was concentrated on those fatal words, ‘Uzzah reached forth to the ark of God, and took hold of it’. He was not interested in any other detail. His whole attention was on the awfulness of what Uzzah had done. To him it would have been almost unbelievable, and whenever those words were read out later the listening crowds would have shuddered. <\/p>\n It is difficult in modern times to even begin to appreciate what his action must have meant to all who saw it. Touching the Ark was something that was, and had always been, strictly forbidden. No priest or Levite would ever have dared to touch it (Num 4:15<\/span>). Even the act of curiously and sacrilegiously gazing on it while uncovered had brought great suffering on those who did so (1Sa 16:19<\/span>; compare Exo 19:21<\/span>). Yet this was an even greater act of sacrilege. Indeed it was so great an act of sacrilege, that all who saw it must have been stunned to silence at what they saw. They would have considered that it was treating the Holy One of Israel with undue familiarity. And apart from everything else it suggested that the living God could not look after Himself. It was to treat Him like a helpless image. But even worse it was to desecrate the most holy object of Israelite worship with the defiled fingers of man, and behave towards it as though it was a common thing. It was to trivialise God. And it was unquestionably done deliberately, as Uzzah’s position as driver makes clear. <\/p>\n God had clearly seen it as of great importance that man should recognise the barrier between man and Himself. He had demonstrated this at Mount Sinai (Exo 19:12<\/span>; Exo 19:24<\/span>). To trespass on the holy meant death. It was a vital lesson. Man has always been too prone to think that God can be treated lightly, and at such an important moment the lesson had to be taught that God had to be feared as well as loved. This was why such a thing as this happened. It made clear to all the absolute holiness and ‘otherness’ of God. It is a reminder that there are times in history when what could at other times be treated more leniently must be treated with the utmost severity. For this was not just some private mistake. It had occurred openly before all the people, and to an object seen as so holy that none apart from the High Priest would ever look on it again, and even he only in a darkened room. As YHWH’s ‘mercy seat’ (His propitiatory) it represented the presence of God Himself. It was as close as man could ever physically get to physically approaching the living God. It bore the holy Name of YHWH. <\/p>\n We do not know what went through Uzzah’s mind when he did it (the realisation of what he had done may well have been what gave him the stroke from which he died), but one thing is clear and that is that it revealed that he had lost his supreme awe of the Ark. His act of reaching out and touching the Ark unquestionably demonstrated that. It was the act of one to whom the Ark had become just another object, of one who had lost the realisation that God was fully represented there. It may well be that he wanted the people to see that he himself was on especially good terms with the Almighty. Or he may have wanted them all to be in awe of him as ‘the man who could touch the Ark’. But it was certainly not just the involuntary action of an innocent man. The holiness of the Ark (and of all the Temple furniture) had been too deeply imbued into God’s people for that to be a probability. No other would even remotely have considered the possibility of touching the Ark. Had it fallen off the cart they would have drawn back to avoid it, not tried to save it. So to do what Uzzah did required someone who had grown grossly careless about spiritual things. <\/p>\n 2Sa 6:6<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>When they came to Nachon’s threshing-floor<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> The word Nachon <\/em>is used by way of anticipation, in allusion to the fate of Uzzah; for nakah, <\/em>signifies to smite, <\/em>and nachon, the act <\/em>of smiting. <\/em>In 1Ch 13:9<\/span> it is called the threshing-floor of Chidon, <\/em>which conveys the same idea; for kid, <\/em>signifies destruction. <\/em>See Houbigant’s note on the verse. <\/p>\n The oxen shook it<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> The oxen stuck in the mire. <\/em>Bochart. tom. 1. 13. <\/p>\n DISCOURSE: 311 2Sa 6:6-9<\/span>. And when they came to Nachons threshing-floor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God. And David was displeased, because the Lord had made a breach upon Uzzah: and he called the name of the place Perezuzzah to this day. And David was afraid of the Lord that day, and said, How shall the ark of the Lord come to me?<\/em><\/p>\n THE noblest use of power is to exert it for God. So David thought: for no sooner had he attained the quiet possession of the throne of Israel, than he determined to bring up the ark of God from Kirjathjearim, where it had remained in obscurity perhaps for seventy years, and to place it in Jerusalem, where it might receive the honour due unto it. But, as persons striving in the Grecian games were not crowned except they strove lawfully, and conformed to the rules prescribed for them, so neither can they be accepted who exert their influence for God, except they<\/em> use it agreeably to the dictates of His revealed will. Accordingly in this very act David met with a repulse: the person whom he employed to bring up the ark was struck dead upon the spot; and the whole measure was disconcerted: yea the very frame of Davids mind also was changed, from joyous exultation, to vexation, sorrow, and despondency.<\/p>\n Let us contemplate,<\/p>\n I.<\/p>\n The punishment inflicted on Uzzah<\/p>\n Uzzah and Ahio, sons of Abinadab, having long had the charge of the ark in their fathers house, undertook to drive the cart whereon it was to be conveyed to Jerusalem. Ahio went before to prepare the way, and Uzzah drove the oxen: but, when they were arrived at the threshing-floor of Nachon, the oxen by some means shook the ark; and Uzzah, apprehensive it would fall, put forth his hand to keep it steady: and for this offence he was struck dead upon the spot. 1.<\/p>\n The offence committed<\/p>\n [This was of a complicated nature: it was the offence, not of Uzzah only, but of David, and of the whole nation. As it related to Uzzah, it was highly criminal: for God, in the orders he had given respecting the removal of the ark from place to place, had directed that the priests only<\/em> should touch<\/em> the ark, or any thing belonging to it; and that the Levites should carry it: and so strict was this order, that it was enforced by the penalty of death: The sons of Kohath shall bear<\/em> it (by its long staves;) but they shall not touch<\/em> any holy thing, lest they<\/em> die [Note: Num 4:15<\/span>.]. Now Uzzah was not a priest; and therefore he should on no account have presumed to touch the ark. It may well be supposed, that this violation of Gods command was the fruit of an habitual irreverence, which a long familiarity with the ark had nourished in his mind: and therefore God took this occasion of punishing his presumption.<\/p>\n But David, also, and all the nation were to blame: for the very accident that occasioned Uzzah to put forth his hand, arose from their criminal neglect. God had given plain directions about his ark; and had ordered that it should be carried on the shoulders of the Levites<\/em>. The other articles belonging to the tabernacle were large and cumbersome; and for the conveyance of them God had given waggons and oxen; but to the sons of Kohath he had given none; because the service belonging to them was, to bear the ark upon their shoulders [Note: Num 7:6-9<\/span>.]. Why then was this forgotten? Why did David and all the priests and people presume to substitute another way, different from that which God had prescribed? The Philistines, it is true, had sent home the ark in this way: but they knew nothing of the directions given in the law, nor had they any of the sons of Aaron with them to employ in that service. Were these ignorant heathens a fit pattern for David to follow, in direct opposition to the commands of God? If David did not know what God had commanded in relation to the ark, should he not have examined; or should he not have inquired of the Lord, as he had so recently and so successfully done in reference to his conflicts with the Philistines? This neglect then was highly criminal, and justly merited the rebuke it met with.]<\/p>\n 2.<\/p>\n The reason of noticing it with such severity<\/p>\n [Besides the enormity of the offence, there was additional reason for punishing it with severity, arising out of the very nature of that dispensation. God had shewn himself so gracious and condescending towards that nation, that there was great danger lest they should entertain erroneous notions of his character, and overlook entirely his majesty and greatness. Indeed even his condescension itself would be undervalued, unless they should be made sensible of his justice, his holiness, and his power. Hence on many occasions He had taken care to blend some displays of his power with the manifestations of his love. When he came down upon Mount Sinai to give them his law, he accompanied the revelation with awful demonstrations of his greatness. When he had sent fire from heaven to consume the sacrifices on his altar, and to declare his acceptance of them, he destroyed Nadab and Abihu by fire for presuming to burn incense before him with fire different from that which he had kindled [Note: Lev 10:1-2<\/span>.]. When a single individual in the nation had offended him, he withdrew his protection from all, till the person was discovered and put to death [Note: Jos 7:5<\/span>; Jos 7:11-12<\/span>.]. Thus, he was now suffering the symbols of his presence to be transported to Jerusalem; and the people would be ready to think that they had conferred an honour upon him: he therefore shewed them, that no service could be accepted of him, unless it were regulated by a strict adherence to his revealed will; and that whilst they received from him such signal tokens of his favour, they must at the peril of their souls conduct themselves towards him with the profoundest reverence [Note: Lev 10:3<\/span>.]. In this view the judgment inflicted upon Uzzah was an instructive lesson to the whole nation, and is a standing proof that God is greatly to be feared, and to be had in reverence of all them that are round about him [Note: Psa 89:7<\/span>.].]<\/p>\n We lament however to observe,<\/p>\n II.<\/p>\n The effect it produced on the mind of David<\/p>\n Truly the best of men are but weak, when they are visited with any heavy trial. Fervent as Davids mind was, no sooner was he thus rebuked than he was filled,<\/p>\n 1.<\/p>\n With proud resentment<\/p>\n [It is probable that there was in his mind an undue degree of complacency, from the idea that he was the honoured instrument of thus exalting and glorifying his God. To meet therefore with such a check, in the midst of all his glory, and in the presence of all the great men of the nation, was very mortifying to his pride; and in an instant he betrayed what was in his heart. Had he been displeased with himself, it had been well: but he was displeased with God, whom he considered as dealing wrongfully and unjustly towards him. Alas! that so good a man should indulge such an unhallowed disposition. Had he himself corrected one of his little children, he would have expected the child to conclude of course, from the very correction itself, that something was amiss in him, though he could not immediately see wherein the evil of his conduct lay: and should not David have exercised that same temper towards God? Should he not have concluded that God was too wise to err, and too good to do any thing which was not strictly right? Should he not have acted, as he did on another occasion, I was dumb and opened not my mouth, because thou didst it? It is characteristic of the vilest of men to fly, as it were, in the face of God [Note: Isa 8:21<\/span>.]; yea, it is their very employment in hell to curse him for the judgments he inflicts [Note: Rev 16:9-11<\/span>.]. Did such a temper then become the man after Gods own heart? No; he should rather have said, It is the Lord; let him do what seemeth him good [Note: 1Sa 3:18<\/span>.] I will bear the indignation of the Lord, because I have sinned against him [Note: Mic 7:9<\/span>.]. But in this conduct of his we have a lamentable illustration of that proverb, The foolishness of man perverteth his way, and his heart fretteth against the Lord [Note: Pro 19:3<\/span>.].]<\/p>\n 2.<\/p>\n With unbelieving fear<\/p>\n [He now concluded that God was an hard master, whom it was impossible to serve: he therefore would not venture any more to take to him the ark: He was afraid of the Lord, and said, How shall the ark of the Lord come unto me? This was a slavish fear, and utterly unbecoming one who had so often experienced the most signal tokens of his favour. This was to act like the rebellious heads of the tribes, when, in their contest with Aaron for the priesthood, God had decided the cause against them [Note: Num 17:12-13<\/span>.]: or rather it was a repetition of the conduct of the Philistines upon a precisely similar occasion [Note: 1Sa 5:10-11<\/span>.]. But this was very unbecoming his high character. He should rather have instituted an inquiry into the reason of the divine procedure; and should have humbled himself before God for the errors that had been committed. For this he might have found precedents in plenty in the Sacred Records [Note: Jos 7:6<\/span>; Jdg 20:26<\/span>.]: but he yielded at once to despondency, and dismissed the whole assembly of Israel, and left the ark to be taken in by any one that was bold enough to receive it.<\/p>\n Such was his unhappy frame on this occasion: and such, alas! is the temper of many under the chastisements of the Almighty: they are ready to say, It is in vain to serve the Lord; there is no hope: I have loved idols, and after them will I go ]<\/p>\n ApplicationFuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
I. <\/strong>Death was under the law the punishment or transgression. Executed in single cases. (Num 15:32-36<\/span>; Jos 7:15-25; 1Ki 13:21-25<\/span>.) The principle of such punishment is doubtless brought out in 1Co 11:30-32<\/span>.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>reverence becomes finite beings in approaching the Infinite, Love and zeal are not enough; there is danger of carelessness or lightness. We are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, to speak with meekness and fear, to serve with reverence and godly fear.<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>God does not need mans help, though He condescends to use it. We put our hand to the ark when we defend Gods cause with carnal weapons. (R. E. Faulkner<\/em>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\nFuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
UZZAHS PUNISHMENT FOR TOUCHING THE ARK<\/strong><\/p>\n
Now at first sight it appears as if this punishment was exceedingly disproportionate to the offence: but we shall be of a very different opinion, if we consider,<\/p>\n