. . . Uzzah put out his hand to steady the Ark. Then Yahweh's anger blazed out against Uzzah and he struck him dead because he had laid his hand on the Ark. So Uzzah died there in the presence of God. - 1 Chronicles 13:9-10I don't know. Maybe I'm back at square one here! Or maybe the Ark fell on Uzzah and everyone assumed it was God?
I mean how did Uzzah die that they knew it was God acting against him? They apparently forgot about the rules of moving the ark and (at least Uzzah forgot) about not touching it. So when he died, was that the shock to their systems to remember God's rules?
Or at that particular moment did God sit up, take notice and send a bolt of lightning directly to Uzzah's head?
Shocking!
12 comments:
The cool thing is that following Uzzah's death, David sought the LORD and revisited His laws, and once he knew how God had commanded them, adjusted his worship, appointing the proper people to carry out the tasks.
(The ark was being carried by a cart, not people, and was probably not covered the way it was supposed to either, because otherwise Uzzah wouldn't have touched the ark, but only the fabric containing the ark...plus, the people doing the transporting were supposed to be Koathites, a smaller clan within the Levitical tribe)....David revisited God's law and learned from his mistakes, and God called him a man after His own heart....I like that!
i always felt mad when i read that. . .but yes, they were supposedly carrying it in an 'unauthorized' manner, etc. still I felt like Uzzah got the shaft and i didn't get why God got so 'smitey'. I still don't like that story . . . David didn't seem to like the whole thing much either (at the time).
Hmmm, I have heard that it had to do with complacency, that this was the major crime that was carried out by the Israelites. But not to jump the gun or anything, but what about Ananais and Sapphira, now that's seriously new covenant and so can't be explained by being part of the old covenant. It also doesn't seem circumstancial assumptions. What about that?
Ya got me there! Can't answer that one . . . yet.
Anyone care to help us?
Could this be because it's an event that takes place "on the cusp" of the New Covenant (and they are just getting the hang of this new way of seeing God)? Not sure that works, though, because it would be pretty coincidental that they BOTH died the same way after lying about the same thing (and I don't believe in coincidence). This seems very clear that God had his hand in their punishment.
So why doesn't he do that stuff today? Does he? Anyone with a testimony (I shudder to ask)?
Oh dear, I wrote to this yesterday and it seems that none of it got up there. Ok, I will dig through the archives of my mind and see if I can remember what I said. First off, sometimes I ask questions that I may have heard answers to hear other answers.
My small group did a study on Acts by John Stott (so it was really good). Stott seemed to suggest that the issue here was the significance of the situation. This was at the time of the unity of all the believers. If this trend had continued then it would have led to distrust, jealousy and gossip amongst the believers. It would have potentially hindered the spread of the church and the gospel. And so God moved with decisive corrective action.
So it would seem that once again that the issue is complacency towards God (so this seems to have ties back to the stuff with Uzzah). I went and checked what the result of this action was and it said that the church feared God. In checking out the original words this is talking about fear in the scared for your life, terror, dread kind of way. But it doesn't mention that there were any negative effects from it.
So it got me back to thinking about why we don't see this kind of thing anymore today. Was it because it was at such a crucial time? Or was it because the significance of the event would not be recognised today? Does it have something to do with the lack of spiritual awareness in the west? Do Christians in more spiritually aware cultures recognise God striking people down? Or similar things? Is the fact that we don't seem to see it due to our lack of seeing or because God speaks in ways that we will understand? (though killing people seems a harsh by-product of cultural relevance) And what exactly is the issue (asking myself as well) that we have with God killing people? If he hardens Pharoah's heart for His purposes, does this fit into that?
I'm not really sure, about any of it really. But it got me thinking and that is kind of fun. Interested in where this goes.
(so I think that's about close to what I wrote)
I also read this from my readings today. In Exodus 19 God tells the Israelites to not approach the mountain because otherwise they will be killed. The Israelites are told to shoot or stone this person, but doesn't that constitute the same thing as God killing them? Also, had God warned the Israelites not to touch the ark? He did, didn't He? I just can't find the reference...
Oh, and what about this:
Exodus 19:21-22 And the LORD said to him, "God down and warn the people so they do not force their way through to see the LORD and many of them perish. Even the priests, who approach the LORD, must consecreate themselves, or the LORD will break out against them."
Bec b,
Your comment really opens this up for me (like a bigger can of worms!):
^^Or was it because the significance of the event would not be recognised today? Does it have something to do with the lack of spiritual awareness in the west? Do Christians in more spiritually aware cultures recognise God striking people down?^^
Wow! Great thought! I've heard people arguing over whether God was "striking people down" in New Orleans or not. Would we recognize it if it happened today? HAS it happened today and we missed it? Their Mari Gras is just a big contractural party with Satan anyway. In the Bible, we see some pretty powerful "whackings" when God gets angry about this stuff. Does he move against people when it just gets to be the last straw?
Okay, so we all agree, the Bible tells us of instances where apparently, God "whacked" people. Old or New Testament, matters not, it's in both.
I want to believe God's not like that, but even when HE tells US about himself, he includes this kind of comment (as opposed to our interpreting a situation).
Could it be he's just too "big" for me to fathom? Will I ever understand when he's "whacking" or our misunderstanding of the situation? Is there an answer that will make sense?
Oh, I remembered some other stuff that I wrote in the comment that didn't get up there. I think the thing that came out for me in all of this was a word of caution. If this is about complacency, then the west is in quite a bit of trouble. Even as a church I think we are often far too complacent in our approach to God. Our God is holy and righteous, and also has a holy anger. Yes, He is a God of love. But there is a reason that we approach Him with "fear and trembling". I guess, more than anything, I get this: "God I don't want to come to You assumingly. I don't want to waltz up to You full of my self-importance, expecting you to do things my way. God, forgive me for the times that I have. Help me to know You and revere You as I should." Somehow, maybe that's the point of it all?
I like that. You have avoided the usual talk people give about "fearing" God. Fear is not "to be afraid" of God, but to be in awe of him.
At the same time, we should never be presumptuous.
I love how so often God just puts things across your path. Was reading Numbers today and found this in chpt 18:5 -
You yourselves must perform the scred duties within the sanctuary and at the altar. If you follow these instructions, the LORD's anger willnever again blaze against the people of Israel.
So God still provided the right way, and somewhere there I can also hear the voice of grace. Somehow it works...
Hallelujah for God's grace!
Post a Comment