On the way to bring the Ark of God back to Jerusalem, “David and all the house of Israel were making merry before the Lord with songs and lyres and harps and tambourines and castanets and cymbals” (2 Sam. 6:5, ESV). The ark represented the presence of God. They worshipped and gave praises to God. Praise Him with all kinds of instruments (Ps. 150:3-5).
“And when they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah put our his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah, and God struck him down there because of the error, and he died there beside the ark of God” (6:6-7, ESV) Due to this mistake, David was angry (6:8) and afraid of the Lord, saying “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” (6:9, ESV) The Uzzah incident changed David’s attitude toward God and the ark of God.

Firstly, God told Israel how to carry the ark clearly. “It was to be carried by the priests on poles through rings on the side of the ark (Exod. 25:10-15; Num. 4:15; 7:7-9; Deut. 10:8)” (p. 28). In the previous narrative, Israel carried the ark correctly (see Deut. 31:9, 25; Josh. 3:3, 15, 17; 4:9, 10, 18; 6:6; 8:33; 1 Sam. 4:4). David should have known how to carry the ark. But the ark was transported on a new cart (2 Sam. 6:3). In front of “all” Israel and the 30, 000 men (6:1-2), God sent out a message that worship and obedience belonged together. David and Israel must worship God with absolute obedience, not mere convenience.
Drawing near to God is always a dangerous business. He is a consuming fire (Heb. 12:29). When we approach him with carelessness, it may cost our lives. Uzzah should not have touched the ark because God had warned them in advance in Num. 4:15, ESV—“And when Aaron and his sons have finished covering the sanctuary and all the furnishings of the sanctuary, as the camp sets out, after that the sons of Kohath shall come to carry these, but they must not touch the holy things, lest they die. These are the things of the tent of meeting that the sons of Kohath are to carry.” Uzzah touched it; he died.
After three months (6:11), when David brought up the ark from the house of Obed-edom to Jerusalem, he did it with a fearful as well as a joyful heart. “And when those who bore the ark of the Lord had gone six steps, he sacrificed an ox and a fattened animal. And David danced before the Lord with all his might” (2 Sam. 6:13; cf. 15:29). This time David and Israel worshipped freely, yet with God’s constraints.
Secondly, it was an insult to carry the ark of God with a cart, not with a litter. “Litters were for rulers, but carts or wagons were for things…Never for royalty. Placing the ark on a cart was an insult. They were celebrating its return, but by putting the ark on a cart, they were in essence saying the ark was cargo” (pp. 30-31). The ark of God that symbolizes the presence of God must be treated royally, not casually. Besides that, it was the Philistines who first used the cart to transport the ark (1 Sam. 6:8-11). As Eugene Peterson notes:
Uzzah ignored (defied!) the Mosaic directions and substituted the latest Philistine technological innovation—an ox-cart, of all thing (see 1 Sam. 6). A well-designed ox-cart is undeniably more efficient for moving the Ark about than plodding Levites. But it’s also impersonal—the replacement of consecrated persons by an efficient machine, the impersonal crowding out the personal.[1]
Thirdly, the ark of God is called the ark of the Covenant of Yahweh(See Num. 10:33; 14:44; Deut. 10:8; 31:9; Josh. 3:3, 11; 1 Sam. 4:3, 4, 5; 1 Kgs. 3:15; 6:19; Jer. 3:16), which contained three items: a copy of the Ten Commandments (commanded them); a jar of manna from the wilderness years (provided for them); and Aaron’s rod (saved them).[2] God made a covenant with Israel. He was faithful to and respectful for this covenantal relationship. He expected Israel to act in the same way. God couldn’t tolerate Israel to treat the ark of the Covenant lightly. “Yahweh valued the covenant with his people so highly that he wanted to communicate the message that he would not tolerate disrespect for the object that symbolized that relationship” (p. 32).
No comments:
Post a Comment