Why did God kill this guy?

[Elijah John]

Why did God kill the guy who attempted to steady the ark?

For debate, and from this incident.

1) What does that teach us about God?

2) What does that teach us about the folks who wrote the tale?

3) Is there some other, reasonable explanation of why this guy died or why he was killed?

4) Do you think this guy who was trying to protect something sacred, deserved to be punished with death his efforts? Should he have been rewarded instead?

I deliberately put this topic on TD&D and not on C&A because I hope to minimize the reflexive "this proves the Bible God is a monster" type replies.

[JehovahsWitness]

And who was holy, the Ark? Jesus? Both?

People touched Jesus and were healed, rather than being punished with death. Jesus was holy, so...Something doesn't add up.

Yes your reasoning!

The ark didn't represent Jesus it represented JEHOVAH. And just because something or someone is "holy" that doesn't mean the same rules apply. The temple was considered holy, the (faithful) angels are holy, Jerusalem was the "holy city... The bottom line is God declares what is holy and he decides what how what is holy should be treated.



JW

[FWI]

So, would God have preferred that the Ark fell to the dirt and hit the ground?

This wouldn't have been an issue…God is always in control! If, He didn't want the Ark to fall to the ground, then it wouldn't. If, it did, then that would be God's will and another teaching lesson for the Israelites and us. So, no it seems that the Ark falling to the ground would not be a desecration. Where, I am not aware of any biblical reference that claims it did; fall to the ground during transport…

But, what is interesting is what befell the Philistines for taking the Ark in the first place (see: 1 Samuel 5, 6) and what happened to the men of Beth Shemesh for looking into the Ark (verse 6:19).

And why were there no Aaronic escorts or guards there, to steady the Ark?

Well, when it came to the proper way to move the Ark, there probably were back-ups or guards that traveled alongside. This would seem to be required depending on how far the (first) assigned men would need to carry the Ark and the other most holy items. However, they wouldn't be Aaronic escorts…This was not the assignment of the family of Aaron, related to the movement of the Ark and the other items. Since, the family assigned to transport the Ark and the other items felt that using a cart and animals was much easier and faster (thus ignoring God's instructions), they needed to be shown otherwise. It also seems that the cart was not only caring the Ark of the Covenant, but also the other holy items. Or, more than one cart was used, which would also be a violation of God's instructions.

Numbers 7.4-9 refers to the carrying of offerings, not to the transportation of the Ark. That's how I read it anyway.

Sorry, but I disagree with this statement. In Numbers 4:4-15, it is clearly outlined how the most holy things would be moved. Notice verses 4:6 (pole inserts or staves), 10 (carrying beam or bar), 12 (carrying beam or bar), 14 (pole inserts or staves) and 15 (the sons of Kohath shall carry them or bear them). No carts are mentioned.

It should be noted that after the debacle and several months later, the holy items of the sanctuary continued on to the city of David, but this time the way God commanded (2 Sam. 6:9-15).

[PinSeeker]

So, defenders of the incident, what would Jesus do? Which would he have valued more?

Would he have valued human beings who were made in YHVH's image? Or the sacred object. I suspect the former. Or were human beings disposable to Jesus?

And who was holy, the Ark? Jesus? Both?

People touched Jesus and were healed, rather than being punished with death. Jesus was holy, so...Something doesn't add up.

When people touched Jesus and were healed -- I presume you're referring to the woman who touched his garment -- they were trusting in Jesus's ability/power to heal/sustain them... their faith was in God. In this way, their lives were sustained.

In Uzziah's case, he was rather taking it upon themselves to uphold Him or ensure the Ark's safety. In this Old Testament story, the Ark represents Jesus. To put it in biblical terms, Jesus was represented in the Old Testament by a types and shadows of the true Savior to come. The Ark was just that in this story. So Uzziah's trust and faith was in effect in himself, which is why he lost his life.

Not sure how that doesn't "add up" for you, but there it is. It's a very stark contrast, a night and day difference.

Grace and peace to you.

[2timothy316]

Why did God kill the guy who attempted to steady the ark?

The bible is clear on how the Ark of the Covenant would be transported (Ex. 25:10-15) and the usage of a cart was not allowed! In Numbers 3:30-31 it is recorded that the family of Kohath's duties included the Ark, the table, the lampstand, the altars, the utensils of the sanctuary with which they ministered, the screen and all the work relating to them. However, only the family of Aaron (also from the family of Kohath) were permitted to touch these articles…Numbers 4:15 tells us that Aaron and his sons would cover the sanctuary and all the furnishings, then the family, which Uzzah was part of would carry these items. But, Numbers 7:4-9 tells us that this must be done on their shoulders and not in carts!

So, it is clear that the people involved were disobeying God's commands and making their own rules…Because of this, Uzzah paid the ultimate price by touching the Ark of the Covenant (not being from the family of Aaron). Yet, others sinned as well, but we don't know what type of consequences befell them. Therefore, when it is obvious that men are rejecting God's commands, we should not be surprised that consequences will eventually occur (some sooner, than others).

Also to add to this comment, the Bible says in 1 Chronicles 15:1-14 the second attempt succeeded when it was carried on by the priests.

We can't forget Jehovah God doesn't act unjustly. (Job 34:10) Uzzah's action was called an "irreverent" act. (2 Sam 6:7) Which means "a lack of respect for people or things that are generally taken seriously." Since Jehovah can read hearts and He is always just, this means that Uzzah must have been hard hearted in his disrespect for holy things. Like he truly did not care at all for them. Think of Uzzah almost as bad as Judas Iscariott. Uzzah will more that likely be resurrected, Judas will not but both were irreverent in their heart.

[brianbbs67]

Well EJ, first we would have to define holy as it was intended in history. Kodesh(sp) is the Hebrew root and means set apart(by God), which we take as blessed. But, as you know the "blessed" in the bible seems to suffer often.

I don't even know if you could say it means good 100% of the time(in man's view). But, it is set apart, not common.

As to the Ark, as others have said, the people involved knew the rules and the penalty and still did it. I am sure the Ark had it owns protections set up also or the rules and penalties wouldn't have been so high.

One other point is, YHVH notes over and over how stiff necked these Israelites were. Maybe He got sick of all the disobedience? And this guy, who we know little about, was the transgressor who caught the Ire?

[Elijah John]

All these rationales seem plausible to some degree, and are well argued. Still, it seems a bit harsh, like the penalty does not fit the crime harsh. A bit out of character for a merciful, compassionate and benevolent God. Episodes like this, and the supposed testing of Abraham to slaughter his son, reinforce my suspicion that the Bible is heavily tainted by primitive human bias, and is not perfect in every way. Inspired, but flawed, and certainly not dictated by God. Still, the Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.

A faith history of a primitive people's encounters with the Living God, though they brought their own prejudices to the table in the telling and re-telling. Seems the Creator left it to us to use our God-given common sense and Reason, to, (as Jefferson would say) sift though and separate the diamonds from the dung.

[2timothy316]

All these rationales seem plausible to some degree, and are well argued. Still, it seems a bit harsh, like the penalty does not fit the crime harsh. A bit out of character for a merciful, compassionate and benevolent God.

However, there are things in this world that if we do not respect can hurt us. Fire, electricity, gravity, inertia, and really all of physics need to be respected. After all Jehovah did make all of these things. He also is the One that gave the Ark it's power. Yet when a person dies because they didn't respect these the laws of physics, we don't blame God for their death. All of these things can be safely handled with the proper equipment. The Ark of the Covenant is no different. It too could be handle with the proper respect and equipment.

Episodes like this, and the supposed testing of Abraham to slaughter his son, reinforce my suspicion that the Bible is heavily tainted by primitive human bias, and is not perfect in every way. Inspired, but flawed, and certainly not dictated by God. Still, the Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.

Yet personal feeling shouldn't be entered as evidence in what Jehovah deems right and just. God's thinking is must much higher than our thinking. In every case we might think 'that's not what I'd do', we have to remember that Jehovah has access to information that we can't ever gain access to. Such as what is in a person's heart and every deed they have ever done and why. I find it unlikely that God would take Uzziah's life on because this was his first offense. It was more likely Uzziah's track record and heart was severely irreverent in the eyes of Jehovah. Enough to take his life.

A faith history of a primitive people's encounters with the Living God, though they brought their own prejudices to the table in the telling and re-telling. Seems the Creator left it to us to use our God-given common sense and Reason, to, (as Jefferson would say) sift though and separate the diamonds from the dung.

Yet there is no evidence of this. Only personal feeling. There is no other record that parallels the Bible's details. I can't agree to throw something off just because I don't understand why something happened the way that it did. Jehovah didn't just put all the good things people did in the Bible. He also put all of the bad stuff they did as information for us. In Uzziah's case, the lesson is, respect of Jehovah's things and instructions is the difference between life and death. This in true in every single case. If he tells you sacrifice your son, then do it. If He tells you to stop before you do, then do that too. "By faith Abraham, when he was tested, as good as offered up Isaac—the man who had gladly received the promises attempted to offer up his only-begotten son— although it had been said to him: “What will be called your offspring will be through Isaac.� But he reasoned that God was able to raise him up even from the dead, and he did receive him from there in an illustrative way." (Heb 11:17-19) Isaac was in no real danger because God had made a promise that Isaac would have offspring. He can't do that dead. Thus Abraham knew whatever Jehovah told him to do the promise He made would be kept. We have to ask ourselves, do we have that kind of trust in Jehovah? Even to provide a Bible with an accurate message? If He can raise people from the dead what's making a book to him?

[FWI]

Also to add to this comment, the Bible says in 1 Chronicles 15:1-14 the second attempt succeeded when it was carried on by the priests.

This is an important point, but there may be a flaw with it…It seems that you are assuming that Uzzah and his brother Ahio weren't priests! But, this doesn't appear to be true. When, the Philistines returned the Ark to Israel it was at the field of Joshua of Beth Shemesh, where (1 Sam. 6:13-19) records the problems that befell the men of Beth Shemesh. Then (in verse 20), they said, "Who is able to stand before this holy Lord God? And to whom shall it go up from us?" Well (1 Sam. 7:1-2), tells us. So, the men of Kirjath Jearim knew of a special man (priest) whose name was Abinadab and brought the Ark to him and it remained there for about 20 years. Where, Abinadab eldest son (Eleazar) was consecrated to keep the Ark.

Thus, Abinadab (being a priest) would also suggest that his sons (Eleazar, Ahio and Uzzah) were also priests by birth right…And, able to take care of the Ark without repercussions, except for touching or opening the Ark. Until, the misfortune of Uzzah. So, if there is any good that came out of the story, it is that the bible doesn't record anyone else touching the Ark of the Covenant!

Think of Uzzah almost as bad as Judas Iscariott. Uzzah will more than likely be resurrected, Judas will not but both were irreverent in their heart.

I realize that many believe this (Judas will not be resurrected), but I don't. Judas only did what the Christ instructed him to do…Yet, if it wasn't Judas, then who? The Christ made it clear that he was going to be arrested and killed much earlier than it actually occurred. So, in this case, it seems that a fall guy was needed and Judas was that disciple. Where, I don't believe that the Christ approved of this labeling of Judas as a traitor. This (labeling) probably occurred sometime after the 4th century AD. Thus, Judas should be resurrected at the same time as his fellow disciples…

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 17 by 2timothy316]

What makes you so sure that the Bible in it's entirety, is perfect? Even the episodes recounted like this one, or the attempted slaughter of Isaac? Or the slave beating verse of Exodus 21.20-21? Do you think human beings, made in the image of YHVH, are "property"? That was Moses rationale for giving slavemasters permission to beat their slaves half-to-death. Do you defend that? Why?

Is God the liberator of slaves, or the one who empowers tyrants to keep and beat them? Is YHVH the God of the Exodus, or the God of Exodus 21.20-21?

Did God give us common sense and Reason to no avail? What does Reason say about these recorded events? Would the God who gave us Reason, mercy and compassion have acted this way?

If you hold that the Bible is perfect in every detail you are taking the position of defending the indefensible. Literalism, and fundamentalism diminishes the credibility of the Judeo-Christian heritage, and Theism in general. That compels the seeking skeptic and would-be believer to say "no thanks".

[Eloi]

EJ, maybe you should think a little more on God himself, and less in how people think about Him. We cannot invent God as we like, or transform Him to please others. We must show God to others as He is.

Heb. 12:28 Therefore, seeing that we are to receive a Kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us continue to receive undeserved kindness, through which we may acceptably offer God sacred service with godly fear and awe. 29 For our God is a consuming fire.

Jehovah God has a perfect balance between justice and love. Some people question God about judging the man in this account too:

Num. 15:30 “‘But the soul that does something deliberately, whether he is a native or an alien resident, he speaking abusively of Jehovah, in that case that soul must be cut off from among his people. 31 Because it is Jehovah’s word that he has despised and his commandment that he has broken, that soul should be cut off without fail. His own error is upon him.’�
32 While the sons of Israel were continuing in the wilderness, they once found a man collecting pieces of wood on the sabbath day. 33 Then those who found him collecting pieces of wood brought him up to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly. 34 So they committed him into custody, because it had not been distinctly stated what should be done to him.
35 In time Jehovah said to Moses: “Without fail the man should be put to death, the whole assembly pelting him with stones outside the camp.� 36 Accordingly the whole assembly brought him forth outside the camp and pelted him with stones so that he died, just as Jehovah had commanded Moses.

Read it and think about it. Maybe it can help you to understand some important points. Not every case is the same; God can see what we cannot.