Commentary on 1 Chronicles 13:9–12 (Summary)

Having loaded the ark, David and all of Israel celebrated before God with great joy and singing. David’s well-laid plans seemed to be bearing fruit until they came to the threshing floor of Chidon. The oxen stumbled and seemingly caused the ark to rock. Uzzah reached out his hand to take hold of the ark to prevent it from sliding off the cart. The reason as to why the oxen stumbled is not supplied, which hopefully excludes any ill-advised conjecture (for example, a rock in the path or slippery sand). There is no indication in the text that Uzzah acted with evil intent. The book of Samuel describes Uzzah’s actions as his irreverent act (2 Samuel 6:7, NIV).

The Lord's wrath was aroused and Uzzah was immediately struck dead. In the place where there had been joyous celebrations in God’s presence (before God, 1 Chronicles 13:8), there was now a dead body in God’s presence (before God, 1 Chronicles 13:10).¹

The Mosaic law had made it abundantly clear that if the ark and any of the holy things were touched or even looked upon by the Kohathite family of Levites or anyone else but the priests, they would die (Numbers 4:15, Numbers 4:20). In addition, specific instructions were given on how the ark and the other tabernacle items were to be carefully covered and transported (Exodus 25:14; Numbers 4:15; Numbers 7:9; 1 Chronicles 15:2).²

David’s first response to the tragedy is anger because the Lord had broken out against Uzzah (1 Chronicles 13:12). The text reads quite literally, And it burned to David for the Lord had broken forth.³ The verb parats (broke out), which appears three times in 1 Chronicles 13:11, is intensified by the use of the accompanying accusative noun from the same word family. Literally the text reads, had broken out in a breaking out of Uzza, that is, had fiercely or superlatively broken forth on Uzza.⁴ God’s wrath flooded upon Uzza because of the disrespectful manner in which the ark, the divine footstool, was treated. The place where the incident occurred was renamed Perez-Uzza (the breaking out against Uzza or the breach of Uzza). That God breaks out against Uzzah points to the unapproachable nature of his holiness (1 Chronicles 13:11; 1 Chronicles 15:13).⁵ This same word (parats) is used in a positive sense when David first announces his intention to bring the ark to Jerusalem (1 Chronicles 13:2); he literally said, Let us send [break out] abroad in order to gain the support of all Israel.

David’s gut response of anger was directed against God, based on the assumption that Uzzah was an innocent victim, and that God had capriciously shown his disapproval for the undertaking of transferring the ark. His anger, however, soon turns to fear, which on this occasion is not a healthy or godly fear but a terror of the holy God whose wrath he had provoked. David realizes that he is in the presence of a mysterious power which he can neither control nor comprehend. Under these circumstances there was no way that he could continue to bring the ark to his own city. For this reason he asks, How can I bring the ark of God home to me?

McConville avers that the exclamation in 1 Chronicles 13:12 is less pure enquiry than petulant self-justification. His naming of the place Perez-Uzzah belongs to his attempt to deflect the blame for the incident onto God.⁶ David’s anger towards God may reflect a plagued conscience that has been found out. Perhaps he had come to presume upon God or perhaps become casual in his relationship with God. The disturbed conscience frequently seeks to place blame elsewhere rather than seek immediate restitution. How often we attempt to do things our own way, and then when we fail, we blame it on God. We ask, How am I going to do this for the Lord? Well, do it God’s way. Turn it over to him. That is what David finally had to do and eventually did (see 1 Chronicles 15:1–29).⁷ He is great enough to deal with his temper in the end, but the immediate effect is that of further delay and frustration.⁸

What is the significance of this divine act?

1. Modern readers are quite often perplexed by the harsh manner in which the Lord dealt with Uzza for what may seem an action filled with good intentions. The incident is only intelligible if read according to its own terms. According to Selman, the Old Testament portrays God’s holiness as possessing immense power and could manifest in devastating physical and spiritual effects (Leviticus 10:1; Isaiah 6:1).⁹ It was also associated with objects relating to the worship of God, such as the ark of the covenant, in a way that is no longer understandable to most readers and has now been superseded by Jesus Christ.¹⁰ Furthermore, David’s contemporaries were most probably aware of similar tragedies that had befallen the Philistines when the ark was in their possession and the seventy Israelites at Beth-shemesh (1 Samuel 6:19–20). These past experiences should have alerted them to the fact that possession of the ark did not guarantee automatic blessing. Uzza died because neither he nor those involved in the transportation of the ark (including David) had any idea of the sacred relationship between the ark and its God, the Holy One of Israel.

   Samuel reports that Uzza died there beside the ark (2 Samuel 6:7), while the Chronicler simply reports it as Uzza died before God (1 Chronicles 13:10). This small change reflects the theological nature of what had happened. The issue was not that a holy object had been touched, which might have conjured up superstitious beliefs around the ark, but rather that God’s associated presence with the ark was real and dynamic, and that crossing the human-divine barrier has devastating consequences. The presence of God in the midst of his people, much sought and graciously granted (Exodus 33:3, Exodus 33:12–23), brought with it great responsibility in the care of it. Mount Sinai was not to be touched lest death be the dreadful consequence (Exodus 19:12). In fact, the Lord warned Israel through Moses that the priests and the people do not break through to come up to the Lord (on the mountain), lest he break out [parats] against them (Exodus 19:24). The Scriptures contained many such prior warnings only to seemingly fallen deaf ears (or hard hearts).

   The tendency in modern times is to treat sacred institutions/observances with an attitude of flippancy. This was not the case in the ancient community when it came to holy objects and how to handle them. They knew that they had to keep at a distance. Israel’s irreverence signified that they had lost all awareness of the sacred space that the ark occupied among them and Uzza paid the price.

   Does the contemporary church fare any better? The apostle Paul warns the Corinthians about unworthy participation in the Lord's Supper with these words: Anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died (1 Corinthians 11:29–30). The writer to the Hebrews is equally solemn in his warning to Christians: It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.… Let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire (Hebrews 12:28–29). The church would do well to take heed of these warnings, for I the Lord do not change (Malachi 3:6).

2. The death of Uzzah is one of those incidents that has been thought to show the Old Testament God as vindictive in his execution of vengeance, and interpreters have adopted various devices to try to soften the full force of the statement that the Lord smote him (1 Chronicles 13:10, KJV).¹¹ Some argue, like Leslie Allen, that Uzza’s attempt to stop the ark from falling was genuinely well-intentioned.¹² This view fails to take into account that Uzza’s act was part of a broader profaning that had occurred. First, the ark was transported on a wagon, albeit new, which was the continuation of a pagan practice. Then, the Levites should have carried the ark instead of Uzza steadying it. Then, last, musical praise was limited to the Levites in 1 Chronicles 15:1–29, which suggests that in 1 Chronicles 13:1–14 Israel’s rejoicing is at best a disorganized, over-exuberant tumult, a cacophony of raucous chant and blaring fanfare.¹³ Israel’s procession was disorderly rather than holy. Israel trifled with the presence of God.

   This incident has direct application to the postexilic community. In the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, impurity in worship rose to new heights (Ezra 9:1–10:44; Nehemiah 9:1–38; Nehemiah 13:15–31). From the example of Uzzah, the Chronicler’s readers should have learned that God’s patience in these matters was limited. They could not continue to defile his worship with impunity.¹⁴

3. Uzza’s action displays the human tendency to bring God down to the level of man rather than exalting him in the highest as he has required (see Psalm 50:21). This is the essence of what the second commandment warns us all against: do not reimagine God according to your own constructions of him. Humans then think they can take charge of God and thereby manipulate him for personal advantage. In Uzza’s case, God was seen as impotent and needed the likes of Uzza to prevent an accident from happening. If the ark falls, God falls as though he is trapped inside a little box. By his spontaneous act, Uzza confessed the true character of his faith.

4. The question still remains: if the entire party was guilty in the exercise of transporting the ark, was Uzza singled out for judgment? In the context of Chronicles as a whole, this incident illustrates the principle of immediate retribution, which will feature prominently later in 2 Chronicles 10:1–36:23. But in Chronicles, retribution is often placed alongside the motif of seeking. God punishes those who do not seek him, but rewards those who do. When people are punished in Chronicles, it is not on the basis of technical violations of the law but because their hearts are not right with God. Others who technically violate the law but whose hearts are right with the Lord are accepted (see 2 Chronicles 30:17–20). Uzza is not punished on the basis of some technicality but because he did not seek God from the heart. David was guilty of gross infringement of God’s law, perhaps more culpable than Uzza because he as king and leader of the nation should have known better, but his heart was right with God (indeed, a man after God’s own heart) and he was therefore not struck down. The same applies to the Levites; their hearts were in tune with the heart of God. When God is viewed as a God of technicalities, a kind of cosmic policeman who jumps at the opportunity to zap his wayward people, then his holiness has been entirely misunderstood. He is searching for hearts that seek him. He comes in judgment upon those who rebelliously disregard his commandments, but forgives those who seek him with all their hearts.

Nothing is said about Israel’s response to David’s failure, but it must have brought him humiliation and embarrassment, especially in the eyes of those present who were from every part of the land to support him. The issue for David and the Chronicler, however, is the Lord's reaction and how best to house the ark. Though the ark was not a representation of God but symbolic of his presence among his people, it still had to be treated as holy at all times.