2 Sam. 6:6-7
Tim Taylor errancy@infidels.org
Sun, 23 May 1999 03:49:11 -0700 (PDT) (00927474551, 19990523104911.926.rocketmail@web105.yahoomail.com)
> Regarding Uzzah:
> -Uzzah son of Abinadab (2 Sam. 6:3) was a Levite (1 Sam 7:1).
Tim
1 Samuel 7:1
"So the men of Kiriath Jearim came and took up the ark of the LORD.
They took it to Abinadab's house on the hill and consecrated Eleazar
his son to guard the ark of the LORD."
Where does this say Uzzah or Abinadab was a Levite?
>JEFF
>-Abinadab was in charge of the Ark for 20 years (1 Sam 7:1-2)
Tim
No, see above. His son Eleazar was consecrated to guard it.
>JEFF
> -The Kohathite clan of Levites were responsible for, among other
> things, the Ark of the Covenant (Num. 4:27-32). Thus, Abinadab (and thus
> Uzzah) was probably a Kohathite.
Tim
Is this circular reasoning?
1. The Ark was supposed to be guarded by a Levite.
2. Therefore Abinadab's family were Levites, since they were guarding
the Ark.
Again, how does (2) follow from (1)?
>JEFF
-As a Kohathite, Uzzah was trained from his youth to handle the Ark.
Tim
We know nothing of the history of Uzzah prior to his execution.
The text provides no information. We don't know his age. We
don't know even if he lived with his father prior to the day
he helped guide the ark.
>JEFF
> -Thus, he knew that the Ark was to be carried by Levites via poles
> inserted through the Ark’s four rings (Ex. 37:1-9, cf Num. 4:15).
Tim
The premises having failed, this conclusion does not follow.
>JEFF
> -Uzzah also knew that if a person touched the Ark, they would die
> (Num. 4:15).
Tim
Also does not follow.
>JEFF
> Regarding 2 Sam. 6:6-7
> -The Ark was being transported on a cart pulled by oxen (2 Sam 6:3);
> the same way the Philistines had carried it (1 Sam 6:7-11).
> -The Israelites (especially Uzzah) knew this was wrong and were thus
> willfully sinning against God.
Tim
Again, you have not shown he knew anything.
JEFF
> -The oxen stumbled, causing the Ark to begin sliding off the cart.
> -Uzzah reached out and grabbed the Ark.
> -The Lord struck down Uzzah for touching the Ark.
> -Uzzah (and only Uzzah) died because of this incident.
>JEFF
> Thus, one can reasonably maintain that that God was
> patient with the Israelites and hence slow to become angry.
Tim
False, see above.
>JEFF
> Furthermore,
> the only one punished in this incident was Uzzah, and that for his own sin
> (2 Sam. 6:7).
Tim
I have already shown that King David was present throughout. The
King would, by definition, been responsible for the behavior of those
under his command. He could have commanded the ark to be transported
in the correct manner. He did not.
>JEFF
> That no one else was punished despite the fact that all were
> accomplices indicates that God is compassionate;
Tim
To prove this, you would have to prove that murder, with no warning,
is compassionate. I have already posted a definition of compassionate,
which consists of pity, mercy, and sympathy. Striking a man dead,
without warning, does not manifest any of these attributes.
A compassionate God would have issued a warning SOMEWHERE
in the chain of events, instead of murdering in anger.
>JEFF
> it is reasonable to believe that the events mentioned in 2 Sam. 6:6-7 are
> not incompatible with the view that God is compassionate and slow to
> anger.
Tim
Incorrect, see above analysis.
>JEFF
> Finally, one may object that death was too harsh a penalty for Uzzah.
> However, they forget that God is holy (i.e. separate from humans and free
> from sin)(see, e.g., Lev. 11:44).
Tim
Lets look at this logic.
1. Leviticus claims Yahweh is holy.
2. Therefore death is not too harsh a penalty.
Again, we have circular reasoning, as (2) is assumed in (1).
>JEFF
> Apparently, sinful man cannot dwell in
> the presence of a holy God without dying. (Note: This is probably what the
> Israelites feared in Ex. 19:20-24, cf Ex. 20:18-19.) Therefore, when Uzzah
> touched the Ark, he was coming into contact with a holy God; thus, he
> died.
Tim
As I have already shown, this statement is factually incorrect. David was
present throughout, yet David was not killed.
Jeff has made a great many assumptions here, few if any of which he
has demonstrated textually. We are still left with the murder of man,
without warning.
Jeff has not shown that Uzzah had aprori knowledge that he was sinning.
Jeff has not explained why King David bore responsibility, since he
was present.
Hence, we are left with the murder of a man, in anger as the text
demonstrates, and without compassion.
_____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com