Written by John L. Mackay |
Tuesday, December 26, 2023
“The anger of the Lord” is not some power inherent in the ark but the personal response of God to the contravention of his requirements. “God struck him down,” that is, killed him, “there,” on the spot where the offense was committed, so that there would be no doubt about the connection between offense and penalty. “Because of his error” involves a somewhat obscure term, but 1 Chronicles 13:10 makes it clear that Uzzah’s error was his unthinking irreverence in touching the ark.

Read the Passage
1David again gathered all the chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand. 2And David arose and went with all the people who were with him from Baale-judah to bring up from there the ark of God, which is called by the name of the Lord of hosts who sits enthroned on the cherubim. 3And they carried the ark of God on a new cart and brought it out of the house of Abinadab, which was on the hill. And Uzzah and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, were driving the new cart, 4with the ark of God, and Ahio went before the ark. 5And David and all the house of Israel were celebrating before the Lord, with songs and lyres and harps and tambourines and castanets and cymbals. 6And when they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah put out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled. 7And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah, and God struck him down there because of his error, and he died there beside the ark of God. 8And David was angry because the Lord had broken out against Uzzah. And that place is called Perez-uzzah to this day.
Military Presence and Pageantry
“David again gathered all the chosen men of Israel” is evocative of a military campaign, like those just described against the Philistines (2 Sam. 5:17–25), and this is probably how David views bringing the ark to Jerusalem (1 Chron. 13:1–4)—but with the surprising difference that he does not inquire of the Lord (2 Sam. 5:19, 23). Whether “thirty thousand” men or thirty military units are involved, a military presence provides the pageantry and security for this major national milestone.
The phrase “they carried” (lit., “they made to ride”) along with the mention of a “new cart” signals how the first attempt to bring the ark to Jerusalem is flawed from the start. Though intended as a mark of respect, using a new cart is actually the Philistine mode of transporting the ark (1 Sam. 6:7), whereas the Lord had specifically directed the ark to be carried by Kohathites from the tribe of Levi, using poles inserted through rings incorporated into its sides (Ex. 25:13–15; Num. 4:4–6, 15, 17–20).
Three generations earlier, the ark had been left in the “house of Abinadab,” in the custody of Eleazar (1 Sam. 7:1). He has died in the interim, and Uzzah and Ahio, his descendants, are now its custodians. Though “Ahio” may mean “his brother” (ESV mg.), it is probably a personal name (as in 1 Chron. 8:31; 1 Chron. 9:37). The two brothers “were driving the new cart,” not seated on it but walking in front of it and beside it as they guide it.
A Joyful Procession
David and all the Israelites with him “were celebrating before the Lord.” The verb “celebrate” (found also in 2 Sam. 6:21 and in 1 Sam. 18:7, and as “compete” in 2 Sam. 2:14) indicates joyful exuberance, probably involving dancing.
Read More
Related Posts:

We need to protect ourselves from wrongly seeing Christ as some actor or faulty illustration we have seen, how much more should we protect our children? We should strongly object to the thought that images “can be spiritually helpful for our children.” I contend just the opposite: they can easily draw our children into sin.

A debate has been stirring in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) on whether using pictures or images of Jesus is appropriate or a violation of the second commandment. There has been an apparent increase in the number of candidates for licensure and ordination taking a stated difference with Larger Catechism 109[1], in which they state that they see no problem with using pictures of Jesus for “pedagogical purposes.” Recently, I heard of one man who not only saw no issues with using images of Jesus to teach children, but also stated that using such images, “can be spiritually helpful for our children.”
That got me thinking, is it really a good thing to have pictures of Jesus, especially for our children? Or might it actually cause harm? I offer three reasons why those who think there is nothing wrong with this, may want to reconsider their view.
To Uphold God’s Glory
First, we should uphold God’s glory as we teach our children; using pictures of Jesus distorts the reality of his glory. We have all seen the kinds of pictures that are used in children’s material to depict our Lord. Every picture, no matter how well intended, detracts from God’s glory. Most likely you have seen the pictures I’m talking about. Everything from the Caucasian Hippy Jesus to the Precious Moments Jesus. I simply contend that it is dishonoring to the Lord to depict the Lion of the Tribe of Judah as a Precious Moments figurine. Illustrations commonly used in children’s literature and Sunday School curriculum inadvertently cause our children to think of the second person of the Godhead in terms of cartoon representations at worst, or as one-sided, inaccurate attempts to illustrate Christ’s human nature, separated from His divine nature. This division of the natures of Christ takes away from God’s glory and dishonors Him.
Let us remember that God is jealous of His glory:
I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols.  Isaiah 42:8.
To Obey God
Second, the  reason we should not use pictures of Jesus is to obey God. Even if we were able to perfectly depict Christ in all of His glory, God’s Word is clear, we are not to make images of God:
Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female.… Deuteronomy 4:15-16.
Several times in the Old Testament, God manifested Himself physically through visions and dreams. He manifested Himself physically before Abraham in Genesis 18. And yet it was always clear that the Old Testament church was not to create images of God. Even though, in Isaiah 6, Isaiah saw “the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up;” He was not to make an image of God as he saw Him. And Isaiah actually saw a manifestation of God. How much more are we forbidden to make an image of Christ, whom none of us has seen in the flesh.
The common testimony of Scripture is that making images of God is forbidden. And since Jesus is God, we are not to make images of Him.
To Protect Our Children
Third, we should not use pictures of Jesus with our children is to protect our children. The Westminster Larger Catechism answer 109, says in part, “The sins forbidden in the second commandment are… the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever.” Some have said that it is difficult to avoid forming mental representations of Christ as we read the gospel narratives. Let us remind ourselves that the difficulty of a command never negates the necessity of obeying God. We are all called to be Holy as our Father in heaven is holy. As Augustine famously said, “God command what you will and grant what you command.”
As adults, we recognize how difficult it can be to separate images we have seen from the reality of our Lord. We know He didn’t look like whatever picture we may have seen. We know better than to pray to that image or to worship that false image in our minds. But what about our children?
How often have parents pointed to illustrations in a Bible story book and said, “There’s Jesus feeding the 5,000” or “There’s Jesus healing the blind man”?
We need to protect ourselves from wrongly seeing Christ as some actor or faulty illustration we have seen, how much more should we protect our children? We should strongly object to the thought that images “can be spiritually helpful for our children.” I contend just the opposite: they can easily draw our children into sin.
Let us remember the words of our Lord in Mark 9:42,
Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.
I have been encouraged by stories of pastors who, at one time, had no problem with images of Jesus. Then after a time of studying the issue came to embrace our standards on this issue. It is my hope and prayer that others will also come to see that we should not use images of Jesus as a matter of God’s glory, as a matter of obedience, and as a matter of protecting our children.
Terry Carnes is a Ruling Elder in Christ Covenant Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Warminster, Penn.
[1] Question 109: What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?
Answer: The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; tolerating a false religion; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature: Whatsoever; all worshiping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense: Whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God has appointed.

Related Posts:

That the whole testimony of Scripture stands against those who would make homosexual lust an acceptable trait of ministers. For Scripture is uniform in denouncing everything to do with homosexual desire or deeds as sinful, and it is unthinkable that anyone whose thought was formed solely by Scripture would ever conclude that something like Revoice is a proper endeavor of the church, or of any who claim Christ as their Lord.

[Read Part One and Part Two]

That the Presbyterian Church in America has been deaf to the frequent exhortation to be watchful and discerning. Already the first stages of a slide into infidelity are being entered, and yet we seem blind to the frequent exhortation to not be deceived by those who, with smooth words and many assurances of good intention, yet labor to “pervert the grace of our God into sensuality” (Jude 4) and to make acceptable all manner of immorality with “empty words” (Eph. 5:6).
That we show a willful and remarkable ignorance of history and of the course of other denominations on this matter. Every church which has tolerated homosexual sin has reduced its size by driving away the faithful. The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America is an example, as is the United Methodist Church, which is actively splitting because of this matter. Also, the United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church, the Brethren Church, the Disciples of Christ, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Moravian Church, the Christian Reformed Church, and the Reformed Church in America.
That our denomination risks replicating the career of the Church of Scotland: faithful and zealous at first, but soon overrun with a refined worldliness similar to that of our wider society.
That the world interprets matters very differently than the church. The knowledge that the Presbyterian Church in America allows the ordination of men who publicly identify themselves as homosexual is not likely to impress or please the world, which will be satisfied with nothing less than absolute defection from our beliefs and a complete embrace of its own.
That in an age in which people are conspicuous for the haste, superficiality, and inaccuracy of their judgments, it is likely that the fact of same-sex attracted Presbyterian ministers will not be met with more conversions of those that are ensnared in homosexual sin. It is feared that it instead makes their repentance less likely because it sends them a confused message. For on the one hand, we say that homosexual behavior is damning sin, and yet on the other we permit at least the desire for it in our church’s leaders. The unbeliever can scarcely be blamed if he interprets this to mean that the Presbyterian Church in America is confused in its teachings and therefore unworthy of being regarded as credible.
That there is an active campaign to normalize homosexual sin in the church, and that we are witnessing the first stages in the controversies surrounding such things as the Revoice conferences.
That Satan acts in this matter, as in every other, with cunning, patiently moving in steps and always disguising his position as good (2 Cor. 11:14-15). His first move has been to make acceptable the thought of what was previously unthinkable. Next was to make acceptable the utterance of what was in previous times unmentionable. We may expect future stages in which he gradually changes the question from one of the permissibility of those with same-sex attraction serving as ministers to one in which blatant sin is accepted totally.
That false teachers are not open and forthright but secretive and deceptive. As Peter says, it is the method of false teachers to “secretly bring in destructive heresies” (2 Pet. 2:1). Jude says of false teachers that they “crept in unnoticed” (Jude 4) and our Lord says of such people that they “come to you in sheep’s clothing” (Matt. 7:11).
That they who think they stand should take heed lest they fall (1 Cor. 10:12). As homosexual (and other) sin has found gradual acceptance in many other denominations until its goodness has become an unquestionable dogma, and until the powers of the church are used rather to silence sin’s critics than its proponents, so also is it possible for the Presbyterian Church in America to fall in this matter. We would be fools to imagine that we are inherently or incontrovertibly faithful, or to imagine we will persevere where others – including those with whom we have previously been associated – have fallen.
That the course of the acceptance of homosexuality has nowhere halted itself. In society it immediately yielded to the push to normalize yet worse abominations. In those denominations where it has been accepted it did not content itself with the stage at which it was simply tolerable or simply a question of temptation or celibate experience, but demanded – and seems everywhere to have received – a full acceptance in time. Sin advances until it dominates absolutely all that it touches. It can be resisted and beaten, but it nowhere checks itself.
That there are things which disqualify one from ministry – as age, sex, length of time as a believer, or lack of the needed gifts – which are not themselves sinful.
That there are sins, temptations, and past misdeeds which unfit one for ministry, because their association with the church’s leaders would bring scandal on the church.
That homosexual lust is one such disqualifying temptation and sin, for if acted upon it would destroy the church’s credibility in this matter and give much occasion to infidels to blaspheme.
That homosexual lust is thus disqualifying is proved by Scripture forbidding office to those whose course of life is unchaste, as for example he who is not a ‘man of one woman’ (1 Tim. 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6).
That such lust is disqualifying is seen also in that Scripture denies office to those that have especially dangerous sins of the heart. Scripture says that elders must be above reproach and forbids office to the greedy or arrogant (Titus 1:7) because these sins, though ones of internal disposition, yet tend to show themselves as scandalous external deeds. So also with sexual temptation, which is notoriously voracious and destructive of the personal holiness that one must have if he is to minister to Christ’s church (1 Pet. 2:11). If common sins such as arrogance disqualify, how much more sexual perversions.
That same-sex lust unfits one for ministry can be seen in that Scripture forbids office to those whose external sins are of a less scandalous character, such as those that fail to show hospitality (1 Tim. 3:3).
That homosexual attraction is disqualifying can be seen also in this, that Scripture presents homosexuality as being of a worse severity of sin than many others, a result of God removing the restraints of civil righteousness as a punishment for rank impiety (Rom. 1:24, 26-27). It is experienced in societies that have fallen into utter depravity (as Sodom or Gibeah) that are ripe for the calamitous judgment of God. Would we draw such things near to our own denomination?
That homosexual sin is not the only sin mentioned as proof of severe societal decline (Rom. 1:21-32), and that some of the other sins Paul mentions (as gossip, Rom. 1:29) have a lamentable currency among professing believers, in no way means the church should soften its message about the depravity of sexual perversion. Rather, it ought to be more diligent in declaring with appropriate vigor the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27) as regards the evils of all sins.
That the whole testimony of Scripture stands against those who would make homosexual lust an acceptable trait of ministers. For Scripture is uniform in denouncing everything to do with homosexual desire or deeds as sinful, and it is unthinkable that anyone whose thought was formed solely by Scripture would ever conclude that something like Revoice is a proper endeavor of the church, or of any who claim Christ as their Lord.
That the testimony of the church is against those who would have ministers with perverse sexual desires. For it is everywhere the case that the church has regarded homosexual sin as shameful and especially depraved and has treated it with ardent and uncompromising disapproval. There was no church council that had the character of Revoice in the ancient or medieval church, and those groups that permitted sexual indecency (as antinomians or the Adamites) were roundly condemned.
That the testimony of the church and of Scripture being uniformly against even the slightest acceptance of anything to do with any perverse sexuality, any endeavor to that end is inspired by external sources.

Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Simpsonville, S.C.