2 Samuel 6:7

2Sa 6:7 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for [his] error; and there he died by the ark of God.

Ver. 7. And the anger of the Lord was kindled.] For he will not take up with a careless and slubbered service: he "will be sanctified in all those that draw near unto him." {Lev 10:3}

And God smote him there for his error.] Smote the breath out of his body: the Rabbis say it was done by rending his arm from his shoulder: that it was by a rent or rupture, may be gathered from the name given thereupon to the place Perez Uzza, or the Breach of Uzza. Ipso in officio inofficiosus fuit qui iniussa praesumpsit, saith Salvian. {a} He was too officious, and therein inofficious; this was his error, his factum imprudens, as Tremellius rendereth it. See Num 4:15. Satan, who loveth to be God’s ape, told the heathens that Ilus Palladium ex incendio eripiens, dum arderet Templum Minervae, luminibus privatus est. {b} Ilus, whilst he snatched the image of their goddess Minerva out of her burning temple, lost his eyes.

{a} Lib. vi., De Provid.

{b} Plutarch. Parallel.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2Sa 6:7. The anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah — For his rashness in touching the ark. Some have thought it was because he was not a Levite, and therefore should not have touched it. But it is pretty plain he was, being the brother of Eleazar, who, as a Levite, was consecrated to take care of the ark, 1Sa 7:1. But, although a Levite, he was guilty of a double error; first, in not carrying the ark upon his shoulders, together with his brethren; which their neglecting to do, on this solemn occasion, and consulting their ease more than their duty, was an offence of no small aggravation. Secondly, in touching it, which even the Levites were prohibited from doing, under the express penalty of death, Num 4:15-20. And this penalty, being incurred by a violation of that prohibition, was justly inflicted by him that threatened it, as an example to others, and to preserve a due reverence to the institution; especially as this, it appears, was the first instance of such violation. Add to this, the infliction of the penalty in this extraordinary way, manifested the prohibition to be divine; and as David himself, and the whole house of Israel, by their heads and representatives, were present at this solemnity, the nature of the punishment, and the reason why it was executed, would be made very public. Some have observed, thirdly, that Uzzah discovered by this action his want of faith, in the presence of God with the ark, and in his power, as if he were not able to preserve that sacred symbol of his presence from falling without Uzzah’s helping hand. Uzzah, therefore, they say, was thus punished to teach and impress on the minds of the people, that God was peculiarly present with the ark, in order that they might be deterred from breaking any of his laws, or profaning sacred things. It may not be improper to add to the above the following observations from Poole. “God’s smiting Uzzah, so that he instantly died by the ark, may seem very severe, considering his intention was pious, and his transgression not great. But, besides that men are improper judges of the actions of God; and that God’s judgments are always just, though sometimes obscure; it is reasonable God should make some present examples of his high displeasure against sins seemingly small; partly for the demonstration of his own exact and impartial holiness; and partly for the establishment of discipline, and for the greater terror and caution of mankind, who are very prone to have slight thoughts of sin, and to give way to small sins, and thereby to be led on to greater; all which is, or may be, prevented by such instances of severity; and consequently there is more of God’s mercy than of his justice in such actions, because the justice is confined to one particular person, but the benefit of it is common to mankind in that and all future ages.”

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Here we see what danger it is to follow good intentions, or to do anything in God’s service without his express word.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Verse 7. Smote him there for his error] Uzzah sinned through ignorance and precipitancy; he had not time to reflect, the oxen suddenly stumbled; and, fearing lest the ark should fall, he suddenly stretched out his hand to prevent it. Had he touched the ark with impunity, the populace might have lost their respect for it and its sacred service, the example of Uzzah must have filled them with fear and sacred reverence; and, as to Uzzah, no man can doubt of his eternal safety. He committed a sin unto death, but doubtless the mercy of God was extended to his soul.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(7) For his error.—The original is hero very obscure: 1Ch_13:10 has “because he put his hand to the ark.” (Comp. 1Sa_6:19.) Especial sacredness was by the law attached to the ark, and it was strictly commanded, that when it was to be moved it should be first covered by the priests, and then borne by the Levites by means of its staves; but until it was covered, the Levites might not look upon it, and might not touch it, upon pain of death (Num_4:5; Num_4:15; Num_4:19-20). Uzzah was probably a Levite, or, at any rate, had been so long in the house with the ark that he ought to have made himself familiar with the law in regard to it. What may seem, at first thought, an exceeding severe penalty for a well-meaning, though unlawful act, is seen on reflection to have been a very necessary manifestation of the Divine displeasure; for this act involved not only a violation of the letter of the law (of which David also was guilty), but a want of reverence for the majesty of God as symbolised by the ark, and showed a disposition to profane familiarity with sacred things. “Uzzah was a type of all who, with good intentions, humanly speaking, yet with unsanctified minds, interfere in the affairs of the kingdom of God, from the notion that they are in danger, and with the hope of saving them” (O. von Gerlach). Judgments of this kind were, however, temporal, and give in themselves no indication of the treatment of the offender beyond the grave.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

7. for his error] The Hebrew word occurs nowhere else, but if genuine, may best be rendered thus, or as in the margin, for his rashness. The reading of Chronicles, “because he put his hand to the ark,” sounds like a substitution for an expression which had already become obscure.

God smote him there for his error] As before at Beth-shemesh (1Sa_6:19), an act of irreverence towards the Ark was punished with death. Such a penalty for a well-meant and natural action seems to us at first sight strangely severe. But it must be remembered that one of the great lessons which the nation of Israel had to learn was the unapproachable Majesty of the holy God. The Ark was the symbol of His presence, and the Levitical ordinances were designed to secure the strictest reverence for it. It was to be carried by the Levites, but they might not come near until it had been covered by the priests, nor touch it except by the staves provided for the purpose, upon pain of death (Num_4:5; Num_4:15; Num_4:19-20). It is probable that Uzzah was a Levite, and if so, he ought to have known these injunctions: but in any case, as the Ark had been under his charge, he ought to have made himself acquainted with them. Perhaps he had come to regard the sacred symbol which had been in his house so long with undue familiarity. Nor was David free from blame in allowing such a neglect of the Law. The occasion was an important one. It was the first step in the inauguration of a new era of worship, in the newly established capital of the kingdom; and if these breaches of the divine ordinances had been left unpunished, the lessons they were intended to teach might have been neglected. Uzzah’s death was necessary for a solemn warning to David and the people. “By this severe stroke upon the first violation of the law, God impressed a dread upon the hearts of men, and gave a sanction to His commands that no man should attempt upon any pretence whatever, to act in defiance of his Law, or boldly to dispense with what God has established.” (Bp. Sanderson, quoted by Bp. Wordsworth.)

If such reverence was due to the symbol, with how much greater reverence should the realities of the Christian Covenant be regarded? See Heb_10:28-29.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And David was displeased, because the Lord had made a breach upon Uzzah,.... He could not easily submit, and be reconciled to the providence; his heart was ready to rise up against God, and murmur at him for striking him dead in such an awful manner, for so small a matter as this might seem to be; and the rather, as this put a stop to the procession, and cast a damp upon their joy and mirth on this occasion, and might seem to be an ill omen to David, and be improved by his enemies against him:

and he called the name of the place Perezuzzah unto this day; the name he gave the place, which signifies "the breach of Uzzah", continued to the time of writing this book.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

For his error - The Hebrew is difficult, and some prefer the reading of the parallel passage, “because ... ask” 1Ch 13:10.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Rashness. Hebrew shal, means also "error, ignorance," &c. Syriac and Arabic better, "because he put forth his hand." (Kennicott) --- Oza had touched the ark uncovered, (Serarius) shewing too little confidence in God, as if he could not have hindered it from falling; (Rabbins) or perhaps he was the advisor of the ark’s being placed upon a cart, instead of the Levites’ shoulders. (Tirinus) --- It is not certain that he was a Levite; and the privilege belonged to the sons of Caath, who could claim this honour only after the ark had bee folded up with three covers. Moreover, the priests seem to have been always selected to carry the ark, after they came into the promised land, ver. 3., and 1 Kings iv. 4., &c. It is hoped that the fault of Oza would be expiated by his sudden death, (Calmet) as his intention was laudable. (Tirinus) --- But God would teach his ministers with what caution they were to treat sacred things, (Calmet) and how exactly all his injunctions were to be observed. (Haydock)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

God smote him with some deadly disease or stroke, as it follows.

For his error; either,

1. For his touching the ark, when he was no Levite, as Josephus reports; nor indeed was Kirjath-jearim a Levitical city; or, that being but a Levite, he touched the bare ark, which only the priests might do, Num 4:15; 18:3. And though the ark was ordinarily covered, yet it is not impossible but the covering might be either loose, and so blown aside by the wind; or worn out, and so he might touch the ark itself. Or,

2. Because he put the ark into a cart, and thereby exposed it to the danger of falling, which would have been a great disencouragement to the Israelites, and a reproach to, the ark. And though Ahio also might have a hand in putting it into the cart, yet Uzzah only is smitten; either because he was the elder brother, and the person to whose care the ark was more especially committed; or because he was the chief author of this counsel of putting it into a cart; or because he added a new fault of touching the ark, and that out of distrust of God’s care over it.

There he died: this may seem very severe, considering that his intention was pious, and his transgression not great. But, besides that men are very improper judges of the actions of God, and that God’s judgments are always just, though sometimes obscure, there are many things to be said of this and suchlike cases.

1. That it is fit and reasonable that God should make some persons examples of his just and high displeasure against sins seemingly small; partly for the demonstration of his own exact and impartial holiness; partly for the establishment of discipline, (for which very reason even earthly princes have ofttimes inflicted great punishments for small offences,) and for the greater terror and caution of mankind, who are very prone to have slight thoughts of sin, and to give way to small sins, and thereby to be led on to greater; all which is or may be prevented by such instances of severity; and consequently, there is more of God’s mercy than of his justice in such actions, because the justice is confined to one particular person, but the mercy and benefit of it public and common to mankind of that and all future ages.

2. That God is justly most severe in those things which immediately concern his worship and service; and against those persons who have the nearest relation to him, and the greatest opportunities of knowing, and the highest obligation of careful practicing, those duties which they neglect: see Lev 10:3.

3. That this punishment possibly was not so great as it may seem to be; for as for his body, the disease, though dangerous, might not be exceedingly painful; and for his soul, the stroke probably was not so sudden as not to give him space of repentance.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

7. For his error — More literally, On account of the error. There were two errors of which he was guilty, attempting to transport the ark with cart and oxen, and presuming to touch the ark itself. “When we reflect what an encouragement the impunity of this offence might have been for the introduction of other innovations, it is not to be wondered at that the Lord should manifest his displeasure at this offence by inflicting the punishment he had denounced against it, thus discouraging any future attempts to make alterations in the theocratical institutions which he had established.” — Kitto.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Error. The word so translated is one quite unknown, and Ewald renders it "unexpectedly." The Revised Version puts "rashness" in the margin. But all three alike are mere guesses, of which "error" is that approved by Keil and others. The Syriac has the same reading here as that found in 1Ch_13:10, namely, "because he put his hand to the ark." This would require the insertion of four or five letters in the Hebrew. By the ark. The word translated "accompanying the ark" in ver. 4.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

He died - This may seem very severe, considering his intention was pious, and his transgression not great. But, besides that, men are improper Judges of the actions of God; and that God's judgments are always just, though sometimes obscure: it is reasonable, God should make some present examples of his high displeasure against sins, seemingly small; partly, for the demonstration of his own exact and impartial holiness; partly, for the establishment of discipline, and for the greater terror and caution of mankind, who are very prone to have slight thoughts of sin, and to give way to small sins, and thereby to be led on to greater; all which is, or may be prevented by such instances of severity: and consequently there is more of God's mercy, than of his justice, in such actions, because the justice is confined to one particular person, but the benefit of it common to mankind in that, and all future ages.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Because of his mistake. Because of his mistake, he should have expounded a fortiori [as follows:] the Ark carried its own porters in the Yardein, isn't it all the more so [that it is able to carry] itself.

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.