Skip to comments.Why David Was Spared but Uzziah Wasn't
Posted on 12/01/2018 2:56:49 PM PST by pcottraux
Why David was Spared but Uzziah Wasnt
By Philip Cottraux
As Jesus and His disciples were traveling, they plucked ears of corn to eat. This happened to occur on the Sabbath, giving the Pharisees yet another reason to criticize Him. Mark 2:24: And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the Sabbath day that which is not lawful? While remembering to keep the Sabbath was important, nothing in the Torah specifically banned hungry people from picking crops; but this shows the state of Jewish leadership at the time; over the years, they had added man-made rules to the sacred Law and were mired in legalism.
Jesus, who knew the scriptures better than anyone, reminded them of an incident involving David many centuries prior: And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he and they that were with him? How he went into the house of god in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him (verses 25-26)?
When God was giving Moses the Law on Mount Sinai, He included very specific instructions on constructing the tabernacle. The building would be divided into three parts: first was the outer court, outside the tent, where the people gathered to watch atonement sacrifices made. But only the priests were allowed into the tent itself, the inner court. The third part, the innermost room or holiest of holies, was where the Ark of the Covenant sat and where the presence of God dwelt stronger than anywhere else in the world. Only the high priest was allowed to enter on the Day of Atonement to bring the sacrificial blood to atone for the sins of the people.
A veil separated the holiest of holies from the rest of the tabernacle, and before the veil in the inner court was a table with bread on it. Exodus 25:30: And thou shalt set upon the table shewbread before me always. Only the priests were allowed to eat this bread, along with the roasted meat from the sacrifice, as part of the rituals.
In Mark 2, Jesus was referencing a famous incident involving David in I Samuel 21. Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech as afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why art thou alone, and no man with thee (verse 1)? David was on the run from King Saul, his army of loyalists waiting outside. By entering the inner court, he had already violated one of the laws. The high priest was struck with fear at what the consequences might be if Saul found out his enemy had sought refuge here.
After being out in the wilderness struggling for survival, David and his men were tired, dirty and hungry, so he asked Ahimelech for food. Verse 3: Now therefore what I under thine hand? Give me five loaves of bread in mine hand, or what there is present. But the only bread available was the show bread, sitting on the table before the veil. And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread; (verse 4).
Ahimelech had every reason to be hesitant. Was there no end to this fugitives disrespect for the Law of Moses? Yet David managed to persuade the priest. Verse 6: So the priest gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there but the shewbread, that as taken from before the Lord to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away. The penalty was usually death for breaking the Law, especially when it came to the temple ceremonies. But David was spared the wrath of God and would eventually go on to be king.
If this werent puzzling enough, another king wouldnt be so fortunate when desecrating the temple in similar fashion. Uzziah was one of the strongest kings of Judah. He reigned for 52 years, doing what was right in the sight of the Lord, building fortifications around the city and making the nation a strong military power. But in the end, an extraordinary act of arrogance was Uzziahs undoing. II Chronicles 26:16: But when he was strong, his heart was lifted up to his destruction: for he transgressed against the Lord his God, and went into the temple of the Lord to burn incense upon the altar of incense.
Azariah the high priest tried to stop Uzziah. Only the priests, who had to be descendants of Aaron, were allowed to burn incense before the Lord. They pleaded with him not to trespass into the presence of God. It was suicide. But puffed up on his own ego, perhaps from having the favor of the Lord for so many years, the king wouldnt listen. Then Uzziah was wroth, and had a censer in his hand to burn incense: and while he was wroth with the priests, the leprosy even rose up in his forehead before the priests in the house of the Lord from beside the incense altar (verse 19). Being stricken with one of the most dreaded diseases of Bible times, this once beloved ruler was exiled from the city to die alone. And Uzziah the king was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a several (isolated) house, being a leper; or he was cut off from the house of the Lord: (verse 21).
While the severe punishment from God on Uzziah was expected, his actions werent all that different from Davids. Yet David was spared Gods wrath, while Uzziah was smitten. Why? Was this an example of favoritism on the Lords behalf?
I think the answer is best explained by exploring the genealogy of Jesus. The prophecy that the Messiah would be a descendant of David was one of the most crucial characteristics. And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious (Isaiah 11:10).
The New Testament has two different versions of the genealogy of Jesus, one in Matthew and the other in Luke. Matthew starts with Abraham, but Luke traces Christs lineage all the way back to Adam. Both accounts lead to different parents, Matthew to Joseph, Luke to Mary. This is why the Matthew account contains Davidic kings like Uzziah, who is missing from Luke.
But remember that Joseph wasnt actually Jesus biological Father, but his step-father. This is important to establish that while Jesus was inarguably a blood relative of David, Uzziah wasnt in His actual ancestry. It may sound like a jump in logic, but heres how this may help explain why David was spared but Uzziah wasnt.
There are many restrictions in the Mosaic Law to what was available to the select few. For example, when God Himself descended on Mount Sinai, a rope was tied around the base and only Moses was allowed to ascend into His presence; if anyone else passed the rope to set foot on the mountain they would die. And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death (Exodus 19:12).
Only the priest was allowed to enter the glory of God on the Day of Atonement. The veil separated Gods presence from man. This is why its significant that when Jesus was crucified, the partition was torn, symbolizing that His glory was now available to all. Unlike in Old Testament times, there are now no restrictions. The glory could not be contained by a veil on the Day of Pentecost; it spilled out from the Upper Room and into the streets of Jerusalem, saving thousands daily. There was a rope around the base of Mount Sinai to keep people away, but no such rope is around the base of Mount Calvary. All are welcome.
Another example of this is the show bread. The bread on the table in the tabernacle was only reserved for the priests. But Jesus made the bread of life available to all at the Last Supper. Luke 22:19: And he took the bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
So I conclude that Uzziah was slain his was an extraordinary act of ego that violated the Law and tried to take Gods glory for himself. David acted out of hunger rather than vanity, but I dont think that explains why he was spared. His entering the tabernacle and taking bread reserved for the priests was a Messianic type and shadow; through his lineage, the Savior would come to make what had only been for a chosen few available for all the world. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth (Jeremiah 23:5).
YouTube: Depths of Pentecost
Thanks for reading/watching, and God bless!
This is the official ping list for Depths of Pentecost: Im a Christian blogger who writes weekly Bible lessons. Topics range from Bible studies, apologetics, theology, history, and occasionally current events. Every now and then I upload sermons or classes onto YouTube.
Let me know if youd like to added to the Depths of Pentecost ping list. New posts are up every Saturday, videos every Wednesday.
Corn grew in the Old World. Who knew. I thought corn was a new world crop.
These kinds of teachings lose me right there. If one reads the genealogical accounts carefully, each of them ends with Joseph, neither goes through Mary's lineage. The most likely explanation is this one from Albert Barnes:
It has been said also that Joseph was the legal son and heir of Heli, though the real son of Jacob, and that thus the two lines terminated in him. This was the explanation suggested by most of the Christian fathers, and on the whole is the most satisfactory. It was a law of the Jews that if a man died without children, his brother should marry his widow. Thus the two lines might have been intermingled.
So when anyone starts teaching about how Luke's account teachings of Jesus' genealogical account coming down through Mary's side of the family, don't buy into it.
Many translations say “grain” and “heads of grain” or “wheat” instead of corn.
mistranslation, and its showbread not shewbread.
OK, Heads of grain. Thanks!
Corn is historically a generic word for grain. What Americans call corn is actually maize, and is known as maize to the rest ofthe world.
Awesome teaching! I will certainly look up Depths of Pentecost!
Keep in mind, this was not klunky ol’ “Dave Sixpack”. This was David, son of Jesse, who had been anointed King by Samuel. Dave was on the lam primarily out of deference toward King Saul. He ran from Saul rather than oppose him; waiting for God Himself to remove Saul and bring his (David’s) kingship to reality. That’s why God spared David.
The predominant theme in those verses is an appeal:
Son of David, have mercy on me.
Could be that the average people [without doctrinal expertise and reputation] recognized this key identifying trait because they knew David's beautiful heart through his Psalms (songs of comfort and encouragement). Like father like son... chip off the old block... that's him, no question.
But remember that Joseph wasnt actually Jesus biological Father...
Sure he was; it's a very simple explanation. And Joseph was a just man, gentle and merciful, desiring to quietly put away Mary for what appeared to be a reprehensible act warranting the death penalty. Yet everything made sense in totality given a little time for Joseph to think it through, and dream. After all, something didn't quite add up because Mary wasn't "the type".
A dogmatic, by-the-book automaton would have wasted no time alerting authorities and dispensing knee-jerk "justice". That way he would have enjoyed a good night's sleep, having "done good" by ridding the community of a degenerate harlot.
David's heart *is* the pattern for the Kingdom, beginning with a front porch that reached into the heavens.
Luke 17:20-21 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
It's like when Dorothy realized how to get back home.
It is shewbread, as in King James Version.
David pleaded WITH THE HIGH PRIEST to be fed. The essence of the difference reaches back to Cain and Abel.
Its lechem haPanim .The translators of The KJB wetr quiite Hebraicslly challenged.
And Pakistan is not mentioned at all in Star Trek.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.