Uzziah succeeds and does that which is right in the sight of the Lord according to all that his father did; that is, not with a perfect heart in the first part, and manifest failure in the last. The same evil was in Uzziah, as in Amaziah; only it was manifested in a different way. It was after Amaziah was lifted up in heart that he marched straight into defeat and captivity; and when Uzziah was strong, he transgressed in going into the temple of the Lord to burn incense on the altar. How often does prosperity, far more than adversity, try the saints of God! The pretentious and the hypocritical are snared and taken. The true if carnal are laid low. The spiritual and true are kept by our faithful God Who will not suffer us to be tempted above that we are able, but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, &c. (1 Cor. 10:1313There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. (1 Corinthians 10:13).) If then we ask why the saints of God are for the most part poor, we may answer with another query (looking merely at the weakness of man, not at the power of God), Who has strength to overcome the power of riches?
“He transgressed.” So had previous kings; and man might estimate the sin of worshipping idols to be worse than that of assuming the function of a priest. But especial note is made of it, and this alone should arrest man's estimation; God's mention of it, and the judgment that follows show. God's estimate of his transgression. In usurping the office of the priest, he was rebelling against Jehovah. The world's history gives many instances where the chief of the civil power assumed the functions and duties of the high priest. And for idolatry or a worldly religion no arrangement could be better. Indeed the two functions (the kingly and the priestly) naturally gravitate towards each other, affording mutual support; the temporal clothing itself with spiritual dignity, the spiritual expressing the power of the temporal. And for the material prosperity of a nation, a church upheld by the state consolidates the nation's power, while dissent tends to weaken unless other things counteract. So the ancient kings of Rome from Numa, and afterward the emperor, even Constantine and several of the Christian (so called) emperors that succeeded him took the title of “pontifex maximus “; until, after being declined by Gratian, it was entirely dropped by Theodosius. But when the emperor dropped the title, the priest eagerly yet gradually grasped it; and he who assumed the title of “pontifex maximus for the whole of Christendom” was not slow to avail himself of every opportunity of claiming and expressing the civil power.
The Christian's path is above the secular and the spiritual power of this world. The saint's path of the former time was connected with the things from which the Christian is now separated. It was then God's will in the old dispensation that the regal and sacerdotal offices should be distinct and separate. Even David, the honored type of the coming king (and, as such, appointing the temple service and the twenty-four courses of the priests), assumed not in his kingly office the duties of the high priest. Solomon does take the lead at the dedication of the temple, but he is scarcely the high priest on that occasion. “Then the king and all the people offered sacrifices before the Lord” (7:4). But it was right for the king and all the people without naming the priests or the Levites; for he was then foreshadowing the kingly and priestly glories combined in Christ. It is of Christ the prophet speaks, “He shall build the temple of the Lord and He shall bear the glory and shall sit and rule upon the throne, and He shall be a Priest upon His throne” (Zech. 6:1313Even he shall build the temple of the Lord; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both. (Zechariah 6:13)). It was but a transient glimpse, but it was the union of the kingly and priestly glories of the millennial day in the Person of Christ. And what was the splendor and magnificence of that typical day to the coming day of Christ! We wait and long for His appearing.
But we may humbly inquire wherein was the exceeding greatness of Uzziah's transgression. “He transgressed,” the inspired historian says; so did Solomon; and ten tribes revolted as the Lord's judgment on the people. Rehoboam's idolatry brought Shishak the king of Egypt on Judah, and the despoiling of its treasures. Abijah (Abijam) walked in all the sins of his father (1 Kings 15:33And he walked in all the sins of his father, which he had done before him: and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father. (1 Kings 15:3)). Asa sought help of the king of Syria, and when diseased sought not the Lord but the physicians. Even the good king Jehoshaphat joined affinity with those that hated the Lord. And from Jehoram's accession to the death of Amaziah, what fills the page of Judah's history but murder and usurpation and idolatry increasing all through the land? If these sins should cause the Lord to drive the people to a far-off land, Solomon prayed that, if they repented, God would hear their cry and forgive. But a more subtle evil is here than those for, which Solomon prays for forgiveness, and a more terrible judgment than any that Solomon thinks might happen. A judgment which prevents the cry for mercy and God's interposition “lest they should convert and be healed.”
Such a sin as Uzziah's and such a judgment were unthought of by Solomon. If idolatry evidences man's baseness, ingratitude, and corruption, Uzziah's entering into the temple to burn incense on the golden altar evidences proud presumption and defiance of the Lord's authority. For he was not ignorant that to burn incense was the office of the priests alone—a duty and privilege for the sons of Aaron and no other. In Uzziah was the appearance or pretense of worship, but real disobedience and profanation of the holy things; it was sacrilege on the king's part and faithfulness on the priest's part that drove the king out of the temple: yea God Himself showed His displeasure by smiting him with leprosy. The judgment is in accordance with his transgression. He dared to take the office of the priest, to do what the law forbad him. Now as a leper, he cannot come into the temple, he loses the privilege of a common Israelite, he is cut off from the congregation, and must henceforth live in a separate house. Nor can he exercise his kingly functions, but, in modern language, a regency is appointed. Jotham was “over the house and judged the people.”
If the gravamen of Uzziah’s transgression was his presumption in entering into the temple, and, instigated by his own will nor fearing to interfere with the priests in their service to Jehovah, according to His commandment, daring to burn incense on the golden altar, what is the difference between his transgression and the doings in Christendom? Do we not see man’s will and order, and authority exercised in the great house, which professing Christendom has become? Does the Lord is any way sanction this? (1 Cor. 3:1212Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; (1 Corinthians 3:12)). Alas! Man is seen intruding into the things of God, but what true-hearted priest has faith to drive him out?