The
following material is part of an unpublished paper entitled "Revelation
through Urim
and Thummim" by Trevor Craigen which was presented to
the Post
Graduate Seminar in September, 1978 at Grace Theological
Seminary,
URIM AND THUMMIM
by Trevor
Craigen
Etymology
The etymology of this phrase, of these
terms, cannot be established with
any degree
of finality. This has resulted in a wide
variety of explanations
regarding
both their nature and their use. It would also appear that the
etymology
has been determined by the theory that is held, so that if these are
equated with
lots, then the words are made to be opposites rather than
similarities. Nathan Isaacs makes a pertinent comment:
If we turn to etymology for assistance, we are not only
on uncertain ground, but when Bab. (sic) and other
foreign words are brought in to bolster up a theory about
anything so little understood as the Urim and Thummim,
we are on dangerous ground.1
Basically there are two main views which
prevail.
(1) That MyriUx is derived from rUx, therefore meaning "lights," and
that
Mym.iTu is
derived from MT,
thus meaning "Perfections."
The translations
would then
be "lights and perfections," or some similar sounding phrase.2
This, almost
hendiadystic concept, appears in the Vulgate and Septuagint
translations
as well.3 (2) That MyriUx is derived from rraxA
"to curse" and
being
thereby an antynonym to Mym>iTu.4 The arbitrary translations of the
various
versions could best have been left as transliterations.5 We do not
know what
the name meant in ancient times, nor what the objects looked
like."6
Direct Biblical References
Exodus 28:30; Leviticus 8:8
Several facts can be dearly deduced from
the text. (1) Moses was to put
them into (lx,
NtAnA) the breastplate. The setting of the precious stones has
been
described in the preceding verses. They
are mounted on the
breastplate,
whereas Moses put these "in" after Aaron was dressed in his
1
Craigen:
Urim and Thummim 2
high-priestly garments.7 (2) That these are probably two separate
objects.
The definite
article and sign of the definite object are used with both nouns.
(3) That
these were familiar terms and/or objects to Moses so that no further
explanation
was called for, (4) that these were an essential part of the regalia
of the
High-Priest when he entered the
presence of
the Lord. Aaron now carries on his
person "the judgment of the
sons of
denotes
judgment both in the concrete sense of a verdict or decision and also
in the more
abstract form of the process of making it.7a
Numbers 27:21
Here Moses commissions Joshua as his
successor: the new leader of the
nation. However Joshua was distinctly different from
Moses in the
leadership
role. Moses was the law-giver and
absolute governor who had a
special
relationship with God (cf. Deut. 34:10), whereas Joshua was to
operate
through the High Priest in a way in which Moses did not have to do.
Leon Wood
speaks of Joshua having to regularly consult Eleazar.8 Such an
inquiry was
to be carried out "before the Lord" by the means of the Urim (an
obvious
abbreviation for the compound term). The
next phrase, yPi
lfa
can refer to
either Joshua, Eleazar, or God. This
writer believes that the best
alternative
is that of Yahweh, the real king of
leader who
would lead the people in and out like a shepherd the sheep (v.
17). Here was their leader moving at the Divine
command! They followed
their duly
appointed shepherd. One cannot help but
think of the military
campaigns to
conquer the Promised Land, and the various movements of the
nation as
she entered into that Land. This dearly
"intimates its use for the
guidance and
direction of
Deuteronomy 33:8
Moses blessed the tribe of Levi, and spoke
of the Urim and Thummim
(here
inverted in order) as the right of Levi, who had stood loyally, as
represented
in Aaron, by the side of Moses at Rephidim (Ex. 17:1-7; Num.
20:2-13),
and who had demonstrated, collectively, their loyalty to the Lord
against the
golden calf worship at Sinai (Ex. 32:26-29).
They could thus be classified as God's
"holy one," a tribe set apart for
His
service. Even though the Urim was only
used by the High Priest, being
in his
garment only, it could still be represented as the right of the tribe.
Craigen:
Urim and Thummim 3
1 Samuel 28
The Lord did not answer Saul by any of the
means through which His
will was
discerned during that period of
be used as
evidence for a "no" answer to an inquiry.10 Saul had already been
rejected as
the king of
from him and
had been given to David (1 Sam. 16).
Furthermore the priests
had been
slain on Saul's orders at the city of
High Priest,
Abiathar, had escaped to David with the ephod.11
Saul's time and privilege of asking
guidance in leading
apparently
come to an end. The parallel passage, 1 Chron. 10:14, states that
Saul did not
inquire of the Lord, and died because he inquired of the
medium at
Endor. His attitude, or motive in asking
was of such a nature that
according to
the Divine interpretation it was as though he had not inquired at
all.12
The Urim was definitely, according to
this verse another form of God's
revelation
to the leader of the theocratic nation.
Ezra 2:63; Nehemiah 7:65
Zerubbabel ruled that the question of the
priests who had lost their
credentials
for office could not be decided without the Urim. They were,
therefore,
excluded from the performance of priestly duties.13 Zerubbabel's
words do suggest
that he understood the Urim and Thummim to be a means
of
discerning God's decision in matters about which the leaders could not
decide
because of the lack of information. The matter of appointing priests
was a
crucial one because according to the Law they must be of the tribe of
Levi. No civil leader could ever legislate in this
respect, especially if they
were setting
out to diligently obey His word. Why did
he not ask of a
prophet? There is no immediate answer to that
question. Further, why
make such a
statement when the various accouterments and regalia for
operating in
the
There certainly was no possibility of a
priest in the future standing up
with the
Urim. It was Zerrubabel's way of stating
that so far as they could
determine
there was no other possible recourse than that those men should
be excluded
from the priesthood.
Inquiries of the
Lord
Besides these direct statements there are
other passages in which the use
of the Urim,
even though not specifically stated, is possible. It must be
noted that
according to Moses' command Joshua was to inquire through the
Craigen:
Urim and Thummim 4
High Priest
who bore the Urim and Thummim, so that, at the least, these
two, the
Priest and the Breastplate, must be present in such an inquiry. lxawA
occurs in a
number of instances in which the leader, or in the absence of an
appointed
leader, the people collectively, sought guidance from the Lord.
David's Inquiries
There is more of this activity on the part
of David recorded in Scripture
than for any
other individual leader of any other period of
The High Priest and the ephod14
Abiathar, whose father, Ahimelech, had
been slain by Doeg the Edomite
at the city
of
the
legitimate high priest (1 Sam. 22).15 He had brought the ephod with him
to
David. At Keilah David instructs
Abiathar to bring the ephod to him, and
he proceeds
to ask guidance and counsel of God in regard to the military
activity at
Keilah and the threat of Saul's approach.
The ephod should be
considered
as identical with the breastplate of judgment because the
instructions
for the binding of the breastplate to the ephod were such that the
breastplate
was not to be parted from the ephod (garment) (Ex. 28:28;
39:21), so
that the term "ephod" could quite conceivably come to embrace
the whole
composite unit of ephod and the breastplate affixed to it. The
question of
the man of God to Eli (1 Sam. 2:28) included in the list of
priestly
duties the carrying of the ephod before Jehovah. This could only
mean the
breastplate of judgment. So the presence
of the priest and the
ephod (which
includes the Urim and Thummim) leaves no alternative but to
classify
these inquiries of David as using that God-appointed means of
consultation
through the high priest. Furthermore, it
is hard to conceive of
David as
deliberately doing that which was in direct violation of the Law
and using an
incorrect, unsanctioned instrument to discern the will of God.
There is no
indication of rebuke for these inquiries conducted through the
ephod.16 David actually called for the ephod on two
specific occasions
(1 Sam.
23:9f; 30:7f). However, all the inquiries of 1 Sam. 23 are carried
out in the
context of the priest and ephod being present.17 Verse 6 is a
supplementary
explanation relative to the inquiry of the Lord by David.
Thus, it is only the 2 Samuel passages
which have no indication of the
presence of
the high priest and the ephod. But the presence of the introductory
formula hvhyBi
dUidA lxaw;y.iva would
strongly suggest that a similar procedure
has taken
place. This formula occurs every time,
except in
Craigen:
Urim and Thummim 5
the middle
of the Keilah narrative. The account,
after the command to
bring the
ephod, continues with rmaxA
which introduces the content of
David's
prayer to God.18
There is only one instance of information
sought which was not military
in nature,
i.e. where should the new capital of
The beginning of his inquiries
When did David begin to make these
inquiries of the Lord? The passages
mentioned
above all occur after the arrival of the high priest into David's
camp. One passage, at first, seems to suggest that
David was already
frequently
asking of God through the high priest (1 Sam. 22:9f). The
emphasis is
normally placed on the verb "begin" (llaHA and being rendered:
"Is
today the first time that I have inquired of God for him?" But that word
llaHA
followed by a construct infinitive can have the emphasis on both the
verb and its
succeeding infinitive--"Did I begin to inquire..."--not in the
sense of
having done it already but with the sense of asking whether the king
believes
that he had made a start of doing it then.
Certainly one could wish
for a more
direct and simple answer by Ahimelech.
George Caird refers to
this
syntactical format and calls it a common Hebrew idiom reinforcing the
main verb
that follows so that it now means, "Have I indeed inquired of God
for him
today?"19 This makes more sense in the light of what follows--"Far
be it from
me!"
In effect he states, "I have not
begun to inquire at all," which reads better
than,
"Far be it from me to do this for the first time today." He also goes
further
to categorically deny knowing anything
of the charge leveled against
him. Doeg, the Edomite, convinced Saul of the
conspiracy by adding what
the
narrative in the previous chapter does not even hint at, namely, that
Ahimelech
had inquired of the Lord for David. All
the parties to the
interrogation
knew the implication of the charge. If
you inquired of God for
him then you
are admitting that David is the king and Saul is not. Perhaps
this
explains something of the fear which Ahimelech felt at the presence of
David, and
the reason for his carefully worded answer.
Henry Smith in the
ICC really
separates the answer into two parts aimed at two parts of the
charge, i.e.
the fact of the inquiry is not to be denied, but the intention of
conspiracy
is to be strongly denied.20
However, Ahimelech does seem to have
pinpointed the main thrust of the
indictment: the issue is not aid for David, which he
could have given to him
seeing that
he was a known official representative of the king (v. 14), but the
issue is the
priestly recognition of kingship.
Craigen:
Urim and Thummim 6
The position
of David
According to
1 Samuel 16, God had rejected Saul as king and had anointed
His new king
with the Holy Spirit. Samuel then on the
instructions of the
Lord anoints
David as the king in the presence of his brothers. He is the one
now
empowered by the Spirit for the assigned task of ruling over God's
people. As
such, God's guidance pertains to David and not to Saul.
Other Inquiries
By Joshua
Joshua and the elders were deceived by
the Gibeonites because they had
"not
asked for the counsel of the Lord" (9:14 ", UlxAw
xlo hvAhy; yPi tx,v;21.
The only
explanation is to look back to the charge given to Joshua--ask
through the
Urim. This was a question of vital
importance which had a
direct
bearing on their properly fulfilling the commandments of God in
regard to
the conquest of the land and the death of the inhabitants.
The question of Achan will be dealt with
under lots.
In the Judges period
The sons of
the
Canaanites (1:1-2). These men were close
enough to the time of Joshua,
and under
the influence of Phinehas, the high priest, that they would have
followed the
procedure used by Joshua (cf. Josh. 24:31).
Later the sons of
Benjamin
(20:18f), and as to who would lead them into the battle. The
following
facts are obvious: (1) Phinehas, the
high priest, fulfilled the
function of
inquirer, even though the people are also spoken of as making
the inquiry,
(2) the Ark of the covenant was at
positive
answers: yet two military failures, and
(4) the introductory formula
of hvhyBi lxawA is used on two occasions, but Myhilox<B,
lxawA on the first
occasion of
asking. Weeping, fasting, and offering
of sacrifices were
necessary
before they were promised victory.
A host of questions remain
unanswered. Should they have asked if
victory was
theirs despite their overwhelming numbers?
Must there be an
attitude of
repentance and humility? Does the change
of the name of God
indicate
anything? Was the accompanying activity,
weeping, fasting, etc.,
an attempt
to secure God's favor?22
The presence of the
Whom the
high priest was to stand when making such an inquiry. After the
presence of
the high priest with the ephod was apparently enough.23 For
Craigen:
Urim and Thummim 7
Joshua and
the people in the judges period the
close at
hand.
By
Saul
Besides the account in t Samuel 28 in
which Saul sought revelation in
vain, 1
Samuel 14 is the only other instance of an attempted inquiry by him
as the king
and before his rejection by God from that position. Saul here
commanded
Ahijah, the high priest, to bring the "ark of God" to him, or to
that place
(v. 18). The Septuagint retroverts as dOpxehA (prosa<gage
to>
e]fou<d) and
this has been taken as the correct reading, thus permitting
scholars to
postulate the concept of sacred lots because Saul said to the priest
"Withdraw
thy hand."24 A
comparison with 1 Kings 2:26 does seem to make
"ephod"
read as "ark" because Abiathar certainly did not carry the
"ark" for
David while
he was a refugee. However the MT also
reads NOrxE at 1
Kings
2:26. One must wonder then whether Solomon was
perhaps referring to that
important
move of the
mover over
which Abiathar as the high priest would have presided.
Furthermore,
is it possible that Saul had brought the
instead of
going to where it was, and thus he was able to command it to be
brought to
him?25 Whatever the answer,
at least Saul knew that the symbol
of the right
of the high priest to ask of God was a necessary prerequisite
before he
could initiate that activity. The
command to withdraw the hand
can be taken
as a peremptory, "Cancel that order."26
Later in this same chapter, Ahijah advises
Saul to inquire of the Lord, but
in vain. No
answer.27 The mechanics of
receiving an answer, or of knowing
that none
was forthcoming, still remain shrouded in secrecy. Was this
silence the
result of sin, as Saul intimates in vv. 38f, or was it the result of a
disregard
for the proper procedure?
In addition, Saul had already caused the
people to sin by his rashly
uttered oath
which prevented them from eating so that now at the sight of
cattle they
were driven to kill and eat the meat
with the blood in it. Further,
Saul had
already made up his mind to go and spoil the Philistines and only
the advice
of the priest hold's him back to make the inquiry, he is perhaps
already
exhibiting that attitude which was defined in 1 Chron. 10:14.28 One
thing is clear
and that is that Saul understood that something was wrong.
The question of Urim and Thummim being
equal to lots arises
fundamentally
from this passage as it appears in the Septuagint, which reads
(in
English):
And Saul said unto Yahweh, God of Israel, "Why hast thou
not answered thy servant this day?
If this inquiry is
Craigen:
Urim and Thummim 8
in me or in my son Jonathan, Oh Yahweh, God of Israel,
give Urim; but if this iniquity is in thy people
give Thummim."29
Robertson, and others, favor this
rendering and believe it gives credence
to the Urim
and Thummim as being utilized to indicate "yes" or "no" to
specific
questions.30 The answers are
really the result of a sacred lot-casting.
The idea is
that the Urim and Thummim were either thrown on the ground or
pulled out
of the breastplate pouch.
The use of the verbs lyPihi and dkel.Ayi would be the first and only time
that they
are used in the context of inquiring of the Lord. They do appear in
the contexts
of lot-casting but never in those clear instances of Urim and
Thummim
being used. Further, in every other clear instance of Urim and
Thummim the
answers are more than that which is decided by lot-casting
(see
below). Lindblom, interestingly enough,
rejects the Septuagint version
and argues
for the superiority of the MT, because he feels that Saul has
reverted
from priestly lot-casting (which would be Urim and Thummim) to
civil
lot-casting. He determines this on the
basis of who was involved in the
episode.
It was not particular individual who performed the
lot-casting, it was a group; behind the procedure
stood the leaders of the army, i.e. a group of laymen.
The priest had no function at all.31
He therefore translates the controversial Mym.iTu
hbAha as
"give a true
decision."32
The same distinction can be used in another way. Saul did
inquire
through the Urim and Thummim, but when no reply was
forthcoming
he switched procedures to that of lot-casting, in order to isolate
the guilty
party whom he felt had prejudiced his
inquiry of the Lord. There
is no reason
why he should not have prefaced this activity with a prayer,
especially
as he considered it to be such a serious and solemn affair. Thus he
prayed for a
true decision to be given by the lots.
When bhayA is
used as a
neuter adjective
it is equal to a substantive, meaning "what is complete,
entirely in
accord with truth and fact."33
The fact that the lots fell on Jonathan
who was the guilty party can be
explained in
terms of God's sovereignty (cf. Proverbs 16:33) and not
necessarily
in terms of God responding to the prayer of Saul as though this
were the
normal procedure in the land.
Admittedly this passage is a problem and
any definitive conclusion must
try to take
it into account. But a final conclusion
on the nature and use of
the Urim and
Thummim, at the same time, cannot rest solely on a textually
debatable
passage.34
Craigen:
Urim and Thummim 9
By Samuel
The nature of the answer given by the
Lord in 1 Samuel 10:22 is more
suitable to
Urim and Thummim than the casting of lots.
Here, too, it was the
people who
desired to know the whereabouts of their
newly appointed king.
The
procedure followed until this point of not being able to locate Saul had
been by lot
(v. 20 dkel.Ayiv;:
Each tribe, family, etc. was brought near, and
one from
among them was taken. Now the language
changes and that
introductory
formula appears at the head of the people's question, hvhy
lxw but dOf inserted between those two words hvhyBi dOf UlxEw;y.av.
If this is an adverb expressing a
continuance of the previous action then
there is a
problem of having to make the process of lots be the same as
inquiring of
the Lord, e.g. NASB translation, "Therefore they inquired
further of
the Lord." But if the waw
consecutive at the beginning, of v. 22 is
pleonastic35,
then the resultant translation can avoid the problem: "Yet they
inquired of
the Lord." Frankly, there does not
appear to have been any need
to have made
such an inquiry at all, for they could have sent for Saul and
brought him
forward.
Lindblom concurs that v. 22 cannot be
lot-casting and concludes that a
"cult-prophet"
was speaking.36
Answers to Sacred Lots?
Leon Wood reasons that no occasion clearly
depicts a message of greater
length than
the mere affirmation.37
Although Wood does not accept the idea
of two
marked stones representing a "yes" and "no" type reply, he,
nonetheless,
prefers no audible reply through the priest, but argues for a
glowing of
the stones if the reply was affirmative, otherwise the question
would be
rephrased until the affirmative glow occurred.38 How long he went
on trying
different variations of that question before deciding that it was in
vain just
cannot be known. It would seem far more
likely that the reply was
either
immediate or not at all. There is no
occasion of a negative answer in
the
Scriptures.
The answers to all of the inquiries noted
above are far more than that
which would
be expected by way of a yes/no indication or by way of a yes-
only-and-rephrase-the
question-type procedure (see appendix).
Wood's
assessment
appears to suggest that the words recorded in the text as being
the actual
words of the Lord are a reworked version of an affirmative glow!
Consistently
the passages record the words of the Lord, but always more
than just
"yes."
Craigen:
Urim and Thummim 10
The identification of the Urim and Thummim with the
sacred lots appears to have some possibility, but
there are serious difficulties with this view due
to the fact that the answers ascribed to the Urim and
Thummim are not always equivalent to a "yes" or
"no"
answer ."39
Leon Wood also adds that the information
given in 1 Sam.10:22
("Behold,
he is hiding himself by the baggage"') could have been given "by
affirmation
to a few questions."40
H. Wheeler Robinson adds an interesting
little
footnote to the effect that private communication with S. R. Driver
showed that
the latter felt that Urim was connected with an Accadian u'uru
(to give an
oracular response), but that he did not think of u'uru as ever
referring to
lot-casting.41
This writer finds it difficult to accept
the author of 1 and 2 Samuel, and of
Judges 8
introducing into the text a personal reply of Yahweh, in place of
some impersonal
mechanically indicated answer. The words
of J. Barton
Payne are
most pertinent:
The judgment of the Urim would thus signify the personal
revelation that God granted to the one who wore the high
priestly breastplate. In
such a way God would answer the
official questions that were brought in before the cloud
of His presence. Those who
question the reality of such
supernatural communications generally consider the Urim
and Thummim to have been some kind of dice, a sort of
sacred lottery. It is true,
of course, that lots were
known to
distributions (Num. 26:55, 56).
But dice-casting as a
regular means of divine guidance smacks of magic in a way
that is unworthy of God's word.
1 Samuel 28:6, moreover,
lists Urim in a category that is between dreams and prophets.
It suggests that urim is simply another form of God's personal
revelation, namely, that which is mediated through priests (cf.
Deut.
33:8, 10).42
Its Cessation
There is no further mention of the Urim
and Thummim after the time of
David until
the post-exilic references in Ezra and Nehemiah. Several
reasons,
which arise from an overview of
forward: (1) The increased activity on the part of the
prophets, to whom the
kings, on
more than one occasion, resorted for advice on the affairs of the