Urim And Thummim
URIM AND THUMMIM
(light and perfection, ) among the ancient Hebrews, a certain oracular manner of consulting God, which was done by the high priest, dressed in his robes, and having on his pectoral, or breast-plate. There have been a variety of opinions respecting the Urim and Thummim, and after all we cannot determine what they were. The use made of them was, to consult God in difficult cases relating to the whole state of Israel, and sometimes in cases relating to the king, the sanhedrim, the general of the army, or some other great personage.
Fuente: Theological Dictionary
Urim and Thummim
The sacred lot by means of which the ancient Hebrews were wont to seek manifestations of the Divine will. Two other channels of Divine communication were recognized, viz. dreams and prophetical utterance, as we learn from numerous passages of the Old Testament. The three forms are mentioned together in 1 Samuel 28:6. “And he (Saul) consulted the Lord, and he answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by priests (Hebrew, Urim, LXX delois), not by the prophets.” There can be no doubt that in this instance the Douay translation of “priests” is wrong, based on the mistaken rendering “sacerdotes” of the Latin Vulgate. The etymological signification of the words, at least as indicated by the Masoretic punctuation, is sufficiently plain. Urim is derived from the Hebrew for “light”, or “to give light”, and Thummim from “completeness”, “perfection”, or “innocence”. In view of these derivations it is surmised by some scholars that the sacred lot may have had a twofold purpose in trial ordeals, viz. Urim served to bring to light the guilt of the accused person, and Thummim to establish his innocence. Be that as it may, the relatively few mentions of Urim and Thummim in the Old Testament leave the precise nature and use of the lot a matter more or less plausible conjecture, nor is much light derived from the ancient versions in which the term is subject to uncertain and divergent renderings. In chapter 28 of Exodus (“P”) where minute directions are given concerning the priestly vestments, and in particular concerning the “rational” (probably “pouch” or “breastplate”) we read (v. 30): “And thou (Moses) shalt put in the rational of judgement doctrine and truth (Heb. the Urim and the Thummim), which shall be on Aaron’s breast when he shall go in before the Lord; and he shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel on his breast in the sight of the Lord always.” From this it appears that at least towards the close of the Exile, the Urim and Thummim were considered as something distinct from the ephod of the high priest and the gems with which it was adorned. It also shows that they were conceived of as material objects sufficiently small to be inserted in the “rational” or “pouch”, the main purpose of which seems to have been to receive them. In Leviticus, viii, 7-8 we read: “He (Moses) vested the high priest with the strait linen garment, girding him with the girdle, and putting on him the violet tunick, and over it he put the ephod, and binding it with the girdle, he fitted it to the rational, on which was doctrine and truth” (Heb. the Urim and the Thummim). Again in Numbers xxvii, 21: “If anything be to be done, Eleazar the priest shall consult the Lord for him” (Heb. “and he [Eleazar] shall invoke upon him the judgment of Urim before the Lord”). These passages add little to our knowledge of the nature an use of the oracle, except perhaps the importance attached to it as a means of the Divine communication in the post-Exilic period.
Some of the earlier Old-Testament passages are more instructive. Among these may be mentioned 1 Kings, xiv, 41-2. After the battle with the Philistines during which Jonathan had unwittingly violated the rash oath of his father, Saul, by tasting a little wild honey, the latter consulted the Lord but received no answer. Desiring to ascertain the cause of the Divine displeasure, Saul calls together the people in order that the culprit may be revealed and thus addresses the Lord: “O Lord God of Israel, give a sign, by which we may know, what the meaning is, that thou answerest not thy servant today. If this iniquity be in me, or in my son, Johathan, give a proof (Vulgate da ostensionem = Urim): or if this iniquity be in they people, give holiness (Vulgate da sanctitatem = Thummim). And Jonathan and Saul were taken, and the people escaped. And Saul said: Cast lots between me and Jonathan my son. And Jonathan was taken.” The above rendering of the Vulgate is confirmed by the Greek recension of Lucian (see ed. Lagarde), and by the evidently corrupt Massoretic thamim at the end of verse 41. From this and various other passages which it would be too long to discuss here (v.g. Deut. Xxxiii, 8, Heb., I Kings, xiv, 36, I Kings, xxiii, 6-12 etc.) we gather that the Urim and Thummim were a species of sacred oracle manipulated by the priest in consulting the Divine will, and that they were at times used as a kind of Divine ordeal to discover the guilt or innocence of suspected persons. The lots being two in number, only one question was put at a time, and that in a way admitting of only two alternative answers (see 1 Samuel 14:41-42; ibid., 23:6-12). Many scholars maintain that in most passages where the expression “consult the Lord” or its equivalent is used, rcourse to the Urim and Thummim is implied (v.g. Judges 1:1-2; ibid., 20:27-28; 1 Samuel 10:19-22; 2 Samuel 2:1, etc.). The speculations of later Jewish writers including Philo and Josephus teach us nothing of value concerning the Urim and Thummim. They are often fanciful and extravagant, as is the case with many other topics (see “Jewish Encyclopedia”, s.v.). The only instance in the New Testament of anything resembling the use of the sacred lot as a means to discover the Divine will occurs in the Acts (I, 24-26) in connection with the election of Matthias.
———————————–
GIGOT, “Outlines of Jewish Hist.” (New York, 1903); 87, 316; MUSS-ARNOLT, “The Urim and Thummim, a Suggestion as to their original Nature and Significance” in “American Journal of Semitic Literature, XVI (Chicago, 1900), 218 seq.
JAMES F. DRISCOLL Transcribed by John Looby
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XVCopyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Urim and Thummim
(Heb. Urim ve-Thummim, ), the Anglicized form of two Hebrew words used (always together [except in Num 27:21; 1Sa 28:6, where the former occurs alone; in Deu 33:8, they are in the reverse order] and with the article [except in Ezr 2:63; Neh 7:65]) with reference to some obscure mode of divination in connection with the sacerdotal regalia (Exo 28:30; Lev 8:8), but concerning which both ancient and modern interpreters have greatly differed. The latest elucidation of the subject may be found in Strong’s Tabernacle in the Wilderness (Providence, 1888), p. 69,95.
I. Etymological Import. These words are Hebrew plurals, not proper names, but appellatives of frequent occurrence in the singular. They are generally considered to be plurales excellentiae, denoting by a metonymy the things or modes whereby the revelation was given and truth declared.
1. In Uzim, Hebrew scholars, with hardly an exception, have seen the plural of (Ur, light or fire). The Sept., however, appears to have had reasons which led its authors to another rendering than that of or its cognates. They give (Exo 28:30; Sir 45:10), and (Num 27:21; Deu 23:8; 1Sa 28:6); while in Ezr 2:63, and Neh 7:65, we have respectively plural and singular participles of . In Aquila and Theodotion we find the more literal . The Vulg., following the, lead, of the Sept., but going further astray, gives doctrina in Exo 28:30 and Deu 33:8 omits the word; in Num 27:21, paraphrases it by per sacerdotes in 1Sa 28:6, and gives judicium in Sir 45:10, as the rendering of . Luther gives Licht. The literal English equivalent would of course be lights; but the renderings in the Sept. and Vulg. indicate, at least, a traditional belief among the Jews that the plural form, as in Elbhim and other like words, did not involve numerical plurality. Bellarmine, wishing to defend the Vulg. translation, suggested the derivation of Urim from , to teach (Buxtorf, Diss. de Ur. et Th.)
2. Thummim. Here also there is almost a consensus as to the derivation from (Tm, perfection, completeness); but the Sept., as before, uses the closer Greek equivalent once (Ezr 2:63) and adheres elsewhere to ; and the Vulg., giving perfectus there, in like manner gives veritas in all other passages. Aquila more accurately chooses . Luther, in his first edition, gave Volligkeit, but afterwards rested in Recht.
What has been said as to the plural of Urims applies here also. Bellarmine (ut sup.) derives Thummim from , to be true. By others it has been derived from , contr. = a twin, on the theory that the two groups of gems, six on each side the breastplate, were, what constituted the Urim and Thummim (R. Azarias, in Buxtorf loc. cit.). Light and perfection would probably be the best English equivalents. The assumption of a hendiadys, so that the two words = perfect illumination (Carpzov, App. Crif. 1, 5; Bahr, Symbolik, 2, 135), is unnecessary, and, it is believed, unsound. The mere phrase, as such, leaves it therefore uncertain whether each word by itself denoted many things of a given kind, or whether the two taken together might be referred to two distinct objects, or to one and the same object. The presence of the article , and yet more of the demonstrative before each, is rather in favor of distinctness. Thummim never occurs by itself, unless with Zllig we find it in Psa 16:5.
II. Scriptural Statements.
1. The mysterious words meet us for the first time, as if they needed no explanation, in the description of the, high-priest’s apparel. Over the ephod there is to be a breastplate of judgment ( , Sept. , Vulg. rationale judicii), of gold, scarlet, purple, and fine linen, folded square and doubled, a span in length and width. In it are to be set four rows of precious stones, each stone with the name of a tribe of Israel engraved on it, that Aaron may bear them upon his heart. SEE EPHOD.
Then comes a further order. Inside the breastplate, as the tables of the covenant were placed inside the ark (the preposition is used in both cases, Exo 25:16; Exo 28:30), are to be placed the Urim and the Thummim, the light and the perfection; and they, too, are to be on Aaron’s heart when he goes in before the Lord (Exo 28:15-30). Not a word describes them; they are mentioned as things already familiar both to Moses and the people, connected naturally with the functions of the high- priest, as mediating between Jehovah and his people. The command is fulfilled (Lev 8:8). They pass from Aaron to Eleazar: with the sacred ephod and other pontificalia (Num 20:28). When Joshua is solemnly appointed, to succeed the great hero law giver, he is bidden to stand before. Eleazar, the priest, who shall ask counsel for him after the judgment of [the] Urim, and this counsel is to determine the movements of the host of Israel. (Num 27:21). In the blessings of Moses, they appear as the crowning glory of the tribe of Levi (thy Thummim and thy Urim are with, thy Holy One), the reward of the zeal which led them to close their eyes to everything but the law and the covenant (Deu 33:8-9). Once, and once only, are they mentioned by name, in the history of the Judges and the monarchy. Saul, left to his self- chosen darkness, is answered neither by dreams, nor by [the] Urim, nor by prophet (1Sa 28:6). There is no longer a priest with Urim and Thummim (Sept. , Ezr 2:63; , Neh 7:65) to answer hard questions. When will one appear again? The son of Sirach copies the Greek names (. ) in his description of Aaron’s garments, butt throws, no light upon their meaning or their use (Sirach 45, 10).
2. Besides these direct statements, there are others in which we may, without violence, trace a reference, if not to both, at least to the Urim. When questions precisely of the nature of those described in Num 27:21 are asked by the leader of the people, and answered by Jehovah (Jdg 1:1; Jdg 20:18) when like questions are asked by Saul of the high- priest Ahiah, wearing an ephod (1Sa 14:3; 1Sa 14:18) by David, as soon as he has with him the presence of a high-priest with his ephod (1Sa 23:2; 1Sa 23:12; 1Sa 30:7-8), we may legitimately infer that the treasures which the ephod contained were the conditions and media of his answer. The questions are in almost all cases strategical, Who shall go up for us against the Canaanites first? (Jdg 1:1; so Jdg 20:18), Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul? (1Sa 23:12), or, at least, national (2Sa 21:1). The answer is, in all cases, very brief; but more in forma than a simple yes or no. One question only is answered at a. time.
3. It deserves notice, before we pass beyond the range. of scriptural data, that, in some cases of deflection from the established religious order, we find the ephod connected not with the Urim, but with the Teraphim, which, in the days of Laban, if not earlier, had been conspicuous in Aramaic worship. Micah, first consecrating one of his own sons, and then getting a Levite as his priest, makes for him al ephod and teraphim (Jdg 17:5; Jdg 18:14; Jdg 18:20). Throughout the history of the northern kingdom, their presence at Dan made it a sacred place (Jdg 18:30), and apparently determined Jeroboam’s choice of it as a sanctuary. When the prophet Hosea foretells the entire sweeping-away of the system, which the ten tribes had cherished; the point of extremest destitution is that they shall be many days . . . without an ephod, and without teraphim (Hos 3:4), deprived of all counterfeit oracles, in order that they may in the end. return and seek the Lord. It seems natural to infer that the teraphim were, in these instances, the unauthorized substitutes for the Urim. The inference is strengthened by the fact that the Sept. uses here, instead of teraphim, the same word () which it usually gives for Urim. That the teraphim were thus used through the whole history of Israel may be inferred from their frequent occurrence in conjunction with other forms of divination. Thus we have in 1Sa 15:23 witchcraft and teraphim (A.V. idolatry), in 2Ki 23:24 familiar spirits, wizards, and teraphim (A.V. images). The king of Babylon, when he uses divination, consults them (Eze 21:21). They speak vanity (Zec 10:2). SEE TERAPHIM.
III. Theories of Interpreters. When the Jewish exiles were met on their return from, Babylon by a question which they had no data for answering, they agreed to postpone the settlement of the difficulty till there should rise up a priest with Urim and Thummim (Ezr 2:63; Neh 7:65). The inquiry what those Urim and Thummim themselves were seems likely to wait as long for a final and satisfying answer. On every side we meet with confessions of ignorance: Nonconstat (Kimchi), Nescimus (Aben-Ezra), Difficile est invenire (Augustine), varied only by wild and conflicting conjectures.
1. Among these may be noticed the notion that, as Moses is not directed to make the Urim and Thummim, they must have had a supernatural origin, specially created, unlike anything upon earth (R. ben-Nachman and Hottinger in Buxtorf, Diss. de Ur. et Th. in Ugolino, 12). It would be profitless to discuss so arbitrary an hypothesis.
2. A favorite view of Jewish and of some Christian writers has been that the Urim and Thummim were identical with the twelve stones on which the names of the tribes of Israel were engraved, and the mode in which, an oracle was given was by the illumination, simultaneous or successive, of the letters which were to make up the answer (Jalkut Sifie, Zohar in Exodus. 105; Maimonides, R. ben-Nachmaln, in Buxtorf, loc. cit.; Drusius, in Crit. Sac. oni Exodus 28; Chrysostom, Grotius, et al.). Josephus (Ant. 3, 7,5) adopts another form of the same story, and, apparently identifying the Urim and Thummim with the sardonyxes on the shoulders of the ephod, says that they were bright before a victory, or when the sacrifice was acceptable, dark when any disaster was impending. Epiphanius (De X.I Gemm.) and the writer quoted by Suidas (s.v. ) present the same thought in yet another form. A single diamond () placed in the center of the breastplate prognosticated peace when it was bright, war when it was red, death when it was dusky. It is conclusive against such views (1) that, without any evidence, without even an analogy, they make unauthorized additions to the miracles of Scripture; (2) that the former identify two things which in Exodus 28 are clearly distinguished; (3) that the latter makes no distinction between the Urini and the Thummim, such as the repeated article leads us to infer.
3. A theory involving fewer gratuitous assumptions is that in the middle of the ephod within its folds, there was a stone or plate of gold on which was engraved the sacred name of Jehovah, the Shem-hammephorash (q.v.) of Jewish Cabalists; and that by virtue of this, fixing his gaze on it, or reading an invocation which was also engraved with the name, or standing in his ephod before the mercy-seat, or at least before the vail of the sanctuary, he became capable of prophesying, hearing the divine voice within, or listening to it as it proceeded, in articulate sounds, from the glory of the Shechinah (Buxtorf, loc. cit. 7; Lightfoot, 6:278; Braunius, De Vestitu Hebrews 3, Saalschtz, Archeology 2; 363). A wilder form of this belief is found in the Cabalistic book Zohar. There the Urim is said to have had the divine name in forty-two, the Thummim in seventy two letters. The notion was probably derived from the Jewish invocations of books like the Cilavicula Salomonis. SEE SOLOMON.
Another form of the same thought is found in the statement of Jewish writers that the Holy Spirit spake sometimes by Urim, sometimes by prophecy, sometimes by the Bath-Kol (Seder Olam, c. 14 in Braunius, loc. cit.), or that the whole purpose of the unknown symbols was ad excitandam prophetiam (R. Levi beniGershon, in Buxtorf, loc. cit.; Kimchi, in Spencer, it inf). A more eccentric form of the Writing theory was propounded by the elder Carpzov, who maintained that the Urim and Thummim were two confessions of faith in the Messiah and the Holy Spirit (Carpzov, App. Crit. 1, 5,).
4. Spencer (De Ur. et Th.) presents a singular union of acuteness and extravagance. He rightly recognizes the distinctness of the two things which others had confounded. Whatever the Urim and Thummim were, they were not the twelve stones, and they were distinguishable one from the other. They were placed inside the folds of the doubled Ahoshen. Resting on the facts referred to, he inferred the identity of the Urim and the Teraphim. This was an instance in which the divine wisdom accommodated itself to man’s weakness, and allowed the debased superstitious Israelites to retain a fragment of the idolatrous system of their fathers, in order to wean them gradually from the system as a whole. The obnoxious name of Teraphim was dropped. The thing itself was retained. The very name Urim was he argued, identical in meaning with Teraphim (Urim = lights, fires; Seraphim = the burning, or fiery ones; and Teraphim is but the same word, with an Aramaic substitution of for ). It was therefore a small image probably in human form. So far, the hypothesis has, at least, the merit of being inductive and historical; butt when he comes to the question how it was instrumental oracularly, he passes into the most extravagant of all assumptions. The image, when the high-priest questioned it, spoke by the mediation of an angel, with an articulate human voice, just as the Teraphim spoke, in like manner, by the intervention of a daemon! In dealing with the Thummim, which he excludes altogether from the oracular functions of the Urim, Spencer adopts the notion of an Egyptian archetype, which will be noticed further on.
5. Michaelis (Actus of Moses, 5, 52) gives his own opinion that the Urim and Thummim were three stones, on one of which was written Yes, on another No, while the third was left blank or neutral. The three were used as lots, and the high-priest decided according as the one or the other was drawn out. He does not think it worth while to give one iota of evidence; and the notion does not appear to have been more than a passing caprice. It obviously fails to meet the phenomena. Lots were familiar enough among the Israelites (Num 26:55; Jos 13:6 sq.; 1Sa 14:41; Pro 16:33), but the Urim was something solemn and peculiar. In the cases where the Urim was consulted, the answers were always more than a mere negative or affirmative.
6. The conjecture of Zullig (Comm. in Apoc. Exc.2); though adopted by Winer (Realw.) can hardly be looked on as more satisfying. With him the Urim are bright, i.e. cut and polished, diamonds, in form like dice; the Thummim perfect, i.e. whole, rough uncut ones; each class with inscriptions of some kind engraved on it. He supposes a handful of these to have been carried in 4the pouch of the high-priest’s choshen and When he wished for an oracle, to have been taken out by him and thrown on a table, or, more probably, on the ark of the covenant. As they fell, their position, according to traditional rules known only to the high-priestly families, indicated the, answer. He compares it with fortune-telling by cards or coffee-grounds. The whole scheme, it need hardly be said is one of pure invention, at once arbitrary and offensive. It is at least questionable whether the Egyptians had access to diamonds, or knew the art of polishing, or engraving them. SEE DIAMOND. A handful of diamond cubes large enough to have words or monograms engraved on them, is a thing which has no parallel in Egyptian archaeology, nor, indeed, anywhere else.
7. The latest Jewish interpreter of eminence (Kalisch. on Exo 28:31), combining parts of the views (2) and (3), identifies the Urim and Thummim with the twelve tribal gems, looks on the name as one to be explained by a hendiadys (light and perfection = perfect illumination), and believes the high-priest, by concentrating his thoughts on the attributes they represented, to have divested himself of all selfishness and prejudice, and so to have passed into a true prophetic state. In what he says on this point there is much that is both beautiful and true. Lightfoot, it may he added, had taken the same view (2, 407; 6:278), and that given above in (3) converges to the same result. SEE TRANCE.
8. Philo, the learned contemporary of Josephus, represents the Urim and Thummim as two images of the two virtues or powers . The full quotation is: (the pectoral, or breastplate); . , (that they might carry the image of the two powers); (De Vita Mosis, lib. 3, p. 152, t. 2, ed. Mangey). He also uses the following words (De Monarch. lib. 2, p. 824; 1 Opp. 2, 226): , , . This statement of Philo…has been thought by many recent interpreters to be supported-by certain external evidence. It had been noticed by all the old commentators that a remarkable resemblance existed between the Urim and Thummim of the Jewish high-priest and the custom recorded by Elian (Var. Hist. 14, 347) of the Egyptian arch judge, who was always a priest venerable for age, learning, and probity, and who opened judicial proceedings by suspending, by a gold chain hung round his neck (comp. Gen 41:42), an image made of a sapphire stone, which was called , i.e. truth, and with which Diodorus Siculus (1, 48,75) says he touched () the party who had gained the cause. Certain traces of a similar custom among the Romans had also been adverted to namely, that among the Vestal Virgins, at least she that was called Maxima, and who sat in judgment and tried causes as the Pontifex Maximus did, wore a similar antepectorale (Lipsius, De Vesta et Vtstalibus Syntagima [Antv. 1603, ap. Plant.]; cap. ult.). But these resemblances among the Egyptians were considered to have been derived by them from the Jews, in: consequence of their correspondence with them after Solomon’s marriage with Pharaoh’s daughter (Patrick, on Exo 28:30). Subsequent discoveries, however, among the antiquities of Egypt lead to the conclusion that these resemblances belong to a much earlier period. Sir G. Wilkinson says the figure of Truth which the Egyptian arch judge suspended from his necks was in fact, a representation of the goddess who was worshipped under the dual, or double, character of Truth and Justice, and whose name, Thmei, the Egyptian or Coptic name of Justice or Truth (comp. the Greek ), appears to have been the origin of the Hebrew Thummim a word, he remarks, according to the Sept. translation, implying truth, and bearing a further analogy in its plural termination. He also remarks that the word Thummim, being a plural or dual word, corresponds to the Egyptian notion of the two Truths. or the double capacity of this goddess. This goddess, he says, frequently occurs in the sculptures in this double capacity, represented by two figures exactly similar, as in the above cut. It is, he adds, further observable that the chief priest of the Jews, who, before the election of a king, was also the judge of the nation, was alone entitled to wear this honorary badge. Does the touch of the successful litigant with the figure, by the Egyptian arch judge, afford any illustration of such passages as Isa 6:7; Jer 1:9; Est 5:2, or of those numerous instances in which touching is represented as the emblem or means of miraculous virtue? Our authority for these Egyptian antiquities adds that the ancient (Sept.) interpretation of the Urim and Thummim, as signifying light and truth. presents a striking analogy to the two figures of Re, the sun, and Thmei, truth, in the breastplate worn by the Egyptians. Here Thmei is represented, as she frequently is, by a single figure wearing two ostrich feathers, her emblem, because all the wing feathers of this bird were considered of equal length, and hence meant true or correct (Anc. Egypt. [Lond. 1842], 2, 27, etc.; 5, 28, etc. See also other remarks on the dual offices of Thmei, in Gallery oaf Antiquities, selected from the British Museum by F. Arundale and J. Bonomi). Upon a view of the preceding facts, even so orthodox an antiquarian as Hengstenberg (Egypt and the Book of Moses, ch. 6) adopts Mr. Mede’s opinion, that the Urim and Thummim were things well known to the patriarchs, as divinely appointed means of inquiring of the Lord (Gen 25:22-23), suited to an infantine state of religion; that the originals were preserved, or the real use at least, among the Abrahamidae, and, at the reformation under Moses, were simply recognized; that the resemblances to them among the Egyptians were but imitations of this primeval mode of divine communication, as’ were the heathen auspices of similar means originally connected with the sacrifice of animals.
In opposition to this view of a direct Egyptian origin of the objects in question, it has been forcibly urged
(1) that the words Urim and Thumminm do not, in fact, mean Truth and Justice;
(2) that, with the exception of the single and undistinctive use of the term judgment () in connection with the choshen, or pontifical pectorale, there is no magisterial function of the high priest in the cases of consultation, like that of the Egyptian arch judge; and
(3) that, if such an image were intended, it is strange that no description is given to identify it, nor any prescription made as to its form or structure in the Mosaic account, as there is of all the other articles of the priestly regalia (see Keil, Commentarii, ad loc.).
IV. Oracular Use. The process of consulting the Lord by Urim and Thummim, and the form in which the answer was returned, are not explained in Scripture, and all we can say on the subject is from Rabbinical tradition. The rabbins say that the manner of inquiring was as follows the priest put on his robes, and went (not into the sanctuary, where he could go but once a year), but into the sanctum, or holy place, and stood before the curtain or vail that divided the sanctuary from the sanctum. There he stood upright, facing towards the ark of the covenant, and behind him stood the person for whom he inquired, in a right line with the priest, facing the back of the latter, but outside the sanctum. Then the priest inquired of God concerning the matter required, in a low voice, like one praying half audibly, and; keeping his eyes upon the breastplate, he received by Urim and Thummim the answer to his question. Maimonides says it was not lawful to inquire by this mode for private individuals, but only for the king, or for him on whom the affairs of the congregation lay.
With respect to the mode in which the answer was returned, Prideaux, and some other Christian commentators, think that when the high-priest inquired of the Lord, standing in his robes before the vail, that an audible answer was returned from within. But the rabbins say that the answer was given by certain letters engraven on the stones in the breastplate becoming peculiarly; prominently lustrous, in proper order, so as to be read by the high-priest into words. For instance, when David inquired of God whether he should go up to one of the cities of Judah (2Sa 2:1), the answer was, Go up, , alah; the letters , and became in order prominently lustrous, and thus formed the word. These explanations evidently depend upon the Talmudic theories above recited as to the form and nature of the objects themselves. SEE DIVINATION.
V. Typical Significance. The office of the high-priest and his dress, as well as the tabernacle and its furniture and service, were all typical of the Christian dispensation, or of the office and person of Christ; in whom, also, the Urim and Thummim, as well as the other types and foreshadowing’s, were fulfilled. He was Light, Perfection, Manifestation, and Truth. He was the true Light, that lighteth every man that cometh into the world (Joh 1:9). Being made: perfect, he became the Author of salvation to all that obey him (Heb 5:9). He was God manifest in the flesh (1Ti 3:16). He was the Way, the Truth, and the Life (Joh 14:6), and he came to bear witness to the Truth (Joh 18:37). By Urim and Thummim a measure of the Holy Ghost was granted to the Jewish high-priest; Christ is a high-priest in whom are all the gifts of the Holy Ghost without measure (3:34). He put on righteousness as a breastplate (Isa 59:19); and by his merits and intercession as our continual High-priest, he has given to us to put on the breastplate of faith and love (1Th 5:8). Some have seen the Urim and Thummim the object alluded to by John as the white stone ( ) of the Christian mysteries (Rev 2:17). SEE TYPE.
VI. Literature. In addition to the works cited above, and those. referred to by Winer (Realwrterb. s.v.) and by Darling (Cyclop. Bibliograph. col. 231 sq.), there are monographs on this subject in Latin by Calov (Viteb. 1675), Wolf (Lips. 1740); Schroder. (Marb. 1741), and Stiebriz (Hal. 1753); and in German by Bellermann (Berl. 1824) and Saalschtz (Knigsb. 1849). SEE HIGH PRIEST.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Urim and Thummim
(See HIGH PRIEST; EPHOD.) (“lights and perfections”.) The article “the” before each shows their distinctness. In Deu 33:8 the order is reversed “thy Thummim and thy Urim.” Urim is alone in Num 27:21; 1Sa 28:6 Saul is answered neither by dreams nor by Urim. Thummim is never by itself. Inside the high priest’s breast-plate were placed the Urim and Thummim when he went in before the Lord (Exo 28:15-30; Lev 8:8). Mentioned as already familiar to Moses and the people. Joshua, when desiring counsel to guide Israel, was to “stand before Eleazar the priest, who should ask it for him after the judgment of Urim before Jehovah” (Num 27:21). Levi’s glory was “thy Thummim and thy Urim are with thy Holy One,” i.e. with Levi as representing, the whole priestly and Levitical stock sprung from him (Deu 33:8-9).
In Ezr 2:63 finally those who could not prove their priestly descent were excluded from the priesthood “till there should stand up a priest with Urim and Thummim.” Theteraphim apparently were in Hos 3:4; Jdg 17:5; Jdg 18:14; Jdg 18:20; Jdg 18:30, the unlawful substitute for Urim (compare 1Sa 15:23 “idolatry,” Hebrew teraphim; and 2Ki 23:24, margin). Speaker’s Commentary thinks that lots were the mode of consultation, as in Act 1:26; Pro 16:33. More probably stones with Jehovah’s name and attributes, “lights” and “perfections,” engraven on them were folded within the ephod. By gazing at them the high priest with ephod on, before the Lord, was absorbed in heavenly ecstatic contemplation and by God was enabled to declare the divine will.
The Urim and Thummim were distinct from the 12 stones, and were placed within the folds of the double choshen. Philo says that the high priest’s breast-plate was made strong in order that he might wear as an image the two virtues which his office needed. So the Egyptian judge used to wear the two figures of Thmei (corresponding to Thummim), truth and justice; over the heart of mummies of priests too was a symbol of light (answering to Urim). No image was tolerated on the Hebrew high priest; but in his choshen the white diamond or rock crystal engraven with “Jehovah,” to which in Rev 2:17 the “white stone” with the “new name written” corresponds, belonging to all believers, the New Testament king-priests. Compare Gen 44:5; Gen 44:15; Psa 43:5, “send out Thy light and Thy truth, let them lead me.”
Also 1Sa 14:19. Never after David are the ephod and its Urim and Thummim and breast-plate used in consulting Jehovah. Abiathar is the last priest who uses it (1Sa 23:6-9; 1Sa 28:6; 2Sa 21:1). The higher revelation by prophets superseded the Urim and Thummim. Music then, instead of visions, became the help to the state of prayer and praise in which prophets revealed God’s will (1Sa 9:9).
Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary
URIM AND THUMMIM
It seems that the Urim and Thummim were small objects that the Israelite high priest kept in the flat pouch (or breastpiece) that he wore on the front of his clothing. They were used to find out Gods will in matters requiring a clear-cut decision.
In seeking Gods will through the Urim and Thummim, the priest put a question to God in a form that required an answer of either yes or no. He then took the Urim and Thummim out of the breastpiece to find out the answer. God may have said yes, no, or nothing at all (Exo 28:15-30; Num 27:21; 1Sa 14:41; 1Sa 23:9-12; 1Sa 28:6; 1Sa 30:7-8; Ezr 2:63; Neh 7:65). (Compare, for example, the drawing of two identical coins out of a pouch. Two heads means yes; two tails means no; a head and a tail means no answer.)
Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary
Urim And Thummim
URIM AND THUMMIM.These denote the two essential parts of the sacred oracle by which in early times the Hebrews sought to ascertain the will of God. Our OT Revisers give as their meaning the Lights and the Perfections (Exo 28:36 RVm [Note: Revised Version margin.] ). This renderingor rather, taking the words as abstract plurals, Light and Perfectionseems to reflect the views of the late Jewish scholars to whom we owe the present vocalization of the OT text; but the oldest reference to the sacred lot suggests that the words express two sharply contrasted ideas. Hence if Thummim, as most believe, denotes innocence, Urim should denote guilta sense which some would give it by connecting it with the verb meaning to curse. Winckler and his followers, on the other hand, start from light as the meaning of Urim, and interpret Thummim as darkness (the completion of the suns course). Urim and Thummim are life and death, yes and no, light and darkness (A. Jeremias, Das AT [Note: Altes Testament.] im Lichte d. alt. Orient 8:2, 450; cf. Benzinger, Heb. Arch. 2 459 f.). There is thus a wide divergence among scholars as to the original signification of the words.
As to the precise nature of these mysterious objects there also exists a considerable, though less marked, divergence of opinion, notwithstanding the numerous recent investigations by British, American, and Continental scholars, of which the two latest are those by Kautzsch in Haucks PRE [Note: RE Real-Encykl. fr protest. Theol. und Kirche] 3xx. 328336 [1907], with literature to date, and MNeile, The Book of Exodus [1908], 181184. The most instructive, as it is historically the oldest, passage dealing with Urim and Thummim is 1Sa 14:41 f., as preserved in the fuller Greek text. The latter runs thus: And Saul said, O J [Note: Jahweh.] God of Israel, why hast thou not answered thy servant this day? If the iniquity be in me or in my son Jonathan, J [Note: Jahweh.] God of Israel, give Urim; but if thou sayest thus. The Iniquity is in thy people Israel, give Thummim. And Saul and Jonathan were taken, but the people escaped, etc. Now, if this passage be compared with several others in the older narratives of Samuel, e.g. 1Sa 23:2-4; 1Sa 30:7-8, 2Sa 2:1, where mention is made of enquiring of the Lord by means of the sacred lot associated with the ephod, the following points emerge: (1) There is good reason, as most scholars admit, for believing that the Urim and Thummim were two lots closely connected in some way, no longer intelligible, with the equally mysterious ephod. (2) As the lots were only two in number, only one question could be put at a time, capable of being answered by a simple yes or no, according to the lot which came out. (3) When, as was the case in 1Sa 14:1-52, the situation was more complicated, it was necessary to agree beforehand as to the significance to be attached to the two lots.
As to the material, shape, etc., of the two lots and the precise method of their manipulation, we are left to conjecture. It seems, on the whole, the most probable view that they were two small stones, either in the shape of dice or in tablet form, perhaps also of different colours. Others, including Kautzsch (op. cit.), favour the view that they were arrows, on the analogy of a well-known Babylonian and Arabian method of divination (cf. Eze 21:21). In addition to the two alternatives above considered, it may be inferred from 1Sa 28:6 that neither lot might be cast. Were they contained within the hollow ephod-image, which was provided with a narrow aperture, so that it was possible to shake the image and yet neither lot come out? (The lot is technically said to fall or come out, the latter Jos 16:1 RV [Note: Revised Version.] , Jos 19:1, etc.) The early narratives above cited show that the manipulation of the sacred lot was a special prerogative of the priests, as is expressly stated in Deu 33:8 (cf. LXX [Note: Septuagint.] ), where the Divine Urim and Thummim are assigned to the priestly tribe of Levi, and confirmed by Ezr 2:63 = Neh 7:65.
In the Priests Code the Urim and Thummim are introduced in Exo 28:30, Lev 8:8, Num 27:21, but without the slightest clue as to their nature beyond the inference as to their small size, to be drawn from the fact that they were to be inserted in the high priests breastplate of judgment (see Breastplate). But this is merely an attempt on the part of the Priestly writer to divest these old-world mysteries of their association with ideas of divination now outgrown, and, moreover, forbidden by the Law. It is, besides, doubtful if P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] was acquainted, any more than ourselves, with the Urim and Thummim of the Books of Samuel, for the passage above cited from Ezr.-Neh. shows that they were unknown in the post-exilic period. In specially placing them within the breastplate of judgment, it is not impossible that P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] was influenced by the analogy of the Babylonian tablets of destiny worn by Marduk on his breast, but the further position that these and the Urim and Thummim were originally one and the same (Muss-Arnoit, Urim and Thummim, 213 and passim), as has been recently maintained, has yet to be proved.
A. R. S. Kennedy.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Urim and Thummim
urim and thumim ( , ha-‘urm weha-tummm (article omitted in Ezr 2:63; Neh 7:65); perhaps light and perfection, as intensive plurals):
1. Definition:
Articles not specifically described, placed in (next to, or on (Hebrew ‘el; Septuagint ep; Samaritan-Hebrew al)) the high priest’s breastplate, called the breast-plate of decision (English Versions of the Bible, judgment). (Exo 28:30; Lev 8:8). Their possession was one of the greatest distinctions conferred upon the priestly family (Deu 33:8; Ecclesiasticus 45:10), and seems to have been connected with the function of the priests as the mouthpiece of Yahweh, as well as with the ceremonial side of the service (Exo 28:30; compare Arabic kahn, soothsayer).
2. Use in the Old Testament:
Through their use, the nature of which is a matter of conjecture, the divine will was sought in national crises, and apparently the future foretold, guilt or innocence established, and, according to one theory, land divided (Babha’ Bathra’ 122a; Sanhedrin 16a). Thus, Joshua was to stand before Eleazar who was to inquire for him after the judgment (decision) of the Urim (Num 27:21). It seems that this means was employed by Joshua in the matter of Achan (Jos 7:14, Jos 7:18) and overlooked in the matter of the Gibeonites (Jos 9:14). Though not specifically mentioned, the same means is in all probability referred to in the accounts of the Israelites consulting Yahweh after the death of Joshua in their warfare (Jdg 1:1, Jdg 1:2; Jdg 20:18, Jdg 20:26-28). The Danites in their migration ask counsel of a priest, perhaps in a similar manner (Jdg 18:5, Jdg 18:7). It is not impossible that even the prophet Samuel was assisted by the Urim in the selection of a king (1Sa 10:20-22). During Saul’s war with the Philistines, he made inquiry of God with the aid of the priest (1Sa 14:36, 1Sa 14:37), Ahijah, the son of Ahitub, who at that time wore the ephod (1Sa 14:3). Although on two important occasions Yahweh refused to answer Saul through the Urim (1Sa 14:37; 1Sa 28:6), it appears (from the Septuagint version of 1Sa 14:41; see below) that he Used the Urim and Thummim successfully in ascertaining the cause of the divine displeasure. The accusation of Doeg and the answer of the high priest (1Sa 22:10, 1Sa 22:13, 1Sa 22:15) suggest that David began to inquire of Yahweh through the priesthood, even while he was an officer of Saul. After the massacre of the priests in Nob, Abiathar fled to the camp of David (1Sa 22:20), taking with him the ephod (including apparently the Urim and Thummim, 1Sa 23:6) which David used frequently during his wanderings (1Sa 23:2-4, 1Sa 23:9-12; 1Sa 30:7, 1Sa 30:8), and also after the death of Saul (2Sa 2:1; 2Sa 5:19, 2Sa 5:23; 2Sa 21:1). After the days of David, prophecy was in the ascendancy, and, accordingly, we find no clear record of the use of the Urim and Thummim in the days of the later kings (compare, however, Hos 3:4; Ecclesiasticus 33:3). Still, in post-exilic times we find the difficult question of the ancestral right of certain priests to eat of the most holy things reserved till there would stand up a priest with Urim and with Thummim (Ezr 2:63; Neh 7:65; 1 Esdras 5:40; Sotah 48b).
3. Older (Traditional) Views:
Though Josephus sets the date for the obsolescence of the Urim and Thummim at 200 years before his time, in the days of John Hyrcanus (Ant., III, viii, 9), the Talmud reckons the Urim and Thummim among the things lacking in the second Temple (Sotah 9 10; Yoma’ 21b; Yeru Kid. 65b). Both Josephus and the Talmud identify the Urim and Thummim with the stones of the breastplate. The former simply states that the stones shone whenever the shekhnah was present at a sacrifice or when the army proceeded to battle.
God declared beforehand by those twelve stones which the high priest bare on his breast, and which were inserted into his breastplate, when they should be victorious in battle; for so great a splendor shone forth from them before the army began to march, that all the people were sensible of God’s being present for their assistance (Ant., III, viii, 9).
The Talmudic explanation suggests that by the illumination of certain letters the divine will was revealed, and that in order to have a complete alphabet, in addition to the names of the tribes, the breastplate bore the names of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. and the words shibhte yeshurun. A later scholar even suggests that the letters moved from their places to form words (Yoma’ 73a,b). Characteristically enough the Talmud prescribes rules and suggestions for the consultation of the non-existing Urim and Thummim: that the one asking must be a man of public importance, that the question must pertain to the public weal; that the priest must face the shekhnah (west); that one question be asked at a time, and so forth (same place).
It is difficult to tell just how much, if anything, of a lingering tradition is reflected in the view that the Urim and Thummim and stones of the breast-plate were identical. In the absence of other ancient clues, however, it is not safe to reject even the guesses of the Jews of the second temple in favor of our own. We do not even know the meaning of the word hoshen, so confidently translated pouch or receptacle by opponents of the older view, without any basis whatever. On the other hand the theory of identification was widespread. Even Philo leans toward it in his De Monarchia, although in his Vita Mosis (iii) he seems to have in mind two small symbols representing Light and Truth embroidered on the cloth of the hoshen or hung round the neck of the high priest, similar to the Egyptian symbol of justice. Another very old view is that the Urim and Thummim consisted of a writing containing the Ineffable Name (Pseudo-Jonathan on Exo 28:20; compare Rashi and Nachmanides at the place).
4. Recent (Critical) Views:
The view most generally held today is that the Urim and Thummim were two sacred lots, one indicating an affirmative or favorable answer, the other a negative or unfavorable answer (Michaelis, Ewald, Wellhausen, Robertson Smith, Driver, G. F. Moore, Kennedy, Muss-Arnolt). The chief support of this view is found, not in the Massoretic Text, but in the reconstruction by Wellhausen and Driver of 1Sa 14:41 ff on the basis of the Septuagint: If this fault be in me or in Jonathan, my son, give Urim (dos delous), and if it be in thy people Israel, give Thummim (dos hosioteta). The following sentence clearly suggests the casting of lots, possibly lots on which the names of Saul and Jonathan were written, and Jonathan was taken. Efforts have been made to support the view that the Urim and Thummim themselves were sacred lots on the basis of analogous customs among other peoples (e.g. pre-Islamic Arabs (Moore in EB) andBabylonians (W. Muss-Arnolt in Jewish Encyclopedia and AJSL, July, 1900)). It must be borne in mind, however, that whatever the lot-theory has to recommend it, it is inconsistent not only with the post-Biblical traditions, but also with the Biblical data. For those who are not inclined to give much weight to the passages connecting the Urim and Thummim with the high priest’s apparel (Exo 28:30; Lev 8:8, both P), there is of course no difficulty in dissociating the two, in spite of the fact that for the use of this system of divination the one thing necessary in the historical passages on which they rely seems to be the ephod. Still, if we are to think of two lots, one called and possibly marked Urim and the other Thummim, it is difficult to get any meaning from the statement (1Sa 14:37; 1Sa 28:6) that Yahweh did not answer Saul on certain occasions, unless indeed we surmise for the occasion the existence of a third nameless blank lot. A more serious difficulty arises from the fact that the answers ascribed to the Urim and Thummim are not always the equivalent of yes or no (compare Jdg 1:2; Jdg 20:18; 1Sa 22:10; 2Sa 5:23; 2Sa 21:1), even if we omit from consideration the instances where an individual is apparently pointed out from all Israel (compare the instances of the detection of Achan and the selection of Saul with that of Jonathan, above).
5. Etymology:
If we turn to etymology for assistance, we are not only on uncertain ground, but when Babylonian and other foreign words are brought in to bolster up a theory abput anything so little understood as the Urim and Thummim, we are on dangerous ground. Thus, Muss-Arnolt is ready with Babylonian words (urtu, command, and tamtu, oracular decision); others suggest tme, the Egyptian image of justice; still others connect Urim with ‘arar, to curse, in order to make it an antonym of tummm, faultlessness. It is generally admitted, however, that, as pointed in the Massoretic Text, the words mean light and perfection, on the basis of which the Talmud (Yoma’ 73b) as well as most of the Greek versions translated them (delosis ka aletheia; photismo ka teleiotetes), although Symmachus in one place (Deu 33:8), who is followed by the Vulgate, connects Urim with the word Torah and understands it to mean doctrine (teleiotes ka didache). Though loth to add to the already overburdened list of conjectures about these words, it appears to the present writer that if Urim and Thummim are antonyms, and Urim means light, it is by no means difficult to connect Thummim with darkness, inasmuch as there is a host of Hebrew stems based on the root -tm, all indicating concealing, closing up, and even darkness (compare , , , , , (see Job 40:13), and even and cognate Arabic words in BDB). This explanation would make Urim and Thummim mean illuminated and dark (compare Caster in Hastings, ERE, IV, 813), and, while fitting well with the ancient theories or traditions, would not be excluded by the recent theory of lots of opposite purport.
Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Urim and Thummim
The signification of these Hebrew words is ‘lights’ and ‘perfections.’ They were distinct from the gems on the breastplate, for Moses put the breastplate upon Aaron, “also he put in [or ‘on’] the breastplate the Urim and the Thummim.” Lev 8:8. It is clear that God answered questions by means of the Urim and Thummim. Num 27:21; Deu 33:8; 1Sa 28:6. On the return of the Jews from Babylon some, who claimed to be priests but could not show their genealogy, were not allowed to eat of the holy things until there should stand up a priest with Urim and Thummim, and an answer be obtained from God. This great privilege has never yet been restored. Ezr 2:63; Neh 7:65.
It may be remarked that there is no record as to the construction of the Urim and Thummim, nor of their form. The first mention of them is in Exo 28:30; “Thou shalt put in [or ‘on’] the breastplate of judgement the Urim and the Thummim; and they shall be upon Aaron’s heart when he goeth in before the Lord,” as if God had given them to Moses, and had merely to tell him what to do with them – if indeed they were material things; but what they were, and how the answers were given, is not revealed. When Israel is restored, Christ Himself will take the place of the ancient Urim and Thummim.
Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary
Urim and Thummim
Signifying light and perfection.
In the breastplate
Exo 28:30; Lev 8:8
Eleazar to ask counsel for Joshua, after the judgment of
Num 27:21
Priests only might interpret
Deu 33:8; Ezr 2:63; Neh 7:65
Israelites consult
Jdg 1:1; Jdg 20:18; Jdg 20:23
Withheld answer from King Saul
1Sa 28:6
Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible
Urim and Thummim
U’rim and Thum’mim. (light and perfection). When the Jewish exiles were met on their return from Babylon by a question which they had no data for answering, they agreed to postpone the settlement of the difficulty till there should rise up “a priest with Urim and Thummim.” Ezr 2:63; Neh 7:65. The inquiry what those Urim and Thummim themselves were seems likely to wait as long for a final and satisfying answer. On every side, we meet with confessions of ignorance. Urim means “light”. and Thummim means “perfection”.
Scriptural statements. — The mysterious words meet us for the first time, as if they needed no explanation, in the description of the high Priest’s apparel. Over the ephod, there is to be a “breastplate of judgment” of gold, scarlet, purple and fine linen, folded square and doubled, a “span” in length and width. In it are to be set four rows of precious stones, each stone with the name of a tribe of Israel engraved on it, that Aaron “may bear them on his heart.”
Then comes a further order. Inside the breastplate, as the tables of the covenant were placed inside the ark, Exo 25:16; Exo 28:30, are to be placed “the Urim and the Thummim,” the light and the perfection; and they too are to be on Aaron’s heart when he goes in before the Lord. Exo 28:15-30. Not a word describes them. They are mentioned as things already familiar both to Moses and the people, connected naturally with the functions of the high priest as mediating between Jehovah and his people. The command is fulfilled. Lev 8:8.
They pass from Aaron to Eleazar with the sacred ephod and other pontificalia. Num 20:28. When Joshua is solemnly appointed to succeed the great hero-law-giver, he is bidden to stand before Eleazar, the priest, “who shall ask counsel for him after the judgment of Urim,” and this counsel is to determine the movements of the host of Israel. Num 27:21. In the blessings of Moses, they appear as the crowning glory of the tribe of Levi: “thy Thummim and thy Urim are with thy Holy One.” Deu 33:8-9.
In what way the Urim and Thummim were consulted is quite uncertain. Josephus and the rabbins supposed that the stones gave out the oracular answer by preternatural illumination; but it seems to be far simpler and more in agreement with the different accounts of inquiries made by Urim and Thummim, 1Sa 14:3; 1Sa 14:18-19; 1Sa 23:2; 1Sa 23:4; 1Sa 23:9; 1Sa 23:11-12; 1Sa 28:6; Jdg 20:28; 2Sa 5:23 etc., to suppose that the answer was given simply by the word of the Lord to the high priest, compare Joh 11:51 when, clothed with the ephod and the breastplate, he had inquired of the Lord. Such a view agrees with the true notion of the breastplate.
Fuente: Smith’s Bible Dictionary
Urim And Thummim
The high priests of the Jews, we are told, consulted God in the most important affairs of their commonwealth, and received answers by the Urim and Thummim. What these were, is disputed among the critics. Josephus, and some others, imagine the answer was returned by the stones of the breastplate appearing with an unusual lustre when it was favourable, or in the contrary case dim. Others suppose, that the Urim and Thummim were something enclosed between the folding of the breastplate; this some will have to be the tetragrammaton, or the word , Jehovah. Christophorus de Castro, and after him Dr. Spencer, maintain them to be two little images shut up in the doubling of the breastplate, which gave the oracular answer from thence by an articulate voice. Accordingly, they derive them from the Egyptians, who consulted their lares, and had an oracle, or teraphim, which they called Truth. This opinion, however, has been sufficiently confuted by the learned Dr. Pococke and by Witsius. The more common opinion among Christians concerning the oracle by Urim and Thummim, and which Dr. Prideaux espouses, is, that when the high priest appeared before the veil, clothed with his ephod and breastplate, to ask counsel of God, the answer was given with an audible voice from the mercy seat, within the veil; but, it has been observed, that this account will by no means agree with the history of David’s consulting the oracle by Abiathar, 1Sa 23:9; 1Sa 23:11; 1Sa 30:7-8; because the ark, on which was the mercy seat, was then at Kirjathjearim; whereas David was in the one case at Ziklag, and in the other in the forest of Hareth. Braunius and Hottinger have adopted another opinion: they suppose, that, when Moses is commanded to put in the breastplate the Urim and Thummim, signifying lights and perfections in the plural number, it was meant that he should make choice of the most perfect set of stones, and have them so polished as to give the brightest lustre; and, on this hypothesis, the use of the Urim and Thummim, or of these exquisitely polished jewels, was only to be a symbol of the divine presence, and of the light and perfection of the prophetic inspiration; and, as such, constantly to be worn by the high priest in the exercise of his sacred function, especially in consulting the oracle.
Michaelis observes: That in making distributions of property, and in cases of disputes relative to meum [mine] and tuum, [thine,] recourse was had to the lot, in default of any other means of decision, will naturally be supposed. The whole land was partitioned by lot; and that, in after times, the lot continued to be used, even in courts of justice, we see from Pro 16:33; Pro 18:18; where we are expressly taught to remember, that it is Providence which maketh the choice, and that therefore we ought to be satisfied with the decision of the lot, as the will of God. It was for judicial purposes, in a particular manner, that the sacred lot called Urim and Thummim was employed; and on this account the costly embroidered pouch, in which the priest carried this sacred lot on his breast, was called the judicial ornament. But was this sacred lot used likewise in criminal trials? Yes, says Michaelis, only to discover the guilty, to convict them; for in the only two instances of its use in such cases which occur in the whole Bible, namely, in Jos 7:14-18, 1Sa 14:37-45, we find the confessions of the two delinquents, Achan and Jonathan, annexed. It appears also to have been used only in the case of an oath being transgressed which the whole people had taken, or the leader of the host in their name, but not in the case of other crimes; for an unknown murder, for example, was not to be discovered by recourse to the sacred lot.
The inner sanctuary, within the veil of the tabernacle, observes Dr. Hales, or most holy place, was called the oracle, 1Ki 6:16, because there the Lord communed with Moses, face to face, and gave him instructions in cases of legal difficulty or sudden emergency, Exo 25:22; Num 7:89; Num 9:8; Exo 33:11; a high privilege granted to none of his successors. After the death of Moses a different mode was appointed for consulting the oracle by the high priest, who put on the breastplate of judgment, a principal part of the pontifical dress, on which were inscribed the words Urim and Thummim, emblematieal of divine illumination; as the inscription on his mitre, Holiness to the Lord, was of sanctification, Exo 28:30-37; Lev 8:8. Thus prepared, he presented himself before the Lord to ask counsel on public matters, not in the inner sanctuary, which he presumed not to enter, except on the great day of national atonement, but without the veil, with his face toward the ark of the covenant, inside; and behind him, at some distance, without the sanctuary, stood Joshua, the judge, or person who wanted the response, which seems to have been given with an audible voice from within the veil, Num 27:21, as in the case of Jos 6:6-15; of the Israelites during the civil war with Benjamin, Jdg 20:27-28; on the appointment of Saul to be king, when he hid himself, 1Sa 10:22-24; of David, 1Sa 22:10; 1Sa 23:2-12; 1Sa 30:8; 2Sa 5:23-24; of Saul, 1Sa 28:6. This mode of consultation subsisted under the tabernacle erected by Moses in the wilderness, and until the building of Solomon’s temple; after which we find no instances of it. The oracles of the Lord were thenceforth delivered by the prophets; as by Ahijah to Jeroboam 1Ki 11:29; by Shemaiah to Rehoboam, 1Ki 12:22; by Elijah to Ahab, 1Ki 17:1; 1Ki 21:17-29; by Michaiah to Ahab and Jehoshaphat, 1Ki 22:7; by Elisha to Jehoshaphat and Jehoram, 2Ki 3:11-14; by Isaiah to Hezekiah, 2Ki 19:6-34; 2Ki 20:1-11; by Huldah to Josiah, 2Ki 22:13-20; by Jeremiah to Zedekiah, Jer 32:3-5, &c. After the Babylonish captivity, and the last of the prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the oracle ceased; but its revival was foretold by Ezr 2:63, and accomplished by Christ, who was himself the oracle, under the old and new covenants, Gen 15:1; Joh 1:1. See BREASTPLATE.