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.

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 יהוה , 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.

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.

(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).

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.

By: Emil G. Hirsch, W. Muss-Arnolt, Wilhelm Bacher, Ludwig Blau

—Biblical Data:

Objects connected with the breastplate of the high priest, and used as a kind of divine oracle. Since the days of the Alexandrian translators of the Old Testament it has been asserted that mean "revelation and truth" (δήλωσις καὶ ἀλήθεια), or "lights and perfections" (φωτισμοὶ καὶ τελεότητες); the τελειότης καὶ διδαχή of Symmachus (Jerome, "perfectio et doctrina"; Field, "Hexapla" on Deut. xxxiii. 8); and the φωτισμοί καὶ τελειώσεις of Aquila and Theodotion. The Vulgate has "doctrina [after Symmachus; Old Latin, "ostensio" or "demonstratio"] et veritas." There is, however, no foundation for such a view in the Bible itself. Ex. xxviii. 13-30 describes the high-priestly ephod and the breastplate with the Urim and Thummim. It is called a "breastplate of judgment" ("ḥoshen ha-mishpaṭ"); it is four-square and double; and the twelve stones were not put inside the ḥoshen, but on the outside. It is related in Lev. viii. 7-8 that when, in compliance with the command in Ex. xxix. 1-37, Moses consecrated Aaron and his sons as priests, "He [Moses] put upon him [Aaron] the coat, and girded him with the girdle, and clothed him with the robe, and put the ephod upon him, and he girded him with the cunningly woven band [A. V. "curious girdle"] of the ephod, and bound it unto him therewith. And he put the breastplate upon him: and in the breastplate he put the Urim and the Thummim." Deut. xxxiii. 8 (R. V.), in the blessing of Moses, reads: "And of Levi he said: Thy Thummim and thy Urim are with thy godly one, whom thou didst prove at Massah, with whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah" (see Steuernagel, "Deuteronomium," p. 125, Göttingen, 1898; Bertholet, "Deuteronomium," p. 106, Freiburg, 1899; Driver, "Deuteronomy," in "International Critical Commentary," p. 398, New York, 1895; Baudissin, "Gesch. des Alttestamentlichen Priesterthums," p. 76). The most important passage is I Sam. xiv. 41, where Wellhausen and Driver have corrected the text, on the basis of the Septuagint, to read as follows: "And Saul said: Lord, God of Israel, why hast thou not answered thy servant this day? If this iniquity be in me or in Jonathan my son, Lord, God of Israel, give Urim; but if it be in thy people Israel, give Thummim. Then Jonathan and Saul were taken by lot; and the people escaped" (Driver, "Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel," p. 89, Oxford, 1890; Budde, "The Books of Samuel," in Polychrome Bible, p. 63; H. P. Smith, "The Books of Samuel," p. 122; Kirkpatrick, "The First Book of Samuel," in "The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges," 1891, p. 137).

I Sam. xxviii. 3-6 mentions three methods of divine communication: (1) the dream-oracle, of which frequent mention is made also in Assyrian and Babylonian literature; (2) the oracle by means of the Urim (here, undoubtedly, an abbreviation for "Urim and Thummim"); (3) the oracle by the word of the Prophets, found among all Semitic nations.

The only other mention of actual consultation of Yhwh by means of the Urim and Thummim found in the Old Testament is in Num. xxvii. 21. Eleazar was then high priest, and Moses was permitted by the Lord to address Him directly. But Joshua and his successors could speak to the Lord only through the mediation of the high priest and by means of the Urim and Thummim. It is quite probable that the age of Ezra and Nehemiah was no longer cognizant of the nature of the Urim and Thummim (Ezra ii. 63; Neh. vii. 65; see also I Macc. iv. 46, xiv. 41). Post-exilic Israel had neither the sacred breastplate nor the Urim and Thummim. Ezra ii. 63 tacitly contradicts the assertion of Josephus ("Ant." iii. 8, § 9, end) that the Urim and Thummim first failed in the Maccabean era (B. Niese, "Flavii Josephi Opera," i. 202; see also Soṭah ix. 12; Tosef., Soṭah, xiii. 2; Yer. Ḳid. iv. 1; Ryle, "Ezra and Nehemiah," p. 32). Ecclus. (Sirach) xxxiii. 3 may possibly prove a knowledge of the tradition concerning the use of the Urim and Thummim; but it can not be inferred that answers were received at that time by means of them (V. Ryssel, in Kautzsch, "Apokryphen," p. 394).

Answer "Yes" or "No."

The Urim and Thummim are implied, also, whereever in the earlier history of Israel mention is made of asking counsel of the Lord by means of the ephod (Josh. ix. 14; Judges i. 1-2; xx. 18 [rejected as a later gloss from ib. i. 1 by most commentators], 26-28; I Sam. x. 22; xiv. 3, 18, 36 et seq.; xxii. 10, 13; xxiii. 2, 4, 6, 9-12; xxviii. 6; xxx. 7 et seq.; II Sam. ii. 1; v. 19, 23 et seq.; xxi. 1. On the nature of the ephod see G. F. Moore, "Judges," 1895, pp. 380-399, where copious references and the literature are given; idem, "Ephod," in Cheyne and Black, "Encyc. Bibl."; and especially T. C. Foote, "The Ephod," in "Jour. Bib. Lit." [1902] xxi. 1-48). In all cases except I Sam. x. 22 and II Sam. v. 23 et seq., the answer is either "Yes" or "No." It has been suggested by Riehm and others that these two passages have undergone editorial changes. After the death of David no instance is mentioned in the Old Testament of consulting the Lord by means of the Urim and Thummim or the ephod. This desuetude is undoubtedly occasioned by the growing influence of the Old Testament prophecy.

The ancient, and most of the modern, explanations of these mysterious instruments through which Yhwh communicated His will to His chosen people identify them with (a) stones in the high priest's breastplate, (b) sacred dice, and (c) little images of Truth and Justice such as are found round the neck of the mummy of an Egyptian priest (see Muss-Arnolt, "The Urim and Thummim," in "Am. Jour. Semit. Lang." July, 1900, pp. 199-204). The "Tablets of Destiny" which occur in the Assyro-Babylonian account of Creation and otherwise figure in Assyro-Babylonian conceptions suggest the correct explanation of the Hebrew Urim and Thummim. One of the functions ascribed to the Babylonian seer was to deliver oracles and to consult the god, whose answer was either "Yes" or "No." Quite often the god sends to his people an "urtu," a command to do, or not to do, something. "Urtu" belongs to the samestem from which is derived "ertu," the "terminus technicus" for "oracle." The gods speak ("tamu, utammu") to the priest the oracle which they reveal; and the oracle is called "the mysterious word, revelation." Since God "at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past," not only unto the fathers by the Prophets, but to all mankind in ways which it is now almost impossible to trace precisely, it is quite possible that the mythological account of the Tablets of Destiny and the Old Testament Urim and Thummim, both shaping the destiny of king and nation, revert to the same fountainhead and origin. Notwithstanding the fragmentary account of Babylonian literature and the scanty report of Old Testament writers, some points common to both may yet be gathered.

Babylonian Accounts.

(1) According to Ex. xxviii. 30 and Lev. viii. 8, the Urim and Thummim rested within the breastplate, that is, on the breast of the high priest; in the Babylonian account the Tablets of Destiny rested on the breast of their possessor. Only so long as they were resting on the breast of the god in the case of the one nation, and on the breast of the high priest in that of the other, were they efficacious.

(2) In the Babylonian accounts, only those gods who, in some way, were considered the messengers and mediators between the other gods and mankind were the lawful possessors of the Tablets of Destiny. In Israel the Urim and Thummim were entrusted by Yhwh to Moses, and through him to the high priest as the representative of Yhwh and as the mediator between God and the nation to whose decisions, through the Urim and Thummim, even kings bowed.

(3) There is, to be sure, in the Babylonian records no statement as to the exact number of the Tablets of Destiny. It is known that there were more than one; it may not be too hazardous to assume that there were only two, one lying on each breast: one revealing (or prognosticating ?) good fortune; the other, misfortune. The Old Testament accounts of the Urim and Thummim indicate that there were only two objects (lots ?).

(4) Marduk, after he had torn the Tablets of Destiny from the breast of his dead foe, sealed them with his own seal. There may be a reminiscence of this in Ex. xxviii. 21. The use of twelve stones, one for each of the twelve tribes, in addition to the two lots (of stone), is perhaps of some significance in this connection.

(5) Marduk, bearing on his breast the Tablets of Destiny, presided at the annual assembly of the gods, where the fate was determined and the lot was cast for king and nation. It is the general opinion that the Urim and Thummim were consulted only in cases where the safety of king or nation was concerned.

In Israel the development of a strict monotheism necessarily modified the conception of the Urim and Thummim. No description of them is found in the Old Testament; they are mentioned as something familiar both to Moses and to the people—an inheritance received from the time of their ancestors. The very fact that the Old Testament assumes that Moses and the people were acquainted with the nature of the Urim and Thummim confirms the view that the latter were naturally connected with the functions of the high priest as the mediator between Yhwh and His people.

Etymology of the Words.

The etymology of and , suggested by Zimmern and others, supports the explanation given here. The so-called plural ending of the wo words expresses the "pluralis intensivus," plurals only in form, but not in meaning. "Urim" may be connected not with = "curse, put under the ban," as Schwally and others have held, but with the Babylonian "u'uru," the infinitive of the "pi'el" of "a'aru," from which are derived also the nouns "urtu" = "command, order, decision" (usually of the gods) and "tertu" (originally with the same meaning). These words occur frequently in Assyro-Babylonian literature in sentences analogous in form to those in which "Urim and Thummim" are used in the Old Testament. The plural ("fires") has no doubt had some influence in shaping the analogous form = "urtu." the present writer connects with the Assyrian "tamu," pi'el "tummu," verbal forms also belonging to the oracular language. "Urim and Thummim" correspond, then, to the Babylonian "urtu" and "tamitu," the latter a synonym of "piristu" = "oracle, oracular decision [of the gods]." That the original meaning of the two words and their significance were known even at the time when the Old Testament records, in which they are mentioned, were written is exceedingly doubtful; that they were not known either to the Greek translators or to the early Masorites is practically certain.

Bibliography:

In addition to works and articles mentioned in the body of the article, Buxtorf, Historia Urim et Thummim, in his Exercitationes, pp. 267 et seq., and in Ugolini, Thesaurus, vol. xii.;

Spencer, De Legibus Hebrœorum Ritualibus, 1685;

Ludwig Diestel, Gesch. des Alten Testamentes in der Christlichen Kirche, Jena, 1869;

idem, Urim, in Herzog-Haupt, Real-Encyc. xvi. 746 et seq., revised for 2d ed., xvi. 226 et seq., by Kautzsch;

Bähr, Symbolik, ii. 134-141;

W. Robertson Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, 2d ed., p. 292, London, 1895;

Baudissin, Die Geschichte des Alttestamentlichen Priesterthums Untersucht, 1889, pp. 26, 27, 140, 141;

Benzinger, Arch. 1894, pp. 382, 407, 408;

Winer, B. R. 3d ed., ii. 643-648;

Wittichen, in Schenkel's Bibel-Lexikon (1869), ii. 403;

Steiner, ib. (1875) v. 851-853;

G. Klaiber, Das Priesterliche Orakel der Israeliten, Stuttgart, 1865;

Riehm, Handwörterbuch, 2d ed., i. 914-918;

Stade, Geschichte, 2d ed., i. 156, 471-473, 505-506, 517-518. Additional literature is found in Knobel, Der Prophetismus der Hebräer, i. 5, No. 2;

Hancock, The Urim and the Thummim, in Old Testament Student, March, 1884, iii. 252-256 (is quite unsatisfactory);

Dosker, The Urim and Thummim, in Presbyterian and Reformed Review, Oct., 1892, pp. 717-736;and in

T. Witton Davies, Magic, Divination, and Demonology, 1898. A very convenient summary is given by Kirkpatrick in The First Book of Samuel, pp. 217, 218, to which may be added the article Urim and Thummim, in Smith, Dictionary of the Bible, iii. 1600-1606, London, 1893;

A. R. S. Kennedy, Urim and Thummim, in Hastings, Dict. Bible, iv. 835-841, New York, 1902;

and Paul Haupt, Babylonian Elements in the Levitical Ritual, in Jour. Bib. Lit. 1900, xix. 58, 72 et seq.

—In Rabbinical Literature:

Tradition is unanimous in stating that the use of the Urim and Thummim ceased with the destruction of the First Temple, or, in other words, with the death of the Older Prophets; and they were among the five things lacking in the Second Temple (Soṭah ix. 10 [= 48b]; Yoma 21b; Yer. Ḳid. 65b). Josephus states ("Ant." iii. 8, § 9) that "this oracle had been silent" for 200 years before his time, or from the daysof John Hyrcanus. The teachers of the Talmud, however, if their own statements may be believed, had never seen the Urim and Thummim, and regarded them as the "great and holy name of God" written on the breastplate of the high priest (Targ. pseudo-Jonathan to Ex. xxviii. 30); and they etymologize "Urim" as "those whose words give light," while "Thummim" is explained as "those whose words are fulfilled" (ib.; Yoma 73b; Yer. Yoma 44c).

Mode of Consultation.

The oracle was consulted in the following manner: The high priest donned his eight garments, and the person for whom he sought an answer stood facing him, while he himself turned toward God (i.e., the Shekinah). It was necessary that the question should be brief and that it should be pronounced, but not aloud; while the answer was a repetition of the query, either in the affirmative or in the negative. Only one question might be asked at a time; if more than one were put, the first alone received a reply. The answer was given by the letters of the names of the tribes which were engraved upon the high priest's breastplate (Yoma 73a, b; Yer. Yoma 44c; Sifre, Num. 141). If the question was not distinctly worded, the reply might be misunderstood, as in Judges xx. 18 et seq. (Sheb. 35b; Yoma 73b). A decision by the oracle might be demanded only by the king, or by the chief of the highest court, or by a prominent man within the community, such as a general of the army, and it might be sought only for the common weal (Yoma 7, end, 73a: "one anointed for war"; Targ. pseudo-Jonathan to Ex. xxviii. 30: "in case of need"). According to Targ. pseudo-Jonathan to Ex. xxviii., the breastplate was used to proclaim victory in battle. It was necessary that the high priest who questioned the oracle should be a man upon whom the Shekinah rested (Yoma 73b).

The characteristic feature of the Shekinah was radiance; and Josephus, who believed that God was present at every sacrifice, even when offered by Gentiles, states that the oracles were revealed through rays of light:

Relation to the Shekinah. ("Ant." iii. 8, § 9, Whiston's transl.).

"But as to those stones, which we told you before, the high priest bare on his shoulders . . . the one of them shined out when God was present at their sacrifices . . . bright rays darting out thence; and being seen even by those that were most remote; which splendor yet was not before natural to the stone. . . . Yet will I mention what is still more wonderful than this; for 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. Whence it came to pass that those Greeks who had a veneration for our laws, because they could not possibly contradict this, called that breastplate the Oracle"

The Talmudic concept seems to have been identical with the view of Josephus, holding that the reply of the Urim and Thummim was conveyed by rays of light. Two scholars of the third century, however, who had lost the vividness of the earlier concept, gave the explanation that those stones of the breastplate which contained the answer of the oracle either stood out from the others or formed themselves into groups (Yoma 73b).

The division of the country was made according to the Urim and Thummim, since the high priest, "filled with the Holy Spirit," proclaimed the tribe to which each division should belong. After this, lots were drawn from two urns, one containing the name of the tribe and the other that of the territory, and these were found to harmonize with the high priest's announcement (B. B. 122a; Sanh. 16a; comp. Yer. Yoma 41b, below). To enlarge the Holy City or the Temple court the orders of the king, of a prophet, and of the Urim and Thummim were necessary (Sheb. 2, 3, 16a; Yer. Sheb. 33d, below). In Yer. Sanh. 19b the question is propounded why the Urim and Thummim are needed when a prophet is present.

Bibliography:

Winer, B. R. ii. 644-645;

Hamburger, R. B. T. i. 1002-1004;

Herzog-Plitt, Real-Encyc. xvi. 226-233;

Hastings, Dict. Bible, iv. 840-841;

M. Duschak, Josephus Flavius und die Tradition, pp. 5-7, Vienna, 1864.

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 rendering—or rather, taking the words as abstract plurals, ‘Light and Perfection’—seems 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 ‘guilt’—a 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 sun’s 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 Hauck’s PRE [Note: RE Real-Encykl. für protest. Theol. und Kirche] 3xx. 328–336 [1907], with literature to date, and M’Neile, The Book of Exodus [1908], 181–184. 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 priest’s ‘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.

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

ū´rim and thum´im (והתּמּים האוּרים, hā-’ūrı̄m w^eha-tummı̄m (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 epı́; 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 kahı̄n, “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 (Bābhā’ Bathrā’ 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; Ṣōtāh 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 (Ṣōtāh 9 10; Yōmā’ 21b; Y^eru Ḳid. 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 sh^ekhı̄nāh 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 shibhṭē y^eshūrun. A later scholar even suggests that the letters moved from their places to form words (Yōmā’ 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 sh^ekhı̄nāh (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 ḥōshen, 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 ḥōshen 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 (dós dḗlous), and if it be in thy people Israel, give Thummim (dós hosiótēta).” 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 tamı̄tu, “oracular decision”); others suggest tmē, the Egyptian image of justice; still others connect Urim with ’ārar, to curse,” in order to make it an antonym of tummı̄m, “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 (Yōmā’ 73b) as well as most of the Greek versions translated them (dḗlōsis kaı́ alḗtheia; phōtismoı́ kaı́ teleiótētes), although Symmachus in one place (Deu 33:8), who is followed by the Vulgate, connects Urim with the word Tōrāh and understands it to mean “doctrine” (teleiótēs kaı́ didachḗ). 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 אטם, חטם, חתם, עתם, טמה, טמן (see Job 40:13), סתם and תמם 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.

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 God’s will in matters requiring a clear-cut decision.

In seeking God’s 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’.)