Sometimes I think it would be nice to travel back in time — like back to when the Urim and Thummim was in use* — because then maybe I could get a first hand look at how it worked and what people thought of it. I mean, what do you make of all this?
And in the breastpiece of judgment you shall put the Urim and the Thummim, and they shall be on Aaron's heart, when he goes in before the Lord. Thus Aaron shall bear the judgment of the people of Israel on his heart before the Lord regularly (Ex 28:30).
And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before the Lord. At his word they shall go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he and all the people of Israel with him, the whole congregation (Num 27:21).
Therefore Saul said, “O Lord God of Israel, why have you not answered your servant this day? If this guilt is in me or in Jonathan my son, O Lord, God of Israel, give Urim. But if this guilt is in your people Israel, give Thummim.” And Jonathan and Saul were taken, but the people escaped (2 Sam 14:41).
And when Saul inquired of the Lord, the Lord did not answer him, either by dreams, or by Urim, or by prophets (1 Sam 28:6).
The governor told them that they were not to partake of the most holy food, until there should be a priest to consult Urim and Thummim (Ezra 2:63).
The governor told them that they were not to partake of the most holy food until a priest with Urim and Thummim should arise (Neh 7:65).
I find rather strange. But that's just it. It seems that people back then thought differently than we do today. Theirs was more of an analogical kind of reasoning, meaning they understood best when symbols, metaphors, illustrations and parables were used.**
"... analogic type of reasoning is characteristic of thought in ancient Mesopotamia; cf. G. Contenau, Everyday Life in Babylon and Assyria, London, 1954, pp. 158ff. Inductive, deductive, and syllogistic ways of reasoning were not typical of Mesopotamia (or of the ancient Near East in general)." (The Bible and the Ancient Near East by Cyrus H Gordon and Gary A Rendsburg)
Since God deals with people where they are, perhaps this is one of the reasons He worked so differently with the people of the Bible — and why I sometimes find it puzzling.
*"... although at face value the words are plural, the context suggests they are pluralis intensivus — singular words which are pluralised to enhance their apparent majesty."
And in the breastpiece of judgment you shall put the Urim and the Thummim, and they shall be on Aaron's heart, when he goes in before the Lord. Thus Aaron shall bear the judgment of the people of Israel on his heart before the Lord regularly (Ex 28:30).
And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before the Lord. At his word they shall go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he and all the people of Israel with him, the whole congregation (Num 27:21).
Therefore Saul said, “O Lord God of Israel, why have you not answered your servant this day? If this guilt is in me or in Jonathan my son, O Lord, God of Israel, give Urim. But if this guilt is in your people Israel, give Thummim.” And Jonathan and Saul were taken, but the people escaped (2 Sam 14:41).
And when Saul inquired of the Lord, the Lord did not answer him, either by dreams, or by Urim, or by prophets (1 Sam 28:6).
The governor told them that they were not to partake of the most holy food, until there should be a priest to consult Urim and Thummim (Ezra 2:63).
The governor told them that they were not to partake of the most holy food until a priest with Urim and Thummim should arise (Neh 7:65).
I find rather strange. But that's just it. It seems that people back then thought differently than we do today. Theirs was more of an analogical kind of reasoning, meaning they understood best when symbols, metaphors, illustrations and parables were used.**
"... analogic type of reasoning is characteristic of thought in ancient Mesopotamia; cf. G. Contenau, Everyday Life in Babylon and Assyria, London, 1954, pp. 158ff. Inductive, deductive, and syllogistic ways of reasoning were not typical of Mesopotamia (or of the ancient Near East in general)." (The Bible and the Ancient Near East by Cyrus H Gordon and Gary A Rendsburg)
Since God deals with people where they are, perhaps this is one of the reasons He worked so differently with the people of the Bible — and why I sometimes find it puzzling.
*"... although at face value the words are plural, the context suggests they are pluralis intensivus — singular words which are pluralised to enhance their apparent majesty."
**Some claim that those who believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible — which means each word is given the meaning it would commonly have in everyday usage — can't see the symbolism in the Bible. But this isn't true. Symbols, figures of speech and types are all interpreted plainly, and this is in no way contrary to literal interpretation. Even symbols and figurative sayings have literal meanings behind them.
No comments:
Post a Comment