Divine Communication - Urim and Thummim

When I first came across the Urim and Thummim (the meaning is uncertain, but possibly "lights and perfections", though some say they mean "illuminated and dark"), I thought "what in the world is this?" It all seemed so strange to me.

Of Levi he said, "Let Your Thummim and Your Urim belong to Your godly man, Whom You proved at Massah, With whom You contended at the waters of Meribah" (Deut 33:8).

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).

Not much can be found regarding the Urim and Thummim. The Bible simply doesn't give us enough information. However, we do know that they were part of the breastpiece of judgment (Ex 28:15-30) of the high priest.

The breastpiece was a square piece of beautiful material, folded in half and opened at the top like a pouch and adorned with 12 precious stones (in four rows), on which were engraved the names of the 12 tribes. It was placed over the front of the ephod.*1

Some refer to the Urim and Thummim as simply a collective name for all the stones of the breastpiece, so that the total effect of the twelve stones were to show the "lights and perfections" of Him who is the antitype*2 of Aaron the high priest.

You shall put in the breastpiece of judgment the Urim and the Thummim, and they shall be over Aaron's heart when he goes in before the LORD; and Aaron shall carry the judgment of the sons of Israel over his heart before the LORD continually (Ex 28:30).

However, in Leviticus 8:8 it says —

He then placed the breastpiece on him, and in the breastpiece he put the Urim and the Thummim.

— which seems to say that the Urim and Thummim were additional to the stones of the breastpiece. So they may have been two precious, and rather mysterious, stones on or in the high priest's garments.

And the Urim and Thummim were sometimes used to determine the will of God. Nobody is sure how this was done. Some say that the stones shone whenever God was present (or shekhinah, meaning "a visible manifestation of the divine presence") at a sacrifice or when the army proceeded to battle. Others suggest God would cause them to light up in varying patterns to reveal His decision, or that the Urim and Thummim were engraved with symbols identifying yes/no and true/false and cast like lots to determine God's will. But all of these are merely speculation.

However, Scripture does indicate that the Urim and Thummim were only used for questions of great importance, usually connected to the function of the state, such as whether and when to go to war. And in the book of Numbers, when Joshua succeeded Moses as leader over Israel, we see that he was to receive answers from God by means of the Urim through Eleazar the High Priest.

"Moreover, he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before the LORD. At his command they shall go out and at his command they shall come in, both he and the sons of Israel with him, even all the congregation" (Num 27:21).

When I was researching what Ezra 2:62-63 (and Neh 7:65, which overlaps with Ezra 2:63) was all about, it seemed that by this time the Urim and Thummim were on their way out:

Now these are those who came up from Tel-melah, Tel-harsha, Cherub, Addan and Immer, but they were not able to give evidence of their fathers' households and their descendants, whether they were of Israel: the sons of Delaiah, the sons of Tobiah, the sons of Nekoda, 652. Of the sons of the priests: the sons of Habaiah, the sons of Hakkoz, the sons of Barzillai, who took a wife from the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and he was called by their name. These searched among their ancestral registration, but they could not be located; therefore they were considered unclean and excluded from the priesthood. The governor said to them that they should not eat from the most holy things until a priest stood up with Urim and Thummim. (Ezra 2:59-63).

The Jews were always very exact in their genealogies in order to preserve the distinctions of the tribes and families, which was necessary to make out their titles to inheritances and to govern themselves in the matter of marriages. This was also by special providence of God so that it would be known into which tribe and family the Messiah was born.

But in about 451 BC, when the Jewish exiles were beginning to return to Jerusalem to restore it and rebuild the Temple (Ezra 2:59-63), there were some individuals who were unable to prove that they were descended from the priesthood. So, they were set aside until priests in possession of the Urim and Thummim were discovered, that they might determine God's mind in the matter. This seems to imply that the Urim and Thummim had already been lost.

Talmudic sources (the Talmud, the central text of mainstream Judaism, is a record of rabbinic discussions pertaining to Jewish law, ethics, customs, and history) are unanimous in agreeing that the Urim and Thummim were lost much earlier, most likely when Jerusalem was sacked by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar II in 586 BC. Indeed, because the priestly source (which scholars date to a couple of centuries prior to the captivity) doesn't appear to even know what the Urim and Thummim looked like, and because there is no mention of the Urim and Thummim beyond the death of David, biblical scholars suspect they fell out of use some time before the Babylonian conquest, probably due to a growing reliance on the prophets.

Additionally, by the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, the Jews had the nearly completed canon of the Old Testament, which was better than the Urim and Thummim. And the ark does not appear to have been in the second Temple. All of these shadows had disappeared by degrees as the coming of Jesus Christ drew nearer.


*1 The ephod was a beautiful, two-piece, sleeveless garment, held to the body by a woven band (Ex 28:8) and joined at the shoulders by straps. On the straps were two onyx stones (possibly emeralds), with the names of six tribes on each stone.

*2 A type is a picture or illustration that looks forward to its fulfillment in the form of a person, event, or object. For every type there is an antitype. An antitype is the fulfillment of the type — most find their fulfillment in Jesus Christ. For example, Aaron was a type because he was the first high priest, and Jesus Christ is the antitype because He is the eternal high priest and therefore the fulfillment of the type. A type is identified as such in Scripture.

I Will Rise

There's a peace I've come to know
Though my heart and flesh may fail
There's an anchor for my soul
I can say "It is well"

Jesus has overcome
And the grave is overwhelmed
The victory is won
He is risen from the dead

[Chorus:]
And I will rise when He calls my name
No more sorrow, no more pain
I will rise on eagles' wings
Before my God fall on my knees
And rise
I will rise

There's a day that's drawing near
When this darkness breaks to light
And the shadows disappear
And my faith shall be my eyes

Jesus has overcome
And the grave is overwhelmed
The victory is won
He is risen from the dead

[Chorus:]
And I will rise when He calls my name
No more sorrow, no more pain
I will rise on eagles' wings
Before my God fall on my knees
And rise
I will rise

And I hear the voice of many angels sing,
"Worthy is the Lamb"
And I hear the cry of every longing heart,
"Worthy is the Lamb"

[Chorus:]
And I will rise when He calls my name
No more sorrow, no more pain
I will rise on eagles' wings
Before my God fall on my knees
And rise
I will rise


lyrics by Chris Tomlin

Unwanted vistor

A man, down on his luck, went into a church which catered to the "uppity". Spotting the man's dirty clothes a deacon, worried about the churches image, went to the man and asked him if he needed help. The man said, "I was praying and the Lord told me to come to this church."

The deacon suggested that the man go pray some more and possibly he might get a different answer. The next Sunday the man returned. The deacon asked, "Did you get a different answer?"

The man replied, "Yes I did. I told the Lord that they don't want me in that church and the Lord said, 'Don't worry about it son; I've been trying to get into that church for years and haven't made it yet."

1 John 1:9 cont.

John's epistles were written around 90 AD. At this point in history, the temple had already been destroyed and John was an old man.

The overall message of John's epistles is the humanity of Christ (1 Jn 4:2, 3; 2 Jn 7). It is commonly held that at the time John wrote these books, Gnosticism had begun to infiltrate the church assemblies. And one of the reasons these epistles were written was to counteract these heretical teachings.

Gnosticism (after the Greek word gnôsis, meaning "knowledge" or "insight") flourished in the first and second centuries AD. Among its teachings were that (1) the nonliteral interpretation of Scripture is correct and can be understood only by a select few, (2) transcendental or intuitional knowledge (roughly translated as meaning ‘to look inside’ or ‘to contemplate’) is superior to virtue, (3) God could not be the only creator because evil exists in the world, (4) all matter is evil, only spirit is good, (5) the incarnation is unbelievable because deity cannot unite itself with anything material such as a body, and (6) there is no resurrection of the flesh.

Today we find some of these same doctrines taught through such groups as the Christian Scientists and other metaphysical "churches."

Another reason for writing these epistles was to make clear the distinguishing features of those who are born of God in contrast to those which mark the children of the evil one.

So as we begin the book of 1 John we read:

What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life--(v 1-2).

"What" is referring to the Word Himself, Jesus Christ. "From the beginning" means from eternity, being equivalent with "in the beginning" in John 1:1. Regarding "concerning the Word of Life", Jesus Christ is termed the "Word" (John 1:1) and the "Life" (John 1:4); because He is the living Word of God.

The Gnostics denied that an actual physical human body of the Lord Jesus ever existed. It was declared to have been visible but not real. Jesus' deity was also denied. It seems John starts his first letter seeking to dispel this Gnostic heresy by stating that Jesus Christ is the living Word of God and that he (John) was an eye-witness. John, with the other apostles, had walked and talked with Jesus when He was on the earth. Indeed, John had seen the risen Christ and with his own hands had touched His wounds (Jn 20:19-21:25). So, to the assembly he is saying, I was there! And I saw and touched Jesus Christ, and heard and believed what He said.

John goes on to say, "and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us--what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete" (v 3-4). Right from the beginning John seems to be appealing to unbelievers in the assembly, that they too might come into fellowship with the apostles and ultimately with the Father and the Son.

John expounds further on the message itself in verses 5-7. The contrast between light and darkness—between believer and unbeliever—characterizes this section.

This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin (v 5-7).

Another prominent teaching of the Gnostics was that we don't have a sin nature, or even if we did, it doesn't matter. And when we look at the verses before and after verse 9, we see that John addresses that heresy, "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us (v 8)." and "If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us (v 10)." Second John 1 and 2 help to clarify that these verses are written about unbelievers:

The elder to the chosen lady and her children, whom I love in truth; and not only I, but also all who know the truth, for the sake of the truth which abides in us and will be with us forever (2 John 1,2).

Compare these verses with 1 John 1:8, which says, "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us." If the truth abides in us as believers and will be with us forever, then can we ever say that the truth is not in us? How can these two verses both be referring to the believer? It only makes sense that those who claim to be without sin in 1 John 1:8 are lost.

Which of course brings us to 1 John 1:9, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." Some say that verses 8 and 10 are merely contrasts to verse 9 and that verse 9 is indeed for the Christian. But that certainly is a stretch, especially considering the content of the verse itself. I believe it makes much more sense to interpret it as being for the unbeliever as well.

Dr. John Best, a foremost Greek language professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, had for years accepted the common explanation that 1 John 1:9 is written to the Christian. However, when he investigated deeper, he is now certain that it is written to the unbeliever. He explains it like this:

First of all, it is addressed to the lost Gnostics who claim to be without sin. To them the Apostle John states, "If we [an editorial we] claim to be without sin, we are deceiving ourselves and God's truth is not in us." Now for the "if." In 1 John 1:9, the phrase, "if we confess our sins," is classified as a third-class conditional clause, which means that the condition stated by the "if" clause is in question. The Apostle John was not sure whether or not the Gnostics would agree with God concerning their sins and turn to Him for salvation. The Greek structure of this passage forces the following interpretation: "I don't know if you are ever going to come to your senses or not and agree with God concerning your sins. But, if at anytime—today, tomorrow, or whenever—you should decide to turn to Him, God can be depended upon to have forgiven your sins and to have cleansed you of all unrighteousness." (Note the past tense.)

So, 1 John in context appears to have been written to an assembly that included both believers and unbelieving Gnostics, and 1 John 1:9 was written to these unbelievers, not the believers. It is similar to when my pastor invites those in the congregation who have never placed their faith in Jesus Christ to do so. And although many believers are listening and being built up in their faith, his appeal is to the unbelievers.

This is the only interpretation that makes sense to me, and it does not violate the interpretation of other post-cross Scripture.

Panmelodicon

Conradin Kreutzer or Kreuzer (November 22, 1780 – December 14, 1849), not to be confused with French violinist Rodolphe Kreutzer, to whom Beethoven famously dedicated a sonata, was a German composer and conductor and well known in his day but neglected since his death.

He learned music theory and several instruments when he was young and briefly studied law at the end of the 1790s at the insistance of his father, but his death in 1800 freed Kreutzer to pursue a musical career. By 1804 he showed up in Vienna, where he met Haydn and probably studied with Albrechtsberger. It was during this period that Kreutzer composed several stage works, mostly in the singspiel style, but he had little success getting them performed. So he supported himself by giving lessons, and touring Germany demonstrating Franz Leppich's musical contraption, the panmelodicon.

The panmelodicon was rather like a harmonica with a keyboard, but not the kind of harmonica most people think of. Harmonica is also a generic term given to musical instruments where sound is produced by friction upon glass bells.

Glass-harmonicas originated in the fashionable 18th century instrument known as musical glasses (or verrillon). An Irishman, Richard Pockrich, came up with the idea of musical glasses and first played the instrument in public in Dublin in 1743 and the next year in England. E. H. Delaval is also credited with the invention.

The verrillon or Glassspiel consisted of 18 beer glasses arranged on a board covered with a cloth, with water being poured in when necessary to change the pitch. The glasses, covered over with silk or cloth, were gently struck on both sides with two long wooden sticks shaped like spoons. It is said that the instrument was used for church and other solemn music.

An orchestral concert was given at the little theatre in the Haymarket in London in April 1746 where a concerto was performed on musical glasses. When Benjamin Franklin visited London in 1757, he was so taken with the instrument's beautiful tone, that he decided to work on a mechanical application of it. He was successful and finished the glass harmonica in 1762.

In Franklin's instrument, the glass bowls were mounted on a rotating spindle, the largest to the left, and their under-edges passed during each revolution through a water-trough. By applying the fingers to the moistened edges, sound was produced that varied in intensity with the pressure, so that a good player could produce a certain amount of expression. It is said that "the timbre was extremely enervating, and, together with the vibration caused by the friction on the finger-tips, exercised a highly deleterious effect on the nervous system."

For many years the instrument was in great vogue, not only in England but on the Continent of Europe, and especially in Saxony, where it was given a place in the court orchestra. And Mozart, Beethoven, Naumann and Hasse all composed music for it.

As time went by, improvements were made; one of which was Franz Leppich's panmelodicon in 1810 that Kreutzer demonstrated all over Germany.

Though nothing now remains of this instrument, there are numerous specimens of Franklin's type in Europe's museums for musical instruments. One specimen by Emanuel Pohl, a Bohemian maker, can be found in the Victoria and Albert Museum in London.

Anyway, back to Kreutzer. He did end up finding some success when he settled in Stuttgart — at least three of his operas were staged there in 1811-1812. He was also awarded the post of Hofkapellmeister. And when political tensions drove Kreutzer from Stuttgart in 1816, he toured repeatedly and took a series of Kapellmeister posts. He ultimately hooked up with theaters in Vienna and was finally able to successfully produce his operas.

A few of Kreutzer's songs are still performed and recorded from time to time, but today he is known (if at all) mainly for his Septet for winds and strings, Op. 62 (which is beautiful, IMHO).

However, if you care to look into some of his other works, you may want to try one of his operas, Das Nachtlager in Granada, or Der Verschwender, both produced in 1834. In fact, Kreutzer owes his fame almost exclusively to Das Nachtlager in Granada because it kept the stage for half a century even though people's musical tastes had changed. It is described as having a beautiful melody with great depth of feeling.

Happy Father's Day, Dad!

Over the years
As we grow old,
We remember our father
So brave and bold.

In the garden,
Leaning on the plow,
He would listen to me;
I see him now.

He would give advice
And understand;
He was always there
To lend a hand.

God made fathers
Strong and firm,
For he knew our lives
Would have great concerns.

So he gave us fathers
To teach us to pray,
And guide our lives,
And show us the way.

So on his day
Let's take the time
To say "Thanks, dad.
I'm glad you're mine."


poem by Mary Frances Bogle

Human government

Today has been a beautiful, sunny day. Compared to what we had yesterday — severe thunderstorms — today was gorgeous, if a bit muggy. Yesterday's storms had gotten so violent at one point that my daughter and I had to huddle in the basement for about 1/2 hour because the tornado warning siren had sounded. All in all, very exciting. But I know I wouldn't have felt the same way if we had experienced damage of any sort...or worse.

So yesterday, while it poured outside, I spent most of my time inside reading the final proofs of my husband's latest handbook for adults. This particular one is a survey of the first half of the OT. He's an excellent writer, by the way, and I'm not a bit partial...much.

One thing he wrote that particularly interested me was that there was a period of time after the fall when animals were not afraid of humans. I had always assumed that animals' fear of man started immediately after the fall. But there it was in Genesis 9:2-4.

The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given. "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. "Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

So before the flood, harmony between man and animals still existed. It was after the flood that fear and terror replaced that harmony.

It was also at that time that God established the death penalty (Gen 9:5-6), which implies some form of government. And if governments were authorized to administer capital punishment, they were certainly authorized to give out lesser penalties as well.

God has never rescinded the rule of human government. Paul makes this very clear in Rom 13:1-7:

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

But even though we're still to be subject to human government, God did have to make additional changes later on because man failed to live righteously under governments, just as he failed to live righteously when ruled by his own conscience before the flood. Oh the very sad story of man.