Urim, Thummim, and the Danger of Misinterpretation

The mystical interpretations some pastors preach never ceases to amaze me.

I was tuned to a different radio station while running late for work one day this week. Because of the later time, I was able to hear a preacher I would not normally catch. I did not know who this preacher was but I was not really surprised that I heard some truly poor exposition that I felt I needed to address for two reasons: 1) to correct the poor handling of Scripture, and 2) to show how a mishandling of Scripture moves the preacher off the topic of Christ. When any teaching is the product of poor hermeneutics, the teaching becomes mystical and the preacher becomes a something of a preaching magician. While the congregation "ooos" and "ahhs" over his magical skills in interpretation they for forget that, like any magic show, it is all just an act.

The sermon I was listening to was being shared by Jon Courson, who I really do not know much about. In fact, I forced myself to listen to the whole program so I could find out who was preaching. I have heard his name but have never really heard him preach before. I am not attacking his person; I know nothing about this man. But I feel I must say something about this teaching. Much like Paul confronting Peter when Peter was wrong, I feel I should do the same (Galatians 2:11-21)

Jon was teaching on the urim and thummim mentioned in Scripture. I say "mentioned" because there are only seven verses in all of Scripture that refer to thummim and/or urim (Exodus 28:30, Leviticus 8:8, Numbers 27:21, Deuteronomy 33:8, 1 Samuel 28:6, Ezra 2:63, Nehemiah 7:65). There is nothing in Scripture that tells us what the urim and thummim were or how they were used. Yet, Pastor Courson provided vivid detail on what these were and how God used them.

He indicated that they were stones on the breastplate of the priest (Exodus 28:30 tells us they were to placed in the breastplate but it does not indicate they were stones). He went on to teach that God would actually light up the stones on the breastplate of the priest as part of the use of the urim and thummim (you can read that at his website here as well). I assume he developed that theory from the literal translation of the names ("urim" means "lights" and "thummim" means "perfection."). The Scriptures says NOTHING about the breastplate of the priest lighting up like "Simon" game (I encourage the reader to take the time to read the seven verses above).

So far, there is no real theological problem with this teaching but there is a big hermeneutical problem. I am not sure why a person would want to invent information about anything in Scripture especially when there is absolutely no supporting evidence for it. The theological problem occurred when the poor hermeneutic produced a poor conclusion. Courson began saying something like this: "Just like the priest's breastplate lit up with lights when God was telling his people what to do, Jesus told us 'you are the light of the world' and therefore we are capable of giving others guidance." In short, I came away from the sermon feeling like he was reducing our ministry, and worse Jesus' ministry, to that of a magic 8-ball.

When Jesus told his followers they would be lights of the world (Matthew 5:14), he was not referring to the urim and thummim, and decision making. He was talking about the light of the gospel going into this dark world (Matthew 5:16). Jesus did not come to help us make better decisions or to help us know what we should do. He came to raise us from the dead and give us life. He came to rescue us from the darkness and transfer us into His Son's Kingdom (Colossians 1:13-14). He came to give His life as a ransom (Matthew 20:28). He came to redeem us and forgive us (Ephesians 1:7). But His purpose for coming was not so we could make better decisions.

Additionally, Jesus did not give believes the ministry of better decision making. He gave us the ministry of reconciling the lost world to God (2 Corinthians 5:18-20). He gave us the ministry of making disciples (Matthew 28:19). He gave us the ministry, as mentioned above, of being lights in the darkness. But the main ministry of believers is not making better decisions.

Yes, the Holy Spirit gives believers wisdom and guidance when making decisions (Galatians 5:25). Yes, Jesus uses other believers to help us when we have difficult choices (Proverbs 11:14). Yes, we all need to make better decisions as believers. But, using the urim and thummim to teach this truth smacks of attempting to impress people with magical hermeneutical skills and, in the end, conveys the wrong message about Jesus' ministry.

For this reason, we must be careful to say what the Bible says about an issue, and remain silent where the Bible is silent. I have no idea what the urim and thummim were or how the priest used them. That is because the Bible remains silent on the issue. A pastor should not have to take an obscure passage or item from the Old Testament to tantalize his congregation. The Word is powerful enough on its own (Isaiah 55:11, Hebrews 4:12).

For an interesting on the urim and thummim, this article gives a good balanced approach about this mysterious apparatus of the priests garments.

Read More

The Beginning of the Beginning of the New Testament

I have been doing some preliminary work for studying through the book of Matthew. The more I study it and the more I talk to others about it, the more I look forward to preaching through the first gospel. I will be posting my thoughts throughout the study on and off. I am not sure my posts will be a complete representation of the entire book. We will have to see. Nevertheless, posting helps me communicate my thoughts and maybe they will be an encouragement to you, too.

This first post I want to address the approach I will take to the book of Matthew. I have been through many studies of the different gospels and usually the study turns into a study of the harmony of the gospels: John said this, Mark said that, and it all takes place between these two verses in Luke. While I think a study of the harmony of the gospels is an important one, and while I think anyone going through one of the gospels needs to understand how they all fit together to tell the story of our Savior, I also think that each gospel writer had a message to tell in their own individual gospels.

Thus, I want to study Matthew and understand his message to his audience. I know studying Matthew will necessitate some reference to the other gospels. But I think Matthew placed the events of Christ's life and ministry in the order he did and mentioned the events he did to contribute to his overall message. And when these events are place in the appropriate chronological order with the other gospels, then Matthew's message becomes muted if not silent.

So, as I post my thoughts regarding my study through Matthew, I expect to only rarely refer to the other gospels unless that will contribute and clarify the story and message Matthew is conveying.

So let me know what you think of my approach. Is it valid? Do you agree? Let me know.

Next, I will post an overview of Matthew.

Read More

Digging Into the Burial of Sarah

For my final post on the chiasms found in Genesis, I want post more of an assignment rather than just posting information. I would like to challenge you read Genesis 23 and identify the chiasm there and the find the focus of the passage in this section of Scripture.

This chapter records the burial of Sarah by Abraham. It is an interesting story. Spend some time looking at this passage. Attempt to find the chiasm by identifing the word pairs in parallel to each other (they are easily identifable in the English translation). After that, you can read this article, which is a great study of this passage, its structure, and how that impacts interpretation of the story. The article is bit technical but skip over all the Hebrew "stuff" and look at the structure and the exegesis. It is a worthwhile read.

I hope this study of poetry in Genesis has been helpful. I will be posting some other posts dealing with Genesis in the coming day. I pray those will be helpful as well.

Read More

The "Point" of the Tower of Babel Story

In the series of post concerning Genesis, I have introducing the topic of poetry and chiasm so that I could share about the tower of Babel story. To begin with, allow me to say that while the tower of Babel story is written in a poetic form, I do believe that it is a true story. Just because something was written with poetic style does not mean that the story is myth. It is just a creative way for the author to convey the story.

The Tower of Babel story, found in Genesis 11:1-9 is written as a chiasm (I wish this was my own thoughts but most of this thought is from Allen P. Ross' book Creation and Blessing, a great commentary for the book of Genesis). This is based on the word pairs identified throughout the story. The image below shows the phrases in which the words are located. It is my desire that the image clearly shows what I am referring to (click for larger image).


One can see from the visual aid that the point of the story is "the LORD came down to see." All the word was united in a ungodly purpose. Most scholars believe that the tower of Babel was a ziggurat on which the people worshipped false gods or intended to worship false gods. Whatever the case, they were building a very tall tower, something of great human accomplishment. I am sure everyone on earth thought it was an amazing feat of human strength and ingenuity. Nevertheless, God has to bend way, way down to see what these puny humans are up to.

Now we know, first, that God is spirit (John 4:24) and so He doesn't "bend" down. We also know that God is omniscient (Psalm 147:4-5) so He does not need to come down to find out what the humans are doing. The author is using this kind of images to show us how infinitly small man's doings are to the Creator and Sustainer of life. Yes, they made a big tower, but only big in man's eyes. God has to bend down and squint to get a good look at it.

You may say, "I see how each word pair relates in this passage. However, there is one set of words that I do not see how they relate. Specifically, 'Come let us make bricks' and 'Come let us confuse.' Why are these in parallel with each other?" This is what make the whole story interesting, creative, and frankly, almost funny.

In the Hebrew, the word for bricks is LBN and the word for confuse is "NBL." Thus, these words are parallel but only because they are the same word but read in the wrong direction. God is saying, you think that you are going to make bricks but I am going to turn that around on you and then you will be confused. Even the words of the story get turned around and make confusion - literally. (Click for larger image)


The story is not only an amazing story of God's power and sovereignty. It is also evidence that the word of God is not only revelation of God, but it is a work of art. God could have revealed Himself to us in a bland lists and plain stories. Instead, He uses the authors' gifts and style to produce an exciting and living revelation of Himself.

Here is the visual aid with both graphics attached (click for larger image):


If I am not beating a dead horse, I would like to share one more story in Genesis structured similarly to this story. I will share it the beginning of next week.

Read More

The Emphasis of the Image of God

In the previous post, I was discussing poetry, chiasms, and interpreting in Genesis. Continuing on the same topic, I want to post another example of a chiasm to show what a chiasm is and the significance of the structure when interpreting Scripture.

This example is found in Genesis 1:27, which says,

God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

In the English versions, one can sense there is probably some structure issue present here. It flows like poetry. But, that is not proof. When one looks at the Hebrew, notes the word pairs in the passage, and diagrams the passage, it looks something like this:

(note the "X" in the background, which shows how this poetical form received its name)

While this is a little more intricate than Genesis 9:6, it is still a chiasm and still is worth considering. Several things are noted when the structure of this passage is analyzed. First, the issue man being created sandwiches this whole passage. While not the emphasis of the passage, there is no doubt that the author knew the origins of humans was a creative act of God.

Second, there is something that looks out of place in this whole passage. The third and fourth words in this passage stand out as not parallel to anything. This is indicated in the visual aid as "SDO man." "SDO" is short for "Sign of the Direct Object" which means that man was the direct object, or receiptiant, of God's creative act. Whenever something seems out of place or stands out in a parallel structure, that is also a clue to an important part of the passage.

Third, this is really two chiasms working as one, but they have the same emphasis or point. Specifically, the issue of the image of God is the focus of this passage. Yes, God created humans but He made them special. He made them in His own image. The second, bottom, chiasm shows something interesting about that image of God. God made humans with a plurality to them. This is like God, who has a plurality to Him in the Trinity. In His image He created humans and He created them male and female.

This, again, shows the impact structure has in interpreting a scripture passage. The past two previous posts were introductory material to discuss a larger passage in Genesis where the structure is critical for the proper exegesis of the passage. My next post will address this story, its structure, and the structural impact on interpreting that story.

Read More

Structural Issues in Genesis

In a previous post in the series I have been posting on Genesis, I mentioned that one of the more fascinating aspects of the Old Testament literature is the artistry with which it was written. Hebrew poetry is an interesting and enlightening study for the Bible student.

In short, the basis for Hebrew poetry is the word pair or parallelism. Parallelism presents itself in many different forms. One of the more interesting forms is called a Chiasm. First, the word Chiasm (key'-as-um) comes from the Greek letter chi (key) which is written like an "X" (incidently, it makes a hard "K" sound as in the first letter of "Christ"). The reason this is important is because when diagrammed, this form of poetry is shaped like the left half of a chi or an "X."

Secondly, a chiasm is structured so that the middle of the chiasm or the middle of the X is the important part of the passage. For example, an simple chiasm can be found in Genesis 9:6:

            A. Whoever sheds
                        B. the blood
                                    C. of man
                                    C'. by man
                        B.' his blood
            A'. will be shed

There are several to note from this example which will teach us much about chiasms. First, when diagrammed as above, one can immediately see the word pairs and how this structure is shaped like half of an "X." The "A's," "B's," "C's," etc. are for showing how the word pairs relate.

Second, it should be noted that the parallels or word pairs are evident in the Hebrew. That is, a passage may look like a chiasm in an English translation of the Bible but that does not make it so. One must be able to show the same words or words based in the same root word to show the parallelism.

Third, and most important, the point of identifying a chiasm is not to take note of an interesting structure utilized in a passage. The purpose of examining any structure is for interpretive issue. As stated above, the important part of the passage is found in the middle or the apex of the "X." Thus, in the example above, the idea of "man" or "human" is the emphasis of this verse. Genesis 9:6 allows for capital punishment because of the value of human life. If someone is so callous and flippant about human life as to take a life, then that person will not be allow to live. (Note: I am not commenting on the current practice of the capital punishment in America - perhaps in a different post I will - I am commenting on the Old Testament practice of capital punishment.)

In the end, yes, one could gain that understanding from a simple reading of the text. Nevertheless, the author took time to construct this simple verse in an artistic way. As diligent bible students, we should experience the text in the manner in which the author intended. Taking note of specific structures helps the exegete to better interpret what the author was conveying to his audience.

As a sidebar, the present of chiasm in Scripture has been debated among biblical scholars. Some seem to think they are everywhere. Books like Chiasmus in Antiquity: Structures, Analyses, Exegesis and The Literary Structure of the Old Testament propose that it is the main way in which the Old Testament authors, and maybe even the New Testament authors, wrote their contributions to Scripture. Other works, like the article Chiasmus in Ubiquity, acknowledge this type of structure but claim it is no where near as common as the previously mentioned books indicate. (In fact, one can see the almost humorous argument between the two in the titles of the works: Chiasmus in Antiquity vs. Chiasmus in Ubiquity)

My next post will again address the issue of chiasms found in Genesis.

Read More