URIM and THUMMIM ŏŏr’ ĭm, thum’ ĭm (אוּרִימ׃֙, תֻּמִּ֔ים; there is no consistent or unitary rendering in the LXX or other Gr. VSS, which clearly did not understand the terms). The two are mentioned together in Exodus 28:30; Leviticus 8:8; Deuteronomy 33:8 (in reverse order); Ezra 2:63 (= Neh 7:65 = 1 Esd 5:40) and in the LXX in 1 Samuel 14:41 (Moffatt, Goodspeed, RSV, NEB), and Urim alone in Numbers 27:21 and 1 Samuel 28:6. Since the definite article is used in Heb., except in Deuteronomy 33:8 (poetry and therefore not significant) and Ezra 2:63 and parallels, it is clear they were not strictly proper names. The varying renderings of the VSS show that no valid tradition of their meaning had survived to their time. Hence it is pointless to record the various guesses of their meaning, both ancient and modern.

1. Their use. The high priest wore the breastplate (breastpiece, RSV, NEB) of judgment (q.v.) on the front of the ephod (q.v.); the breastplate was so made as to form a pouch (Exod 28:16), and in it were placed the Urim and Thummim (Exod 28:30). From Numbers 27:21; 1 Samuel 14:41; 28:6, and Ezra 2:63 and parallels, it is clear that they were used for discovering God’s will. If one accepts the LXX text of 1 Samuel 14:41, as do most moderns, in whole or in part (so NBCR, and with reserve NBD), it shows that one or other could be drawn out of the pouch, thus giving a Yes or No answer. Hence it is generally assumed that they were two almost identical stones, perhaps gems. 1 Samuel 28:6 makes it clear that a definite answer was not always obtainable, and so a number of other suggestions have been made. Some think they were two flat objects. One side was called Urim, from ’ārar, “to curse,” the other Thummim, from tāmam, “to be perfect.” When tossed out of the pouch (cf. Prov 16:33), if both showed Urim the answer was negative, if both Thummim, it was affirmative; one of each was inconclusive. Others see in the pl. forms an indication of a larger number of objects, possibly bearing the letters of the alphabet. On the other hand Saul (1 Sam 28:6) may have asked a series of questions (cf. 1 Sam 23:10-12) to which he received mutually contradictory answers.

The foregoing is based on the supposition that Eng. VSS are correct in their rendering of Exodus 28:30; viz. that the Urim and Thummim were placed in the breastplate of Judgment. The LXX, however, rendered, “you shall put upon the oracle of judgment the Urim and Thummim.” We find this understanding of the Heb. accepted by Josephus, and it has been a dominant Jewish interpretation. It involves identifying Urim and Thummim with the breastplate of judgment or its jewels. This has found support in the fact that neither in Exodus 28:30 nor in ch. 39 is there any command for their making or any record of their having been made. Samaritan, which obviously did not make the identification, tried to meet the argument by interpolating both passages in the required manner. It would, however, be entirely consistent with what we know of the cultic background of Israel, if the Urim and Thummim were precious oracle stones, which had come down from the Patriarchs, and which God was now officially incorporating into His people’s worship.

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (though not receiving its final form until c. a.d. 650, it contains much pre-Mishnaic and even pre-Christian material) on Exodus 28:20, followed by Rashi and Nachmanides, considered that Urim and Thummim were some material on which the Tetragrammaton, the Sacred Name of God, had been engraved. But Josephus, linking them with the breastplate (Ant. III. viii. 9), considered they were capable of shining out to give divine guidance. This view was further developed in the Talmud. Many maintained that the letters of the tribal names engraved on the precious stones of the breastplate—they added the names of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and “the tribes of Jeshurun” to complete the alphabet—were illuminated in turn to give the divine pronouncement. Though a few modern Jewish scholars, e.g. J. H. Hertz, still favor the identification with the breastplate, though they have dropped the fanciful Talmudic trimmings, the majority have abandoned it. The divergencies in Jewish tradition itself, and the clear indications that the ancient VSS had no real tradition to guide them suggest that very little regard should be paid to these and similar fancy views.

One of the difficulties is uncertainty whether Urim and Thummim were used in certain cases, where lots were drawn or cast, e.g. were they used to discover Achan’s guilt (Josh 7:16ff.)? It is possible but by no means certain. It certainly seems clear that they were not used for the apportioning of the tribal portions (Josh 18:8ff.).

2. Their disappearance. It is clear from Ezra 2:63 and parallels that the Urim and Thummim did not exist after the return from the Babylonian Exile. While Ben Sira mentioned their past existence with respect (45:10), he clearly considered that a man versed in the law would not feel their loss (33:3). This turning away from them is illustrated by 1 Maccabees 4:46, where the ultimate disposal of the polluted stones of the altar was referred to a prophet yet to come. In the Qumran MSS only one possible veiled reference to them has been found (1QH IV6). Though the Talmud has theoretical discussion about the use of the Urim and Thummim, there is clearly no expectation of their restoration. The statement is met more than once that they ceased after the death of the former prophets. This is normally understood as meaning the destruction of Solomon’s Temple, but in Sota 48b Rab Huna interprets them as “David, Samuel, and Solomon.” This minority view is supported by the OT evidence.

This is not to be deduced from their nonmention under the monarchy, for the OT is not given to stressing the everyday. More important is the increasing stress on prophetic oracles. Even more significant is Abijah’s failure to mention them in 2 Chronicles 13:8-12, when he recounted Judah’s privileges; indeed, in spite of its stress on the Aaronic priesthood, Chronicles, a postexilic work, nowhere mentions them. Even in the later stages of David’s reign there is no probable reference to them, where it might be expected.

The reason for their dropping out of favor may be indicated by a comparison of 1 Samuel 23:6-12 with 28:6. The importance of the ephod (23:6) was simply that it was obviously the high-priestly one, by the help of which David could ascertain God’s will (vv. 10f.). The Targum interprets rightly by “the ephod” (so NEB). Its oracular power came from the Urim and Thummim. The ephod was still with David, when Saul had marched to his death at Gilboa (1 Sam 30:7). How then had Saul been able to consult the Urim and Thummim (1 Sam 28:6)? It is reasonable to assume that either because of the multiplying of sanctuaries, or possibly to satisfy Saul’s demands, the original oracular objects had been counterfeited. When this became plain, it reinforced certain already existing tendencies and doubts. The more spiritually minded must have increasingly come to realize that the discovery of God’s will was not something as automatic as the use of the Urim and Thummim might suggest. For those living at a distance from the central sanctuary such a method was linked with much inconvenience and could even be impossible. Without the presence of Abiathar with the ephod David would have been excluded from this form of divine guidance. Possibly even more influential must have been the realization that, granted priests like Eli’s sons, there could be no guarantee that the Urim and Thummim would not be manipulated; in any case they were available only to the rich and influential.

3. Their spiritual significance. Jesus Ben Sira showed real spiritual understanding, when he placed knowledge of the law on the same level as, or on a higher level than, Urim and Thummim (33:3), even though he regarded them as a divine gift (cf. 45:10). This was also the reason why the rabbis were not really interested in them. For the Christian, with his knowledge of the indwelling Holy Spirit, this feeling will be even stronger. But if, even in the Christian dispensation, God is prepared to give the person just beginning his Christian life guidance by methods which may seem strange to those who know His will better, how much more to Israel in the days of its spiritual childhood. It was more important that they should discover God’s will than that the spiritually more advanced should approve it. Note that it is never suggested that Moses had to make use of them. This is the most likely reason why we are told so little about them.

Bibliography Older views will be found in Buxtorf, “Historia Urim et Thummim,” in Ugolini, “Thesaurus,” Vol. XII. Important are Muss-Arnolt in Jew Enc and Gaster in HERE. Recent suggestions may be found in R. deVaux, Ancient Israel (1961); Lindblom, “Lot-Casting in the Old Testament” in Vet Test, Vol. XII (1962), p. 164 seq. and E. Robertson, “The Urim and Thummim; What were they?” in Vet Test, Vol. XIV (1964), 67 seq.