I've heard some argue that God always controls the outcome of the "lot" based on Proverbs 16:33. But comparing Proverbs with Joel 3:3 makes me think the verse is being taken out of context:
"and have cast lots for my people, and have given a boy for a prostitute, and sold a girl for wine, that they may drink" (Joel 3:3 WEB).
"The lot is cast into the lap; But the whole disposing thereof is of Jehovah" (Proverbs 16:33 ASV).
Thursday, August 15, 2024
Does Jehovah Always Determine The "Lot's" Outcome?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
51 comments:
Obadiah 1:11 too
Thanks for the reference.
Also Job 6:27(?)
Interesting context.
Urim and Thummim vs generic lots vs motives of the caster of lots. Seems to be a lot of components to take in through the scriptures.
-NC
Its not Jehovah's judgment, its Aaron's - https://biblehub.com/text/exodus/28-30.htm
1 Samuel 30:7-9 (ESV):
And David said to Abiathar the priest, the son of Ahimelech, “Bring me the ephod.” So Abiathar brought the ephod to David. 8And David inquired of the LORD, “Shall I pursue after this band? Shall I overtake them?” He answered him, “Pursue, for you shall surely overtake and shall surely rescue.” 9So David set out, and the six hundred men who were with him, and they came to the brook Besor, where those who were left behind stayed.
The point is, going along with Proverbs 16:33, is that Jehovah was the one consulted and he gave the judgement, not Aaron or any other high priest. Exodus 28:30 does not say that the judgment came from Aaron: he simply wore the breastpiece of judgment but he consulted YHWH, who determined the judgment.
Even Wikipedia gets this part right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priestly_breastplate
Numbers 27:21
None of these other texts change the wording of the one I posted.
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/venasa_5375.htm
Exodus 32:2-6
That's just it. The text you posted does not say the decision for urim or thummim came from Aaron and nor do the other texts teach any such thing.
Is Exodus 28:30 teaching that the judgment originated from Aaron? No, it is not. And how did Exodus 32 work out for them? Not too well. Read Deuteronomy 9 and what it states about Aaron there.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2028%3A30&version=NET
No, I'll pass thanks. Which text revises which?
In Exodus Aaron is just fine, thank you.
https://contradictionsinthebible.com/the-deuteronomist/
Aaron was not just fine in Exodus. Secondly, there is no contradiction and so-called contradictions have been addressed ad nauseum by qualified scholars. Thirdly, no revision is necessary. Exodus 28:30 does not say what you think it states. Just read the context: the decision of the lots did not originate with Aaron. Even in Exodus, he goes into the sanctum sanctorum to ascertain the divine will and he has to follow the ritual carefully to avoid death. No need to read some contradiction into the text.
https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Exodus.28.30.1?lang=bi
If you are going to quote Jweish then quote Jewish - JPS 2023 - Inside the breastpiece of decision you shall place the Urim and Thummim, so that they are over Aaron’s heart when he comes before יהוה. Thus Aaron shall carry the instrument of decision for the Israelites over his heart before יהוה at all times.
So why would he carry them over his mind (us understood in the period) if all he had to do was let them speak for themselves?
"so-called contradictions have been addressed ad nauseum by qualified scholars." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Not wasting my time on such nonsense any more put up or...
Nonsense? I'm not the one misreading the verse. Of course, Aaron had to convey the decision, but it did not originate with him.
I'm not arguing from authority. To invoke scholars is not necessarily doing that anyway
That the ultimate decision came from YHWH is consistently taught in scripture and in rabbinic teaching.
Numbers 27:20
"decision came from YHWH" - Look , all life comes from YHWH so you can argue that all is allowed and therefor directed by YHWH, but what he allows it not the same as his decision, is it?
No, what he allows or permits is not the same, but the Hebrew Bible suggests that the lots/urim and thummim were meant to communicate God's decision/will, not just man's. See also https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=sjSTAVoTcr4C&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=Urim+thummim&ots=VYNUw1BlI2&sig=Xne37GmxXXok2Oyhf2yk2mQuuUc#v=onepage&q=Urim%20thummim&f=false
Here is a note from the USCCB that gets at what I'm claiming
Urim and Thummim: both the meaning of these Hebrew words and the exact nature of the objects so designated are uncertain. They were apparently lots of some kind which were drawn or cast by the priest to ascertain God's decision in doubtful matters. Hence, the burse in which they were kept was called "the breastpiece of decision."
Same was claimed for Haruspices.
1 Samuel 22:18
No, Duncan, it was not the same. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Haruspices
It's interesting that Israel was told not to look at the liver's appearance, in contrast to haruspices and we have little to no knowledge of what lot casting involved, but it is not to be equated with inspecting entrails.
https://www.eisenbrauns.org/books/titles/978-0-931464-83-6.html
It meant a monopoly on who could judge.
Wikipedia - Thummim (תוּמִים) is widely considered to be derived from the consonantal root ת.מ.ם (t-m-m) "innocent".[1][4][3] Many scholars now believe that Urim (אוּרִים) simply derives from the Hebrew אּרּרִים (Arrim) "curses" and thus that Urim and Thummim essentially means "cursed or faultless", in reference to the deity's judgment of an accused person; in other words, Urim and Thummim were used to answer the question "innocent or guilty".[1][3]
As for the book by Van Dam, see above. I posted a link for it the other day. Not trying to be sarcastic, but YHWH was the judge of the lots and he rightly has a monopoly on judging.
Notice the uncertainty in the Wikipedia note: "widely considered" and many scholars "now believe." I take scholarly consensuses seriously but I view them critrically. The fact of the matter is that lots of uncertainty surrounds just how judgments regarding lots happened and just what the urim and thummim were.
Speaking of Van Dam, see https://ww.bibleodyssey.org/articles/urim-and-thummim/
https://shepherds.edu/the-urim-and-thummim-the-theocracy-in-microcosm/
"One specific and important feature of the theocratic arrangement as defined and lived out in the Old Testament is the somewhat mysterious piece of Levitical equipment known as the Urim and Thummim.[2] Simply stated, the Urim and Thummim (hereafter: UT) was some sort of oracular device provided by God as an important accoutrement to His theocratic rule over the nation of Israel in order that, by means of the proper manipulation of those objects, Yahweh’s will might be made unmistakably known to the people in a moment of national crisis. Beyond that simple affirmation, the details concerning the identity, distinctiveness, and function of the Urim and Thummim become a bit difficult."
And? Could you elaborate on the reason for citing this verse?
So did other Levites wear a painted on ephod? If it meant breast plate I would not call linen a breast plate. I think Samuel is an older text than Deuteronomy.
https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/607885
Just new spin on old games. Do we have examples of decisions where these objects were used instead of entrails? Have you seen this entrails substitute? The liver of piacenza.
I'm a little confused because nobody wore a painted on ephod: the ephod, the breastpiece (breastplate), and the urim/thummim were three different things. No, the linen ephod was not a breastpiece/breastplate, but the high priest only wore the breastpiece mentioned in Exodus anyway, not the other Levites.
Ancient Israel was told not to practice divination or idolatry, two things no faithful worshiper of YHWH would do. So liver inspection was out of the question, whether real or artificial.
I will post again, because Ephod is more than one thing - https://biblehub.com/text/1_samuel/22-18.htm
I think you know that is not what I am driving at. If you are going to argue the the divination of the High priest needed to be different from the norm then 1 Kings 18 demonstrates a level playing ground but it is clear what is true.
First of all, I don't define what the high priest did as divination. But who else used the urim and thummim or wore the breastpiece/breastplate except the high priest? How was the ephod more than one thing? That's a rhetorical question which I will check myself.
The underpriests wore linen ephods, but they did not wear the breastpiece or urim and thummim. I don't see how 1 Samuel establishes anything else.
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/646.htm
for the ephod
Exodus 28:30 has בְּבֹא֖וֹבְּבֹא֖וֹ
בְּבֹא֖וֹ
Moreover, we have Exodus 28:29 as proof that the high priest's actions were distinct: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/exodus/28-29.htm
Note the first reference 'and' - https://biblehub.com/text/exodus/25-7.htm
Why only the one here? https://biblehub.com/text/numbers/27-21.htm
Compare 1 Samuel 28:6
Post a Comment