Urim and Thummim

← Encyclopedia

The Urim and Thummim were sacred objects associated with the breastpiece of the Israelite high priest, used to obtain answers to questions put before God. The Hebrew Bible names them repeatedly but never describes them: what they looked like, what they were made of, and exactly how they were operated are nowhere set down, and the silence is old enough that ancient readers were already guessing.

Aaron in the dress of the high priest, the jeweled breastpiece worn over the heart; chromolithograph by Henry Schile, c. 1874 — Henry Schile, via Wikimedia Commons (public domain)

In the priestly legislation of Exodus and Leviticus the Urim and Thummim are placed inside the ḥoshen, the jeweled breastpiece worn over the high priest’s chest, so that he carries them “before the LORD” whenever he enters the sanctuary. The command at Exodus 28:30 sets them within the breastpiece of judgment, over the heart of Aaron; at the consecration of the priesthood (Leviticus 8:8) Moses places them there with his own hand. They are an office’s possession, not a person’s: they pass from Aaron to his son Eleazar with the rest of the high-priestly vestments, and the blessing of Levi in Deuteronomy (33:8) names the Thummim and the Urim as the crowning inheritance of the priestly tribe, set with the holy one of God. To hold the breastpiece is to hold the channel.

The jeweled breastpiece (ḥoshen) set with twelve stones engraved with the names of the tribes; the Urim and Thummim were carried within it — Encyclopaedia Britannica (1911), via Wikimedia Commons (public domain)

Elsewhere they belong to the apparatus of decision. A commander brings a matter to the priest, who inquires by Urim; the answer guides whether to march, whom to choose, where guilt lies. When Moses is told to invest his successor, the instruction (in the Book of Numbers, 27:21) is that Joshua shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who will inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before the LORD; at that word the people are to go out to war and come home from it. The oracle is thus bound to the highest business of the community — succession, warfare, the assignment of guilt — and it is the priesthood, not the king or the prophet, that works it. It is a sanctioned channel, set apart from the wider field of divination that the same law condemns: the diviner reads the world for himself, while the priest asks and is answered.

The architecture of the inquiry can be read off the texts even though the mechanism cannot. A question is framed so that it admits of a small, predetermined range of replies; it is put by the proper officiant, the priest wearing the breastpiece, in the proper place, before the LORD; and the reply returns as a determination, not a description — it tells which of two paths, who of a known set, where among the people, never anything the question did not already enclose. This is what marks the Urim and Thummim off from inspired speech, from prophecy proper. The prophet receives a word that may overflow the question, reframe it, refuse its terms; the oracle of the breastpiece answers strictly within the frame it is given. Its whole authority lies in that narrowness: because it can say only yes, no, or nothing, what it says cannot be mistaken for the priest’s own counsel. The closure of the question is the guarantee of the answer’s source.

Several narratives imply a procedure that yielded one of a small set of outcomes — yes, no, or no reply — which has led many scholars to read the instrument as a form of sacred lot, perhaps two marked stones or tokens drawn or cast, the result counting as a verdict from God rather than from chance. The clearest single window is the episode in the Books of Samuel (1 Samuel 14) in which Saul hunts for the cause of a broken silence between heaven and the camp. The terse Hebrew of verse 41 is expanded in the older Greek translation, where Saul asks that if the fault lies with him or with his son the instrument give Urim, and if with the people it give Thummim — the two names functioning as the two faces of the lot, drawn until the guilty party is isolated. That longer reading, supported also by a manuscript found among the Dead Sea scrolls, is the chief evidence for the binary model: not a voice, not a vision, but a two-valued sign repeated until it narrows to one answer.

“Godspraak door de Urim en de Thummim” (the oracle by Urim and Thummim), engraving from Willem Goeree’s De republyk der Hebreen, 1683 — Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, via Wikimedia Commons (public domain)

The same chapter’s wider cycle records the other possibility. When Saul later sought such an answer, God did not respond by dreams, by prophets, or by Urim (1 Samuel 28:6): all three sanctioned channels closed at once, and the king turned in desperation to a medium at Endor. The detail matters for what the oracle was understood to be. A lot that always gives an answer is a mechanism; an oracle that can withhold one is a will. The texts treat the Urim and Thummim as the second kind — a means God may use or refuse, so that silence is itself a verdict, the most ominous one the instrument can return.

The names themselves are debated, and the debate is itself ancient. The traditional rendering “lights and perfections” reads them against the Hebrew words for light and for completeness; the old Greek translators reached for words meaning manifestation and truth, or revelation and perfection, which preserves the same pair of ideas — disclosure and rightness. Other proposals connect urim to a root meaning to curse and tummim to one meaning to be whole, so that the pair would mark the two poles of a binary oracle — condemnation and acquittal. The plural forms and the fixed order have themselves been taken as clues, and the one place where the order reverses, the blessing of Levi, has been read as throwing the weight onto perfection rather than light. None of the readings is secure, and the tradition has not needed them to be: the names work as a sealed pair, a hendiadys for the act of asking and being told. The very fact that the etymology is contestable is of a piece with everything else about the objects. A thing whose name still yields its meaning is a thing still in use; a name that has to be excavated belongs to something that fell silent long enough for its first sense to slip. The Urim and Thummim come to later readers already as a riddle in two words — bright and whole, or cursed and clear, or simply the two faces of a verdict — and the uncertainty is not a gap in the record so much as the record’s own shape, an oracle that withholds even the grammar of its name.

What the texts establish past argument is the institution’s decline. The priestly oracle belongs to Israel’s earlier history; by the time of the return from exile it had lapsed. The roster of returning families in the Book of Ezra (and again in Nehemiah) records priests who could not prove their descent and were therefore barred from the most holy food until there should stand a priest with Urim and Thummim — a deferral to a faculty no longer in service, a question filed against a future that had not come. The governor cannot resolve the matter; the channel that once resolved it is gone. The phrase reads less as a procedure than as a wish — and it is the scribe-priest Ezra’s generation, the rebuilders of law and temple, who record the lack without pretending to mend it. Where an earlier age would have asked the oracle, this one writes the question down and leaves it standing, the disputed priests held in a permanent provisional state until a settlement that scripture does not deliver.

Later Jewish tradition fixed that loss precisely. The Urim and Thummim were counted among the things that the Second Temple lacked — listed in the Mishnah and Talmud (Sotah 9:12; b. Sotah 48b) alongside the ark, the sacred fire, the indwelling presence, and the spirit of prophecy, the furniture of an order that did not survive the first temple’s fall. The rabbinic discussion treated the manner of the oracle’s working as something handed down rather than observed: a teaching held in the third century proposed that the letters of the tribal names engraved on the breastpiece would light up or stand forward to spell the answer (b. Yoma 73b), the high priest reading the illumination while facing the sanctuary. Josephus, writing in the first century, reports that the breastplate stones shone to signal God’s favor at sacrifice or before battle, and that this brightness had ceased some two centuries before his own day. Whether stone-light or drawn lot, the working was by then a memory reconstructed from the text, not a rite anyone had seen.

That second-order quality — a practice known only as it had been described, never as it was done — is the durable condition of the Urim and Thummim. By the time anyone wrote about how the oracle worked, no one had worked it for generations; every account is a reading of the same handful of verses, pressed for a mechanism the verses withhold. The rabbinic mind, which preserved the laws of so much that had ceased, kept the Urim and Thummim in that register of the lapsed-but-recorded, a faculty belonging to the priesthood’s lost dignity rather than to its present office. The high priest of the Second Temple still wore a breastpiece set with twelve stones, but the breastpiece was now a vestment without an oracle, the form preserved past the function. The tradition marked the difference by counting the Urim and Thummim among the specific absences of the later sanctuary, an inventory of what the rebuilt house could not restore.

The objects have had a long afterlife outside the sanctuary. Christian interpreters allegorized them as figures of revelation and of right judgment, the breastpiece a sign of the truth that the minister bears upon the heart. The phrase entered Reformation devotional and emblematic language as a byword for divinely certified truth, the light-and-perfection pair joining the Hebraizing imagination of the age — the shield of Yale College, framed in 1736, carries the Hebrew Urim ve-Thummim above the Latin Lux et Veritas, binding a new institution’s claim to learning directly to the priestly oracle of light and truth. In the nineteenth century the term took on a sharper, separate sense. Joseph Smith identified the instruments of translation in the founding accounts of the Latter Day Saint movement — described in those accounts as a pair of stones, the interpreters, set with the buried plates — with the biblical Urim and Thummim; the older name was first applied to them in print in 1833 and came to stand, in that tradition, for the seer-instrument of revelation generally. The identification is a reception, not a continuity: the Book of Mormon speaks of interpreters, and the priestly oracle of Exodus is the borrowed term, not the borrowed object. The two senses run side by side without merging — the lost gem of the high priest and the named stone of a later seer, each carrying the same freight of certainty.

Across these uses the same unstated thing keeps drawing the imagination: a means by which a verdict was held to come from beyond the one who asked, leaving no description of how.

The textual record and modern study

The Urim and Thummim survive only in scattered mention — never in description — and the scholarship is correspondingly an exercise in reconstruction from negative space. Seven passages carry nearly all the weight: the two institutional notices in the Pentateuch (Exodus 28:30; Leviticus 8:8), the succession charge of Numbers 27:21, the blessing of Levi in Deuteronomy 33:8, the two Samuel episodes (the lot at 1 Samuel 14:41 and the silence at 28:6), and the post-exilic deferral of Ezra 2:63 and Nehemiah 7:65. The decisive crux is the short Hebrew of 1 Samuel 14:41, where the expanded text of the Septuagint — the old Greek version of the Torah and the prophets — and a fragment from Qumran preserve the longer reading that turns the names into the two outcomes of a drawn lot; this is the textual basis for the binary-oracle model now standard in the field, and a clean instance of how the Greek and the Dead Sea evidence can recover a Hebrew sentence the Masoretic tradition had worn down.

The modern study of the institution begins, in effect, with Cornelis Van Dam’s full monograph, the first book-length treatment since the early nineteenth century, which sets the biblical data against the priestly dress and oracular devices of the wider ancient Near East and argues — against the lot consensus — that the objects were a single gem whose miraculous light confirmed the high priest’s word, the name best read as “perfect light.” The position is a minority one and the casting-lot reading remains dominant, but the work reframed the question and remains the standard reference. The older synthesizing account is the 1901 Jewish Encyclopedia article, which assembles the rabbinic material — the listing among the five things absent from the Second Temple, the Yoma debate over illuminated letters, the Josephus testimony — and remains a convenient gathering of the sources in the public domain. For the distinct modern reception, the institutional account Joseph the Seer documents from within the Latter Day Saint movement how the biblical term came to be applied to the translation instruments, dating the usage and keeping the interpreters and the seer stone in view — a primary-register statement of how an ancient name was carried into a nineteenth-century claim.

→ Related: Divination · Prophecy · Leviticus · Priest · Aaron · Moses · Ezra · Second Temple Judaism · Books Of Samuel · Book Of Numbers · Deuteronomy · Torah · Pentateuch · Book Of Mormon