Exodus Chapter 28 verse 30 Holy Bible

Pulpit Commentary

Pulpit CommentaryVerse 30. - Thou shalt put in the breast-plate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim. The words Urim and Thummim mean respectively "Lights "and" Perfections," or perhaps "Light" and "Perfection - the plural form being merely a plural of honour. They were well translated by Aquila and Symmachus, φωτισμοὶ καὶ τελειότητες: less well by the LXX. ἡ δήλωσις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια: still worse by the Vulgate, Doctrina et Veritas. What exactly the two words represented is doubtful in the extreme. It has been supposed by some that they were not material objects, but a method by which God communicated his will; e.g., a miraculous light, or a miraculous voice. But such things as these could not have been put by Moses either "in," or "on the breastplate of judgment." Modern critics are generally agreed that the Urim and Thummim must have been material objects of one kind or another. The objects suggested are - 1. The engraved stones of the breast-plate. 2. Two small images, like the teraphim. 3. A gold plate, engraved with the name of Jehovah. . . .

Ellicott's Commentary

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers(30) Thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim.--Comp. Leviticus 8:8. The expression used is identical with that employed in Exodus 25:15; Exodus 25:21 with respect to putting the Two Tables into the Ark of the Covenant, and can scarcely have any other meaning than the literal placing of one thing inside another. It has been already shown (see Note on Exodus 28:16) that the breastplate was a bag, and so capable of being used as a receptacle. The words "Urim and Thummim" mean literally, "lights and perfections," or, if the plural be one of dignity, "light and perfection" (Aquila and Symmachus translate by ???????? ??? ???????????; the LXX., by ? ??????? ??? ? ???????; the Vulg. by doctrina et veritas). The question arises, what do these two words, as here used, designate? Do they designate material objects; if so, what objects? In favour of their designating material objects are (1) the expressions, "thou shalt put in the breastplate the Urim and the Thummim," "they shall be upon Aaron's heart," "he put in the breastplate the Urim and the Thummim" (Leviticus 8:8); (2) the fact that the words are accompanied by the article, on this, the first mention of them, as if they were familiar objects, well known at the time to the people generally; and (3) the explanations of Philo and Josephus, which, while they differ in all other respects, agree in this, that material objects are intended. But, if so, what objects? The two sides of the breastplate, says Philo (De Monarch., ii. 5). But these were not "put in" the breastplate after it was complete, as implied in Exodus 28:30; Leviticus 8:8. The twelve jewels, says Josephus; but the present passage, taken in conjunction with Exodus 28:17-21, distinguishes the Urim and Thummim from them. Some small objects which the bag of the breastplate could hold, and with which the people had long been familiar, can alone answer the requirements of the case. Most modern critics are thus far agreed; but when the further question is asked, what were these objects? The greatest difference appears. Diamonds, cut and uncut; slips of metal, marked with "yes" and "no"; lots, of some kind or other; and small images, like the teraphim (Genesis 31:19), are among the suggestions. A very slight examination of the arguments by which these various views are supported is sufficient to show that certainty on the subject is unattainable. Probability, however, seems on the whole to be in favour of a connection between divination by teraphim and consultation of God by Urim and Thummim (Judges 17:5; Judges 18:14; Judges 18:17; Judges 18:20; Hosea 3:4), whence it is reasonable to conclude that the Urim and Thummim were small images, by which God had been consulted in the past, and by which Moses was now authorised to state that He would be consulted in the future. How the consultation was made, and the decision given, is a question still more obscure than that which has been just considered, and one which seems to the present writer to admit of no solution. The reader who is curious upon the point may be referred to Dean Plumptre's article on "Urim and Thummim," in Dr. W. Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, where the views propounded are ingenious, if not altogether satisfactory. . . .