Talking With God

In biblical times there was a peculiar apparatus that the Israelite High Priest wore. It consisted of a robe to which was attached to an apron-like garment called an ephod. Fastened on the ephod was a breast-piece, which contained twelve precious and semiprecious stones in front and two more at the shoulders. In a pocket of the breast-piece were two items called the urim and thummim, abnay zeekawrone in Hebrew.

There are many ideas about the purpose and function of the ephod’s urim and thummim, but the Bible says little. The urim are mentioned a grand total of four times in the Five Books of Moses and only three more times elsewhere. (I distinguish between the Five Books and the others because there is no evidence that the ephod operated after King David‘s reign.) The thummim are found three times in the Five Books, twice elsewhere.

The first two mentions, Exodus 28:30 and Leviticus 8:8, are simply directions to put the two objects into the breast-piece. As we go through the references, note the recurring theme of talking with God.

“And you will put in the breast-piece of judgment the urim and thummim, and they will be on Aaron’s breast when he goes in before the Lord; and Aaron will carry the judgment of the Israelites on his heart before the Lord continually.” (Exodus 28:30)

In the third reference, the Bible says that when the Lord told Moses to appoint Joshua as his successor, He said, “And before Eleazer the priest he [Joshua] will stand and he will ask of him after the judgment of urim before the Lord.” (Numbers 27:21) Again, notice communication with the Lord.

Finally, when Moses blessed each of the tribes before he died, he said of the tribe of Levi, “Your thummim and your urim (be) with your pious one.” (Deuteronomy 33:8) While there are several ways to interpret the passage, the gist is simply the hope that the urim and thummim should remain in responsible hands.

That’s it for the urim and thummim in the Five Books. Not until 1 Samuel 28:6 are they mentioned again. There Saul, the first king of Israel, tried to communicate with the Lord after disobeying Him. “And Saul inquired of the Lord, but the Lord did not answer him, neither by dreams, nor by urim, nor by the prophets.” The only other references are identical ones in Ezra 2:63 and Nehemiah 7:65, which shed no light on their use or characteristics.

Let’s go to the original Hebrew abnay zeekawrone for a moment. Zeekawrone comes from the verb zawchar, meaning “to remember,” which is why most translators use “stones of memorial” to translate urim and thummim. However, zeekawrone also significantly means “to mention.” (There’s the communication theme again.) Genesis 40:14 uses both meanings in Joseph’s statement to Pharaoh’s chief cupbearer: “If you remember (z’chartanee) me … mention (v’heez’kartanee) me … to Pharaoh.” In Exodus 23:13 the Lord commanded, “The name of other gods you will not mention (tazkeerroo); it will not be heard out of your mouth.”

Flavius Josephus, the Jewish historian-soldier (38-100 CE), described the ephod with its urim and thummim as communicating by having its stones light up in a sequence to answer questions to it. (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, book 3, chapter 8, section 9) Whether or not Josephus was right about the system, the question arises: What does that have to do with “stones of memorial” as they are traditionally translated?

Derivation

Due to the sparseness of these scriptural references, it is difficult to get at the derivation of urim and thummim. There have, however, been many attempts. For example, The Jewish Encyclopedia says that they are probably adaptations of the words urtu, meaning “command, order, decision,” and tamitu, meaning “oracle,” found in the Babylonian Tablets of Destiny as items that rest on the breast of a god. (Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 12, 385) Another popular translation is “lights and perfections.” The concept of light is from the Hebrew word oor, meaning “fire” or “light,” oorim simply being the plural. In Ugaritic, ar means “light” and ur means “heat.” Urru is the same word in Assyrian and perhaps even ra, meaning both “sun” and the sun god of Egypt. Thummim is related to a group of words, including tawm, tome, and tawmim, all of which are said to derive from the root tmm. The general meaning of these words is “finish, make an end, perfect” or “to complete something.” Similarly, the Ugaritic tm means “entire, whole, completion,” and the same tm in the Egyptian means “complete, entire.” (Ugaritic: Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 153. Egyptian: Faulkner, Dictionary of Middle Egyptian. Also see Koehler and Baumgartner, et. al., Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon, 1742–50.)

Similar words in ancient Assyrian and Babylonian bear out the communicative notion. There the primary meaning of the word zakaru (long noted as a relative of Hebrew) rests in the idea of communication. In the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary there are six basic meanings: (Gelb, Landsberger, and Oppenheim, eds., Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, vol.21, 16–22, from Old Akkadian, Old Babylonian on).

1. “to declare,” as in “to declare under oath,” “to make mention”
2. “to invoke,” as in to invoke “the name of a deity” or “to name, as king”
3. “to speak”
4. “to name, proclaim”
5. “to mention, to invoke, to name”
6. “to take an oath”

The Ugaritic word zg translates as “to make a sound: and “lowed.” (Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook Glossary, 403,393. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 149.) The Arabic zagzaga means “spoke faintly.” The g is roughly pronounced cha.

I could also demonstrate that there are Egyptian words with similar meanings, and in Talking With God I do. Here I will just say that the prevalent speak/communicate meaning of similar sounding words in these ancient languages persuades me that zawchar is a very ancient concept. I make that point because understanding of the original meanings of words became unclear or forgotten over time leading to the traditional translations we know today. Case in point: The age of the similar foreign words indicates that instead of abnay zeekawrone meaning “stones of memorial,” it could have originally meant “stones of communication/mention.” The modern translation, “stones of memorial,” has clouded modern understanding of the purpose of the stones though it was perfectly clear at the time they were in use. The persistent legends and ancient histories regarding the stones’ oracular nature suddenly take on a more logical meaning.

Here’s my take: The Bible is indicating that the priest wore the ephod as a sort of portable walkie talkie for communicating with the Lord when they were away from the main communication device, the ark of the testimony. The urim and thummim, deriving from the ideas of light and completion respectively, were the on and off switches. The urim would turn on the stones in the ephod to communicate by signal, and the thummim would turn them off when communication was finished.

To learn more about Talking With God: The Radioactive Ark of the Testimony. Communication Through It. Protection From It. by Roger D. Isaacs, order your copy at TalkingWithGod.net.

Blog Sparks Interest in Anger Management, Control and Causes

Friends, I’m pleased to report that my latest article, “Was ‘the Anger of the Lord’ a Natural Phenomenon?” has attracted much interest online. I’m also curious. Why such a strong interest? Are readers drawn to the topic of the Lord’s anger or just anger in general? Do we fear the anger of the Lord or the anger that lurks within us? Are we seeking the causes of anger? Or the management of it?

This topic brings to mind the well-known story of Cain and Abel. The sons of Adam and Eve, these two brothers just couldn’t get along. Cain had a terrible anger management problem, and for reasons that are detailed in Genesis, he murdered his brother. (By the way, I talk about this incident on page 170 of Talking With God as it relates to the dangerous atmosphere that Cain created by spilling his brother’s blood.)

And then there’s the story of Moses, who came down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets of stone containing the Lord’s words after spending 40 days there. When he saw that the Israelites had become corrupt and rebellious, thinking he would never return, he became so angry he smashed the tablets.

Anger Management – Is that the Issue?

I suspect my article touched a nerve because anger, while a normal human emotion, is difficult to contain and control. It can be used for both evil, as in the case of Cain, or good, i.e., a righteous anger against injustice, corruption, etc. as in Moses’ case.

We both fear and are fueled by anger. Indeed, from human conflict to road rage, we certainly seem to be engulfed by anger in the world today. Even the weather seems enraged as we’ve seen recently in Missouri, Japan, and the almost biblical floods along the Mississippi basin.

I offer no answers. Just pondering the puzzle of our humanity…

What do you think? Are people morbidly fascinated by anger? How much does anger influence our actions today, individually and globally, for right or wrong?

In my book, Talking with God: The Radioactive Ark Of The Testimony, I explore several key biblical terms associated with the ark that have either been mistranslated or not clearly understood over time. One phrase found in several verses of the Old Testament is “the anger of the Lord.” There has never really been a satisfactory explanation as to how the Lord’s “anger” worked as it is described in the Bible.

In the Old Testament there certainly are instances when anger (Hebrew verb, kawtsaf, noun, ketsef) means just that, anger, but often, when the word is used in relation to the Lord, it is followed by a strange reaction relating to the verb to glow, or more specifically, glowed. When the anger of the Lord glowed, the result was that the person(s) at whom this phenomenon was aimed contracted a “plague.”

Old Testament Examples

Num. 1:53: When the tabernacle was constructed in the Wilderness the Bible says the Lord appointed the tribe of Levi, the Levites, to “camp around the tabernacle of testimony so there will be no anger [ketsef] on the Israelites.” Later (Num. 8:19), the Lord told Moses to have the Levites serve there so that “there will not be a plague among the Israelites for coming near [the tabernacle].”

Something happened to automatically trigger plague when the people came too close to the tabernacle. When Moses ordered the Levites to “camp around” the ark, it was to protect the people from a natural reaction, the plague.

Num. 16:46; Hebrew Bible 17:11: At one time in the Wilderness a small group of men rebelled against Moses and Aaron. They were killed, and this caused all the Israelites to turn on the two leaders. The Bible says the Lord told Moses and Aaron to “get away from the midst of the congregation and I shall consume them in a moment.”

Then, instead of pleading with the Lord on behalf of the people, “Moses said to Aaron, ‘Take the censer, and put fire on it…and lay incense on it and go, hurry to the congregation, and make atonement for them for the anger has gone forth from the Lord, and the plague has begun” (emphasis added). Aaron did as he was told “and stood between the dead and the living, and the plague was stayed.” In other words, a chemical procedure, caused by the burning of incense, had taken place. The chemicals in the burning incense eventually stopped the plague.

By the way, “atonement” is a mistranslation, and I will discuss this piece to the puzzle in another article.

Num. 11:33: While in the Wilderness the people complained that they had no meat to eat. The Lord brought them quails, but when he saw them “lusting” after the meat, His anger “glowed among the people while the meat was still between their teeth…and the Lord struck among the people a very great plague.” It took two days for the people to gather the quails, so one might assume that the “glow” may have hastened their rotting, causing deadly illness.

Num. 12: 9–10: When Miriam and Aaron, Moses’ sister and brother, “spoke against Moses, because he had married a Cushite woman, the anger of the Lord glowed against them and Miriam’s skin turned white as snow.” (To understand the chemical reason why Aaron’s skin wasn’t affected, read pp. 86–88 in my new book, Talking With God.)

Num. 14:11–12: In the Wilderness the Israelites complained bitterly when the spies, who had been sent out to survey the land the people were about to enter, brought back an “evil report.” Although the story does not specifically say that the Lord’s anger glowed, it does warn that He would strike the people with “pestilence.” However, He recanted but said He would fill the whole earth with His glory. (Glory, too, is a word that has two totally separate meanings, one being part of the process that involved the plague. I intend to write about it in my next discussion.) As for those 20 years and older, their “dead bodies shall fall in the Wilderness.” That plague played a part in this episode is made clear by the fact that it killed the spies who had brought the evil report (Num. 14:37).

The “anger” that glowed and led to plague indicates a cause-effect relationship. Why was this? Was the glowing anger something more than just the Lord losing His temper? If so, exactly what was it? And what really was the reaction translated as “plague?”

I believe there are clear answers to these questions, and I have put together the pieces to this puzzle in Talking with God: The Radioactive Ark Of The Testimony. Available at Amazon. Join our ongoing investigation of the Old Testament’s puzzling questions at TalkingWithGod.net.

This is the last post of four in response to Donald question:

In your … opinion what and who is God, his nature, his will, his role in the universe, does he “love” us, is there life with him after death, etc.

Life with Him after death

Finally, is there “life with him after death?” Here I can only quote the famous lines in Genesis 3:19: “For dust you are and to dust you shall return.” Once again, this is a matter of reading the words. We may or may not want to accept the fact that there is no heaven and hell in the Four Books, but it does make one pause to reflect.

Now, all is not lost. I do point out on page 309 of the book a possible answer to how all that is laid out in the Bible (according to my interpretation) affects us today. I do attach some importance to that answer.

I don’t know if this answers your question as to what I believe. You must remember that my role in writing Talking With God was to clarify what I think are mistranslated words, leading to gross misunderstanding. I don’t pretend to have all, or many cases, any of the answers.

In the spirit of lexical curiosity, which originally drove me to write Talking With God, I did a bit of Google research to see how people are accessing information about the same ancient words I studied. What I discovered was almost as surprising as what turned up in my primary research, namely that public discourse tends away from the words’ original, technical meanings and shifts to mystical/theological concepts.

Take Moses’ ark for example. In the Hebrew Bible, “ark of the testimony” (edut), found in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, shifts to “ark of the Covenant” (b’rith) in Deuteronomy and the following books. (See two exceptions in my Appendix A.)

Central to my book is the fact that the word edut, meaning the stones Moses received from the Lord on Mount Sinai and kept in the ark, has the sense of communication, not testimony. My retranslated terminology is “ark of communication.” Thus, my subtitle is Communication Through it.

Why does the same box have two totally different words relating to it?

Now the surprising facts:

• In Deuteronomy and the following books, edut is no longer connected to the ark and there are no instances of edut meaning stones.

• For the first time, (Deuteronomy 4:45) the meaning “testimony” is closely related to edut, shifting from a technological component to the theological concept, e.g. Because you…have not obeyed the voice of the Lord in His law, in His statues and did not walk in His testimonies (edut).” (Jer.44:23). This meaning doesn’t exist in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers!

• The concept of the ark containing stones is replaced by “ark of the covenant” (b’rith) in Deuteronomy and the following books.

What’s happening here? I believe the eventual substitution of b’rith for edut signifies the end of the Israelites’ use of the ark as a communication device. Then, not understanding its technical nature, later writers supplanted it with theology.

How does this impact our understanding today? Google etymology reveals that only 320 people around the globe search for the more ancient “ark of the testimony” on a monthly basis, but 60,500 search for “ark of the covenant!” In other words the theological has taken root in exactly the same way it did thousands of years ago!