Sunday, November 22, 2020

Rob Fleenor and W. Dommershausen on the Casting of "Lots" (גּוֹרָל)

The casting of lots is speaking positively about, not always negatively, in Scripture. Note the following two examples:

 

And we cast lots--who of us should go into the house of Laban. And it came to pass that the lot fell upon Laman; and Laman went in unto the house of Laban, and he talked with him as he sat in his house. (1 Nephi 3:11)

 

And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, that he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. (Acts 1:23-26)

 

For those who wish to know what the casting of lots in antiquity entailed, note the following useful discussions of “lots” (Heb: גּוֹרָל):

 

The Old Testament contains multiple examples of lot-casting. The primary Hebrew word for “lots” (גּוֹרָל, goral) refers to small stones cast to produce a decision. The Israelites believed that Yahweh brought about the result of cast lots (Prov 16:33). God Himself commanded the use of lots for the fate of the two goats used in the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:5–10). The Urim and Thummim may have functioned as a divinely sanctioned type of lot (Exod 28:30; Kitz, “Urim and Thumim,” 401–10). (Rob Fleenor, “Lots,” in John D. Barry et al. eds., The Lexham Bible Dictionary [Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2016)

 

II. Secular Usage. In everyday life, people frequently used the lot, especially if they wanted to make an impartial decision. Furthermore, it was easy to use the lot, its use hardly required an interpretation, and it was relatively secure against manipulation. Lot casting was practiced in the secular realm. Primarily it had the character of chance and luck, even if sometimes it was believed that God was the one who made the decision in a particular case (Prov. 16:33).

 

The OT writers frequently mention the lot in connection with distributing goods, especially “booty” in the broadest sense of the word. The one making the complaint in Ps. 22:19(18) sees that the “enemies” persecuting him are already counting on his death. They have taken his garments, and divide them up as their booty by casting lots. According to Sir. 14:15, the descendants divide up the hereditary property by casting lots (cf. also Prov. 18:18). Behind Prov. 1:14 lies the custom thieves had of dividing up their booty by casting lots.

 

Lot casting was also a commonly used method in martial law. According to Nah. 3:10; Ob. 11; and Joel 4:2f.(3:2f.), victors in war disposed of the people and their property by casting lots. Ezk. 24:6 could refer to the carrying off of the inhabitants of Jerusalem in 587 b.c., which was done indiscriminately (possibly in contrast to those that were carried off in 597 b.c.). Finally, Job compares his heartless friends with men who treat persons like things: when helpless orphans are brought to them as a pledge, they see to it that they are sold by casting lots (Job 6:27).

 

Tasks and services were also determined by casting lots. This is the way the Levites arranged the service at the various gates of the temple (1 Ch. 26:13–16), and how the priests and singers arranged their service at the sanctuary (1 Ch. 24f.). The lot was used under Nehemiah to determine the sequence in which the various individual families were to provide the firewood for the altar (Neh. 10:35[34]). Also under Nehemiah it was decided that not only the leaders of the people would be allowed to live in Jerusalem, but also a tenth of the rest of the people. The latter consisted partly of volunteers and partly of those who were compelled to live in the holy city by the process of casting lots (Neh. 11:1f.).

 

The book of Esther states twice that Haman, the enemy of the Jews, cast lots in order to determine a favorable time for the massacre of the Jews (Est. 3:7; 9:24). In light of 3:7, it seems that this was the method used to determine the time: Haman cast two lots for each day (one negative and the other positive), until finally he received an affirmative reply on the thirteenth day, and then for each month, until he hit upon the month of Adar.

 

III. Theological Usage

 

1. Casting Lots “Before Yahweh.” The OT gives particular consideration to casting lots “before Yahweh.” In other words, Israel is convinced that God holds the fate of man in his hands and reveals his will immediately and unambiguously through lot casting. Therefore, the people of God in the OT regard lot casting as a sacral act. They inquire of Yahweh in both public and private affairs (e.g., Ex. 18:15; 33:7; Jgs. 1:1f.; etc.). Along with dreams and prophetic oracles (cf. 1 S. 28:6), the lot is regarded as the answer and final decision of Yahweh, against which there is no appeal. Of course, it is uncertain how many of the numerous inquiries of Yahweh were actually answered by casting lots.

 

The main intention of the “Priestly” authors in Josh. 18–20 is to declare that the distribution and allotment of the land was undertaken by Yahweh himself. They state that this was done at the central sanctuary in Shiloh, at the door of the tabernacle, and frequently emphasize that Joshua, the priest Eleazar, and the heads of the families cast lots “before Yahweh” (Josh. 18:6, 8, 10; 19:51; 21:1f., 8; on the allotment of the land, cf. Nu. 26:55f.; 33:54; 34:13; 36:2f.; Josh. 13:6; 14:1f.; 23:4; 1 Ch. 6:39, 46, 48, 50[54, 61, 63, 65]; Ezk. 45:1; 47:22; 48:29; Isa. 34:17). Dalman thinks there were two steps in the process of distributing the land. First, it was decided what territory was to be given to each tribe (cf. Josh. 15:1). The size of the territory given to each tribe was determined by the number of families or conscripted soldiers belonging to it. Then, secondly, the territory belonging to each tribe was distributed among the individual families (cf. the stereotyped formula in Josh. 18 and 19: “The lot came out for the tribe of … according to its families”). Possibly two containers, from which the marked lot stones were drawn, were used. One container had the stones with the names of the various territories on them, and the other, the stones with the names of the individual families.

 

According to Lev. 16, the high priest is to present two goats “before Yahweh” at the door of the tent of revelation (certainly in a special rite). Then, by casting lots, he is to ascertain which goat God wishes for himself, and which goat he wishes to be sent away to the wilderness demon, Azazel. The procedure used in casting lots here has been explained as follows: The priest puts two lot stones into a container with the names or symbols of Yahweh and Azazel upon them, and shakes it before the first goat. The lot stone that comes up (ʿalah) first designates this goat for its special purpose. The goat selected for Yahweh is offered as a sin-offering, while the other is loaded with human guilt and driven far off into the wilderness, and there he dies with the sin.

 

Jgs. 19–21 tells of the crime of the people of Gibeah in Benjamin. The tribes of Israel assemble at the Mizpah sanctuary to decide what to do about Gibeah, and the lot plays a role in this decision. Because of the brevity of the statement in 20:9b, it is impossible to determine very precisely what was supposed to be determined by the casting of the lot. The next verse would seem to indicate that it was used to determine which soldiers would fight and which would carry the provisions.

 

2. The Lot Oracle. In the sacral realm, the lot was also used in connection with the oracle and the ordeal. In ancient Israel, the lot oracle is a legitimate, priestly means of inquiring of Yahweh. It is used not so much to look into the future as to bring one’s own deeds into conformity with the instruction of God. E.g., in Nu. 27:21 Israel is instructed to carry on its campaigns according to Yahweh’s regulations, which the priest seeks by means of the Urim-lot.

 

Urim here stands as pars pro toto for the exclusive priestly lot of the Urim and Thummim. At the present stage of research, it is thought that originally the Urim and Thummim were two cubic stones, one white and the other black, which represented the answers “Yes” or “No.” Accordingly, questions designed to receive a positive or negative answer were characteristically asked in connection with the Urim and Thummim. It is usually thought that one of these stones was made of limestone and the other of basalt. The words “Urim” and “Thummim” cannot be explained etymologically from the Hebrew vocabulary. Israel took them over from foreign people dwelling in the land of Canaan, but we do not know the language from which they were taken. The mimation indicates that they are very old.

 

Later, we are told that Saul inquired of Yahweh because of the Philistines, but Yahweh did not answer him, “either by dreams, or by Urim, or by prophets” (1 S. 28:6). Between the period of the judges and that of the time of David, the Bible relates several instances in which men inquired of God. Although it cannot be proved, it is natural to assume that the Urim and Thummim were used as a means of receiving an oracle when the questions were asked in such a way as to expect a positive or negative answer (Jgs. 18:5f.; 20:26ff.; 1 S. 23:2; 2 S. 5:19).

 

1 S. 23 and 30 refer to still another means of obtaining an oracle, viz., the ephod (ʾephodh). In both instances, David asks the priest Abiathar to bring the ephod to him that he might inquire of Yahweh. (Cf. 1 S. 14:18, LXX.)

There is still no convincing solution to the problem of the ephod. The main difficulty is that this word denotes different things in the OT. It is quite probable that the root word means “clothes” in the broadest sense of the word, thus some sort of material that goes around a person or an object (Jgs. 8:24–27; 17:5). This must have had a large pocket or receptacle of some sort in which the lot stones were kept, when ephod is used to mean an instrument for obtaining an oracle. 1 S. 21:10(9) must also have in mind a garment with a pocket that held the lots used for divination. This garment stood upright, and was large enough to hide something behind it, for the text states that “the sword of Goliath … is behind the ephod.” Later (in P), the ephod is a part of the official garments of the high priest. Here it is more of a garment worn around the shoulders, but a fundamental part of this garment is a breast pocket (choshen) with the Urim and Thummim. The oldest texts of the OT refer to an ʾephodh badh, “a linen ephod,” which is a short garment that a priest girds about himself (1 S. 2:18; 22:18; 2 S. 6:14).

 

Thus, inquiring of the oracle-ephod with the lot stones is not basically different from using the Urim and Thummim. This conclusion is confirmed by the method that David uses in asking questions when he consults the ephod: Will Saul come down? Will the people hand me over? Shall I pursue them? Will they overtake me? (1 S. 23:11f.; 30:8). The questions are phrased so that they can be answered “Yes” or “No.” The answers that are quoted are certainly expanded statements of the answers that actually came from the oracle, which were simply “Yes.” (W. Dommershausen, “גּוֹרָל,” in G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Volume 2 [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1977], 451–454)

 

 

Blog Archive