The figure of speech Metonymy, or change of noun, is when one name or noun is used

instead of another, to which it stands in a certain relation. Thus "light' instead of `guilt'

and "perfection" instead of `innocence'.

Some have confused the Urim and Thummim with the precious stones upon the

judicial breastpiece but this cannot be correct as a careful reading of Exod. 28: 15-30

makes clear. Also Leviticus records that Moses put the breastpiece upon Aaron and then,

afterwards, put the Urim and Thummim in the pouch or bag of the breastpiece. However

it is quite possible that they were two precious stones for the word generally translated

`lot' in the Hebrew goral, which means a stone. One of these was drawn out to give

Jehovah's decision on any particular issue.  It was essential when using Urim and

Thummim, that a priest be present and if he was the lot would be cast using the Urim and

Thummim. The allocation of the land by lot was done in this way by "Eleazar the priest,

and Joshua the son of Nun" (Numb. 34: 17). Similarly the Urim and Thummim were

used for the two goats in Lev. 16: 5-10, the battle against Benjamin in Judges 20: 9-28,

the divisions of the priests & singers and the allocation of the gates in I.Chron.24:-26:

Urim and Thummim were used to find the culprit Jonathan as Saul said unto the Lord,

"give a perfect lot" (i.e. give perfections = Thummim). Thus there seems to be much

substance in the view that all lots were cast by Urim and Thummim but there are other

sides to the debate.

In Neh. 7: 65 they had no priest with Urim and Thummim yet lots were cast in

Neh. 10: 34 and 11: 1. Had they acquired such a priest by then? Possibly . . . . . but was

there a priest with Urim and Thummim among the 120 disciples in Acts 1: 15-26? The

context seems to indicate that there was not, and "they gave forth their lots" (verse 26)

adds further weight to the view that, in this case, neither the Urim and Thummim nor the

priesthood were involved. Thus The Companion Bible note on Lev. 16: 9 seems to be

incorrect when it states that except for the Urim and Thummim there was no other means

of taking Jehovah's lot or judgment. However one must never take any writings out of

their context and one wonders if the writer of that note, Dr. E. W. Bullinger, actually

meant that note to embrace the whole of Scripture and every reference to lots or just the

ones mentioned in that note or in the O.T. The following definition from his Critical

Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament shows he thought

that lots could involve other than Urim and Thummim in the N.T.

Thus generally lots were cast using Urim and Thummim but not always and Acts 1: 26

seems to be one of the exceptions. It is indeed significant that there are no instructions

for making the Urim and Thummim in Scripture, neither is there any description of them

nor is there any detail of how they were to be used--and we can appreciate why!

Imagine what would happen in today's society if the Bible contained such information!

Imagine the number of people who would make them and use them! Indeed the casting

of lots was practiced by the Gentiles in Biblical times but the use of such was mere

mimicry. The hand of the Lord was not behind it and quite often the issue for decision