Yes, no, or ?

We go through our lives swiftly when in fact much of our beings rest on motions of “yes” or “no”. We rarely stop to realise this.

• Some of the “yes” or “no” occasions are very important,
• Others are opinated, others might  be directed to us (decided for us), some others might be outcome of decision makers (think politicians, and even church leaders!), and so on.

Are we so in need of an opinion of yes or no, or a decision of yes or no?

To answer this question – most of us, or for us most of the time, I think we would say no to this question:

• We are not making frequent decisions every few minutes, as to be so “dependent” on decisions,
• to say it another way, we are not having to make so many decisions or opinions, or having to face so many decision, big and small.

However, if we consciously take stock, for example,

• in the next 10 minutes, or the rest of the “office hours”, or the entirety of Saturday, or the journey from home to the shop, how many decisions and opinions do we come across, or that we have to make, or that decisions are made for us. We might be surprised it could be way more than we think.
• Traffic light – is that a decision made for us?
• Pay for our shopping – it is a decision that we pay, we rarely ask is it a correct thing to pay, or is it me paying my shopping. It might sound silly questions, but there are philosophical (and social) debates to account for occasions when somebody else pays for your shopping, or that it does not need payment. But that’s another topic!

What’s the point of this, then? On reflecting Leviticus 8:8-9, a number of things caught my attention. The orderliness of the attire of high priest is breath-taking, adorned too with symbolism and responsibility combined.

I wonder if the awesomeness of the situation is greater from those observing, or the one receiving the attire. Or, as Moses, putting the attire on Aaron. Then, with the garments on, I wonder how much movement the priest can have. Not only that they have to be careful not to damage the garments and ornaments, they were likely to have to exert a lot more energy for each movement.

Another item that caught my eyes are Urim and Thummim, objects that are somewhat mysterious because their significance or meanings were not well explained in the text. Historians, scholars, theologians and perhaps even artists have thrown in various interpretations.

For these ornaments to align with the priest, they would have to speak about God’s holiness, i.e. his character. And in the days of Moses and Aaron, there is likely a need for holy guidance and instructions for the people – not that today we don’t have such a need, but that in the hitherto absence of written accounts of God’s dealing with his people, people were likely to rely on the few priests, prophets and scholars to recount the tales and teaching about God.

… in the Leviticus text, Urim and Thummim were placed in the breastplate of the high priest … to effect “yes” or “no” types of responses, in the form of guidance, teaching, as well judgement.

It is in that kind of world surrounding that we can explore further the place of the two objects.

• The objects might embody an ancient practice, thought and even belief where one conveys a positive response and the other a negative response.
• These could be “yes”, or “no”.
• But in many live situations, they can also mean something encouraged, or discouraged.
• This interpretation has some credibility since, in the Leviticus text, Urim and Thummim were placed in the breastplate of the high priest.
• The breastplate also contained 12 stones representing the 12 tribes of Israel. A central role of the high priest is to effect “yes” or “no” types of responses, in the form of guidance, teaching, as well judgement.

This interpretation needs a touch of selected re-interpreting. There is a degree of “superstitious practices” in this kind of seeking for direction, or decision. Far better that the Bible contain many instances of such guidance that sounded like obtaining a decision by having somebody else telling us the decision, or in some cases, doing some simple task that sounds like throwing dices of chance, to obtain an authoritative answer. In this way, the practice of Urim and Thummim has an air of that sort of thing. Most likely it was not a “new” thing in the days of Leviticus, as it could well be common amongst other religions or cltures.

Therein the above point about superstition is the other point about “proxy” decision-making.

• Is this because the seeker was unable or unwilling to make the decision for themselves?

This suggests a kind of “representation” or even “representation by proxy“, where the subject is unable, unwilling, unqualified or for some other reasons should not represent or speak for themselves, rather, being addressed by a representative. This is not what the Christian faith is about. Jesus speaks to each one of us, we respond to him as we are, we are saved directly by Jesus himself, not via somebody acting for us.

In a ritualistic sense, God institututed the priestly system for the common folk to restore their relationship with God, through sacrifices. God did that not because he refused anyone approaching him, but that the common folk did not even know God. That’s why Abraham’s encounter with God at the burning bush was a huge significant milestone in the knowing God exercise. He had stillness in his mind to ask God if my mate asked who are you that we must worship you and worship you only.

• The answer was something to the tune of I am the everlasting, through and above earth and nature, I can be likened to nothing else – I am who I am.
• It was a form of “closure” and an “opening”
• It was a closure in that it satisfied the need to refer God with a name, he is personalal.
• It was an opening because from thence people can have a personal encounter with God.
• The fact that “I am who I am” was a closure and opening was a muted thunder clap – that being God’s name opened the door for people to approach him, a real God and Saviour, a deliverer.

It is a step in faith.

In the time of the Old Testament and before, it would not be a surprise there were individuals who worshipped God personally, such as Abraham, Moses etc. But as a whole, everyone needed guidance. Most of them needed a lot of frequent guidance. Remember people went to school “at home”. So it was rare to find everyone had a common way of thinking, behaviour, and shared values. Using two objects that represent a yes or no responses was a “stop gap” approach to help the community to gain some stability of guidance.

The title this blog is “Yes, no, or ?” What is the “?” about? I think there got to some space for “neither” – where the seeker either does not agree to priest’s guidance, or the seeker is seeking an “principled” guidance rather than a “yes no” type of decision. In the latter case, the seeker is doing away with “proxy” decision-making.

• I think there is some space for us, today, to reflect on this. Many of us might be wanting a yes / no response, but fundamentally, we needed someone much more “in the know”, i.e. endowed with wisdom, to speak with us through which we can frame a way of thought, an approach. From there will come our own decision.

Most … needed a lot of frequent guidance. Remember people went to school “at home”. So it was rare to find everyone had a common way of thinking, behaviour, and shared values.