To cast lots. - - A common practice among the Hebrews: they called it Goral. Nay, we find the Lord himself appointing the casting lots for the scape goat, Lev. 16. 8. What was called the feast of Put, or Purim, was founded upon the same custom. The word Pur, or Phur, is not Hebrew, but Persian, taken from the Persians, among whom at that time the children of Israel were, and under their government. The feast of Pur, in honour of the destruction of Haman the Aggagite, was so great a festival among the Jews, that even to thisday it hath been handed down, and is kept. And the reason assigned wherefore they called this festival Pur, or Purlin, casting lots, was, because when Haman planned the destruction of the Jews, he had lots cast before him from day to day. (See Esther 3: 7. to the end.) The Jews, therefore, when through God’s mercy they had caused the ruin of Haman, appointed this feast on the same month in every year, and called it Pur. (See Esther ix. 18. to the end.)
Were often cast by the Jews, as well as other ancient nations, with the expectation, when God was appealed to, that he would so control them as to give a right direction in doubtful cases, Psa 22:18 16:11 18:18. They were often used by the divine appointment. The portions of the twelve tribes were thus assigned to them; and hence each tribe’s portion was called "the lot of its inheritance," Num 26:55,56 Psa 125:3 Mal 8:21 . The scapegoat was to be selected, and the other of the priests’ service determined by lot, Lev 16:8 1Ch 24:5 25:8. By the same means Achan, Jonathan, and Jonah were discovered, Jos 7:14 1Sa 14:41,42 Jon 1:7 ; and thus Matthias was designated by Christ to be an apostle in the place of Judas, Mal 1:26 . A common mode of casting lots was by the use of pebbles, one or more of them being marked, and all of them being shaken together in some fold of a garment, an urn, or a helmet, before drawing, Pro 16:33 Joh 19:24 . As the use of lots by one who believes in the particular providence of God involves a solemn appeal to the Disposer of all events, they should never be used on trivial occasions; and in this day, a case can hardly occur when such an appeal would be warranted. See PURIM.\par
LOTS (Casting of) (
At the Crucifixion the soldiers cast lots for the clothes of Jesus. As they were divided into ‘four parts, to every soldier a part’ (Joh 19:23), it was evidently a quaternion of soldiers that was on duty. The Synoptists simply record the parting of the garments by lot (Mat 27:35, Mar 15:24, Luk 23:34). In Jn. special reference is made to His ‘coat.’ It is impossible to say whether the ‘coat’ was added to one of the four parts, or if a separate lot was cast for it. The precision and detail of the narrative in Jn. have been regarded as proofs that the Fourth Evangelist was an eye-witness of the things which he records. In the casting of the lot for the ‘coat’ he saw the fulfilment of one of the predicted woes of the Messiah (Psa 22:18). The quotation is in the exact words of the LXX Septuagint . Critical editions of the NT omit the quotation in Matthew.
There is no indication as to the particular method by which the lot was cast in the two incidents in which it is employed in the Gospels.
It may be noted under this heading that the idea of the lot as giving expression to the Divine will runs through all the words which relate to inheritance (
John Reid.
By: Cyrus Adler, Ludwig Blau
Means of determining chances. Primitive peoples, and occasionally those on a higher plane of culture, resort to lots for the purposes of augury. They spin a coconut or entangle strips of leather in order to obtain an omen. Thieves especially are detected by the casting of lots, etc. (Tylor, "Primitive Culture," German ed., i. 78-82). The pagans on a ship with Jonah under stress of a storm cast lots in order to find out who among them had incurred the Divine anger (Jonah i. 7). Haman resorted to the lot when he intended to destroy the Jews (Esth. iii. 7). The Greek heroes cast their lots into Agamemnon's helmet in order to ascertain who should fight with Hector ("Iliad," vii. 171). In ancient Italy oracles with carved lots were used.
In Ancient Israel.
The ancient Israelites likewise resorted to the lot for the most varied purposes. Rhabdomancy was known as late as Hosea (Hos. iv. 12); and Ezekiel (Ezek. xxi. 26 et seq.) mentions the arrow-oracle of the King of Babylon, which was still used a thousand years later among the pagan Arabians (Wellhausen, "Reste Arabischen Heidenthums," 2d ed., pp. 126 et seq.; comp. Sprenger, "Leben und Lehre des Mohammed," i. 259 et seq.; Huber, "Ueber das Meiser-Spiel der Heidnischen Araber," Leipsic, 1883). As the priestly lot-oracles are discussed under Ephod, Urim and Thummim, and Teraphim, the present article deals merely with the lot in secular life. Joshua discovers the thief, and Saul the guilty one, by means of the lot (Josh. vii. 16 et seq.; I Sam. xiv. 42; comp. I Sam. x. 20 et seq.). Primitive peoples divide land and other common property by means of the lot. In Hebrew the word for "lot" ("goral") has retained the meaning of "share"; it has also acquired the more general meaning of "fate" (Isa. xvii. 14, lvii. 6; Jer. xiii. 25; Ps. xvi. 5; Dan. xii.). The land west of the Jordan is divided among the several tribes by lot (Num. xxvi. 55 et seq., xxxiii. 54, xxxiv. 13, xxxvi. 2; Josh. xiii. 6, xiv. 2, xv. 1, xvii. 1, xviii. 6-10, xix. 51, xxiii. 4; Ps. lxxviii. 55, cv. 11; comp. Ezek. xlv. 1, xlvii. 22). Jewish tradition, finding offense in this kind of allotment, declared that the land was really divided under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the lot being merely the visible means of confirming the division for the people (Sifre, Num. 132; B. B. 122a). Prov. xvi. 33 and xviii. 18 indicate that lots were cast in legal controversies. The wicked "part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture" (Ps. xxii. 19; comp. Matt. xxvii. 35; John xxix. 24). Booty of war is divided by lot (Joel iv. 3; Nahum iii. 10; Ob. 11; see also Judges xx. 9; Neh. x. 35, xi. 1; I Chron. xxiv. 5, xxv. 8, xxvi. 13 (see Herzog-Hauck, "Real-Encyc." 3d ed., xi. 643 et seq.).
In Talmud and Midrash.
According to the etymology of the word "goral," the lots were probably small stones, or sticks, as Hos. iv. 12 indicates. They were thrown, or possibly shaken (Prov. xvi. 33, "into the lap"), so that one fell out, whereby the case in question was decided. It can not be ascertained whether a tablet with writing on it is meant in Lev. xvi. 8, as the Mishnah assumes (Yoma iii. 9, iv. 1). At the time of the Second Temple the lot was prominent in the Temple cult, and customs were developed, after Biblical example, whereby the several offices were apportioned by lot. The priests drew lots in all cases where differences might arise (Yoma 37a, 39a-41a, 62a-63b, 65b; Zeb. 113b; Men. 59b; Ker. 28a). In Tamid i. 2 the overseer of the Temple calls for the lot; and Yoma 24b records a discussion whether the priests shall draw lots in holy or in secular garments. Lots were cast four times in succession (Yoma iv. 1). The Prophets increased the four classes of priests that returned from the Diaspora to twenty-four; they mixed up the names of the additional ones and placed them in an urn (
Many facts seem to indicate that choosing by lot was common in post-Biblical times. Moses chose the seventy elders (Num. xi. 26) by selecting six men from each of the twelve tribes, and then placing seventy-two pieces of paper (
In Palestine brothers divided their patrimony by lot as late as, and probably much later than, the second century (B. B. 106b). Apparently the lot was also occasionally used in ordaining teachers (Yer. Bik. 65d, l. 24). Under Grecian influence the drawing of lots degenerated into dice-playing. "No one is accepted as witness who plays with little stones [
In the Middle Ages and in Folk-Lore.
The drawing of lots and its companion practise, the throwing of dice, were common in the Middle Ages; and they are even in vogue at the present time. Moses of Coucy (c. 1250) mentions xylomancy. Splinters of wood the rind of which had been removed on one side, were tossed up, and according as they fell on the peeled or the unpeeled side, augured favorably or unfavorably (Güdemann, "Gesch." i. 82). An Italian teacher denounced the casting of lots (ib. ii. 221). Dice-playing was especially in vogue among the Italian Jews of the Middle Ages, and was, as well as other games of hazard, frequently forbidden (ib. ii. 210). In Germany there was a game of chance, called "Rück oder Schneid," in which a knife was used (Berliner, p. 22). Many books on games of chance originated in the later Middle Ages (see bibliography below). The present writer has in his possession a Bokhara manuscript containing a "Lot-Book of Daniel." It mentions also means ("segullot") for detecting a thief. The Jews of the present day, likewise, are not unacquainted with the various modes of casting lots found among all peoples and used for various and generally harmless purposes; but among these remnants of ancient superstition customs that are Jewish in origin are probably to be found only in Ḥasidic circles and in the East.
Bibliography:
T. W. Davies, Magic, Divination, and Demonology, pp. 74 et seq., London and Leipsic, 1898;
Hastings, Dict. Bible, iii. 152 et seq.;
Thomas Gataker, Von der Natur und dem Gebrauche der Loose, 1619;
H. Guthe, Kurzes Bibelwörterb. p. 397, Tübingen and Leipsic, 1903;
Hamburger, R. B. T. i. 723;
A. Lehmann, Aberglaube und Zauberei, p. 40, Stuttgart, 1898;
Lenormant, Magie und Wahrsagekunst, etc., Jena, 1878;
Herzog-Hauck, Real-Encyc. 3d ed., xi. 643 et seq.;
B. Stade, Gesch. Israels, i. 471 et seq.;
E. B. Tylor, Primitive Culture, Index; Germ. ed., i. 78 et seq., Leipsic, 1873;
I. Wellhausen, Reste Arabischen Heidenthums, 2d ed., pp. 132 et seq.;
Winer, B. R. ii. 31.
On medieval and modern lot-books: Benjacob, Oẓar ha-Sefarim, pp. 90 et seq.;
A. Berliner, Aus dem Leben der Deutschen Juden im Mittelalter, Berlin, 1900;
M. Grunwald, Mittheilungen der Gesellschaft für Jüdische Volkskunde, v. 12;
M. Güdemann, Gesch. i., ii.;
Steinschneider, Loosbücher, in Hebr. Bibl. vi. 120;
idem, Jüdische Literatur, ch. xxii., end.
LOTS.—See Magic (567f.), Urim and Thummim, Purim.
See DIVINATION.
1. Definition.-The article Divination indicated how at an early period men felt it to be their duty and for their advantage to get into and maintain friendly relations with their divinities. There gradually grew up, on the one hand, methods by which the deities revealed their will to men; and on the other, methods by which men could learn the desire or decision of the deities. Among the latter, one of the most primitive and most widely diffused was kleromancy (êëῆñïò + ìáíôåßá), divination by lot. While the efficacy of kleromancy in modern civilized life depends on the elimination of all possibility of human interference, in the lower culture it depends and depended on the certainty of Divine interference, the untrammelled exercise of the Divine will. This end was attained by (a) the use of certain things through which, according to tradition, the divinities could express their will. There were many such, as ‘a rod’ (ῥÜâäïò, îַ÷ֵּì, hence ῥáâäïìáíôåßá, ‘rhabdomancy’), ‘arrows’ (âÝëïò, çֵõ; hence âåëïìáíôßá, ‘belomancy’), knucklebones (ἀóôñÜãáëïò; hence ἀóôñáãáëüìáíôéò, ‘astragalomant’), and many others, as pebbles (øῆöïò, âּåֹøָì), beans, etc.; (b) the reverent manipulation of sacred things through which the deity had indicated his pleasure to make known his will, a good example of which is the use by the Hebrew priests of ‘the Urim and the Thummim’; (c) the selecting of a method by which the deity was perfectly free to express his will without human interference, a good example of which is seen in the action of Jonathan (1Sa_14:9-13). This latter use approaches very closely to the omen or the ordeal and to some kinds of rhabdomancy.* [Note: See James Sibree, ‘Divination among the Malagasy,’ Folk-Lore, iii. (1892) 193 ff.]
2. Diffusion.-Kleromancy is a universal religions practice. It was resorted to by the Romans† [Note: Granger, The Worship of the Romans, 1895, p. 180; Cicero, de Divinatione, ii. 86, etc.; W. Smith, Dict. of Greek and Roman Antiquities, 1875, artt. ‘Oraculum,’ ‘Sortes’; Thomas Gataker, Treatise of the Nature and Use of Lots2, 1627, and A just Defence of certain Passages in [the preceding] Treatise, 1623, p. 75.] and Greeks.‡ [Note: R. Smith, RS2, 1894, p. 196, and comment thereon by G. B. Gray in Com. on Numbers (ICC, 1903).] It prevailed throughout the Semitic world. In the form of belomancy it was used by the Babylonians (Eze_21:21 (26); ‘he shook the arrows to and fro.’§ [Note: The Qur’ân (sura v. 4, Sale’s Prel. Disc. v.) prohibits the procuring of a Divine sentence by drawing a lot at the sanctuary with headless arrows.] It was employed by the sailors of the ship of Tarshish (Jon_1:7), by the Arabs,|| [Note: | W. Robertson Smith, ‘Divination and Magic in Deu_18:10-11,’ in J Ph xiii. [1885] 277.] and Assyrians (Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) iii. 152b), while the Persians resorted to it as a means of finding out lucky days (Est_3:7; Est_9:24-32). It flourishes in China and Japan and in all uncivilized countries to-day. In every case it is in close connexion with the worship of the deities, and often takes place in their presence or in their temples, and always under their auspices.
‘Among the Hebrews in the oldest times the typical form of divine decision was by the lot, or other such oracle at the sanctuary.’¶ [Note: Robertson Smith, ib.] Later on, kleromancy was largely and regularly employed with the sanction of Jahweh, so that, apart from all human influence, passion, bias, or trickery, He might be able to dictate His will: ‘The lot áַּçֵé÷ éåּèַì but the whole decision thereof comes from Jahweh’ (Pro_16:33).** [Note: may mean (á) ‘cast into,’ or (â) ‘cast about in’ (HDB iv. 840). çÅé may mean the bosom of (á) a person; (â) a garment; (ã) a thing, as a chariot or altar, hence might possibly mean an urn (Smith’s DB ii. 146). The meaning is almost certainly that under (â).] This means not ‘that the actual disposal of affairs might be widely different from what … the lot … appeared to determine’ (Fairbairn, Imperial Bible Dictionary, ii. 118), but the exact opposite; hence it was clearly established that ‘the lot causeth contentions to cease, and parteth between the mighty’ (Pro_18:18). We have a conspicuous example of rhabdomancy in the budding and fruit-bearing of Aaron’s rod (Num_17:1-8 [16-23]),†† [Note: † W. R. Halliday, Greek Divination, 1913, ch. x.; Smith, loc. cit., art. ‘Dicastes’; The Martyrdom of Polycarp, vi.] and the practice is also referred to in Hos_4:12, and probably in Isa_17:10. We find kleromancy practised in the form of belomancy in 2Ki_13:15-19.* [Note: See also Psa_91:5.] Under the form known as the Urim and the Thummim it was or became a mode used only by the priests.† [Note: As was the ephod (1Sa_14:18); LXX And J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel, 1885, p. 133; HDB iv. 838, with the literature there mentioned, and v. 662b.] Kleromancy had, of course, its largest sphere in acts directly connected with Jahweh. The decision as to which goat should be for sacrifice to Jahweh and which to Azazel was determined by lot (Lev_16:8-10). A war was the war primarily not of Israel but of Jahweh, and that specially if it was for the punishment of wrong-doing; hence the members of a punitive expedition were chosen by lot (Jdg_20:9), hence also the spoil taken in war (Jdg_5:30), whether captives (2Sa_8:2, Nah_3:10, Joe_3:3) or sections of a conquered city (Oba_1:11), The services of the sanctuary were sacred; hence the priestly functions were assigned to the orders by lot (1Ch_24:5; 1Ch_24:7, Luk_1:9), Shemaiah the scribe writing out the lots in the presence of a committee consisting of the king, the high priest, and other functionaries (1Ch_24:6; 1Ch_24:31). The musicians (1Ch_25:8), the custodians (1Ch_26:13-14), and the persons who should bring the wood and other offerings to the temple (Neh_10:34), were all chosen by lot. So sacred was this procedure that a special official was entrusted with ‘superintending the daily casting of the lots for determining the particular parts of the service that were to be apportioned to the various officiating priests’ (E. Schürer, History of the Jewish People (Eng. tr. of GJV).] II. i. 269, 293). It was even maintained by some Jews in later times that the high, priest had been chosen by the same method (Jos. Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) IV. iii. 7, 8; c. Ap. ii. 24). As the king was the official representative of Jahweh, Saul was chosen by lot (1Sa_10:19-21). Godless or indiscriminate work is where no lot is cast (Eze_24:6). When the çַøָí or ban had been pronounced and violated, then the guilty person was detected whether the çַøָí was permanent (Jos_7:14-18) or temporary (1Sa_14:41-42), in both cases presumably by the Urim and the Thummim.‡ [Note: 1Sa_14:41-42 as amended from LXX by A. Kuenen, The Religion of Israel, i. [1874] 98; A. R. S. Kennedy, HDB iv. 839b; G. B. Gray, in Mansfield College Essays, 1909 p. 120; S. R. Driver, Text of the Books of Samuel, 1890.] As the Semites regarded the land inhabited by a nation as the possession of the god of the nation, Palestine belonged, as an allotment, to Jahweh (Deu_32:9); hence it was His right and duty to put His people into actual possession (Psa_105:11, 1Ch_16:18), which He did (Psa_78:55; Psa_135:12, Act_13:19), and to divide it up by kleromancy into allotments to the various tribes (Num_26:55-56; Num_33:54; Num_36:2).§ [Note: Ezekiel’s ideal division of the land was by lot (Eze_47:22; Eze_48:29). It was the intention of Antiochus, after subduing Palestine, to plant colonies in the land, dividing it among them by lot (1Ma_3:36). Josephus (BJ iii. viii. 7) saved his life by inducing his soldiers to agree that the order in which they should kill each other should be decided by lot. He adds this comment, ‘whether we must say it happened ad by chance, or whether by the providence of God.’] This accordingly was done in regard to the nine and a half tribes (Num_34:13, Jos_14:2; Jos_15:1; Jos_16:1; Jos_17:1; Jos_17:4-17, Psa_78:55), to the conquered land, to the land still unconquered after the first great effort (Jos_18:6-11; Jos_19:1-40), and at the death of Joshua (Jos_13:6); also in regard to the towns for the Levites (Jos_21:4, 1Ch_6:54; Jos_21:5, 1Ch_6:61; Jos_21:6, 1Ch_6:62; 1Ch_6:63; Jos_21:8, 1Ch_6:55). This was done ‘before Jahweh’ (Jos_18:6) and under the direction of a committee consisting of the high priest, the political chief, and the heads of the fathers’ houses of the tribes (Jos_14:1-2).
In course of time the procedure which had been primarily and essentially sacred was applied to secular affairs such as the selection of people to inhabit and guard a city (Neh_11:1). A study of the Old Testament reveals how kleromancy coloured the thought and the theology of the Hebrew thinkers and poets.
3. In the New Testament.-At the Crucifixion of Jesus we see its secular and Roman use when the soldiers divided His upper garments among themselves by lot.
After the suicide of Judas it was decided that a successor should be appointed. The procedure (Act_1:21-26) was as follows. From the mass of the followers of Jesus, numbering about one hundred and twenty, those only were declared eligible who had proved their steadfastness by keeping in constant contact with Him from His baptism. From this short leet they appointed (ἔóôçóáí; not ‘put forward’) two. Neither the parties who did this nor the method of doing it are mentioned. Then prayer was offered to Jesus* [Note: P. Liddon, The Divinity of our Lord11, 1885, p. 375; A. Carr in Expositor, 6th ser. i. [1900] 389; a various Commenaries in loco.] for His decision. The next step is not quite certain. If the words ἔäùêáí êëÞñïõò áὐôïῖò, which is the correct reading, mean ‘they gave the lots to them,’ then that indicates that to each of the two there was given to place in the proper receptacle a tablet with his name or mark, and he whose tablet was first shaken cut was held to be Divinely elected. But the phrase is not the classical nor the NT expression for casting lots, and if rendered ‘they gave lots for them,’ a quite legitimate rendering, then, as Mosheim held,† [Note: L. Mosheim, Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, 1868, p. 20, note 3.] the election was by ballot. This, of course, is not in harmony with Jewish practice, as seen in the selection of the goats (Lev_16:8). From the result being indicated by the words ‘the lot fell’ and not ‘the Lord chose,’ it has been argued that the election was unwarranted and that the Divine intention was that St. Paul should fill the place of Judas. This is a piece of pure imagination. Nor is there a shadow of proof that the eleven were in any special manner led either to appoint a successor or to appoint him by this method. The fact that the election took place before Pentecost has no vital significance. The act, in the face of the enemies of the Church, was, like the auctioning of the camp of Hannibal by the Romans, a boldly prudent step, a declaration to all that the Church, was neither cowed by the death of her Lord nor dejected by the suicide of the traitor, but was girding herself for a forward march. When St. James was martyred there was no occasion for such an act, and no successor was appointed. Hence this remains the only official use of the lot in the Apostolic Church.‡ [Note: Bingham, Origines Ecclesiasticae, 1840 iv. 1. 11; J. Cochrane, Discourses on Difficult Texts of Scripture, 1851, p. 297; J. B. Lightfoot, Epistle to the Philippians2, 1870, p. 246; F. W. Robertson, Sermons, 4th ser., 1874, p. 117; F. Rendall, Expositer, 3rd ser. vii. [1888] 357; HDB iii. 305, and literature there mentioned. The Didache (15) contains no reference to the method of electing bishops and deacons.] Kleromancy has left its mark on the thought, and specially on the soteriology, of the Apostolic Age. êëῆñïò is used in the secondary sense which it gradually gained as something assigned to man by a higher power. Judas had received ôὸí êëῆñïí in the ministry carried on by Jesus (cf. Il. xxiii. 862; Act_1:17), and his successor was to take not ôὸí êëῆñïí (à C3E), but only his ôüðïí, ‘place’ (ABC*D; Act_1:25), while in it Simon Magus had neither ìåñὶò ïὐäὲ êëῆñïò, neither a share, a limited portion, nor an allotment (Act_8:21). The ðñåóâõôÝñïé must not exercise lordly mastery (cf. Psalms 9 [10]:5) over what is not theirs, but ôῶí êëÞñùí, allotments made to them (1Pe_5:3). Ignatius prays for grace åὶò ôὸ ôὸí êëῆñüí ìïõ ἀíåìðïäßóôùò ἀðïëáâåῖí, ‘to cling to my lot without hindrance to the end’ (Epistle to the Romans, i.). êëçñïíïìßá has its original sense of an allotment made by a higher power. Abraham went out from Ur into a ôüðïí, a district in which he was promised an allotment (Heb_11:8), but in which he actually got none (Act_7:5), the allotment, and all its accompaniments, resting on nothing legal, but on a mere promise (Gal_3:18). Similarly the called of God still receive only the promise of an allotment which is eternal (Heb_9:15).
The transmission of an allotment was regulated by certain customs. A holder could convey it to another, as Isaac did to Jacob, and such transference could not be cancelled or altered (Gen_27:33, Heb_12:17). It was recognized that the son of a female slave could not share an allotment with the son of a free-born wife (Gen_21:10, Gal_4:30). Hence gradually the children, just because they were the children, of the possessor (Rom_8:17) claimed the allotment on the death of the possessor as a thing to be divided among them (Luk_12:13). Because a child came to be looked upon as the holder of the êëῆñïò, and when he attained the proper age (Gal_4:1) entered on possession, êëçñïíüìïò (êëῆñïò + íÝìïìáé, ‘hold’) came to mean what we call an ‘heir’ (Heb_11:9).* [Note: the remarks on feudal tenure in J. Hill Burton, The Scot Abroad, 1898, p. 4.] In this sense the word is used proleptically in the expression, ‘This is ü êëçñïíüìïò, let us kill him and the êëçñïíïìßá will become ours’ (Mat_21:38, Mar_12:7, Luk_20:14). Similarly the higher things of life came to be looked upon as something the êëῆñïò of which a man could hold. Noah became the holder of the êëῆñïò of righteousness (Heb_11:7). Very significant as attaching excellency to a name, as a condensed form of the whole personality, is the expression that the Eternal Son äéáöïñþôåñïí êåêëçñïíüìçêåí ὄíïìá, had allotted to Him a more excellent name (Heb_1:4), and thus became the One to whom all things were allotted (Heb_1:2), êëçñïíüìïí ðÜíôùí. Salvation, whether as promised or bestowed, is, in its ultimate eschatological form, something allotted. St. Paul’s mission to the Gentiles was to open the eyes that they might receive êëῆñïí, an allotment, a thing falling to their lot, among them that are sanctified (Act_26:18). God, who is able to give them a êëçñïíïìßáí among all them that are sanctified (Act_20:32),† [Note: Polycarp. Epistle to the Philippians, xii.: ‘det vobis sortem et partem inter sanctos suos.’] Himself causes them to become partakers ôïῦ êëÞñïõ, of the allotment of the saints in light (cf. Psa_16:6, Col_1:12), the ἀññáâþí, the arles of the allotment, being the gift of the Holy Spirit (Eph_1:14), and the ministry of the angels (Heb_1:14). The promises of God are given as an allotment to those who exhibit faith and patience (Heb_6:12), and Christian graciousness to others (1Pe_3:9); while to him who overcomes temptation there is given as an allotment the blessing that only God can give (Rev_21:7), and to those who comport themselves rightly to the home circle there is given as a recompense the allotment (Col_3:24). The saints in this way become, as Israel of old (Deu_4:20; Deu_9:26; Deu_9:29; Deu_32:9), the allotment which belongs to God (Eph_1:11), ἐí ῷ êáὶ ἐêëçñþèçìåí (à BKLP), and, being the riches of His glory (Eph_1:18), are the heirs of all the promises (Heb_6:17). Just as the earth is an allotment made to the meek (Mat_5:5), and eternal life an allotment to those who have left houses, etc. (Mat_19:24, Mar_10:17, Luk_10:25; Luk_18:18, Gal_5:21), so there is a Kingdom in which the unrighteous (1Co_6:9-10), in which flesh and blood (1Co_15:50), in which fornicators, etc. (Eph_5:5), cannot receive an allotment; for it is an allotment prepared only for the blessed of the Father (Mat_25:34). It is therefore a spiritual allotment, incorruptible, undefined (1Pe_1:4). This possession passes to men not through force of a legal enactment, but through their showing themselves heirs to it by their ethical and spiritual conduct. Thus the allotment of this world, promised to Abraham, passes to those linked to him not by flesh and blood, but only by the righteousness of faith (Rom_4:13-14), and only those who are thus in Christ are Abraham’s progeny, and êëçñïíüìïé according to the promise (Gal_3:29). They are the heirs of eternal life, according to hope (Tit_3:7), and because they have loved their Lord (Jam_2:5). Hence it is that the Gentiles equally with the Jews are óõíêëçñïíüìïé, fellow heirs (Eph_3:6), and wives are óõíêëçñïíüìïéò, joint heirs of the grace of life (1Pe_3:7).* [Note: the slave made co-heir (Hermans, ii.).] The conception of salvation as something allotted to man may have tended to obscure the necessity for diligence and earnestness in the pursuit of the Christian ideal, and this again may account for the absence of the idea from the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. In actual life at least we are not unfamiliar with something similar.
While kleromancy, it is true, ‘appeared to take the responsibility of decision out of the hands of man and vest it in the presiding deity,’† [Note: E. Carpenter. Comparatives Religion, 1913, p. 178.] yet, in reality, its tendency is not to exalt the Divine will but to enervate the human mind. It thus tends to destroy our sense of responsibility, and the duty of patiently permitting God to enlighten our minds as to what is right. It thus robs us of the moral and spiritual discipline of acting according as conscience, enlightened by Him, dictates, and besides opens up infinite possibilities of trickery and fraud. Through the action of the eleven, and age-long influences, Jewish and pagan, kleromancy continued to be practised in the Church. Augustine held that divisory lots were lawful in common things but not in disposing of ecclesiastical offices and lives of men,‡ [Note: Bingham, xvi. 5. 3.] and similar views continued to prevail till near the end of the 17th century.§ [Note: Bingham, iv. 1. 1. For the connexion between êëῆñïò and ‘clergy’ see Lightfoot, p. 245, and E. de Pressensé, Christian Life and Practice in the Early Church, 1880, p. 52.] Jeremy Taylor still thought it ‘not improbable, and in most cases to be admitted, that God hath committed games of chance to the Devil’s conduct.|| [Note: | Ductor dubitantium, 1660, iv. 1.] Wesley believed in Divine guidance being given by lot,¶ [Note: Life of Wesley, by Robert Southey (Bohn’s edition, 1864), pp. 80, 81, 110, 111, 119, note 27.] and in 1738 a journey to Bristol was finally decided on, after various appeals to the Sortes Sanctorum, by kleromancy.** [Note: * Journal of John Wesley (Everyman’s edition), i. [1906] 175.] Among the Moravians, whose first ministers were chosen by lot, in 1467, and whose church life was at first completely regulated by kleromancy, its sphere was steadily and gradually limited, and it is now scarcely recognized.†† [Note: † Primitive Church Government in the Practice of the Reformed in Bohemia, with notes of John Amos Comenius, 1703, pp. viii, 23; H. Klinesmith, Divine Providence, or Historical Records relating to the Moravian Church, Irvine, 1831, p. 432.] Though down to the end of the 16th cent. it was frequently practised,‡‡ [Note: ‡ See, e.g., Johnson’s Life of Cowley (Nimmo’s edition).] and the prevailing view was that ‘lots may not be used, but with great reverence, because the disposition of them cometh immediately from God,’ yet the arguments of Gataker§§ [Note: § Thomas Gataker, Treatise of the Nature and Use of Lots, pp. 91, 141.] that such Divine interposition was ‘indeed mere superstition,’ and that ‘lots were governed by purely natural laws,’ gradually influenced educated men. Among the more illiterate sects kleromancy long lingered, and the scene in Silas Marner (ch. 1) was true to life. Pious but ignorant people still resort to it in one form or another. The rule that when a lower type of religion is absorbed or superseded by a higher the ceremonies of the former finally become games, and then children’s games, is illustrated by the fact that the casting of lots, once sacred and solemn, is now totally confined to games.
Literature.-This has been indicated in the foot-notes.
P. A. Gordon Clark.
Stones, sticks, or bones used like dice
for making decisions. See Prov. 16:33.