In the Hebrew text three seem to be handed down. The first, “Before the face of Eleazar the Priest he shall stand.” The second: “And he shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim [הָאוּרִים] before the Lord.” The third: “At his word shall he go out and go in, himself.” Before it be asked what these import, that former binary of these [two] is first to be discussed. For to some — in whose number [is] Vatablus in the text, and Oleaster — that single prior action seems to be attributed to the prince [Joshua], namely that he should stand before the Pontiff; but the latter [action] to the Pontiff himself, that he [the Pontiff] should inquire before the Lord — not [about] him [Eleazar], but [about] him, namely Joshua, that is, for him. And it can be confirmed: 1. from our text (v. 21): “for this [Joshua], if anything is to be done, Eleazar the Priest shall consult the Lord.” 2. because he who here “inquires,” inquires “by the judgment of the Urim,” and “before the Lord.” But to inquire thus was permitted to the Priests alone, because they alone bore the Urim (Exod. 28), and they alone could approach the Lord, namely before the ark. Yet more truly both those actions seem [to be] of the prince. For 1. to the verb “he shall stand” the nominative [subject] is prefixed; the same [Joshua] is to be prefixed to the verb “he shall inquire,” by reason of the very conjunction [“and”]. And 2. the 70 so handed it down, when they render “they shall inquire of him,” namely of the Priest—
(col. 203)
—[the Priest]. And they render [it] in the plural, “they shall inquire,” either that they might show [that] not only the prince, but the people also, would inquire of the Priests; or that they might teach [that] not this prince Joshua only, but also all who should afterward hold the principate, ought to do the same. Thirdly, because even Laics can ask the Lord by the judgment of the Urim, and stand before Him — not by themselves immediately, but through those [same] Priests. Fourthly, because [he] who had followed the former opinion in his text, Vatablus, afterward in the Commentary so always explains [it], that he makes the prince the [one] inquiring. For in the Paris edition of the year [15]46: “He shall consult,” he says, “the Pontiff about the things to be done, as [one] conscious of the will of God,” &c.; “He shall ask the Priest [for] his opinion, what the Lord wishes to be done”; or “of God declaring [His will]. For here Urim [signifies] either the Pontiff, or God.” Nay, even that very one who is always more unjust to pontifical authority — Calvin — says: “Here in one thing (the prince) is subjected to the Priest, that he ask him by Urim and Thummim.” For by this symbol was the priestly dignity commended, that the prince should consult God through the mouth of the Priest, who, clothed with the sacred Ephod (whose emblems were Urim and Thummim), gave responses, as the interpreter of God Himself. But of our Interpreter the argument will be given afterward. To the second [action, something has been] already said, and again afterward to be said. It could indeed also here be treated of the going-in and going-out, which ought to be done at the word of the Pontiff; but of that more conveniently below.