Uri (Hastings' Dictionary)

1. The fatlier of Bezalel, Ex 31- So" 38", I'Ch 2=», 2 Ch P (B Oipdas in all except 1 Ch 2"-^ Ovpel; A Ovpt in all except 2 Ch 1' Oi>ios). 2. Father of one of Solomon's commissariat officers, 1 K 4" (BA 'A3ai, Luc. 'ASSal). 3. A porter, Ezr 10" (BX 'aSoOe, A'n5ou(?, Luc. Ovplas). URIAH, in 2 K 16'»-" URIJAH (.ttsn, w'-isk Jer 26'- ='• ^, ' flame of J" ' or ' my light is J" ' ; B Ovpdas, A Ovplas ; Urias). — 1. One of David's ' thirty ' mighty men (2 S 23'', 1 Ch 11"). Like Ahimelech, another of David's followers, Uriah belonged by race to the ancient Hittite population ; but, as his name seems to indicate, he had adopted his master's God as his own. The few personal traits of Uriah's character, which are incidentally revealed in the narrative of 2S 11, not only illustrate the quiet heroism so often existent in the lives of common- place people, but also enable us to gauge the depths to which David had fallen. When summoned by royal command from the scene of wsu:, Uriah's behaviour was <iuided by a resolve to live as far as was possible under the same conditions as his comrades in the field ; accordingly after his interview with David, instead of seeking repose and relaxation in his own house, lie immedi- ately went on duly as one of the royal bodyguard ; and this chivalrous determination was so lirnily fixed in his mind that he retained it even when in- toxicated. Josephus (Ant. vil. vii. 1) in his usual way embellishes the story of Uriah's death. In particular he states that David wrote to Joab ' commanding him to punish Uriah, and signified that he had offended,' and supplies graphic details of the engagement in which Uriah fell. Besides 2 S 11, Uriah's name occurs in 2S 12='- ">• ", 1 K 15', Mt 1«. 2. High priest in the reign of Ahaz. The two notices of him that are found in the Bible leave us in some doubt as to his real character. On the one hand, he is selected (Is 8') as one of two ' faithful witnesses ' who were to attest the utterance of the propheiy concerning Maher-slialal-hash-baz; while, on the other hand, the narrative of 2 K IG'""" pre- sents us with the picture of a weak compliant man who not only tolerated but even actively abetted the religious innovations of king Ahaz. It is possible that this unworthy complaisance is the cause of the oniissiun of his name in what seems intended to be a list of high priests in 1 Ch G''". He is, however, included in a list given by Josephus [Ant. X. viii. 6), which is evidently based on that in Chronicles. There are so many suspicious features about the Chronicler's list that one is tempted to suppose an extensive corruption of the text. It is of course conceivable that Urijah was the second priest, whose special duty it was to regulate the temple services (cf. Jer 2!)'°). The changes Introduced by Ahaz with the connivance of Urijah were of a startling charoi.-ter. The priest ho/l apj^ar- ently so placed the Assyrian altar that the ant^iviit brazen altAr stood between it and the front of the Holy Place. Ahaz, however, was determined that his new altar should be the 'great' or principal one, and so he removed the ancient oltAf to the north side ot the new one. The new altar now occupied the correct U•^,'al position before the Uoly Place, and was used for all ortlinnry sacrificial purposes. The old altar was not. however, entirely iliscanltMi. from time immemorial kings ana leaders of Israel llad iiuiuirod of J" at thi.t Mime brazen altar. A favourable answer might not so easily be obtained at a oe« 838 URIAS URIM AND THUMMIM one, however eleirant and modem. The old altar therefore was retained for purposes of divination. It must, however, be noted that this explanation of v, 15 is not free from doubt. Miuhaelis, followed by Oesenius, Kittel, et al., renders njpi 123? T'i;'7' ns'njn : ' as for the brazen altar it will be for nie to inquire,' i.e. 'to consider what I shall do with it; so Vultf. erit paraiuin ad voliuUutcm imain^ The LXX tit rt «■/^4" 1 = 1^3'?] does not convey a meaning consistent with the context. It seems to be implied in the subsequent narrative that Urijah assented to the other structural alterations in the temple carried out by Ahaz. 3. A prophet, son of Shemaiah of Kiriath-jearim, the .story 01 whose death is incidentally narrated in Jer 26-°"^. From this we learn that he was a con- temporary and perhaps a disciple of Jeremiah, whose denunciations against Jerusalem and Judah he is stated to have echoed. Unlike the greater prophet, however, he did not succeed in evading the vengeance of Jehoiakim. Uriah having taken refuge in Egypt, the king demanded his extradi- tion through Elnathan, his father-in-law (2 K 2#), who was leader of an emhassy, the real object of which was, in all probability, to solicit the aid of Egypt against Nebuchadnezzar. It is unlikely that Jehoiakim would have gone to the trouble and expense of sending a special mission merely to capture a single prophet. Having executed Uriah, the king added the further outrage of casting his dead body into the common graveyard. It is commonly thought that this story is intro- duced here by Jeremiah in order to prove that his own personal risk, as recorded in this chapter, was a very real one. On the other hand, Rashi main- tains that these verses constitute the rejoinder of Jeremiah's enemies to the precedent of Hezekiah and .Micah alleged by his friends. 4. A priest, son or representative of Hakkoz (Neh 3- '^), by whom is probably meant the seventh of the twenty-four courses of priests (1 Ch 24'"). He is mentioned only a-s father or ancestorof Meremoth or Meraiotli, an eminent priest who was chief of the four officials to whom Ezra entrusted the sacred \essels and treasure brought from Babylon (Ezr S'', 1 Es S"^- [Urias]), who repaired two sections of the wall of Jerusalem (Neh 3^- "), and whose name is substi- tuted in the lists of priestly families, Neh 10" 12- ", for that of Hakkoz. 5. One of those who stood on Ezra's right hand when he publicly read the Law (Neh 8. i Es 9« [Urias]). He was jirobably a priest. N. J. D. White.