3

In my opinion, one of the passages that most clearly support the belief that the dead are unconscious is Ecclesiastes 9:10:

10 All that thy hand findeth to do, with thy power do, for there is no work, and device, and knowledge, and wisdom in Sheol whither thou art going.. [YLT]

10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest. [KJV]

This is one of several passages that are commonly cited by adherents of the doctrine of Christian Mortalism (also more colloquially known as the doctrine of "Soul Sleep"). Other similar passages (courtesy of this answer) are Genesis 3:19, Ecclesiastes 9:5, Ecclesiastes 12:7, Psalm 6:5, Psalm 88:10-12, Psalm 115:17, Psalm 146:3-4 and Isaiah 38:18-19.

The same aforementioned answer concludes:

Do these scriptures make it seem as though the dead are capable of speaking, thinking, or being aware? Death is said to be silent and as the darkness. It's called the land of forgetfulness. The dead cannot thank, cannot praise, cannot hope; all feats that require mental faculties to be accomplished. In Sheol, there is absolutely no declaration of God, or of His faithfulness/graciousness, or of anything He performs. When we die, our spirits depart to God who gave it, and we return to the dust from which we were taken; consequently, our thoughts perish altogether. And most of all, the dead know naught; they have no knowledge, wisdom, thinking, or work in the place where they are.

Question: Does Ecclesiastes 9:10 affirm that the dead are unconscious? To what extent is a different interpretation warranted?


Related questions:

Does Psalm 146:3-4 affirm that the dead are unconscious?

Are the souls of Revelation 6:9-11 awake and, yet, still awaiting the resurrection?

Does "asleep" in 1 Corinthians 15 mean that the dead are unconscious prior to the resurrection?

The dead forget OR the dead will be forgotten? Ecclesiastes 9:5

Sleeping in the grave until Christ's second coming?

0

4 Answers 4

0

I propose backing up a few verses for context. One of the linked posts addresses the oft-quoted verse 5:

For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

As discussed in this and related posts, verse 5 indicates not that the dead will forget, but that the dead will be forgotten.

With this in mind, let's consider the implications of no work & no knowledge (we could do no device & no wisdom too but the discussions would be comparable) .

No work

This is a poignant reminder of the need to make good on the time we have and not to procrastinate. Jesus offered a comparable reminder in John 9:4:

I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.

In the first century there was no artificial electric light [citation needed], and numerous activities came to a dead stop (okay, that pun was intended) after the sun went down. Those engaged in agrarian work would have understood well the metaphor--the hours in which they could earn a living were dictated by the sun, and once it was gone from the sky, there was nothing they could do about it. This is a call to action, to act in the certainty of the present, not to build one's foundation somewhere in the nebulous uncertainty of the future.

The works being considered here are the works of this life, as discussed in verses 7-9. Indeed, the chapter specifically acknowledges events under the sun. As discussed below, there are some pretty severe implications if events under the sun includes the afterlife.

No knowledge

As ScottS discussed here:

So the point of the text is for the living to live life while they can; enjoy that life, despite the events and evils that come. But do live the life righteous and wise (v.1), for their works are accepted by God (v.7), so let them remain clean (v.8) amidst the struggles of life. For once dead, no more works can be done. One's fate is sealed.

Verse 10 helps understand v.5b. The focus is not necessarily knowledge ceasing to exist for those being dead, but rather that there is no more partaking in the things of life—no more knowledge being gained of what is occurring in life.

& in the same post, applying this to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus:

The rich man is not noted to have any awareness of what is currently happening among the living. He is only aware of the past and his present state among the dead.

The intent of the passage

Given the paucity of Old Testament statements about the details of the afterlife, we understandably wish to extract any detail we can from the statements we have...but I suggest this is to try to make the authors say something they never intended to say. Some topics are not plainly expounded in the Bible.

These verses in Ecclesiastes articulate the transient nature of the things of this world, and the need to use well the time we have, because this life is but temporary.

Antithesis

A response to 3 competing claims.

1. This passage is plain & uncomplicated

If it were, the proper interpretation of this passage would not be a major point of disagreement among Christians. Perhaps it is not so plain.

--

2. Deductive argument eliminating all but one possibility


P1: Sheol is either the place of dead, rotting, physical bodies OR the place of the spiritually dead OR it's the place where the souls of the dead are

P2: Sheol is not the place of dead, rotting, physical bodies

P3: Sheol is not the place of the spiritually dead.

C1: There is absolutely no other way to interpret this scripture other than that the souls of the dead are entirely unconscious.


This conclusion does not follow because:

  • there is absolutely no other way to interpret...is contested by the interpretation I've offered above &
  • the logically valid deduction would be C': "therefore, Sheol is the place where the souls of the dead are".

I take no issue with C', nor is it in conflict with the interpretation I've offered above.

--

3. Ecclesiastes 9 is NOT a discussion of the end of mortal activities, but a discussion of the actions & events (or lack thereof) in the afterlife.

Let's apply a logical reduction to this premise (we'll call it P_Sadducee).

Verse 3 says there is one event all groups have in common: they go to the dead. P_Sadducee would mean that not everyone is resurrected (otherwise that'd be 2 events all have in common), which is in direct contradiction with the testimony of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. (an idiomatic interpretation of this phrase is possible, but if an idiomatic interpretation of verse 3 is permitted, what about an idiomatic interpretation of verse 10?)

Verse 4 says there is hope for the living, and contrasts it with the dead in verse 5. P_Sadducee would imply no hope for the dead...no resurrection.

Verse 5 says of the dead neither have they any more a reward. This would mean no reward for those who die? No resurrection, no eternal life, no mansion in heaven...nothing?

Verse 6 says neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun. This would imply no entering into the kingdom of God, no participation in a new heaven and a new earth...no portion for ever is an extreme claim.

P_Sadducee leads to multiple denials of the resurrection. I conclude by reductio ad absurdum that P_Sadducee is false.

I propose a far simpler solution--that does not conflict with the New Testament--is that done under the sun is specifically a reference to the activities of this life, and that is the focus of this chapter.

--

Conclusion

I see in Ecclesiastes practical advice about the realities of life and death, not a discourse on the nature of Sheol (more details in appendix) or the eventuality of the resurrection.

This chapter is noteworthy for the absence of teaching about the resurrection. An argument that takes Ecclesiastes 9 as a doctrinal statement on the afterlife can likewise be co-opted to argue against the resurrection. Indeed, many first century Jews who had the Tanakh did not believe in the resurrection. Fortunately, the OT teachings about the resurrection are made unambiguously explicit in the NT.

I've offered here a negative argument, i.e. the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise, not a positive argument showing consciousness after death. For such an argument, see my more extensive discussion here.


Appendix--Sheol

It is relevant to consider the views held by the Jews at the time. I’ll offer in this section not a 21st century interpretation, but an attempt at a Biblical understanding.

Soldarnal offers an excellent description of Sheol here and a very insightful Jewish perspective is provided by Daniel Danjan Chaud here.

To the people who wrote the Bible, Sheol (Hades in Greek) is where the spirit/pneuma went at death.

JewishEncyclopedia provides the following helpful statements on Sheol:

It connotes the place where those that had died were believed to be congregated

[Sheol] seems to have been viewed as divided into compartments...one beneath the other

Here the dead meet.

In the compartments of Sheol, one is often presented as a place of rest for the righteous, and one a place of anguish for the wicked.

Ecclesiastes 12:7:

Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

This indicates:

  • The physical "dust" or "clay" is no longer animated and goes into the earth. (The flesh rotted and the bones generally were carefully preserved).
  • The spiritual goes to Sheol.

As noted in Ezekiel 37:

5 Thus saith the Lord God unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live:

6 And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the Lord.

These elements will return together in the resurrection (Note that this view was held by the Pharisees but not the Sadduccees in the 1st century. Also note that the word for "breath" and "spirit" are the same in Hebrew as in Greek).

Hippolytus' discourse to the Greeks concerning Hades (often incorrectly attributed to Josephus) is another useful reference--it provides quite the description of Hades ("Hades" is used in the LXX for "Sheol"), and is unambiguous in claiming that the dead were conscious (see here). This isn't a 1st century Jewish source but a very early Christian treatise saturated with Jewish concepts.

This means that to those who believed in resurrection Sheol was a place of temporary residence; and it was not a realm ruled by men but a realm of God.

1
2

Yes, it unequivocally does. Sheol is not the place of dead, rotting, physical bodies, nor is it the place of the spiritually dead. It's the place where the souls of the dead are. There is no pragmatic interpretation of this scripture other than the one that says that the dead are entirely unconscious.

Is Everything Vanity?

Ecclesiastes falls under the genre of wisdom literature, a genre of literature common in the ancient Near East. It's one of three wisdom books in the Bible, the other two being Proverbs and Job.

It opens by telling us that these are the words of qoheleth(קֹהֶ֫לֶת, which just means a collector of words/sayings who speaks them in public), the Son of David, king in Jerusalem. There are many theories as to whom the identity of this qoheleth is(many saying it is king Solomon), but the identity is not vital to our discussion. It then tells us the words of the congregation;

Ecclesiastes 1:2 "Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity."

The English translation "vanity" is an unfortunate one, to say the least, especially considering that the author uses it over 40 times in the book. It indicates to readers that what the author is saying is that everything is pointless and meaningless; this couldn't be farther from the truth. The word used there for "vanity" is hevel(הֶ֫בֶל), and it does not primarily convey meaninglessness. Its primary meaning is smoke, vapor, or breath. So, what does smoke have to do with life? Well, like a smoke, life is beautiful and mysterious; it takes one shape, and before you know it, it takes a new shape. And smoke even looks solid, but try to grab it, it slips right through your fingers! It's the same with life at times. You think everything is handled, that you're the one in control, and when you least expect it, life slips out of the grasp of your hands because you can't control where it goes. And when you're stuck in the thick of vapor, like in a fog, it's difficult to see clearly. It's the same when you're burdened by life's problems when it's just so hard to see through the thick fog to find meaning.

Modern translations have lost the metaphor by translating הֶ֫בֶל as meaningless, but the Ecclesiastes isn't saying that life has no meaning; rather, that the meaning of life is never clear! Like smoke, life is confusing, disorienting, and uncontrollable. The book is by no means telling you that the things you do have no meaning or purpose, rather that you can never know with certainty where they're going to lead you. It's not saying that the reality of the world is that it's worthless, just that the worth is so perplexing and difficult to find and get a hold of; it's not that life actually is pointless, but that it's unpredictable and uncontrollable nature can leave you feeling like it's pointless. This is a fact of life that no one can argue with. This book is not an atheist's book; it's an every human on earth book. If you tell me that you've never felt like life is meaningless before, then I know you are lying, because every human who has ever lived has. That is the mere fact that the book is trying to convey. So, when you see "meaningless" in your translations, don't think that the book is telling you that life is, in reality, meaningless, because that would go against the rest of what the Bible says; rather, think that it's telling you that life is perplexing and unpredictable, such that at times it can leave you believing that there's no point to anything. This does not go against anything that the Bible says. It's recorded in the Bible that Elijah, a righteous prophet, had suicidal thoughts(1 Kings 19:4)! If that man did not thoroughly believe that life was pointless at that moment, then no one does! So, no, Ecclesiastes does not oppose the Bible when it says that life, wisdom, etc. is הֶ֫בֶל.

Does Ecclesiastes Support the Sadducees?

Does Ecclesiastes 9:2-3 deny the resurrection? No.

Ecclesiastes 9:2-3 "All things come alike to all: there is one event to the righteous and to the wicked; to the good and to the clean and to the unclean; to him that sacrificeth and to him that sacrificeth not; as is the good, so is the sinner; and he that sweareth, as he that feareth an oath. This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea also, the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead."

Notice this scripture does not state that death is the one and only event that all people share, but that death is one event that all people share, i.e. that death is the minimum event that all humans share in participating in.

To illustrate with a simple statement; "I and my wife going to Disneyland is the one thing we will certainly do together." Does that statement imply that going to Disneyland is the one and only thing me and my wife will do together on our vacation, thus excluding the possibility that we share in any other events? It's possible to interpret it that way, but you could also interpret it to mean that the event of me and my wife going to Disneyland together is the minimum of events we will participate in together. Such an interpretation does not forbid us from participating in any other events together.

Death being one event all humans participate in is not mutually exclusive with the event of all humans being resurrected. To be clear, I am not interpreting V3 idiomatically. I am showing why Ecclesiastes 9:2-3 saying that death is "one event" that all share does not necessitate that we interpret it as the one and only event that all share(in fact, it seems that interpreting the text in such a manner is more idiomatic than not). It can just as easily be interpreted as the minimum of events that all people share in participating in, or simply one event that all humans participate in, with no reference to the happenings(or lack thereof) of any other events(e.g. the resurrection). That is the plain reading of the scripture. It is not necessary to take it as saying that death is the only possible event all humans share, excluding the resurrection in the process. Thus, Ecclesiastes 9:2-3 does not contradict the resurrection in any manner.

Is There Any Other Way?

There are two moments in Ecclesiastes 9 where the author tells us something about the knowledge of the dead.

Ecclesiastes 9:5 "For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing. They have no further reward, because the memory of them is forgotten."

Ecclesiastes 9:10 " "Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going."

Ecclesiastes 9:5 is a little more ambiguous than 9:10. Does the author mean the spiritually dead? Does he mean dead, rotting, physical bodies? Many have tried to interpret it as such. Ecclesiastes 9:10, however, cannot under any circumstances be taken to be talking about dead bodies/spiritually dead. Why? Because it says that there is no knowledge IN Sheol, which is incontrovertibly the place of dead souls. Ask any reputable scholar or assess any Hebrew concordance.

But I know what you are wondering... How do we know that when the author says, "there is no knowledge in Sheol", he does not mean, "there is no knowledge being acquired about the earth and its happenings in Sheol"? After all, the previous verses before V10 talk about the earth.

Ecclesiastes 9:7-9 "Go, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already approved what you do. 8 Let your garments be always white. Let not oil be lacking on your head. 9 Enjoy life with the wife whom you love, all the days of your vain life that he has given you under the sun, because that is your portion in life and in your toil at which you toil under the sun."

So, shouldn't that imply that in verse 10, when it says "there is no knowledge in Sheol", it is actually talking about not having knowledge about life and about what occurs on the earth? No. Allow me to illustrate with a short story about a man who wanted to order some pizza...

Man: Hello, I'd like to order one large pizza.

Pizza guy: Hello sir. What toppings would you like on your large pizza?

Man: I'd like pepperoni, chicken, mushrooms, and onions.

Pizza guy: Ok, I've got it. Anything else, sir?

Man: I'd also like 4 pieces of garlic bread.

Pizza guy: As a topping on top of your pizza, correct?

Man: What? No, I don't want it as a topping.

Pizza guy: Mmmmm, no, I think you do. You see, the context of you asking for garlic bread was asking for pizza, therefore when you asked for garlic bread, you were actually asking for garlic bread on top of your pizza.

Man: What? So what if I was asking for pizza before I asked for garlic bread? The subject had changed. At first, the subject was about pizza, and now, it's about garlic bread. Me asking for pizza before asking for garlic bread does not warrant you to interpret my plain statement, "Can I have 4 pieces of garlic bread" as "Can I have 4 pieces of garlic bread as toppings on my pizza." If I wanted the garlic bread as toppings on my pizza, then I could have very easily said, "Can I have the garlic bread on top of my pizza?" But I didn't say that, did I? It's almost as if I didn't want you to put the garlic bread on top of my pizza, and that's what I didn't ask you to. So I ask, stop adding words into my mouth.

Pizza guy: Mmmmm, no, you were talking about pizza toppings before you started talking about garlic bread, therefore you want the garlic bread on top of your pizza. Simple as that.

Man: hangs up

I hope this story illustrates to you just how utterly absurd it is to say that "there is no knowledge in Sheol" actually means "there is no knowledge about the earth and those living on it" simply because what came before the statement was about the earth and those living on it. The subject of what the author was writing changed(who knew that was possible?). At first, the subject was the living/life, and then, the subject changed to the dead. There's no rocket science here. If the author wanted to say "there is no knowledge about life/the living in Sheol", then the author could have easily said that. But he didn't. It's almost as if the author didn't want you to think that "there is no knowledge in Sheol" means "there is no knowledge about life and the earth in Sheol", and that's why he didn't say that. So I ask, stop adding to scripture what clearly isn't there. Paul warns us about that in 1 Corinthians 4:6.

1 Corinthians 4:6 "I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another."

Ecclesiastes 9:10 straightforwardly says what it says, i.e. that those in a state of death in Sheol have no work, no device/thinking ability, no knowledge, and no wisdom, end of story; plain and uncomplicated(I didn't say plain and easy-to-swallow/agreeable). To say anything otherwise would be to go beyond what is written(i.e. to add to scripture what clearly isn't found), which, once again, we are warned about by the apostle Paul.

Paul's words at 1 Corinthians 4:6 even seem like a precursor to Occam's razor. While we could posit that the correct interpretation of "there is no knowledge in Sheol" is actually "there is no knowledge of the happenings of the earth or of those living on it in Sheol", it is orders of magnitude more reasonable to simply interpret "there is no knowledge in Sheol" as "there is no knowledge in Sheol", and anything more than that is unwarranted and it makes for a hermeneutically flawed interpretation.

As you can see, Ecclesiastes 9:10 unambiguously and indisputably proves that the dead know naught, neither have they wisdom, thinking ability, or work of any kind, hence corroborating what is told at Ecclesiastes 9:5, Psalm 6:5, Psalm 88:10-12, Psalm 115:17, Psalm 146:4, and Isaiah 38:18-19, bringing everything together in total harmony.

9
  • The Hebrew word for "knowledge" in Ecclesiastes 9:10 is יָדַע (yâda‛). The definition of yâda‛ is: "to know, learn to know". While it would seem contradictory to "learn" the fires of hell in sheol for those who are damned, one could argue that what is in Sheol per Ecc 9:10, is in reference to no new acquiring of knowledge in terms of what we receive here on Earth, while we live, some of us go to school, are taught by parents, etc. There is nothing but judgement in Sheol, on the other side of Sheol apart from the damned would be where Abraham's Bosom was.
    – Cork88
    Commented Jan 11, 2022 at 20:28
  • What you addressed just now still makes no sense for a few reasons: 1.) Luke 16 is a divinely inspired extension of the OT afterlife doctrine. 2.) Ecclesiastes is mainly about earthly life, death, and a few other minor themes, including God's Providence. 3.) If you take Ecc 9:10 in it's context as others have argued you will see it fits perfectly with the rest of the Old Testament in terms of a resurrection theology (Not that Ecclesiastes is about the resurrection per say) 4.) Isaiah 66 & even Daniel 12:2 would have to come alongside Ecclesiastes 9:10 anyhow, and they prove consciousness.
    – Cork88
    Commented Jan 11, 2022 at 20:41
  • So to clear things up between us, let me ask you this: Do you believe in the eternal punishment of the wicked? Because unless I missed something in this thread it would appear that Ecclesiastes 9:10 was being used to deny an eternal conscious existence of those who reject God in the end. I don't want to get carried away into long debate and thus deviate from the rules but I wanted to point out some objections, unless, of course, I have been mistaken somewhere along your text.
    – Cork88
    Commented Jan 11, 2022 at 20:48
  • 1
    The context of the dead knowing nothing is that they know nothing anymore in the land of the living: They are no longer "under the sun". A separation has occurred. It is not treating, at all, of the consciousness of the dead in the realm of the dead. Commented Jan 13, 2022 at 2:05
  • 1
    Very sorry, I did not have a good day yesterday. Please accept my apologies.
    – Rajesh
    Commented Jan 13, 2022 at 15:56
0

The overarching context of Ecclesiastes, the theological flavor of it, is the exposition of the height of human wisdom applied to life "under the sun" as opposed to "under God".

Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity. What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun? One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever. - Ecc. 1:2-4

The phrase "under the sun" occurs so often in Ecclesiastes that it would be tedious to list every appearance. Suffice it to be summed up that, according to the Preacher, everything "under the sun" is vanity; every activity, all wisdom, all knowledge, everything. As the context develops it becomes clear that everything "under the sun" is vanity simply because, no matter what one does, one ends up in the grave.

I the Preacher was king over Israel in Jerusalem. And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith. I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit. - Ecc. 1:12-14

While it is true that the topical headings are not inspired yet still they are not inaccurate summations of the content. Here they are from the early chapters:

The vanity of wisdom, The vanity of self-indulgence, The vanity of living wisely, The vanity of toil

Since we know that it is no vanity to live the life of faith in this world that God has created, we can know that Ecclesiastes is written from the point of view that is opposite to the Apostle Paul's teaching:

But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and raiment let us be therewith content. But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.  For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. - 1 Timothy 6:6-10

Solomon goes on to say that, from the vantage point of his philosophy (under the sun), man has no advantage over the beasts and that beyond the threshold of death we don't know anything.

I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth? Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him? - Ecc. 3:18-22

This plays out thematically and contextually throughout the whole book so that when we come to chapter 9 and the verse in question the context is firmly in place. Here is the same context in verses 4-6:

For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion. For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

The living don't know what the dead are up to and the dead don't know what the living are up to. And this context should be firmly held when looking at verses 9-10 (the verse in question):

Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity, which he hath given thee under the sun, all the days of thy vanity: for that is thy portion in this life, and in thy labour which thou takest under the sun. Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest. - Ecc. 9:9-10

The meaning is clear...none of the work that is done "under the sun", none of the "days of the life of thy vanity" occur in the grave as far as the living can tell. Remember again chapter 3, "Who knows if the spirit of a man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down" and take pleasure in the now because "who shall show him what comes after".

Ecclesiastes concern is not to enumerate the conscious capabilities of the dead within the realm of the dead. Instead, it presents the sharp disconnect, the great uncrossable chasm between life under the sun and the grave from the standpoint of the best that merely human wisdom can offer.

1
-1

“in the grave, whither thou goest“ only makes sense if read: “in the grave where you wither, ghost”.

It is the single Hebrew word “halak” that has been translated into the three English words: “whither thou goest”.

This is what Strongs has to say about the Hebrew word “halak”: “akin to 3212; a primitive root; to walk (in a great variety of applications, literally and figuratively”.

The word “ghost” means “wandering spirit”.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.