Q&A 36 Exodus Census Q&A 37 Exodus 21:7-11 Q&A 38 Ecclesiastes 9:5
Exodus 21:7-11 · Vern Peterman · Oct 10, 2010
Questions & Answers, No. 40
Holly Hills Bible Church
https://www.hollyhillsbiblechurch.org/teaching/messages/49262164953

Transcribed from the recording by SermonAudio, so expect the occasional misheard word.

We have, in contrast to the 24-page handout that we had last time, now we have just four pages and not even quite that. So you will want to get a handout. You'll need to track this with us. We have some slides also to go through, a fair number just so that we kind of get the picture, so to speak. And I mean that both figuratively and literally. What we have here today, in contrast to sometimes where we've had, you know, a question that rolls on for two or three weeks in today's handout and session, we actually have three questions. And so we'll see how that goes as a reversal. I've kind of planned out the remainder of the year, and so we will actually have multiple questions most of the time throughout the rest of the year. And so the pattern that we have here will be, this morning, will be one that will carry on.

Okay. How many were in the exodus and how did they and the livestock survive? Well, very interesting. Because what would have happened, you have a map that is on your handout, and that map is from James Hoffmeier's book, Ancient Israel in the Sinai. I think we have it shortened as Israel in the Sinai in the handout. But actually his wife put this map together. Estimates of the number of Israelites during the Exodus fall at about two million individuals.

Some estimates are higher. Some of you may have heard of, for example, 3 million. Some try to tune that down, but about 2 million is a reasonable figure. The basis for that is not because we have 2 million as a figure in scripture. What we do have is the number of men, and lest you think that that's just sexism, the reason is the number of men often for fighting purposes. But based on that and making some assumptions, if we have this many men, then we have this many women, this many children, you get a number that lands somewhere around two million during this exodus.

Can you imagine getting two million people through this parting of the sea. That's quite a deal. And you get all of two million of them gathered together, keeping them somehow together and organized. Really quite a chore. I mean, you can imagine what Moses was dealing with. He didn't even have a PA system. So it was something. Let me show you through a few slides. This map that you see here is the same one enlarged a bit that is on your handout. This is the map by James Hoffmeier.

In this shows what's called the traditional route and basically it's heading across these reed seas that are now cut through by the Suez Canal. Cutting through the Suez Canal was somewhat easier because of these reed seas that were already there with lower areas between the Gulf of Suez and the Mediterranean. So they would have crossed there, gone down along pretty much the west side of the Sinai Peninsula. And from there, once they got to what is the traditional Mount Sinai, then heading north up into the desert, east of the Dead Sea and the Jordan. Okay, that's the quick summary of the route. Let's take a look at that. Here is a space photo where it shows the curvature of the earth. This is kind of off at an angle where you can see the curvature of the earth.

You can see off to the left the Nile Delta and the Nile River, which incidentally comes out of Uganda, right? And then you can see those those reed seas and then you can see the Sinai Peninsula and then up Farther to the upper right you can see the Dead Sea and the nation of Israel.

To the west of that and Jordan to the east. The area of Jordan to the east would have been Ammon and Moab, sons of Lot. Okay, here's one looking straight down and you get a similar picture. The Jews had their development right over here. This was Goshen, right on the east part of the Nile Delta, which would have given them basically a simpler exit, at least at the start. Simpler exit at the start from the land of Egypt into the Sinai. So given that, so here we have this map. One of the things that raises this question is the Sinai Desert is in great part desert and very difficult place to imagine making much of a living.

Right about here, this is where there is an oasis. There are other oases. But this is where there's an oasis, right in this spot here. And that's not too far from where Mount Sinai is located. And I have smaller pictures of that oasis, but let's go to some larger ones.

Wadi, somebody asked earlier what a wadi was, and that's basically a creek channel, okay? A valley where water runs ephemerally, they say, that is off and on. And here is the oasis at Wadi Fairan. And you see lots of, you know, palm trees there. Here's another shot that shows you the greenery around there. And then here's another shot, palm trees with the rock outcropping in the background. And now this would be more typical of the areas between these oases.

Now there's a particular advantage that I have in speaking on this subject and that is Nancy and I lived for 15 years in Carson City, Nevada. Once you get east of Carson City, the annual rainfall is about the same as it is in most of the Sinai Peninsula. Yeah, not much. Most of Nevada and most of the Sinai Peninsula, two or three inches a year is pretty common. A little bit more in some of the more mountain peak kinds of areas. They do also have, like a lot of Nevada, flash floods. So that's another thing is you may get water and boy have you got water and then it's just gone.

I had an interesting experience. How many of you have been to Death Valley? Great place to go visit. I've enjoyed visiting there several times. Wouldn't mind going there again. It's very otherworldly. The first time I was there was on a geology trip.

And one other fellow and I were underneath a tarp. And that was good because, oh, the two or three inches of rain of year that the Death Valley typically gets, it got that night. Yeah. But what was very interesting was while for a little while, the rain on the tarp just roared. Huge noise. Five minutes after the rain ended, I'd put my hand out on the tarp and on the ground, dry. Very dry. So that's the way it is in the desert. The water, when it does hit frequently, just zooms off. So most of the time, most of the water supply is from these oases, some spring that comes up in a particular place with a lot of dry stretches.

But one other thing and that's the company that I work with, we did a lot of consulting on for the cattle ranches in Nevada. And I'll tell you that the cows have to keep moving at a few miles an hour or they'll starve to death. Right? You can't just sit there. They've got to keep moving from one plant to the next, to the next, to the next. It's not a matter of standing there and grazing. Not for very long anyway.

Okay. Let's see. What else have we got here? Here is the traditional Mount Sinai. That is, I would say, likely the location. Not absolutely certain, but likely the location. Oh, one more thing. We're going to be reading here shortly. God provided in the Sinai miraculous provision of both water and food, and more than once.

This is feral quail, and Nancy and I also had the advantage of eating feral quail actually quite a bit. When we first moved up to Ukiah, California, our next-door neighbors raised feral quail. And they were kind enough to give us excess of feral quail and the eggs. So we ate quite a bit of it, especially since we were young and poor and bad for anything we could eat. So anyway, this is feral quail.

The Lord miraculously brought a huge flock of, and I'm not sure that's the right word, but anyway, feral quail. to the Israelites. Here's another picture of Pharaoh quail. It looks like it's the male. The Lord also brought on more than one instance water out of the rock, which happens naturally, but these instances seem to be a supernatural occurrence. All right, let's take a look at the handout and see if we can step through some of these details here.

So with an estimate of about 2 million there, Sinai Peninsula is certainly limited in water and food resources that would be required to support the Israelite population of about 2 million. So for someone to ask the question given above is quite reasonable. A lot of people ask it. How did they survive that? You know, this is tough. Two million people?

I mean, that's a pretty scant territory for the most part. The annual precipitation varies, but it's not much no matter what you have there. Erdman's Bible Dictionary summarizes the three regions this way. You've got the northern plain, sand dunes and gravel, rainfall about three or four inches. The central part there, one to two inches. And the bottom part, or the south part, about three or four inches. So not much. About like in central Nevada. So those figures are for the present climate, however, and we have multiple indications that the climate in the Sinai was at one point in time wetter, not a lot wetter, but somewhat wetter than what it is now.

Two reasons for that. One is that there are indications of ancient, actually ancient lake just like there is in central Nevada. Ancient lake in the middle that is no longer there. Hasn't been there for some time but may have been some remnants of that. So that's one.

During the 17th and 18th centuries, so 1600s, 1700s, there was a process of desertification that was taking place in the land as well. And that was recorded historically. So a couple indications, it used to be wetter. And so that, apart from anything else, would help them to survive. One more thing, and that is, and let's take a look, we're at the top of page two here.

There are desert oases here and there along the way. I've shown you pictures of one of the larger ones. The areas in between those ones, the vegetation and water supply are likely sparse. Let me go back to that's more typical and that's also not too unlike what it is in the central Nevada as well. So they would have to keep moving between these oases, is basically the pattern. So they would move quickly from one oasis to the next. And then they would get in places where even that was not enough, and the Lord provided for them miraculously. Since we have these recordings of the quail and the manna, I think we have a picture of, there we go, the manna. And can anybody recall what was the pattern with the manna? When did they get it?

Every morning, and every morning except for what? Except for the Sabbath. And what was very interesting, if they said, hey, let's collect a whole bunch of this stuff, did that work? No. It would not keep overnight except for that Sabbath provision. Very interesting. This is miraculous provision every day. Let's hope you like this stuff. Okay? Whatever it is. What's interesting is the word manna means a whatness. It's kind of like, what is this? Don't ask. Right? Just eat it. Right? Pardon? Yes, that's a good one. Manna cookbooks. You can imagine that.

They would have emailed them all over the place. So the manna was a continuous miraculous provision for them. So when you ask about how would they survive, that would be one of the ways they could do it. Very interesting that the Lord didn't give them something that they could stock up on.

That is possible, although And could very well be. I think one of the things as we examine this, we are given certain pieces of information. But we could ask questions, and that's a very good one. We could ask questions that we don't necessarily have an answer to. Did the cattle eat, and livestock of every kind, did they eat the manna? Could be that we don't have some specific statement to that effect. Let me suggest something else. You had a question or a thought? I think Peggy thinks it's very similar to the cottage cheese and flaxseed oil. I see. Cottage cheese and flaxseed oil.

Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It seems to show up every day. Yeah. Shows up every day. So, can you imagine this circumstance? Is it possible, perhaps even likely, that the Lord made other provisions that aren't even recorded? Could be. Let's take a comparison. We have just studied through 2 Corinthians. We'll finish it up this morning in the main service.

And one of the things we saw is Paul lists all the different things that he went through, shipwrecks and beatings and all sorts of things. And what's very interesting is in almost every case where he gives the number, it's more than we have other record of. So, for example, in the book of Acts, Paul does have a shipwreck, but that's after the multiple shipwrecks that he had as recorded in 2 Corinthians. So Scripture, even though we have an account that is true, it is not necessarily exhaustive. The Lord may well have made other miraculous provisions that we don't even know about. These are the ones that are recorded.

After all, if you look at it, for 40 years being in the desert, what we have is really just a sampling. It's kind of high spots. A lot of it was just 40 years of just drudgery. Just drudgery. And if you imagine just cursing your shoes because they won't wear out. You know? But honey, I've had these shoes for 40 years! I'm getting really tired of this shirt. Right? You can imagine that. Okay.

The one long-term provision does seem to be the manna, and that's one thing that, okay, you may not like it, but you're going to eat it for 40 years because there isn't much else, right? That's one long-term provision. The others would be going between these oases and then the Lord's other miraculous provisions. We have some indication of them. Likely more took place as well, right? Okay, any other questions, thoughts? Yes. Yes. Well, that was a question Marilyn asked.

Did the livestock, you know, eat the manna? We don't have an answer to that. The livestock would have to be, you know, grazing around through the hills just like they do in Nevada. I know One of the areas that we did consulting on, I didn't do too much of it because it's not my area of expertise. I can milk cows and that sort of thing. But in terms of consulting on large-scale grazing operations, there are a number of ranchers who for generations have made a living out in the middle of Nevada where there's just not that much rainfall.

And the livestock actually They graze, but boy they keep moving too because you've got a lot of sparse areas. It's not like you've got a continuous turf of grass. It's like here's a clump of grass here and here's a clump several feet away. Similar in the Sinai Desert, even given that there may have been some wetter period most likely. There's something out there for them to eat. They may also have had manna. The oases, as you saw, there were plenty of greenery around there and they could do pretty well around the oases. It was between the oases where it was sparse and more difficult and where the cattle have to keep moving.

Other thoughts, questions? But all these things seem like they're always, you know, they'd set up and then they'd head out. And they'd set up and follow the flame. So they weren't just an oasis all the time. Yeah, they were constantly moving. Even with an oasis, they still have to get somewhere. Realizing that sometimes they had to travel more than others. But they had to get somewhere. When they used up the resources at that particular oasis, they had to move on.

And that's one thing, boy, it's a forced nomadic lifestyle. You simply can't sit because you use up the resources in the area and you've got to go somewhere else. With two million people it probably didn't take very long. No, yeah, they just basically, you go there and say, oh good, water. That's it, you're done. On to the next watering hole. And so it forced a continual keep moving, keep moving, keep moving lifestyle.

And that's one of the reasons when we go and look at this, we can see the geography and we can see the description that seems to fit what the Bible describes and match it to the topography that's there. But we're not going to find lots of hard evidence of the Jews having been there because they're just moving all the time. And they're not taking a whole bunch of stuff that they're going to leave behind. When you're carrying a bunch of stuff like that, There's no way that you're going to leave something that archaeologists are going to find thousands of years later. Just not going to happen.

Yes? I've heard a question about why it took them so long because apparently the distance doesn't seem that far. It is not at all because of the distance. Yeah, they could have gotten the job done in a month probably. 30 days would have done it. Why 40 years? Can anybody tell us why? Why were they in the desert for 40 years? People had to die. And why was that? Because certain people were going to go into the promised land. Yeah. In other words, when they had the opportunity to go in, what did they do? They would tell them, I am. They'd say, no, no, no, we're kind of afraid of this. The Lord says, okay. Guess what?

We've got Joshua and Caleb, and they're going to make it in. Everybody else, we're going to have a lot of funerals. I've heard some estimates, somewhere around 80 funerals a day. You've just got to wait for them to die off. This whole generation is going to die off, and an entirely new generation will go into the Promised Land.

So they sort of refused to go into the Promised Land? Yeah, they just said, yeah, this is too scary for us. They go and see Jericho and here's these big high walls and how are we going to take that on? And these people have all sorts of defensive fortifications. We have a lot of primitive weaponry. How's that going to happen? So, yeah, they said, this is too scary. And so they refused to go. And the Lord said, okay, if that's the situation, then you're not going to go in. Only those who believe that we could and should Joshua and Caleb.

Yes? I was wondering if there's a place in the Bible where the earth opens up and people fall into... Yes, the rebellion of Korah. Yes, yeah. Basically what you have is from Exodus, the last part of Exodus, aka Leviticus and Numbers and Deuteronomy, those books are all this 40 year period of time. Okay? And so that's the description. And actually, since a lot of that is taken up with the law and giving all the details of the law, what you have is just a few highlights during that period of time.

So they knew that. I mean, after they refused to go in, they were told. They were told, you're not going in and you're going to die out here. So they knew what they were waiting for. Yeah, that's right. It's just you're not going to move ahead and trust the Lord because He told you should and ought to and can go in and that He would fight. And they said, no, we're not doing that.

This is a little too scary for us. And the Lord said, okay, then you're going to be out here in the desert and you're going to have to wait until the next generation comes up and all of you die off before you're going in. And even Moses didn't go in.

Really amazing. Really amazing. Okay, other questions? Thoughts? Aspirations? Inspirations? Okay. Let's go on to the next question then. This is question 37. Is Exodus 21, 7-11 sexist and biased against women? Now we have that in the text box here. Let's go ahead and read that.

If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master, who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her. If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing without payment of money."

Now, so the question is, is this a sexist and biased provision here, since it only seems to talk about the dark? Two things. One, as we look at this, the Scripture does make a differentiation between male and female. There are also some things that are not different between male and female. The Scripture does make a differentiation between male and female, both in the law and even in the church. And we'll talk about what is the same here shortly.

One of the other principles that we need to look at is this, that the Law of Moses actually made the Jews different from the surrounding cultures. Deliberately different. Made them stand out and prevented them from just absorbing the surrounding cultures. Let me think of an example.

In the surrounding cultures, it was common practice for the parents to burn, in the idol of the god Molech, to burn their firstborn child. They would have a large idol with hands with an oven in the back. And the parents would take their baby and put it in the hot hands of this huge idol. The Jews were told, you will not do that. Specifically, you will not burn your children.

That was the way it was done. Terribly cruel and just horrific. Really, really awful. And it was also an awful thing to do to parents. It just countered any decent instinct whatsoever. Horrible, horrible thing. The Jews were told, you will not do that. And any parent who does that will be put to death. You will not do that. Something else, let me give you a for instance.

It was common in the Middle East, it's even true now, that revenge for a family member, honor killings, was the norm. For example, if somebody did something wrong against a member of your family, the honor code was to do something back even more. So that the back and forth escalated. That was the honor code of the Middle East from ancient times and still is there today.

So what did an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth do We often think of that as being so harsh. What it did was set a limit. You may not escalate this back and forth. And the carrying out of justice must be done on the basis of objective evidence, not, I think he did it. You see that? So what the law did was actually set a limit on what was ordinarily going to be some revenge that escalated back and forth and maybe on the slimmest of evidence. Instead it said you must have good solid evidence and you may not go beyond an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. No escalation, no honor killings, You don't carry it out. This is done. This is done according to the law and no more.

You see that? Yes? So did Christ reverse that when he said, if someone slaps you, turn the sheet? Yeah, and we'll talk about that in a minute. In fact, we'll talk about that a whole lot more when we get later on to another question. So I'll give a brief answer to that.

Christ, instead of doing what the law did, which is to set a limit. The law set limits so that things didn't escalate and get worse. What he said is take it the other way and forgive it entirely. So anyway, that's the quick answer. What he said is forgive it entirely. Instead of someone slaps you, you slap them back. That's the law, right? He said someone slaps you, Don't slap them back. Right? Okay. So that's the quick answer to your question. We'll go into that in a little more detail a little later. So, the other thing is this.

The Jews had a pattern of thinking through things in this way. What they would do is they would say, okay, if a daughter who has been sold into slavery has these rights, because as you read through this, it basically grants minimum requirements to give her rights so that she would be treated as a person.

Because the common culture said that you treat that slave girl like a thing, like property. And so what this does is it actually doesn't put her down. It actually says you are indeed to treat her decently. And you are indeed to provide her food and clothing and shelter. As a matter of fact, here's what the Jews did. If this woman found that she was not being provided for here, you see verse 10, food, clothing, conjugal rights, and basically it's food, clothing, housing, and affection.

She could go to the elders in the city or in the tribe, and they had a schedule of escalating fines for him not doing these things. And when they got to the end of the schedule of fines, they had a schedule of escalating whippings every day that he was out of compliance. And during the time of Christ, they did it in the synagogue. So that's why I say the Jewish synagogue in New Testament times wasn't like just a church. Because it was also the place where you could get fined and whipped.

Don't the Muslims even now treat their women pretty much like this? Yeah, and that's one of the things, if you look at it, the Muslims do treat their women horribly. When I was over in Africa, I did some marriage counseling, and most of the Christians I ran into were former Muslims. Not all, but most of them were former Muslims. And in one case where I did marriage counseling, I had to counsel because this was a couple that six months before they had been Muslims, and it was common in the Muslim culture to physically abuse the women. And completely permissible. The Muslim culture does absolutely nothing to stop that, prevent it at all. Women are treated horribly. terribly. And what this says is you will not do that. You will not do that.

And, yeah? Why did God allow a man to sell his daughter in the first place? The interesting thing is if you look at the law, there are things in the law that you would say, boy, that's not the best it seems to me, right? There was slavery. There was allowed polygamy. In some cases, even enforced. For example, here's a man who dies. The brother next of kin has to marry that woman, right? So in that case, it's actually even enforced. So there are things that are in the law that you would look at and say, well, that's not ideal.

True. As a matter of fact, they come to Jesus with, you know, Moses commanded that we give a certificate of divorce. And what was Jesus' response? Did Moses command it? No, it was allowed for what reason? For the sake of hardness of hearts. So the law of Moses was not necessarily to bring about an ideal. It was to put a limit on what's admittedly not the best situation. Someone pokes out an eye, you're not going to do a revenge. I'm going to poke out both eyes. Someone knocks out somebody else's tooth, you're not going to do a revenge of knocking the other guy's teeth all out. So the law puts a limit in a situation that's admittedly not ideal in the first place.

Even though polygamy was allowed, by New Testament times it was very uncommon. People just couldn't afford it. So only a few wealthy people carried out polygamy. Was it ever ideal? No, it never was. As a matter of fact, Jesus even put it that way. One man, one woman was actually God's ideal. So I think one of the things, if you look at the law, the law did not define perfection. The law simply put limits on how bad things could get. Okay? Yeah. Good question though. Yeah?

Don't the Muslims recognize a portion of the Old Testament? Yes, what they tend to do is to take the Old Testament and read through it to the extent that it does not conflict with the Koran and the Hadith, their own sacred writings. We hear about the Koran, but we seldom hear about the Hadith, the other set of sacred writings. But yes, they do. They simply set aside those parts that don't quite agree. Abraham offered up not Isaac, but Ishmael, right? And they do have a great deal of respect for Abraham. Other questions?

Okay, as we look at this, basically what it turned out is that there were four provisions for allowable divorce. We typically hear about the one adultery. What this said is adultery, but also her food, her clothing, or conjugal rights, that is, demonstration of affection. So those things were all allowable as reasons for divorce.

And what's very interesting is you look at Ephesians 5, And as we've gone through Ephesians, the last part of Ephesians 5 where it talks about the husband loving his wife, four kinds of love. Remember we said the first one is a sacrificial love, the second one is a sanctifying love, the third one is a caring love, and the fourth one is a bonded love. The last two kinds of love, the caring love and the bonded love, are the positive statements, the failure of which was the Jewish allowance for divorce. But Paul never brings up divorce in that passage, does he? He says instead what love is and not what the failure can result in. Very interesting.

So as you look at this, Exodus 21.7.1-11 is not sexist in the sense of simply looking at males and females and looking down on the female. What it does is in contrast to the neighboring cultures to set a standard for at least, and again not ideal because you asked a very good question, at least you must be giving this, even if it's a sold into slavery slave daughter, if she is to be married, she must at least be given these things. You are not to treat her like dirt. You're not to treat her like property. You must give her these things.

Otherwise the husband suffers punishments. They did not carry out the death penalty for the husband's failure, but they did carry out daily 39 lashes. The law allowed 40, but in case you miscounted, they limited it to 39, so you wouldn't break the law of how many times you beat him. But you could do it every day if he didn't comply.

See that? So what it says is you will not treat this slave daughter that gets married, this would be considered kind of the low end of the society, you will not treat her as anything less than a person. Not ideal, correct, your question is well taken. Not ideal, but it says she is a person and you'd better get it. Or, Mr. Husband, you're going to pay a penalty every day that you're out of compliance.

Was it partially to give them, the young girls, a way to survive? Yeah, if you look at it, they must be provided for. You must give them food, you must give them shelter and clothing. You must show them affection. Now I'm sure there are varying degrees of what was acceptable. A little peck on the cheek is probably not what they had in mind. But yeah, you must show her these things. Treat her as a person or you will be in trouble. You will get beat every day. So they can't make him do these things, but they can sure make him wish that he did. I would also encourage you to look at page 3.

What we have there, I'm starting at the first whole paragraph. Scripture does not present the males and females as total equals in roles and rights, as if the gender distinction didn't matter, but Scripture does set standards in place so as to avoid considering the woman as anything less than the man as a person and to prevent unequal justice. When I say unequal justice, let's take a look at this passage I quote from John. for the woman caught in adultery, at least in part because the law of Moses said that both the man and the woman were to be brought to justice. The law, I give Leviticus 20, 10-16, the law says again and again, both the man and the woman were to be brought to justice.

In John chapter 8, what do they do? Who do they bring? The woman. Why? because the tradition had drifted in the direction of sexism. We don't know what Jesus wrote in the sand, but one of the things he might have written was that Leviticus 20 passage. It said, the man and the woman, the man and the woman, the man and the woman, several times. Bring them both. What have you guys done? Where's the guy? Is it one of you?

So, that was an instance where Jesus said, look, the law is there so that they're not treated unequally. Another passage, Galatians 3.28 and 29, there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise, both male and female. In terms of the position that the believers have in Christ, there is no distinction by gender. None. And by the way, when we walk through heaven's gates, will there be male and female, at least as we know it now? No. That is a distinction for earthly times.

And another passage I would bring out, 1 Peter 3.7, you husbands in the same way, Live with your wives in an understanding way as with someone weaker, and I would translate that as more vulnerable. A woman has extraordinary vulnerabilities. Since she is a woman, there's a recognizing her femaleness. So is there a distinction in that verse between male and female?

Yes. But look at this, and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life. That is not. Looking down upon her is something less. That does not at all allow for abuse and neglect. Show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life. Her position in Christ, like Galatians 3.28, her position in Christ is the same. She is a fellow heir of the grace of life. Any other thoughts, questions, comments on that? We either fully answered it or you're just absolutely baffled. I hope we fully answered it. Okay, let's go on to the next one. Q&A 38.

Ecclesiastes 9.5. The dead have no thoughts. Is that consistent with the idea of an afterlife?

This is Ecclesiastes 9.2-6. I quoted the larger context there. Let me read that.

It is the same for all. There is one fate for the righteous and for the wicked and for the good and for the clean and for the unclean, for the man who offers a sacrifice and for the one who does not sacrifice. As the good man is, so is the sinner. As the swearer is, so is the one who is afraid to swear. This is an evil in all that is done under the sun. And under the sun is a repeated phrase there in Ecclesiastes. that there is one fate for all men.

Furthermore, the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil and insanity is in their hearts throughout their lives. Afterwards, they go to the dead. For whoever is joined with all the living, there is hope. Surely a live dog is better than a dead lion." That's a strange valuation to me, but okay. But the dog is alive, right? All right.

For the living know they will die, but the dead do not know anything. nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten. Indeed, their love, their hate, and their zeal have already perished, for they will no longer have a share in all that is done under the sun." Chapters presents the perspective of man on the earth, but not a heavenly perspective at all, not a godly perspective. It looks at the dismal, hopeless nature of the senseless nature of life if we just look at this life for what it is.

So that's an important perspective to have when you look at Ecclesiastes. There are some very interesting figures of speech in the twelfth chapter. You might even get a chuckle out of it. But in the twelfth chapter it says, so in the end you need to turn to the Lord.

Now, so to look at here in Ecclesiastes 9.5, the dead have no thoughts. What you get the perspective, especially looking at verse 6, the dead have no thoughts with regards to this life. They have no ability to communicate with us. They have no continuing observation of what's going on here on earth. And that's the point. It basically says there's a wall.

That is actually consistent with, remember Christ tells the story of the rich man and Lazarus. And here's the rich man and Lazarus. Lazarus was the one who was poor, but who went to be with Abraham, called the bosom of Abraham. Went to be with Abraham. There was the rich man, wealthy and well off in this life, who was not with Abraham. And there was this chasm between. And as Jesus tells the account, this rich man in his afterlife has a conversation with Abraham.

He says, go tell my brothers, warn them, this is not good here. But Abraham says if they won't listen to Moses and the prophets, they won't even listen if somebody is raised from the dead. And of course that's what's going to happen with Jesus himself in a short period of time.

The human perspective is that once people pass over, they're not coming back and talking. They're not coming back here and talking. There is with rare exception, and we do find a few exceptions in Scripture, there is with rare exception a complete chasm and a total wall for those who have died coming back and talking to people here.

That's the picture that we get from Scripture. And so anyway, if we look at this passage, the passage is written from the earthly standpoint of this is all there is. This is all there is of life. But we can find other passages in the Old Testament that talk about an afterlife, that talk even about a resurrection. And I think in our very last part we make some reference to that. This is on page four where we have but one paragraph.

In the middle of that, we talk about Job 19, 25 through 27. Job tells his friends, I know that my Redeemer lives. And in the last day, He will take His stand, and I will see Him. So Job knows that he will have a new life and a new body. We have also Daniel 12.2 that talks about a resurrection.

There's enough evidence of the resurrection in the Old Testament, especially after the first five books, but not entirely, especially after the first five books, that that's the differentiation or one of the differentiations between the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The Pharisees believed in a resurrection and an afterlife. The Sadducees did not. They only believed in the first five books, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and they didn't believe in the rest. They didn't believe in a Messiah. They didn't believe in a resurrection.

When you're done here, you're done. That's it. That's why they were sad, you see. Yes, that is why they were sad, you see. Okay? It is a rather dismal life. When Caiaphas, who by the way was a Sadducee, asked Christ, are you THE Christ? He said it in mockery because he didn't believe in one. Right? Any claim that Jesus would have made that he was the Christ would have been viewed by Caiaphas as false. Because he only believed in this life, no afterlife.

Okay, we've run out of time, almost, but we may have time for some questions. Questions, thoughts? Yes? You mentioned a rare exception of the dead having miscommunication. Yes, rare exception of the dead coming back. One of them I can imagine, and I'm talking about a different one from, for example, when Jesus raised Lazarus about a week before his own resurrection. But take, for example, on what's called the Mount of Transfiguration, Jesus is seen by a few of the disciples with whom? Moses and Elijah, right? So here's a rare exception. But the usual picture given is there's no lines of communication from those who are dead. That's the usual picture given in Scripture with those rare exceptions.

And that would be one of them. Okay, second buzzer. Yeah. Yes, there is with the Witch of Endor, you're talking about, this is where King Saul who did what he should not have done, because he consulted this witch, which of course as king it should have been his job to drive them out and eradicate them, not to consult them. But yeah, the ghost of Samuel appeared, which by the way seemed to frighten the witch. So yeah, that would be one of those rare exceptions. and probably in the Old Testament very rare.

Lord, we thank you that as we look at each of these questions, questions of the Old Testament, but of different sorts. We thank you that you have answers. We thank you that what you've provided for us here makes sense. And we thank you that You, through your word, have given not only insight to those who originally wrote and read, but to us as well. And we just thank you for your inspired word and for your Holy Spirit's work, not only to preserve and to bring it forth, but for us to understand it. We just pray in Jesus' name. Amen.