Resurrection in the OT, Part 1
Resurrection in the OT, Part 1
Foundations and Framework
(avg. read time: 8–15 mins.)
My major dream projects, besides some commentaries on the NT books I specialize in, mostly involve the theology of resurrection in the NT. If God is willing, I aim to write a whole series of books on resurrection in the NT. But for today, I want to address a matter that sets a crucial context for resurrection theology in the NT: resurrection in the OT.
The notion of resurrection of the dead, of people returning to bodily life (with an implied physical upward movement) after an intervening period of death, is not as prominent in the OT as it is in the NT. Indeed, its relative lack of prominence in this body of texts is part of what led to early Jewish controversies about resurrection belief, with groups such as the Sadducees and Samaritans rejecting it and groups such as the Pharisees and (arguably) Essenes accepting it. But those controversies are worth exploring in their own right another time. For now, it is worth exploring the OT texts that use resurrection language, both literally and figuratively, as well as the theological implications of the same.
Today will be the first part of an eleven-part series. This first part will concern the following matters. One, we will discuss the framework of resurrection belief in the OT, the precedents, promises, and patterns that made resurrection a plausible expectation for the audience of the OT. This will include discussion of what I have identified elsewhere as “worldview foundations of resurrection belief.” Two, we will look at a few actual cases of resurrection in the OT, which are connected to the ministries of Elijah and Elisha. Three, in the last nine parts of this series we will analyze texts in canonical order that tend to come up in discussions of resurrection in the OT: Deut 32:39; 1 Sam 2:6; Job 19:25–27; Pss 16:9–11; 73:23–24 (along with 49:14–15); Hos 6:1–3 (along with 13:14); Ezek 37:1–14; Isa 53:7–12; 26:19 (along with 25:8 and 26:14); Dan 12:1–3, 13.
At this point, I also want to recommend a number of resources on resurrection in the OT that I have found helpful if you would like to explore further on these texts and scholarly debates about them:
Bonora, Antonio. “Il linguaggio di risurrezione in Dan 12:1–3.” RivB 30 (1982): 111–25.
Chester, Andrew. “Resurrection and Transformation.” Pages 47–78 in Auferstehung –Resurrection: The Fourth Durham-Tübingen Research Symposium. Resurrection, Transfiguration, and Exaltation in Old Testament, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Friedrich Avemarie and Hermann Lichtenberger. WUNT 135. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001.
Cook, John Granger. Empty Tomb, Resurrection, Apotheosis. WUNT 410. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018.
Day, John. “The Development of Belief in Life After Death in Ancient Israel.” Pages 231–57 in After the Exile: Essays in Honour of Rex Mason. Edited by John Barton and David J. Reimer. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1996.
Doukhan, Jacques B. “From Dust to Stars: The Vision of Resurrection(s) in Daniel 12,1-3 and Its Resonance in the Book of Daniel.” Pages 85–98 in Resurrection of the Dead: Biblical Traditions in Dialogue. Edited by Geert Van Oyen and Tom Shepherd. BETL 249. Leuven: Peeters, 2012.
Eichrodt, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament. Translated by J. A. Baker. Vol. 2. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967.
Gardner, Anne E. “The Way to Eternal Life in Daniel 12:1e-2 or How to Reverse the Death Curse of Genesis 3.” ABR 40 (1992): 1–19.
Greenspoon, Leonard J. “The Origin of the Idea of Resurrection.” Pages 247–321 in Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith. Edited by Baruch Halpern and Jon D. Levenson. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981.
Hasel, Gerhard F. “Resurrection in the Theology of Old Testament Apocalyptic.” ZAW 92 (1980): 267–84.
Johnson, Dan G. From Chaos to Restoration: An Integrative Reading of Isaiah 24–27. JSOTSup 61. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1988.
Levenson, Jon D. Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006.
Martin-Achard, Robert. From Death to Life: A Study of the Development of the Doctrine of the Resurrection in the Old Testament. Translated by John Penney Smith. Edinburgh; London: Oliver and Boyd, 1960.
Paulien, Jon. “The Resurrection and the Old Testament: A Fresh Look in Light of Recent Research.” JATS 24 (2013): 3–24.
Pryce, Bertrand C. “The Resurrection Motif in Hosea 5:8–6:6: An Exegetical Study.” PhD diss., Andrews University, 1989.
Puech, Émile. La croyance des Esséniens en la vie future: Immortalité, resurrection, vie éternelle? Histoire d’une croyance dans le Judaïsme ancien. 2 vols. EBib 2/21–22. Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1993.
Raharimanantsoa, Mamy. Mort et Espérance selon la Bible Hébraïque. ConBOT 53. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2006.
Sawyer, John F. A. “Hebrew Words for the Resurrection of the Dead.” VT 23 (1973): 218–34.
Stele, Artur A. “Resurrection in Daniel 12 and its Contribution to the Theology of the Book of Daniel.” PhD diss., Andrews University, 1996.
Wijngaards, J. “Death and Resurrection in Covenantal Context (Hos. VI 2),” VT 17 (1967): 226–39.
Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Vol. 3 of Christian Origins and the Question of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003.
Framework
The overarching point that is most significant for the development of resurrection theology is that each form of ancient Israelite hope belonged in this world, in history and the foundation of all of them was in the expectations of God’s work based on what he had already done in their past. Their history of experience with God gave them reason to hope in the Creator’s provision in accordance with the covenant he made (Isa 40). As noted in my previous work on Sheol, one form of this provision was provision of family and the expansion of Israel’s population (Pss 128; 129; cf. Gen 3:20; 15:5; 38:6–11; 50:23; Lev 26:9, 22; Deut 25:5–10; 28:4, 53–63; 30:9; Ruth 1:20–21; 4:11–22; 1 Sam 2:30–33; the inclusio of Job’s narrative featuring his children; Ezek 37:26). This provision demonstrated God’s faithful love exemplified in the covenant of which they—and their descendants—were participants and while it did not necessarily initially lead Israelites to believe in post-mortem bliss, it did give them a sense of fulfillment and assurance of continuation of one’s identity, name, and legacy (insofar as, being a group-oriented culture, one’s identity primarily consisted in one’s group(s)). As long as the line of descent continued, the Israelites could know God’s faithfulness was taking care of the people and preserving the name of Israel.
The expectations and hopes of God’s faithfulness also came in the form of provision for Israel in the promised land. True life for Jews was to follow the covenant made with the God of life (Deut 30:20; Ps 119). Through their adherence to this covenant, they would live in the promised land (Lev 26:9–13; Deut 28:1–14). The promised land served not only as a fulfillment of promises to Israel, but as the ever-present reminder of God’s larger promises of redeeming creation through Israel (Gen 12:1–3; Exod 19:4–6; Deut 28:1–14). The promised land was the ultimate symbol of God’s covenant with Israel and the larger purposes of God (Gen 12:7; 23; Exod 3:8, 17; 13:5; 33:3; Lev 20:24; Num 13:27; Deut 6:10–11; 8:7–10; 11:10–15; 26:1–11, 15; Pss 72; 89:35–37; Isa 2:2–5; 42; 49; 61; 65:17–25; Jer 11:5; 32:22; Ezek 20:6; 36; Mic 4). In fact, the promised land—as microcosm—pointed to the expectation that God would be as faithful to Israel in all other ways (especially in terms of providing deliverance) as he had been in preserving the world and its functions (Gen 9:12–17; Pss 65:5–13; 74:12–23; 89:5–18; 104; 147:4–5, 8–11, 14–18; Isa 40:12–17, 21–31; 48:7–13; 51:15–16; Jer 31:35–37; 33:20–26; 51:15–19). As God had established the world and its functions—especially in the promised land when it was fertile—they hoped for their own establishment in the land.
Finally, the sharpest point of this hope in the monarchical period and afterwards was the work of God through Zion and the king who took up residence there (Isa 2:2–5; 11:1–10; 42; 52–55; 65:17–25; Ezek 37:15–28; 40–48; Zech 8–9; 12–14). This city and this person (or, perhaps more precisely, this position/function; see Pss 2; 72; 89; 110; 132) were uniquely symbolic because both became associated with the dwelling place of God among his people and the Davidic covenant. To many, these symbols provided hope for the future and (often wrongly) assurance of stability in the present. Both were also supposed to be (though often they were not) symbols of the covenant in that the consummate promise of God was dwelling among the people while the people for their part were to act as the holy people God declared them to be.
It is thus important to observe that the foundation of these forms of hope and assurances of fulfillment in this world, in this history, was the unerring, inexorable, faithful love of God. In the end, no obstacles can stand in the way of God’s faithfulness and his determination to accomplish his creative purposes and uphold the holiness of his name (Ezra 9:6–15; Neh 9:6–38; Job 38–41; Pss 2; 82; Isa 43; Ezek 36–37; Daniel 9:3–27). Though this affirmation did not necessarily result in the belief that God’s faithfulness to individuals would extend beyond the threshold of death, that belief was a reasonable extrapolation (as I will explore later, a notable example is the place of Ezek 37:1–14 in an overarching context affirming God’s creative power and sovereignty). Israel’s hope for the future was based on the remembrance of the past in which God had revealed himself. He had been ever-faithful in defeating whatever stood in the way of fulfilling covenantal promises (even when the obstacle was Israel herself). The climactic instance of such revelation in the exodus had made it common for Israel to identify God as the Lord who brought them up out of Egypt (Exod 20:2; Lev 11:45; Num 24:8; Deut 4:20; Josh 24:17; Judg 2:1; 1 Sam 10:18; 2 Sam 7:23; 1 Kgs 8:50–53; 2 Kgs 17:36; Neh 9:9–10; Ps 81:10; Jer 31:32; Ezek 20:9–10; Dan 9:15; Hos 13:4; Amos 2:10; Mic 6:4; Hag 2:5). As long as this God remains present and acts among them, they have hope.
We also thus see a couple other foundations of hope that will become important for resurrection belief especially in later OT texts. First, resurrection would become tied to the expectation that God fulfills the promises he has spoken and the patterns of action he has performed throughout history. The shorthand way of expressing this idea would be that resurrection would be “in accordance with the Scriptures” or would be the “fulfillment of the Scriptures.” The explicit language for this would appear in the NT, but the precedent for intertextual use of earlier scriptural texts is set already in the OT. As one example from the pattern side of this notion, there was a well-established portrayal of God as Divine Warrior. This image was initially connected with the exodus—the most dramatic and most frequently referenced of demonstrations identifying Israel as God’s people—then augmented through other events such as the conquest of the promised land, and later became formative for hopes of God’s future action (Exod 15; Deut 32:1–43; 33:26–27; Josh 23–24; Judg 5; Pss 18; 24:7–10; 29; 77:16–20; 89:10–11; 96:10–13; 97; Isa 24–27; 34–35; 51:9–11; Jer 17:5–8; Hab 3; Zeph 3:9–20; Hag 2; Zech 9; 14). Indeed, some scholars have suggested that the roots of resurrection belief in the Tanakh may be the result of what happens when the Divine Warrior turns towards exile, separation, and death.1
Second, in the frequent appeals to both creation and kingship imagery in texts presenting eschatological expectations, we see glimpses of a larger framework of hope in terms of the kingdom of God and new creation. This framework gives eschatological resurrection its cosmological context in which it makes the sense that it does. This fits with what we have observed throughout these texts of hope having its setting in this world, in this history, albeit with transformation needing to be introduced in the process. The eschatological resurrection is not simply a return to life as we know it, but to life in a transformed world.
Another notable feature of the OT for our purposes is what I have noted in my Sheol analysis, in that there is in some poetic texts a pattern of precedent that resonates with resurrection imagery, even if there is not a literal resurrection. That is, some texts, including one of our texts this week in 1 Sam 2:6, describe God as delivering the speaker from out of Sheol. While the description of healing in some way can imply such deliverance as prevention of death, the imagery itself implies that the speaker was once in Sheol and has been brought back out of it. Those texts include David’s description of his own experience in 2 Sam 22:6 // Ps 18:5 and its context, as well as Pss 30:3/4; 86:13; 116:3; 141:7; and, of course, Jonah’s description of his experience in Jon 2:2. I will not rehearse what I have said about each of these texts in the Sheol analysis, but each case presents a picture of someone who was in a state of death in disfavor followed by reversal in deliverance that resonates with uses of resurrection language elsewhere. This is part of what made Jesus’s reference to Jonah so poignant to his audience as a pattern for resurrection. Psalm 30 and Jon 2 also use some key terms that will come to be used in texts that more directly or more literally use resurrection language as well. These include the hiphil of עלה (in this case “he brings up”, as in Jon 2:6) and the verb חיה (which can in some contexts have the sense of “revive, make alive, bring to life, restore to life,” and so on). These verbs appear also in 1 Sam 2:6, which will be discussed later.
With these texts, one can see a vision of God’s delivering action that makes resurrection belief seem plausible (one can scarcely imagine any of these authors and speakers stopping a reader to say, “wait, that was just a metaphor! Of course God cannot raise the dead!”). However, for the eschatological resurrection to come into greater focus, a particular crisis would prove crucial. The shift in their theology that led them to reaffirm these established convictions in new ways to confront new challenges began with the exile. The death and disconnection brought by the events of the exile made exile a particularly strong metonym for death (Gen 3; Lev 26:33–39; Deut 28:63–68; 29:22–28; 30:19–20; Ezek 37:1–14). If covenantal faithfulness and its consequences were life for the Israelites, covenantal unfaithfulness and its consequences—including exile—were death. By the same token, restoration of the covenant and return from exile would mean return to life (Lev 26:40–45; Deut 30:1–10; 32:15–42; Ezek 37:1–14; Zeph 3:9–20). With such associations between resurrection and return (not only return to the land, but revitalization of Israel according to God’s covenantal will), the imagery of resurrection sometimes functioned as a synecdoche for all eschatological hope. In light of what was noted above, it was not a stretch to speak of God’s unerring, inexorable, faithful love as extending beyond death and even removing death as an obstacle. In such a way, God would accomplish a new exodus, one even greater than the original in that it delivered from the death of exile (Isa 11; 43; 48; 51:9-11; 52:1–4, 11–12; 63:8–64:4; Jer 23:1–8; 31:31–37; Ezek 20:33–44; 36:26–38; Dan 7; Hos 11:1–11; Mic 7:14–20; Zech 8:6–8, 12–13; 10:6–12). The actualization of this potential belief in eschatological resurrection came to fruition with the exile, but the imagery was also more generally applied to the resurrection of the people and of their everlasting endurance by God’s power (as in Ezek 37).
Another impetus for the perpetuation of resurrection belief, and the one that was most important for applying resurrection hope on an individual basis beyond its application to the people as a whole, was the question of God’s justice. In fact, this is probably the most common aspect of resurrection belief in Second Temple texts, including biblical texts, as one can see most poignantly in examples like Dan 12:2–3 (our capstone for this series) and 2 Macc 7. A context in which people are suffering and dying for their faith (as portrayed in Daniel and 2 Maccabees) was one in which resurrection would have a clear appeal, although persecution and martyrdom were hardly necessary or sufficient conditions for the presence of belief in an eschatological resurrection. After all, it was not unprecedented before the exile that someone should be murdered for their righteousness, as seen in the stories of Abel and the suffering under Ahab and Jezebel (1 Kgs 17–19; 21). Still, such situations would raise questions of how God would deal with these problems in his project of setting the world aright. The answer would ultimately come in resurrection to everlasting life, as God would bring justice in this circumstance by restoring his faithful ones to new bodily life, vindicating them for their faithfulness, and demonstrating his own faithful love in a consummately wondrous way, showing that not even death can gainsay it. As noted in the Sheol series, there was some precedence in Sheol texts for differentiation of fates, but it is resurrection that would become the ultimate means by which God enacted faithful love for each of the members of the covenant people, not only the ones who are alive at the time of climactic deliverance.
Part 3: Deuteronomy 32:39 and 1 Samuel 2:6
Part 6: Psalm 49:14–15 and 73:23–24
Part 10: Isaiah 25:8 and 26:14, 19
Leonard J. Greenspoon, “The Origin of the Idea of Resurrection.” in Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith, ed. Baruch Halpern and Jon D. Levenson (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981), 261–81; Levenson, Resurrection, 208–13.