Resurrection in the OT, Part 11

Daniel 12:1–3, 13

(avg. read time: 17–33 mins.)

Daniel 12 is a resurrection text with which I have spent a lot of time throughout the course of my studies. One of the chapters of my dissertation is about the resurrection in Dan 12. I refer the readers there for more detail than what I provide here when it actually comes out (though I also include here elements from an earlier draft of that chapter that could not make the final cut). There I describe this vision of resurrection as a “canonical crescendo,” a culmination and climax that incorporates the narrative and prophetic tradition that preceded Daniel. Indeed, Daniel brings to fruition a well-established tradition of describing God’s salvific action in resurrection imagery, albeit in more concrete form here.

Daniel 12 itself would become formative for other Second Temple era descriptions of the fate of the righteous, of resurrection belief, and of the dichotomous final judgment (Wis 3:7–8; 2 Macc 7:9; 1 En. 91:10; 92:3–5; 104:1–4; 108:8–15; 4 Ezra 7:32, 97; 2 Bar. 51:1–6, 10; T.Mos. 10:8–9; Apoc. Mos. 41; LAB 19:12–13; 23:13; 26:13; Pss. Sol. 3:11–12). It was also influential for many statements in the NT on these same subjects (Matt 12:41–42 // Luke 11:31–32; Matt 13:43; 25:46; 27:52; John 5:28–29; 11:24; Acts 24:15; Phil 2:15; 3:19–21). The language of the Second Benediction of the Amidah mixes multiple texts, such as Deut 32:39, Isa 26:19, and Dan 12:2. Another connection to Dan 12 may be implied more indirectly through the reference to the “rising” of the people of God in the midst of the text’s use of Dan 7 in 4QAramaic Apocalypse/4Q246 II, 1–6. It also appears in the rabbis, albeit less frequently than other noted resurrection texts, as both a proof of resurrection and particularly as a reference for final judgment (t. Sahn. 13.3; b. Roš Haš. 16b.15–17a.1; b. Sanh. 92a; Sipra 194).

The text itself appears at the climax of Daniel. In that light, I want to examine the text in its immediate context, in the larger context of Daniel, and then the text itself. Daniel addresses an audience that has experienced conquest by foreign powers, displacement, and conflicts while striving to maintain a sense of religious identity (Dan 7:21, 24–25; 8:23–25; 9; 11:28–35). “Defectors” among the Jews further exacerbate this problem through the dissolution of communal bonds in their lack of adherence to the tradition of Torah they had received (Dan 11:30, 32, 34–35, 39). Daniel responds to this situation by giving its audience a view behind the curtain of empirical reality in order to show the full heavenly significance of earthly events, to comfort the audience with knowledge of what God will yet do for the faithful, and to encourage the audience to hold fast to what they have in the meantime.

As for the broader context, it is important to note how Dan 12:1–3 draws together many themes and motifs from the rest of the book. This event of the righteous in particular being raised from the dead and being given everlasting life is a signature demonstration of God’s inexorable, faithful love—which neither Israel’s general unfaithfulness nor death can stop (9:4, 12–15, 19)—to sustain and to deliver his faithful righteous ones whose lives are constantly under threat in this book (1:4–20; 2:44–49; 3:12–30; 4:10–37; 5; 6; 7:9–10, 13–14, 18, 21–22, 25–27; 11:33–35; 12:1, 10). It is also the supreme confirmation and exaltation of the wisdom of the righteous—especially the teachers who have insight (משכילים) among them—who had the divinely gifted insight to see what was right and to do it (1:4–20; 2:20–23; 3; 4:8–9; 5:11, 14; 6; 9:22, 25; 11:33, 35; 12:10). Resurrection to everlasting life vindicates their way of life by enabling it to go on forever. It is thus also a means of royal exaltation for the wise righteous as they are endowed with authority to rule over the world in the kingdom of God.

The last point hints at the parts of Daniel that most thoroughly shape the context of Dan 12. As Jacques Doukhan observed, Daniel has a structure that one could either describe as concentric parallelism or double chiasm with ch. 1 as the introduction.¹ In this structure, chapter 12 is in concentric parallelism with both chs. 2 and 7, with 7 functioning as the pivot point, while it is also in reflective chiasm with ch. 7. Several features support this observation, though for my purposes I only focus on the connections to ch. 12. One, both chs. 7 and 12 feature a heavenly representative of the saints (7:13–14; 12:1). Two, these chapters have a type of terminological connection in reference to the “everlasting” kingdom, life, or contempt (עלם in Dan 2:44; 7:14, 18, 27; עולם in Dan 12:2–3, 7; cf. 4:3, 34; 6:26; 9:24). Three, the picture of the wise shining like stars fits with God’s promise of royal authority to them (12:3; cf. 2:35, 44–45; 7:13–14, 18, 22, 27), which in turn fits with the common association of royalty with angels and celestial bodies (Num 24:17; Judg 5:19–20; 1 Sam 29:9; 2 Sam 14:17, 20; Isa 14:13; cf. Wis 3:7–8; 1 En. 104:2–6; 108:11–15; 2 Bar. 51:10; T.Levi 18:3–4; LAB 26:13; 1QS IV, 6–8; 1QM XVII, 6–8). Four, Dan 12 brings to a climax the theme in chs. 2 and 7 that God’s kingdom will triumph over the worldly kingdoms by showing that God’s victory over the enemies who would seek to extinguish the righteous will be complete, universal, and everlasting (2:44–45; 7:9–14, 21–27; 11:21–12:3).

Artur Stele makes a keen observation here about the connection of the kingdom and resurrection promises, since the gift of the kingdom to the saints raises the question of whether the dead saints will benefit, since everlasting life would be necessary to participate in the everlasting kingdom.² As Paul would later need to address the expectations of both the living and the dead in the day of Christ’s return, so Daniel begins with the resolution of troubles for those alive during the time of distress and follows with addressing the place of the dead in this eschatological salvation. The last verse of the book, in combination with 12:1–3, demonstrates that the Jews who composed Daniel’s audience could no longer conceive of the righteous who died during Daniel’s narrated and envisioned times as having fulfilled lives, especially if they would have no part in God’s grand promises of restoration, renewal, and relationship.

What does Dan 12:1–3 itself show about the nature of resurrection belief presented therein? First, one should note that there is a clear eschatological setting here. Daniel signals as much with the especially dense usage of קץ (“end”) in this particular section (with 11:27 and 35 anticipating the coming end and the use of it to signal a new setting in 11:40; 12:4, 6, 9, 13). The reference to Michael arising in a time of extreme anguish also indicates the eschatological scene is one of climactic conflict in which the deliverance of the righteous will be cause for glorifying God. The description of this time also resonates with the eschatological day of the Lord in texts such as Joel 2:28–32 (3:1–5); Zeph 1:14–15, 17; 3:8–20.

The audience knows that the recipients of deliverance are righteous because they are the people who were found written in the book, which is to say that they are those who share characteristics with the righteous dead implied in the next two verses, “adherence to the covenant, humility or fear of the Lord, following the path of wisdom and association with a righteous one.”³ Conversely, they present a contrast to the aforementioned defectors who have abandoned the covenantal way of life and thus the way to life, as well as a contrast to those who will rise for condemnation in v. 2. 

Before I move to v. 2, further comment is needed on the book. This is the second time in Daniel in which books have appeared in the context of judgment, the first case being the reference to multiple books in Dan 7:10, prior to the introduction of the one like a son of man. But unlike that more general reference, this book records people specifically designated for salvation (cf. Exod 32:32–33; Ps 69:28; Isa 4:3; Mal 3:16; cf. 4QInstructionc/4Q417 2 I, 15–16). Similar acknowledgments of the faithful in the book of life appear in Apoc. Zeph. 3:6–8; 9:2; Jos. Asen. 15:4; 4QDibHama/4Q504 1–2 VI, 12–14. In other texts, the reference is not so much to books as to heavenly tablets that record deeds and names (1 En. 81:1–3; 98:6–8; 104:7; Jub. 31:32). The image also resonates with the notion of a remnant for whom God ensures salvation (cf. Isa 10:20–22; 11:10–16; Jer 23:3–8; 31:7–40; Mic 2:12–13; 4:1–7; 5:7–9; 7:18–20; Zeph 3:11–13; Zech 8:11–23; 13:8–9). The existence of such a book is a sign of God’s faithful love to sustain relationships with those written in the book, as well as a surety that in the long hoped-for divine judgment, God will vindicate the faithful and condemn the wicked. Thus, this image effectively sets the stage for the resurrection and final judgment in the next verse.

With this framework of context and scriptural tradition in place, this analysis now turns to the actual description of the resurrection in 12:2: “Many of those who sleep in the earth of dust will awaken, some to everlasting life, some to reproach and everlasting abhorrence.” There is much to unpack in this brief description. The first point to the consider is the verb used to convey resurrection: the hiphil imperfect יקיצו. This is verb we have encountered at multiple points in this series and we have noted how it typically has the sense of “awaken,” which makes it an appropriate counterpart to the previous state of the subjects who were sleeping (ישׁן). It is thus not a technical term for resurrection.⁴ It attains this sense, rather, from the context that associates sleep with death, and indeed references to “dust” and “sleep” are commonly associated with death in the OT (Gen 3:19; 1 Kgs 1:21; 2 Kgs 4:31; 13:21; Job 3:13; 7:21; 14:12; 21:26; 34:15; Pss 13:3; 22:29; 76:5; 104:29; Eccl 3:20; 12:7; Isa 26:19; Jer 51:39, 57; Nah 3:18).

The other verb for resurrection in Dan 12 is the common verb עמד in v. 13, here in its qal imperfect form of תעמד. The only other biblical example to use this verb in relation to resurrection is the already noted Ezek 37:10, where it follows a verb for coming to life. Here, the context of the references to the “end of days,” to Daniel’s rest (cf. Prov 21:16; Job 3:11–13, 17; Isa 57:2), and to the “end”—which could be Daniel’s own “end” of death (cf. 11:45; Ps 39:4; Jer 51:13; Lam 4:18)— is what lends this typical verb its rare sense of resurrection. The same applies to the use of ἀναστήσῃ in both Theodotion and the OG, although this term was more frequently associated with resurrection than its Hebrew counterpart.⁵

The second point to consider about v. 2 is the implications of the verb. Does it apply to one group—the group that receives everlasting life—or to both groups? Does it imply bodily resurrection or another kind of resurrection? In response to the first question, some have posited that the wicked do not rise from the dead and their fate, linked as it is with Isa 66:24, implies that they simply remain corpses throughout the judgment.⁶ I explore the intertextual link with Isa 66 below, but more directly problematic for this view is the syntax, as the application of קיץ to the righteous alone leaves the other sub-class of “many” without a complement, as this is the only proper verb in the sentence.⁷ As many issues as Daniel may have with clarity for its readers, this syntactical lack of clarity is inexplicable if he meant to apply the verb to only one group.

In response to the second question, John Collins claims that one cannot take for granted that the resurrection here is bodily or that the scene is on earth.⁸ The contrasting imagery of sleep—referring to the repose of the body in the ground—and awakening entails that the body is involved in the latter as in the former.⁹ Furthermore, given the earthly setting of the scene prior to this text and the lack of a clear scene change, one must wonder why the scene cannot be on earth.

The third point to consider is the intertextual link to Isa 26:19 in describing those who arise/awaken out of the dust.¹⁰ Specifically, both texts refer to the dead as lying (שׁכן in Isa 26:19) or sleeping (ישׁן in Dan 12:2) in the dust (עפר) and both texts contrast that state with the state of waking up/resurrection (קיץ). In both cases, the context also places this rising action in a context of deliverance and judgment. The MT and Peshitta maintain both connections, but the different versions of the LXX use synonymous verbs of ἐγείρω and ἐξυπνίζω in Isa 26:19 instead of the ἐξεγείρω and ἀνίστημι in Dan 12:2. Likewise, the Vulgate uses the synonymous expergiscimini in Isa 26:19 and evigilabunt in Dan 12:2. As noted last time, it is likely that an imperfect form was earlier in Isa 26:19 than the current imperative form in the MT, which establishes a closer verbal connection to the imperfect in Dan 12:2.

The stand-out unusual phrase is the fourth point to consider about this text. The phrase I have translated “earth of dust” (אדמת־עפר) is a unique phrase in the OT. Its very peculiarity may be designed to be provocative and evocative. Some have proposed that one ought to understand the phrase as meaning “land of dust,” and that such a phrase is a metonym for Sheol.¹¹ Apart from the problematic assumptions this argument makes about Sheol—which I have noted in my Sheol analysis—another problem for this argument is that, even granting the potential for metonymy, this phrase is extant nowhere else prior to Daniel as a description of Sheol. There is thus no reason to avoid the sense of this phrase as referring to the ground from which the dead emerge. However, beyond that basic sense, the phrase may be suggestive of more in its closest affinities to texts from Gen 2 and 3.

The most similar phrase to this one in the OT is in Gen 2:7 (עפר מן־האדמה), which describes the formation of האדם out of the ground. Interestingly, this text is also formative for the imagery in Ezek 37:9–10 in its portrayal of resurrection as a reenactment of creation with the Spirit being breathed into the people.¹² Also relevant is the parallelism in the same order of words in Gen 3:19, where God tells Adam that he will return to the ground (אדמה) because he was taken from it, that he is dust (עפר) and to dust he will return. While Gen 2:7 describes creation and formation, Gen 3:19 describes its reversal in death and dissolution. Given how these terms are related to the formation and dissolution of the human body, the implication of rising out of the latter state would also imply a bodily restoration in fulfillment of the initial creative will, but this time endowed with everlasting life. Indeed, a further resonance in v. 2 that supports this intertextual link is that the righteous who wake to everlasting life (לחיי עולם) receive what Adam and Eve lost access to by their disobedience (וחי לעלם; Gen 3:22).

The link of the “earth of dust” to the Genesis texts is most closely maintained in both texts by Theodotion. The Vulgate’s translations of the texts maintain the link between Dan 12:2 and Gen 3:19, but not with Gen 2:7 (terrae pulvere in Dan 12:2 and de limo terrae in Gen 2:7). The Peshitta simplifies the phrase to “dust” and thus vitiates its distinctiveness. However, all versions maintain the connections between the references to everlasting life in both texts, consistently in adjectival forms in Dan 12 and verbal forms in Gen 3.

If Daniel is indeed evoking these texts with this special phrasing and with the fate of the righteous, the implication is that resurrection is a renewed act of creation and reconstitution, not only of individuals, but of a community of people.¹³ Thus, this resurrection to everlasting life represents an everlasting fulfillment of God’s creative will for humans to bear the divine image, to govern creation, and to enjoy fellowship with God, and not even death can stop it. In fact, the implication of the allusion to Gen 3:22, as well as references to God elsewhere in Dan 4:34 (לחי עלם) and 12:7 (בחי העולם) as the one who lives forever is that those who are resurrected to this life have received God’s life in a way that God’s initial life-breath did not provide. Once again, Daniel’s vision speaks beyond his predecessors, but in a way that brings the preceding story to fruition, rather than abandoning it. In this act of raising the dead to everlasting life, the covenant history has finally reached its goal of renewing a fallen creation and fallen humanity, bringing them into accord with God’s creative will.

The fifth point to consider is another confirmation of this theme at the end of the verse. Here there is a verbal link to Isa 66:24, a text which appears in the context of new creation. Specifically, the verbal link is the term דראון (“abhorrence/contempt,” which only appears in the OT in Isa 66:24 and Dan 12:2) as the everlasting fate of the wicked, which implies the presence of new creation and the everlasting enjoyment of it by the righteous (Isa 66:22–24).¹⁴ These new creation connections show that resurrection is crucial to the inclusio of the grand worldview narrative, so that Endzeit links with Urzeit.

Interestingly, while this intertextual link is remarkable for featuring the only two occurrences of the key term in the MT, none of the other versions maintain the lexical link. In the Vulgate and Peshitta, there are no similarities of sound or verbiage whatsoever. Theodotion maintains the most continuity between the texts phonetically (εἰς ἰκανὸν ὁρᾶν in Isa 66:24 vs. αἰσχύνην in Dan 12:2). However, it is the last element in Theodotion’s translation of Isa 66:24 that shows the visual element most common to the other versions. Either a different Vorlage (different also from 1QIsa[a]) or a preference for a more idiomatic translation emphasizing the visual element of looking on the corpses in contempt may be the cause of these variations.

But given how this link breaks down in the other versions, it is worth pondering what else might link these texts. One, as implied by the linkage to Gen 2 and 3 in Dan 12, Isa 66 shares with this text a new creation context. For the Isaiah text, this frame of reference initially appears in 65:17–25 and it reappears in the closing portion of the book in 66:22. There is no explicit reference to resurrection in Isa 66, but many other subsequent texts would link the resurrection to new creation, and Daniel is implicitly one of them.¹⁵ Two, although Isa 66 lacks the explicit language of “everlastingness” that Dan 12:2 has, it is implicit in the descriptions of the enduring character of the fates of the faithful and the unfaithful in vv. 22–24. Three, the scenes in both texts are two-sided realities of condemnation and salvation, as stated extensively in Isa 66:10–17. Four, as the Hebrew makes most explicit, there is a similarity in the fates of the condemned in both texts. Isaiah 66:24 makes clear that this fate is bodily in nature and this intertextual link, in addition to the other factors noted previously, buttresses a similar understanding of the fate of the condemned in Dan 12:2. Of course, since there is no explicit resurrection in Isa 66 and those regarded as דראון are clearly corpses, one could infer, as the aforementioned scholars have, that the intertextual link indicates that the condemned in Dan 12:2 are the dead who never rose. But as noted above, the syntax makes this interpretation too contrived. Still, the intertextual link may indicate that the condemned become corpses of abhorrence subsequent to this judgment, thereby implying a destructive action. This would be their own everlasting consequence of judgment after resurrection.

In any case, in the final point to consider about v. 2, the interpreter encounters a problem in understanding this picture. This text is the only one in the OT that describes a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked, but it does not seem to be a universal resurrection. The phrase רבים מישׁני indicates as much, as the vast majority of scholars take the מן partitively, so that the phrase means “many of” in the sense of “many, but not all.” When these two terms (רב and מן) appear together, it is a virtual guarantee of a partitive sense and arguments for a contrary sense (i.e., taking the “many” as meaning “all”) have understandably been difficult to make.¹⁶ What makes this argument even more difficult is the fact that all versions are consistent in maintaining a partitive grammatical construction.

Who are the “many,” then? The larger Danielic context may provide some clues. One, from the beginning Daniel has been concerned with the faithfulness of Israelites in the face of external threats, lest they should reenact the root sin of idolatry that led to the exile. Chapters 3 and 6 present the picture of faithful Israelites resisting idolatrous practices under threat of death, but ch. 11 demonstrates an awareness of Israelites who have defected and participated in idolatry. Two, 9:1–19 connects the exile with Israel’s refusal to keep covenant and the presence of this prayer in the text serves as an expression of lament and repentance as well as a warning to the covenant people against continued disobedience. The act of the sacrilegious prince in 9:27 of making a covenant with many—in light of 11:30–39—may be an attempt to replace the divine covenant, much as he replaces the typical operations of the temple with a desolating abomination. Three, Daniel also describes judgment against the ruling empires (2:44–45), most specifically against the last kingdom and its worst king (7:9–14, 19–26; 8:9–14, 21–25; 11:45). Four, the immediately preceding verse speaks of how “your people” will be delivered. While that reference is directly to the living, it implies that the salvation experienced in v. 2 is in continuity with this statement. Five, however distant from the time of the end Daniel himself is, he is a participant in this resurrection (12:13). The participants of resurrection can thus not be restricted to some specific period that does not include Daniel (as, e.g., with the idea that this resurrection includes only martyrs of the Maccabean era). On these bases, the strongest conclusion one can draw is a plausible one: the scope of the resurrection vision in Daniel primarily concerns Israel (both the righteous and wicked) throughout the ages in addition to enemies who have oppressed the covenant people.¹⁷ Those beyond this scope, whether the faithful in Carthage or the wicked in Scythia, are simply not addressed.

Verse 3 addresses in greater specificity the fate of one or two subdivisions of the righteous after the resurrection, namely the insightful ones (המשכלים), those who make the many righteous (מצדיקי הרבים): “And those who have insight will shine like the brightness of the expanse and those who lead the many to righteousness [will shine] like the stars forever and ever.” Before I address the nature of what expectations this text conveys, it is important to note the links to one other passage: Isaiah’s Fourth Servant Song (Isa 52:13–53:12). Given the frequent attention that the last Servant Song has drawn from scholars, it is unsurprising that the intertextual links to this text have been frequently noted.¹⁸

That Song introduces the servant by applying the verb ישכיל (of which Dan 12:3 represents the participle form), which in this context could have the sense of either “prosper” or “be wise/insightful” (Isa 52:13). Translations are split on this decision, but it is clearly possible that the author of Daniel could have understood the term in the latter way. The idea that he did so and linked the wise with the servant gains additional support from how he evokes the promise that the Servant will לרבים ... יצדיק (“[will] make the many righteous”; Isa 53:11). It should be noted, however, that the lexical links between these texts are closest in the MT. The links are not clear in the Peshitta. The first participle in the OG of Dan 12:3 (οἱ συνιέντες) corresponds with the equivalent verb of Isa 52:13 (συνήσει), but the lexical link is not present in the case of the phrase. Conversely, the Vulgate maintains the similarity of the phrase (iustificabit ... multos in Isa 53:11 and qui ad iustitiam erudiunt multos in Dan 12:3), but not of the participle and verb.

With that being said, the two texts share significant thematic features already noted in a previous part, including: exaltation of the righteous, suffering and even dying for faithfulness to the divine will, and experience of some kind of life that conquers death. In some sense, the author of Daniel sees the wise/insightful in the role of the servant, which thus pluralizes the servant (cf. 4 Macc 6:27–29; 17:22; 18:4). The closing of the story of the seven brothers in 2 Maccabees probably follows in the tradition of this text in presenting the expectation of resurrection for those who embody the role of the servant (7:32–33, 37–38; cf. Isa 53:4–6, 10–12).

In any case, there is a sense in which Daniel augments the picture of the משכלים in comparison to Isaiah. Both texts comport in that the ones described with שכל are those who understand the will of God, do it, and teach others to do it (Dan 1:4–20; 2:20–23; 4:8–9; 5:11, 14; 9:22, 25; 11:33, 35; 12:10). However, Daniel adds another thematic point. It is not simply that the insightful are those who have secret knowledge and suffer passively for preserving and being faithful to it. Rather, they are those given insight into the “divinely ordained pattern in history,” and make known such revealed mysteries to others, because, “Knowledge of the divine plan strengthens the people’s resolve to adhere to the requirements of the covenant, even if that fidelity results in death.”¹⁹

As for how the משכלים are rewarded, some see here a reflection of the notion of “astral immortality” or a thusly influenced description of the transformation of the righteous into angels.²⁰ This reading ignores the כ preposition, which can indicate a comparison (“like”), so the point is not that they will shine after becoming stars (or being raised to a place among or above the stars), but will shine “like” stars.²¹ None of the cosmological structure that upholds astral immortality is here either and it is unclear by what mechanism it could have become an accepted part of Jewish expectation for a text like Daniel that is hardline traditionalist in orientation.²² Rather, this imagery fits with a Danielic theme of God’s exaltation of the righteous, in this case by emphasizing God’s grant of royal power and authority to the wise, raising them to a state of glory, “for which the best parallel or comparison is the status of stars, moon and sun within the created order.”²³ Given the context of Dan 7, this glory they receive in this exaltation is a share of God’s own heavenly glory and indicates their endowment with sovereignty.²⁴

Similar complexes of images of light/shining, heavenly exaltation, angelic qualities, and reception of royal authority appear in a variety of texts after Daniel (1 En. 104:2–6; 2 Bar. 51:1–10; T.Levi 18:3–4; LAB 26:13; 1QS IV, 6–8; 1QM XVII, 6–8). Wisdom 3:7–8 uses a similar verb to Theodotion in reference to “shining” (ἀναλάμψουσιν; ἐκλάμψουσιν in Dan 12:3) and connects the imagery, to governing the nations in subjection to God (also cf. Isa 5:24; Joel 2:5; Obad 18; Mal 4:1).²⁵ The text of 1 En. 108:11–15 is more explicitly associated with resurrection and likewise links the shining of the righteous with their reception of the throne of honor.²⁶

These similar texts from early readers of Daniel—combined with the parallel structure already noted between the second, seventh, and twelfth chapters of Daniel—indicate that the astral/heavenly imagery is a proper parallel to the promises of the saints’ everlasting kingdom in subjection to God.

I have already noted elements of resurrection in v. 13 in the process of examining the rest of this text. The one other feature of v. 13 that requires comment is the use of גורל for what Daniel will receive at the end of days. We have already encountered this term in Ps 16 and noted its covenantal connotations as well as how it is undergirded by God’s faithfulness to covenantal promises of land grants. There is no clear sense of a land grant here, but its connotations related to God’s faithfulness to promises remains. God is here promising Daniel that he has a portion, an inheritance, after his death and that God himself is the guarantor that Daniel will receive this portion because God is the guarantor that Daniel will live and stand again after his death.

We have thus seen various ways in which Dan 12 acts as a canonical crescendo for theology of resurrection in the OT, as well as a theological crescendo for its own book (for more on these elements of theological framework in the OT, see the series hub page). One, we see God’s inexorable, faithful love at work in vindicating his people and fulfilling eschatological promises to them (thus also bringing to fruition the concerns of chs. 7–12, but especially ch. 9). In the end, death will not be able to prevent God from fulfilling promises to those who died before the time of fulfillment. In this text, God not only overcomes death through his resurrecting power, but his love is such that he makes death no longer a possibility for the faithful in his grant of everlasting life, which is sharing his life.

Two, resurrection is related to final judgment, with outcomes of both vindication and condemnation, as an expression of God’s justice. When God in his judgment dispenses everlasting life as the verdict for the resurrected righteous, he demonstrates the ultimate vindication of their way of life, a way of life defined by faithfulness to his will, by enabling their lives to go on forever. This verdict fulfills what might have been for Adam and Eve and upholds God’s creative purpose, even as it has come to pass in a way that incorporates the breach in relationship between God and humans, as the resurrection is necessary for overcoming death. Likewise, the verdict at resurrection at last publicly vindicates the underlying conviction of the Jewish teachers that God honors faithfulness and perseverance in the face of pressure to believe and live otherwise.²⁷ Indeed, both the faithful and the unfaithful will be present at this judgment so that, as Walther Eichrodt says, “in their fate the whole seriousness of historical decision for or against God is to be made visible.”²⁸ God’s eschatological judgment is part of his action of setting the world aright in order that, in giving his people everlasting life, God may have everlasting communion with his people who bear his image and likeness.

Three, in the use of language from a variety of scriptural texts, Daniel presents a belief that God fulfills Scripture by resurrection, both in terms of faithfulness to both promises made and patterns of action performed, and thus that resurrection is in accordance with Scripture.²⁹ The intertextual links made here include Gen 2–3; Isa 26; 52:13–53:12; 66 (as well as, more distantly, Ezek 37). Through these links, Daniel demonstrates that the resurrection is the crucial narrative denouement for the larger story in which he and his people are participants. God acts not only for the good of his people, but in consistency with specific texts that make promises to those people and establish specific narrative contours to their interrelationship (in terms of both past precedent and future expectation).

Fourth, we see the expectation of resurrection here related to cosmic expectations described in terms of both the kingdom of God and new creation. The redemption of humans in resurrection is crucial to fulfilling God’s creative purpose for the world as a whole and for humans specifically to be bearers of God’s image and likeness (and thus to be the stewards of his rule). The imagery of v. 3 in combination with the parallels with chs. 2 and 7 designate the resurrection of the dead as an essential means by which God will establish the eschatological reality of the kingdom. The sense of powerlessness for the covenant people on display throughout this book gives way to God’s action of empowering the people by raising the dead (those most completely deprived of power) and endowing them with the sovereignty of his kingdom. Hence, as in Isa 52–53 and Ezek 37, the resurrection hope is of one piece with the hope for God’s kingdom.

1. Jacques B. Doukhan, Daniel: The Vision of the End (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1987), 3–6.

2. Artur A. Stele, “Resurrection in Daniel 12 and Its Contribution to the Theology of the Book of Daniel” (PhD diss., Andrews University, 1996), 241. Also see Bonora, “Il linguaggio di risurrezione,” 113–14.

3. Gardner, “Way,” 19.

4. The technical phrase for resurrection of the dead—תחית המתים—appears nowhere in the Tanakh.

5. Cook, “Use,” 259–80; Erich Fascher, “Anastasis – Resurrectio – Auferstehung: Eine programmatische Studie zum Thema ‘Sprache und Offenbarung.’” ZNW 40 (1941): 170–94.

6. Alfrink, “L’idée,” 362–71; Chester, “Resurrection,” 60. For others who make similar arguments, see sources in Hasel, “Resurrection,” 279; Raharimanantsoa, Mort et Ésperance, 437–39.

7. Note the similar syntax of Josh 8:22; 2 Sam 2:13; Isa 49:12.

8. Collins, Daniel, 392.

9. Cf. Elledge, Resurrection, 22–23; John Goldingay, Daniel, WBC 30 (Dallas: Word, 1989), 307–8; Puech, La croyance, 80–82.

10. On Isa 26, also see Chester, “Resurrection,” 54–57; Greenspoon, “Origin,” 284–87; Hasel, “Resurrection,” 267–76; Christopher B. Hays, A Covenant with Death: Death in the Iron Age II and Its Rhetorical Uses in Proto-Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 320–36; Dan G. Johnson, From Chaos to Restoration: An Integrative Reading of Isaiah 24–27, JSOTSup 61 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1988); Raharimanantsoa, Mort et Ésperance, 409–26.

11. Alfrink, “L’idée,” 355; Collins, Daniel, 392; Goldingay, Daniel, 307; Louis F. Hartman and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, AB 23 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1978), 307, 309; Raharimanantsoa, Mort et Ésperance, 435; Nicholas J. Tromp, Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Nether World in the Old Testament, BibOr 21 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969), 41, 91.

12. Chester, “Resurrection,” 50; Levenson, Resurrection, 159–60.

13. On the connections of resurrection and national restoration, see esp. Wright, Resurrection, 121–24.

14. Virtually every critical commentary notes the link between Dan 12:2 and Isa 66:24. For more detail, see Gardner, “Way,” 8–9; Goldingay, Daniel, 308; George W. E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity, exp. ed., HTS 56 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006), 33–37; Carol A. Newsom, Daniel, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2014), 363–64.

15. 1 En. 25:4–6; 51; 61:12; 91:16; Sib. Or. 4.181–182; 4 Ezra 7:30–44; 2 Bar. 73–74; T.Lev. 18:10–14; T.Dan 5:12–13; LAE 42; 51:2; Apoc. Mos. 10:2; 13:2–5; 28:4; 41:3; 43:2; LAB 3:10; 19:12–13. Cf. Rom 8:18–25; Rev 20–22; b. Sanh. 90b; 91b; Gen. Rab. 8.1; 14.2–5; Lev. Rab. 14.9.

16. See the extensive analysis of Stele, “Resurrection,” 139–48. Cf. Alfrink, “L’idée,” 358–59; Collins, Daniel, 392; Goldingay, Daniel, 308; Hartman and Di Lella, Daniel, 307–8; Hasel, “Resurrection,” 277–79; Raharimanantsoa, Mort et Ésperance, 435–36. As an example, Steinmann (Daniel, 556) does not deal linguistically with the partitive issue and further conflates this text with examples of definite uses of רבים (Isa 53:11; Dan 9:27). The case most like Dan 12:2 is that of Esth 8:17, where there is a clear partitive sense.

17. Cf. Gardner, “Eternal Life,” 8–9 (who sees the “many” as referring to Israel); Raharimanantsoa, Mort et Ésperance, 439–44.

18. Cf. Chester, “Resurrection,” 62; John Day, “Da‘at ‘Humiliation’ in Isaiah LIII 11 in the Light of Isaiah LIII 3 and Daniel XII 4, and the Oldest Known Interpretation of the Suffering Servant,” VT 30 (1980): 99–101; Day, “The Development of Belief in Life After Death in Ancient Israel,” in After the Exile: Essays in Honour of Rex Mason, ed. John Barton and David J. Reimer (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1996), 242–43; H. L. Ginsberg, “The Oldest Interpretation of the Suffering Servant,” VT 3 (1953): 400–404; Hartman and DiLella, Daniel, 274; Ernest C. Lucas, Daniel, ApOTC 20 (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic; Nottingham: Apollos, 2002), 303; Newsom, Daniel, 352–53; Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 39–41; Puech, La croyance, 82–84; Sawyer, “Hebrew,” 233; Wright, Resurrection, 115–16. The earliest influential source in modern scholarship to draw attention to this link was Gustaf Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Messias der Synagoge im ersten nachchristlichen Jahrtausend, Schriften des Institutum Judaicum in Berlin 4 (Berlin: Reuther’s, 1888), 29–31. For more sources after Dalman and before 1974 that have noted this link, see Cavallin, Life, 29 n. 22.

19. Newsom, Daniel, 352.

20. Stephen J. Bedard, “A Nation of Heroes: From Apotheosis to Resurrection,” in Resurrection of the Dead: Biblical Traditions in Dialogue, ed. Geert Van Oyen and Tom Shepherd, BETL 249 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 456–58, 460; Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine During the Early Hellenistic Period, trans. John Bowden, vol. 1 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 196–97; Segal, Life, 265–66.

21. Collins, Daniel, 394; Goldingay, Daniel, 308; Lucas, Daniel, 296.

22. Wright, Resurrection, 58–60, 110–13.

23. Wright, Resurrection, 113. Cf. Elledge, Resurrection, 32–34; Puech, La croyance, 83–85.

24. Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, trans. J. A. Baker, vol. 2, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967), 513–14; Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 41.

25. Wright, Resurrection, 169–70. Also note Matt 13:43, which uses the same verb as Dan 12:3 in Θ, albeit with reference to the sun, instead of the stars in general.

26. 4 Ezra 7:97 uses terminology reminiscent of Dan 12:3 at some remove from the resurrection mentioned in 7:32. As part of a text that generally shares many similarities with Daniel, 4 Ezra may simply repeat this terminology and expects the audience to understand the allusion.

27. Cf. Bonora, “Il linguaggio di risurrezione,” 115; Goldingay, Daniel, 318.

28. Eichrodt, Theology, 513 (italics original).

29. Second Benediction of the Amidah; Wis 3:7–8; 2 Macc 7:9, 32–33, 37–38; 1 En. 91:10–11; 92:3–5; 104:1–4; 108:8–15; 4 Ezra 7:32, 97; 2 Bar. 51:1–6, 10; Liv. Pro. 3:12; 4Q246 II, 1–6; 4Q385; 4Q521 2 II, 7–12; 7+5 II, 6; Matt 21:37–44 // Mark 12:9–10 // Luke 20:15b–18; Matt 26:23–24 // Mark 14:20–21 // Luke 22:21–22; Matt 26:31–32 // Mark 14:27; Matt 26:54–56 // Mark 14:48–49 // Luke 22:52–53; Luke 24:25–27, 44–47; John 2:18–22; 17:12; 20:9; Acts 2:14–36; 3:18–26; 8:32–35; 10:43; 13:26–41; 17:2–3, 11, 18, 31–32; 18:28; 26:6–8, 22–23; 28:23; Rom 1:1–4; 1 Cor 15:3–4.