(avg. read time: 5–9 mins.)
The text for today, Ps 16:9–11, is one on which I have already written extensively in published work. Here I will simply summarize what I have said and expand on it where necessary. My basic proposal in that article—in common with earlier authors like Diodore of Tarsus and more recent authors such as Gregory V. Trull and Philip S. Johnston—is that resurrection language is used here to present a hope that is at least open to resurrection. David does not expect to be abandoned to Sheol because Sheol is not the proper abode of the righteous. Here I will repost what I said in my Sheol analysis.
In this particular case, the speaker identifies himself as God’s חסיד, whom God will not allow to see שׁחת. The former term may be taken actively (“committed one/faithful one”) or passively (“one to whom you are committed/favored one”), but it is in any case derivative from חסד, one of the primary terms for God’s faithful love (often expressed in covenant).1 In this case, it seems more likely to take the derived term in the passive sense, as the focus of this verse and the entire psalm is on God’s action and God’s favor towards the speaker, not on the speaker’s qualities.2
What then about שׁחת, the parallel term to Sheol? In contexts of referring to death, the term could refer to “pit/grave” (the place of the dead) or “corruption/decay/destruction” (the state of the dead).3 Of course, both senses could be evoked if the term serves as a synecdoche or metonym for death by reference to its attendant circumstances. But as Bruce K. Waltke notes, it is most likely in this case to be a reference to the state of death, since the author is using a sensory verb (ראה), as opposed to a verb of motion that would better fit a reference to the place of the dead.4 Also noteworthy are the occurrences of the root with this sense in the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QS IV, 12; IX, 22; X, 19; 1QM III, 9; 1QH XII, 26; CD XIII, 14; XIV, 2; cf. 1QS III, 21; IX, 16; XI, 13; CD VI, 15). This sense is also supported by the LXX translation.
Speaking of the LXX translation, I think this is one of those cases where scholars tend to presume that the LXX has gone back and added resurrection belief to this text or at least made it more open to the idea. I think it is rather that the openness to resurrection is in the Hebrew text itself.
But now that I have reiterated my points about the role of Sheol and associated terms in this context, it is now proper to back up to the context of the climax and see how the psalm builds to it. One must first observe that this psalm is from beginning to end an expression that the source and most fundamental foundation of hope is YHWH himself, the refuge (v. 1), the sovereign one (v. 2), the portion and cup (v. 5), the counselor (v. 7), the trusted protector (v. 8), and ultimately the Savior from Sheol and שׁחת (v. 10). Furthermore, the rest of the psalm attests to patterns and promises of God’s faithfulness and love, particularly through invocations of covenantal themes. First, David refers to the “lot,” (גורל) which recalls the allotment of the promised land, which is undergirded by God’s faithfulness to covenantal promises of land grants (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; Ps 89:35–37; Isa 65:17–25; Jer 11:5; 32:22; Ezek 20:6). Second, the boundary lines invoke similar ideas. Third, the term “inheritance” signifies the passing on of land to the offspring of Israel provided by God’s faithfulness. Fourth, and most importantly, is the term already noted: חסיד.
Also worth noting at the more implicit level are the evocations of the Mosaic and Davidic covenants, which give more specific shape to the hope of the faithful. As noted before, proper relation to God by loyalty to the Mosaic covenant was true life (Deut 30:6–20; 32:46–47; Pss 34:11–17; 36:5–10; 119:49–50, 92–94, 153–60; Ezek 33; 37; Mal 2:4–7). The promised results of following the Mosaic covenant included continued life in the promised land (Lev 26:9–13; Deut 28:1–14). The Davidic covenant, while addressed to a particular line of descent, provided further support of these promises via the establishment and empowerment of an everlasting kingship (2 Sam 7:12–16; Ps 89:1–37). This Davidic covenant would also provide a source of eschatological hope for God to exercise his kingship through the Davidic king (Isa 9:1–7; 11; 55:1–5; Jer 23:5–8; 30:1–3, 18–22; 33:14–26; Ezek 34:23–31; Hos 3:4–5; Mic 5:2–15; cf. T.Sim. 7:2–3; T.Jud. 24; T.Naph. 8:2–3; Pss. Sol. 17:21–46; 4QcommGen A V, 1–4; 4Q504 1–2 IV, 5–8; 4QpIsaa III, 11–24; 4QFlor 1 I, 7–13). Interestingly, the promise of a Davidic king is linked with the promise of resurrection in Ezek 37, although I must wait until later to address this link more fully. This passage draws these covenants, their renewal, and indeed their eschatological culmination together in a remarkable fashion. But that linkage is adumbrated here, albeit at a much more implicit level, including in the link of covenant themes with resurrection language.
Through these various ways, the paradigm regularly emerges that conceives of loyalty as life, disloyalty as death, and restoration/reconciliation as return to life. And indeed, the most important implication of continued life was continued relations with God (noted throughout the psalm but given particular focus in v. 11). Such an implication represents a reversal of the Gen 3 story where the state of death was linked with a broken relationship with God.5 And in this reversal of Gen 3, with its established fate of dissolution in death, we thus see an implication of resurrection.
As one last framing point before wrapping these points together with vv. 9–11, I want to quote a portion of my article on God’s justice as a foundation of hope here:
In addition to the idea of deliverance itself, the psalmist expresses his confidence in God’s justice in that his flesh rests “securely” (בטח). While the vocabulary of this text is not the vocabulary of hope per se—as the highlighted term is often in reference to people dwelling in safety—the context implies hope with another causative adverb—כי—connecting verse 9, which describes the state of the psalmist, with verse 10, which describes the situation that the psalmist can respond to confidently. He can do so only on the assumption that God will act justly in accordance with the precedents already cited in the psalm and in treating his favored one appropriately.6
In contrast to the MT, the LXX and Vulgate do in fact use the language of hope for describing the state of the psalmist’s flesh. But the MT, LXX, and Vulgate are more consistent in the description of the flesh as dwelling in a “tabernacling,” “encamping,” or “residing” fashion. The word applies both to temporary residing, as in a tent, as well as a more permanent establishment. The temporary sense fits best with v. 10 and it fits with why the flesh should be secure. That is, the embodied man has the hope of resurrection, whether literal or otherwise.
The resurrection imagery emerges in David saying that God will not abandon his life to Sheol. That is, after all, not the place for God’s favored one. Nor must the favored one see the place of destruction and decay. The climactic expression of God’s חסד for his חסיד is to save him from this state of death. What is more, the resurrection imagery is reinforced by two further points. One, the reversal of the pattern of Gen 3 means, at least figuratively if not literally, a pattern of resurrection, as the favored one is filled with joy with God’s presence, rather than being consigned to a realm of disfavor and dissolution in alienation from God. Such life on the other side of death can only be properly described (again, literally or figuratively) as resurrection, especially since we are told that the flesh dwells securely (in expectance of the future hope) and that the life will not be abandoned in this place of death. Since the נפשׁ is not a reference to an incorporeal anthropological aspect that can carry on independently after death like how we think of souls—but is rather the “life” or the roundabout way of referring to the self—the only way for the life to continue is some form of resurrection. This is at least resurrection imagery and not simply a statement of avoiding death or Sheol specifically, otherwise this statement would be undermined by the belief that David/the psalmist will eventually go to Sheol anyway.
Two, the delights God grants are described as being in victory or everlasting, hinting at some, seemingly hazy, sense of everlasting life. The same ambiguity accompanies Isa 25:8, and this ambiguity is reflected in the Greek translations of both texts (we will address Isa 25 another time, but here Aquila translates it as “victory” while the LXX/OG favors εἰς τέλος, which could mean “to the end” or “in perpetuity”). The key term נצח can mean “victory” (consistent especially with the typical sense of the root in Aramaic), “perpetually/forever” (consistent with its use in parallel with other such terms/phrases), or “to the end/completely” (consistent with the root’s association with extremity). In either case, the text would fit with resurrection’s associations either with victory or with everlasting life that conquers death (in the case of eschatological resurrection).
As with my earlier discussion of the framework and foundations of resurrection belief in part 1, it is worth noting that we do not have here any “sufficient” conditions for resurrection belief. None of these features inevitably lead to the conclusion of resurrection. But that extrapolation is reasonable if a situation arises where the forces of death are potential obstacles to God’s promises. Such is the result of the idealization of the future based on David’s past and present goods in vv. 9–11. The resurrection imagery of not allowing the favored one to see the place of decay could thus serve as an opening for literal resurrection belief.
R. Laird Harris (“חסד,” TWOT 1:305–7) argues that even in covenantal contexts, God’s חסד is not a function of the covenant, but the covenant is a function of God’s prior love.
K. R. Harriman, “‘For David Said Concerning Him’: Foundations of Hope in Ps 16 and Acts 2,” JTI 11 (2017): 244–45.
On the translation issues, see Bruce K. Waltke, “Psalms: Theology of,” NIDOTTE 4:1113. Contrast to John Goldingay Psalms 1–41, vol. 1, BCOTWP (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 233.
Waltke, “Psalms,” 4:1113.
R. W. L. Moberly, “Did the Serpent Get It Right?” JTS ns 39 (1988): 1–27; Moberly, “Did the Interpreters Get it Right? Genesis 2–3 Reconsidered,” JTS ns 59 (2008): 22–40.
Harriman, “For David Said Concerning Him,” 246.