(avg. read time: 3–7 mins.)
Today we study two texts for the price of one: Pss 49:14–15 and 73:23–24. I treat both of these texts together because of how similar they are, although one is more suggestive than the other. Yet the resurrection imagery of the latter text is less vivid than the former, as the latter does not invoke Sheol or the grave at all.
As I addressed the first text in my Sheol analysis, I mostly draw from it here. Psalm 49:14–15/15–16 is similar to Ps 16:9–11, but it also makes clearer what I had observed in my Sheol analysis about Sheol being the proper abode of the wicked/disfavored. On the one hand, the first verse declares that the foolish will go down to Sheol. But on the other hand, the speaker affirms the expectation that God will redeem them from the power/hand of Sheol. The imagery resonates with resurrection language with its portrayal of salvation from death. One does not occupy Sheol, alive or dead, in a non-bodily fashion, and so redemption from Sheol involves some kind of bodily salvation, whether it is healing or literal resurrection. The speaker’s description appears to fit better with the notion of a reversal for one who is apparently in Sheol, since, in light of his statement in the previous verse, it is unclear why the speaker expects to go to Sheol. But either way, as with Ps 16, the resurrection imagery fits an understanding of the speaker’s situation in which the salvation is not simply a stay of execution for one who will need to go to Sheol eventually upon death.
That the speaker would describe themselves as expecting to be delivered from Sheol also fits with the impression of current adversity and injustice given by the psalm, as well as their criticism of the arrogance of those who trust in their wealth in not being properly humble before the prospect of their own death (vv. 5–12/6–13). This is why they will be consigned to Sheol, but the speaker will be delivered, as the apparent disfavor of the present will give way to God’s ultimate confirmation of favor, as opposed to those who seem favored now only to end up in the condition of disfavor because they have trusted in their wealth rather than the Creator.
Psalm 49 thus features resurrection imagery, but it is not so simple to tell whether it is figurative for deliverance from a living Sheol (as I am inclined to think) or a literal resurrection. What then about Ps 73:23–24? It appears in a context much like Ps 49 with references to the present prosperity of the wicked (vv. 3–12). But the extra layer of drama provided in this case is that the speaker confesses that they were once envious of the prosperous wicked and wondered what good their uprightness has done for them (vv. 2, 13–14). What gave them clarity was entering God’s sanctuary (vv. 15–17)—as in Lev 21:23 and Jer 51:51, the plural is used in the Hebrew to refer to the whole complex of the sanctuary or multiple holy places within—and realizing that here was life, not in what the wicked pursued. Because their life is lived away from the sanctuary, their way is the way to destruction, their security is illusory (vv. 18–20). Such could have been the end for the speaker if they had followed the wicked (vv. 21–22), but in entering the sanctuary, they found that there is a reversal and a vindication coming. The speaker is assured of God’s continued presence and guidance with counsel (vv. 23–24). Then, it is said, “afterwards” (אחר) God will either take or receive (לקח) this person with or to glory.
This last statement is difficult, and its difficulties and suggestions must be outlined. First, it is possible that the word translated “afterwards” could in rare cases mean “with” and there may be reason for seeing such a sense here. On the other hand, it could have its more common sense, in which case the reference to “afterwards” indicates something happening to the speaker after death. After all, this is part of a contrast with the fate of the wicked, whose end is death and destruction, and this is further reinforced in v. 27. By contrast, the speaker sees God as the portion of the righteous “in perpetuity” or “forevermore” (v. 26), and he also differentiates the nearness of God for them from the fate of the wicked (v. 28). The most reasonable sense of what this “afterwards” applies to is after the conclusion of the lifespan. Although scholars will sometimes suggest that this means the speaker hopes for some disembodied afterlife in heaven with God, that is more of an imposition of more popular notions of afterlife and not a likely inference from the text. But the contrast with the fate of the wicked makes more sense if we are to understand that the psalmist’s survival means more than that only one supposed aspect of them continues to live (since, by this view, the wicked would continue to live in this same sense). The reversal also makes more sense if, as in the reversal of Ps 49 and the texts of living Sheol noted in my Sheol analysis, the reversal is of a bodily character. But in any case, as we will see below, what makes this statement as a whole difficult is the lack of definition the psalmist gives to the stated hope.
Second, it is unclear if the image is of God taking or receiving this person afterwards. The verb לקח can mean either, although it much more often has the sense of “take.” Still, the vast majority of English translations render it as “receive.” This same confusion appears in the different Greek versions as the verbs used by the LXX/OG (προσλάμβανω) and Symmachus (διαδέχομαι) have a similar range of meaning. The question is if God is welcoming the speaker or taking a more active role in taking the speaker to the destination. It could go either way and either could be compatible with resurrection imagery, although the sense of “taking” is more suggestive in that regard. In any case, bodily resurrection, even if given the haziest of articulations, is more compatible with the idea of God taking or receiving this person after death, than the completely unanticipated notion that the “me” who is taken or received is something that exists apart from the body.
Third, it is unclear how the word “glory” is related to the verb. This is because in the MT there is no preposition attached to it if we take אחר as meaning “afterwards.” If we take it as meaning “with,” then the sense becomes clearer. This is the sense reflected in the LXX/OG and Vulgate, but it is not clear if this is an explanatory translation where the preposition is inserted to make the sense clearer or if this reflects an atypical understanding of the אחר. The sense could also be “to” glory, but then it is unclear if this is just left implicit or if an affixed preposition (probably ב in this scenario) was lost at some point. The difference between these senses is that “with” glory can imply that the person is glorified (which fits with the contrast of fates noted elsewhere), but both “with” and “to” can apply to the person’s destination.
In both of these texts, we have ambiguous uses of resurrection and post-mortem language. Psalm 49 may be figurative, but it is still possible that it is literal. Psalm 73 most likely implies literal resurrection into some glorious existence in fellowship with God as a contrast to the fate of the wicked, but it states this in an, at best, indirect fashion. Whatever may be the case, both texts invoke notions of God’s justice and judgment, as well as the execution of the same in the contrasting fates they illustrate. In these ways, they contribute to the framework for more developed resurrection texts.