Sheol Belief in the OT, Part 1

A Review of Sheol Texts in the OT

(avg. read time: 20–40 mins.)

One subject I will frequently be returning to throughout my time on this platform, however long that will be, is resurrection. I will be mostly concerned with resurrection in the Bible, but I will of course have occasion to explore its function beyond the canon. It is, after all, at the foundation of our faith and hope, the root of our love, for Jesus’s resurrection by God is the sine qua non without which our faith and hope collapse, and the resurrection of the crucified Jesus is the supreme expression of God’s love, showing that it can conquer even death. I have written much on it before, some of which I will share here, and I aim to write more articles and even a series of books on the theology of resurrection in the NT, if God so wills.

But before I discuss resurrection in the OT, it is important to examine a crucial background: beliefs about Sheol. When the OT addresses the matter of death, most of the time there is a presented finality about it; the references to resurrection are significantly outnumbered by references to Sheol and associated realities. The broad consensus of OT scholarship on the matter has claimed that the earliest strata of beliefs represented in the OT presented Sheol as the universal realm/state of the dead; it is the inevitable destination for all. Some may assign all references to Sheol to the category of an underworld, others may assign all references to Sheol to the category of the grave, and others may see references to both, but these scholars nevertheless agree that Sheol is the abode of all the dead. Not all scholars who adopt this position take a further step, but a significant subset of them thus argue that early Sheol belief represents a closed system without true “afterlife” beliefs in any meaningful sense (representing at most continued existence of shades, on par with traditional Greek beliefs about Hades before the influence of the philosophers), meaning that resurrection belief must have emerged due to outside influence (exclusively or primarily), as opposed to internal development (exclusively or primarily).

I belong to a minority of scholars who argue that the picture of Sheol in the OT is more complicated than these notions of its universality suggest.¹ In fact, for all that its universality is assumed by scholars, only two texts provide any clear indication of such a belief in universality: Ps 89:48; Eccl 9:10. These are not exactly early OT texts, either. I provide further explanation for these two texts later in this analysis, but from this point alone we can see that the development of beliefs about death and afterlife in the OT is nothing so simple as the schema of early belief of Sheol as the universal abode of the dead followed by late belief in resurrection of the dead subsequent to influence by Zoroastrianism. A further complication to this scenario is that, excepting the clearest case of Dan 12:2–3, there are several OT texts that we will address another time that describe God’s action with resurrection imagery, which likely or plausibly predate proposed Persian or Zoroastrian influence in this regard (Deut 32:39; 1 Sam 2:6; Pss 16:9–11; 73:23–24; Isa 26:19; 53:7–12; Ezek 37:1–14; Hos 6:1–2). And this is not even to mention stories of temporary resurrection in the ministries of Elijah and Elisha (1 Kgs 17:17–24; 2 Kgs 4:18–37).

But this is all about the relation of Sheol belief to resurrection belief; it does not yet address the nature of Sheol belief itself. I argue that Sheol belief is better accounted for by the assumption that it is typically rendered as the proper abode of those not favored by God, and so it came to be associated primarily with the wicked. When the righteous are said to be in Sheol, it is made as a present statement by someone who is the speaker, indicating that it is not a final state for them, it is not their proper place, and thus they seek deliverance. Other times the righteous express expectation of going there upon death only in cases where something has gone horribly wrong.

These points will be demonstrated through an examination of all sixty-six references to Sheol in the OT. My main dialogue partner in this will be Eriks Galenieks, whose dissertation provides a comprehensive analysis of these texts and who argues that Sheol is a poetic synonym for the grave. In the second part, I will address the matter of the fate of the righteous under the assumption that I justify here that they were not (typically) thought of as destined for Sheol in this conception. I will also address in that second part a lingering question about my position concerning 1 Sam 28.

For this entry, we will be dealing with the following references, which I will supplement as necessary for this analysis:

Genesis: 37:35; 42:38; 44:29, 31 (4x)

Numbers: 16:30, 33 (2x)

Deuteronomy: 32:22 (1x)

1 Samuel: 2:6 (1x)

2 Samuel: 22:6 (1x)

1 Kings: 2:6, 9 (2x)

Job: 7:9; 11:8; 14:13; 17:13, 16; 21:13; 24:19; 26:6 (8x)

Psalms: 6:5; 9:17; 16:10; 18:5; 30:3; 31:17; 49:14 (2x), 15; 55:15; 86:13; 88:3; 89:48; 116:3; 139:8; 141:7 (16x)

Proverbs: 1:12; 5:5; 7:27; 9:18; 15:11, 24; 23:14; 27:20; 30:16 (9x)

Ecclesiastes: 9:10 (1x)

Song of Songs: 8:6 (1x)

Isaiah: 5:14; 7:11; 14:9, 11, 15; 28:15, 18; 38:10, 18; 57:9 (10x)

Ezekiel: 31:15–17; 32:21, 27 (5x)

Hosea: 13:14 (2x)

Amos: 9:2 (1x)

Jonah: 2:2 (1x)

Habakkuk: 2:5 (1x)

Unlike Galenieks’s dissertation, I will not be devoting a full analysis to every single passage. Rather, I will proceed in canonical order and address subjects as they are raised, alongside related texts.

Genesis 37:35 and Related Texts: The Righteous Expecting Sheol

This leads us to the instructive Genesis references, all attributed directly or indirectly to Jacob/Israel. Genesis 37:35 presents the first reference to Sheol in the OT, wherein Jacob says that he will go down to his son, in mourning to Sheol, when he thinks Joseph has died. This text is also the first use of ירד (“go down”) in connection with it, which would maintain a characteristic association with going to Sheol (Gen 42:38; 44:29, 31; Num 16:30, 33; 1 Sam 2:6; 1 Kgs 2:6, 9; Job 7:9; 17:16; Pss 30:4; 55:16; Prov 1:12; 5:5; 7:27; Isa 5:14; 14:11, 15; 38:18; Ezek 31:15–17; 32:21, 27). This fits the association of Sheol with the grave. But it is curious that only Jacob says this about his fate—or he is quoted as saying it—and not the other patriarchs. In fact, by the end of Jacob’s story, after he has been reunited with Joseph, he no longer describes his death as going down to Sheol, but in terms of “being gathered to my people” (Gen 49:29, 33). This is also how death is described for Abraham (Gen 25:8), Ishmael (25:17), and Isaac (35:29). Beyond Genesis, this description applies to Aaron (Num 20:24, 26), Moses (Num 27:13; Deut 32:50), Joshua’s generation (Judg 2:10), and Josiah (2 Kgs 22:20 // 2 Chr 34:28). Why does this description change? And why are none of these figures ever declared in the OT as going to Sheol? Galenieks suggests that they are simply two ways of describing the same thing (76–80), but this is a presumption he makes depending on his identification of Sheol with the grave, not something he can establish independently, not least because of the stark differentiation in applying the descriptions.

I suggest that the change is because Jacob no longer regards himself as someone destined for Sheol. If he had died in a state of mourning for Joseph or, in the case of the later texts, as a result of hearing that Benjamin had died, he would think that Sheol was his proper destination as someone whom God no longer favored. For, so he would think, why else would God bring such calamity on him? This also represents his tunnel vision regarding the children of his most beloved wife, Rachel. The death of these children would mean more to him than the fact that God has richly blessed him with a large family of which he has seen multiple generations. This is further supported by the first reference in Gen 37:35 of Jacob going down “to his son,” meaning that he thinks his son is also in Sheol. This does not mean that Jacob expects some kind of family reunion in Sheol. As we will see more clearly in later references, Sheol is no such place for that. He rather thinks that he will join his son in that same state. He could think that Joseph is in Sheol because he died prematurely because of a wild beast, per the story of Joseph’s brothers, but perhaps more likely (or even in combination) because he died in such a way that he could not be properly buried. Furthermore, as will be more extensively explained in the next installment, his destination would traditionally be considered Sheol because he had not at this time produced any descendants. To die in such a fashion would imply that his destination is in Sheol, and Jacob, in the midst of his own brokenhearted gloominess, expects that he will go there as well. But when he has reunited with Joseph and when Benjamin does not wind up dead either, Jacob feels whole again and no longer speaks of himself going to Sheol, because he no longer sees himself as falling out of God’s favor.

Another important point to keep in mind for this text and others in narrative contexts and several others is that these statements are not necessarily given the imprimatur of biblical endorsement. When the statements are not those of the narrator, or sometimes even if they are (in the case of poetic texts), it is an open question as to whether the characters in the story have an accurate view of matters. In this case, the fact that Jacob expects going to Sheol, at least up to a certain point, is not in itself an indication of the biblical-canonical teaching about Sheol; it simply reflects what he believes. Galenieks does not account for this factor when he objects to the idea of Jacob going to Sheol if it was reserved for the wicked (33). It is rather that Sheol was linked more generally with God’s disfavor, particularly as expressed in the circumstances of death, and that it thus became typically, but not strictly, associated with the wicked. The righteous could of course perceive themselves as being in such disfavor in certain circumstances, and this is one of those cases. Whether Jacob was correct in his perception is another matter.

One could describe Job 14:13 along similar lines. The whole cycle of speeches by Job and his friends presumes that Job has found disfavor with God. Job’s expressed wish in 14:13 to be hidden in Sheol is a wish for death, if there is indeed to be no appeal to God, if God will not hear his case and simply wishes to impose his wrath upon him. Of course, in Job’s wish, he would also be brought back after God’s wrath had passed, but he does not really expect this as an option, not least because of what he says in 7:9, which I note below. Of course, the larger narrative framework of the book makes clear that Job is wrong in his perception of God’s disposition towards him, but given his faulty assumption, his perception about his destination being Sheol coheres with my proposal. Much the same could be said for his ironic statements about his hope being in Sheol (17:13, 16).

I have talked about Ps 88 elsewhere, but in a more general fashion. Verse 3/4 of this darkest of psalms expresses the speaker’s perception that they are drawing near to Sheol. In light of the larger context of the psalm, this fits a perception of some profound divine disfavor (again, whether or not that perception is actually true). This text also arguably belongs to the third category of texts I discuss below. I place it here because the speaker is said to be “approaching” Sheol, but elsewhere in this psalm, the speaker appears to be in a state that could just as well be described as a living Sheol, being numbered among those who go down to the pit (v. 4), among the dead and those cut off from God (v. 5), and in the lowest places (v. 6). At the same time, the speaker is someone who is not yet in the grave and in Abaddon, where people cannot declare the truth of God (v. 11).

Likewise, Hezekiah expresses in Isa 38:10 that he thought he was to enter Sheol in the middle of his life. Such would understandably be his belief because of his mortal illness and his perception that, since God had told him he would die, that this was a sign of God’s disfavor towards him.

Numbers 16 and Related Texts: Sheol’s Location and Its Occupants

The next pair of references to Sheol after Genesis in Num 16:30, 33 are also illustrative. This is part of the story of Korah’s rebellion against Moses and Aaron. What ultimately happens to them is that the earth “opens its mouth” and “swallowed them up” so that the rebels, along with all of their possessions, go down to Sheol alive, then the earth closed over them again. Three points are worth noting about this description.

First, Galenieks correctly observes that this description does not fit with the idea of Sheol as a netherworld realm of departed spirits, lest we are to think that the “spirits” of the rebels’ possessions also went there (52–53). The vivid description of what the earth does applies not to non-corporeal souls, but to bodies and physical things. The downward direction of this activity likewise fits with the association of Sheol with burial in the ground and the grave. However, I am not so confident as Galenieks that this association is because Sheol simply was the grave (53–55).

Second, while this text does not fit with the notion of Sheol as a place of continuing post-mortem punishment for the wicked, it does fit with what I have proposed for Sheol as the place of those who are outside of God’s favor. These people are so swallowed up because of God’s judgment against them (cf. Exod 15:12). They are described as not simply going down into the earth, but as going down into Sheol because of their rebellion against God and God’s chosen leaders.

Third, this is a text that refers to Sheol in both prophetic speech, which would be fulfilled, and narration. As such, it is more directly normative for describing biblical Sheol belief, as opposed to Sheol belief simply recorded in Scripture. There is continuity between the types of categories of speech, but in the latter case, someone can wrongly believe that they are destined for Sheol because of a misapplication of truth. In this case, though, there is to be no doubt that Sheol was the destination for these rebels.

Deuteronomy 32:22 has little to add here, except as confirmation of the first point. But because of its association with divine disfavor and “distance” from fellowship with God, it is fitting for a description of the “extent” to which God’s anger burns. It is likewise used as a reference for extremity of depth in Zophar’s first speech in Job 11:8. A bit more ambiguous is Job 26:6, which simply uses Sheol as a place name, but it is complicated by the parallel reference to Abaddon. In both cases, the references apply to places that signify God’s enmity, yet they cannot conceal from God; they are not beyond God’s scope of awareness/knowledge, as is the case also in Ps 139:8, Amos 9:2, and the more similar Prov 15:11. This likewise explains the reference to Sheol in Ps 6:5/6. The parallelism with death works with the general association of Sheol with death, but it is further informed by David’s impression of his current state as subject to God’s wrath, and thus his appeal for deliverance.

The last time we encounter the notion of a wicked person going to Sheol in narrative is also the next time that we encounter a speaker describing someone else as destined for Sheol. There are in fact two cases of this in 1 Kgs 2:6, 9, where some of David’s last charges to Solomon include not to let Joab’s grey hair go down to Sheol in peace, and to make sure that Shimei goes down to Sheol with blood. These statements are negative and positive equivalents of each other. Galenieks rightly observes that for these texts, as well as the earlier ones about Jacob, “provide explanatory information concerning the way a person dies and have nothing to do with the conditions or distinctions in Sheol” (123). Indeed, and thus one should not take the description of Joab as implying it would be possible for him to have a peaceful existence in Sheol if Solomon does not do something about him. Rather, because of what he has done, particularly in his murdering, it is assumed that he will go to Sheol, but David cannot stand the thought of him going to that death peacefully with the fullness of age. The execution was to serve as retribution to return the blood of those Joab murdered on his head and the heads of his descendants forever (2:31–33). And so unlike the aforementioned cases of Jacob and Joseph, at least according to Jacob’s perspective, Joab does not die without children and he is even properly buried (2:34). Rather, the disfavor manifests simply as a result of what Joab has done and in the fact that he is executed for it, as well as in Solomon’s declaration that the blood guilt will be on his descendants thereafter, signifying his claim of their share in his disfavor.

For Shimei, he is likewise presumed by David to be destined for Sheol because he cursed David, God’s favored one. Of course, while this is the motive behind what eventually leads to Shimei’s execution, it is not the direct reason for his death, as that rather has to do with violating his “house arrest.” Interestingly, unlike Joab, Shimei is not described as buried.

More similar to the descriptions in Numbers are a set of statements from the book of Job. Job says that one who goes down to Sheol cannot come up again (7:9). This in itself does not say anything about what kind of person goes down to Sheol, but 21:13 describes the suddenness of the reversal in which the wicked prosper and then go down to Sheol. Likewise, by elliptical expression, Job describes Sheol as consuming those who have sinned (24:19). So even though Job at times describes himself being destined for Sheol, he also expresses the view that the wicked are there. We are given no clearly normative statements about Sheol in Job, but it is noteworthy that these are at least consistent with what has been established as normative in Numbers.

Also similar is Ps 9:17/18, which states that the wicked shall be turned to Sheol, all the nations that forget God. Likewise, Ps 31:17/18 calls for God not to let the speaker be put to shame, while it is fine for the wicked to be put to shame and be silent in Sheol. A wish that the speaker’s enemies should go down alive to Sheol also appears in Ps 55:15/16, in contrast to his own expectation of salvation (v. 16/17).

Imagery similar to Numbers also appears in Prov 1:12, where it is part of a statement by sinners hoping to swallow alive the innocent like Sheol, like those who go down to the pit (בור). As an analogy, this text in itself is not informative about who goes to Sheol or under what circumstances they go there, as it is not clear that the sinners are suggesting that they will send the innocent to Sheol, although it is possible that they think of themselves as agents in dealing the kind of death associated with Sheol. In any case, we are not here dealing with a normative statement, even if we are dealing with some kind of statement about who occupies Sheol. The other notable feature of this text is that the other noun used here (בור) is associated with burial and the grave for the same reasons Sheol is, although it also has a wider semantic range of referring to cisterns, wells, and a regular pit. But in poetic contexts, it more often refers to the grave or associated ideas (158). But still, in such cases it seems best to see this as not simply a reference to the grave, but as a reference to the grave with connotations of Sheol or associated ideas like destruction, darkness, or decay (cf. Isa 14:15). The same points apply also to the analogy of Sheol and Abaddon with the insatiability of a person’s eyes in Prov 27:20. Proverbs 30:16 also refers to Sheol as insatiable, but the text does not provide detail beyond that. The same imagery also applies to the last canonical reference to Sheol in Hab 2:5. In the case of Song 8:6, the analogy is made to its severity compared to jealousy.

Proverbs 5:5 also maintains this connection of Sheol not only with death, but with destruction as the teacher reminds the audience that the steps of the adulteress lead to Sheol. This is not simply a statement that the adulteress leads to death as a consequence of mortality, but that she leads to a destructive kind of death, a state of death associated with God’s disfavor. The same notion applies to the similar statements in Prov 7:27; 9:18. Proverbs 15:24 illustrates this point further by offering a direct contrast, wherein the path of the wise goes upward to life, as opposed to downward to Sheol. Galenieks explains this in his framework as a reference to the eschaton rather than to any notion that Sheol is reserved for the wicked (487–89). This could plausibly fit the verbal picture as סור can refer to departure from a place. But given the more typical sense, especially related to the language of “path/road/way,” where it refers to departing from or turning aside from a path, it is better to understand the fact that the wise take the path of life means that they do not go on the way to Sheol at all. If the author meant that the righteous will go through Sheol and come up again from there, or that they will go through Sheol and “out the other side,” other means of communication were clearly available for such purposes. The same point applies to Prov 23:14, where discipline is described as a way to rescue a child from Sheol, that is, by preventing them from going there.

The first reference to Sheol in Isaiah describes Sheol as enlarging its throat and opening its mouth for the people of Israel being condemned (5:14). This fits both the imagery from Numbers and the tendencies of texts noted in this category. Furthermore, this is prophetic speech and should thus be seen as more normative for describing Sheol than other categories, which can be argued simply to reflect beliefs of the speakers, but not of what others ought to believe. Isaiah 7:7 fits more with texts like Deuteronomy in using Sheol as an illustration of extremity of extent. The next three references to Sheol in Isa 14:9, 11, and 15 are all addressed to the king of Babylon, describing his fall from exalted heights to the depths of death, specifically the kind of death to which Sheol applies, since it comes as a result of divine judgment (esp. vv. 13–15). Also fitting are the references in 28:15, 18, wherein the wicked rulers of Jerusalem are said to have made a covenant with death and a pact with Sheol. Both the senses of extremity/extent and association with the wicked fit with the last reference in Isa 57:9 to where the wicked sent messengers.

Two other points from the Isa 14 references in particular require further exploration. One is the reference to the Rephaim (רפאים) in v. 9. This is one of only two cases in which this noun appears in the same verse alongside a reference to Sheol (Prov 9:18), although it appears an additional six times in the OT (Job 26:5; Ps 88:10; Prov 2:18; 21:16; Isa 26:14, 19). This term is often taken as a reference to departed spirits or “shades” (hence the common reference to “shades in Sheol,” despite the actual paucity of links made between these terms). This is due to dependence on an Ugaritic cognate, but in view of its actual use in Hebrew, I am inclined to agree with Galenieks that it is simply a way of referring to the dead and not to a distinct anthropological aspect of the dead (149–51).

The other point is the larger chapter’s description of activity in Sheol. Texts like this are often taken as bases for describing Sheol as a conscious afterlife existence. But such an interpretation neglects the poetic context of such descriptions and the utility of personification in poetic literature. This text is no more indicative of the activity of the dead than the personified references to Sheol indicate that it is a being of some kind. The speech of the dead here is simply a way of providing mocking commentary on the death of the king of Babylon. Otherwise, this would be a contradiction without purpose of the commonly cited concern that those in Sheol or the dead in general cannot praise God or declare truths about him (to give an example not noted yet: Isa 38:18). If this was meant as a literal description, obviously they could (particularly if Sheol is supposed to be the realm of all the dead). Indeed, this is not meant as a contradiction of those ideas, but simply as a poetic description of the king’s remarkable fall and death from those who are as powerless as he is at this point in his story, being occupants of Sheol like he is now.

The various points about Isa 14 and its description of the death of the king of Babylon also applies to the description of the death of the pharaoh of Egypt in Ezek 31:15–17; 32:21, 27. All that Ezekiel may add is further clarity on the association of wickedness and disfavor with Sheol, rather than a sense that it is the common destination for all.

The last text in this category, and a truly fitting one to conclude it, given its status as a prophetic text and the larger contours of OT theology, is Hos 13:14. I have explored the relationship of this text with its use in 1 Cor 15:55, and the further explication in vv. 56–57, in some depth in my dissertation and I will draw on observations from there in my comments here. The first two lines of the verse could be either (rhetorical) questions or declarations in the Hebrew and decisions to this effect depend ultimately on the translation of the last line of this verse. The questions of the next two lines could thus be taken to be invitations to death and Sheol or as victory taunts of death and Sheol, depending on how one translates the last line: “נחם will be hidden from my eyes.”

Since so much depends on it, we will start with the last line first. The Hebrew noun is often translated as “compassion” or “repentance,” and so it is taken as a statement of judgment against Israel. However, the root can be translated in a completely different sense, as Walter Harrelson concludes in agreement with the JPS translation, “I am convinced that the hapax legomenon nōḥam in the verse is best rendered ‘settling of accounts’ or ‘restoring the balance,’ and that therefore ‘vengeance’ is the best way to render the term.”² This statement thus reflects God’s reconciliation with Israel by denying the punishments Sheol and death can inflict on his people. The people have certainly been unfaithful to God, as has been the frequent point of this entire book, and so they have been deserving of being consigned to Sheol. But now God declares that this will not be their fate, meaning that we should understand the first two sentences as God’s declaration of what he will do in ransoming from Sheol and redeeming from death. This statement fits as part of a pattern in Hosea, where God declares his love, reminds Israel of its sin, follows with a threat of destruction, but then resolves to be gracious and presents Israel with promises.³ As Harrelson explains, “God does have to bring enemies against a faithless people, as Hosea clearly affirmed throughout chapters 4-13. But God, out of love and compassion, can and does turn against the bringers of death and destruction, calling a halt to the death-dealers, saying ‘Enough!’ to endless vengeance, displaying that quality that is synonymous with Israel’s God: mercy (see Exod 34:6-8).”⁴ God’s word of salvation is the last word and death is denied its victory in the case.

To that end, we must also look at the taunts of the middle two sentences. Death is asked where are its דברים. The same vowel pointing (albeit with the second-person suffix that I have not presented here) and the same consonants could indicate the use of either of two words. One, as it is frequently understood, is “plagues.” However, this would be the only case of the plural for this word in the OT. Two, it can be understood as the more common word, often translated as “words.” This is of course a term with a broad semantic range that can have all manner of different senses depending on the context. The LXX/OG and Θ render it as δίκη, meaning something like “sentence,” “verdict,” or “case.” The Peshitta agrees with this sense, rendering it as “victory” in Syriac, more specifically having the sense of victory in court, meaning that the term is akin to “innocence,” “justice,” or “justification.”⁵ The “word” here thus attains a narrower sense of a “word” given at the end of a trial, specifically a word signaling victory in court. In this victory, the Judge himself taunts death and Sheol, questioning where death’s case or its preferred verdict is, and where Sheol’s “sting”—which is to say its preferred punishment (its characteristic act of swallowing the disfavored)—is. In the end, God’s promises are what are upheld in this court, not the claims of death and Sheol on God’s people.

1 Samuel 2:6 and Related Texts: A Living Sheol

There are texts that refer to the living currently or previously occupying Sheol. This could be the case because of illness, since, as Jon Levenson observes, “the division between sickness and death was less clear than it seems to us and fewer victims of serious illness survived.”⁶ Or the speaker may occupy Sheol because, “Those who go down to it are said to feel isolated and abandoned, and the absence of kin in the descriptions of the group imprisoned there is striking.”⁷ Or perhaps there is another kind of life-threatening or destructive crisis that the speaker is facing that leads them to describe themselves as presently or previously in Sheol.

The Song of Hannah, specifically 1 Sam 2:6, is a text I will need to return to when I discuss resurrection in the OT, but for now it is important to note how it portrays Sheol belief in connection with Hannah’s story. The stanzas, especially vv. 4–8 describe God’s delivering action in terms of reversal and exaltation. In v. 6 the reference to Sheol is part of a parallelism in which God is said to kill and to make alive, to bring down to Sheol and to bring up. The order of actions is notable and reflects Deut 32:39, which is part of the Song of Moses (cf. 2 Kgs 5:7). In the context of Hannah’s life, this order is exemplified by her passage from infertility and ridicule to being the mother of a prophet (and a future leader of Israel to boot), along with five other children (2:21). This passage thus also illustrates a contrast between the state in Sheol and the continuation of one’s family, which I must again reserve for the next installment to explain further.

And although this is a general statement about God, its specific application to Hannah makes a further point. She could connect her situation to Sheol despite still being alive. (This is a point that Galenieks glances over and thus, while he is correct that Sheol does not describe here some state or place of disembodied afterlife and that the only means of removal from there is resurrection, he does not sufficiently explore the significance of this text for Sheol belief.) Unlike Jacob, the statement is not about future expectation of where she thinks she is destined. It is a gnomic present statement (articulated with participles plus one narrative/sequential imperfect in Hebrew and simple presents in the LXX) applied to her story up to this point. As other texts will illustrate more clearly, sometimes the faithful could perceive themselves as being in Sheol in the present, which indicates some sense of permeability to Sheol. Of course, when one refers to Sheol in the sense of a final destination upon death, it is only possible to remove from there via resurrection, hence the language of this text. But in the present time, one can be delivered from Sheol before death in a way that resembles and foreshadows resurrection. In Hannah’s case, this meant her deliverance from infertility—and thus perceived divine disfavor—to God’s favor bestowed on her in the form of childbirth (with Samuel being the child of promise and five others thereafter).

Furthermore, one must remember again the factor that we are not necessarily dealing with a normative statement on Sheol belief here. Other texts provide confirmation of the portrayal of God’s action in terms of resurrection, but we are not necessarily to take it as a given that Hannah was in a living Sheol because God disfavored her. This is more of a reflection of her perception of her state and its severity than a normative biblical statement on infertility. What is undeniably true of what she says is the general, gnomic statement that she applies to her own situation, that God is able to bring up from Sheol again, even as he is able to make alive again those he has caused to die.

Similar points apply to the parallel texts of 2 Sam 22:6 and Ps 18:5. Here, David uses perfect verbs to refer to complete, and thus presumably past, action. The forces of death and Sheol are described as hostile forces that took hold of him and tried to overcome him. But God delivered him in the end. This leads to one of the most extensive descriptions of God as Divine Warrior, fighting the forces of chaos on behalf of his people (2 Sam 22:8–20 // Ps 18:7–19). This was in fact a rather widespread image of God in the OT (Exod 15; Deut 32:1–43; 33:26–27; Josh 23–24; Judg 5; Pss 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). In this case, the Divine Warrior opposes the forces of death. Sheol is included not only because of its association with death, but also because of its signification of divine disfavor. It is also treated as a hostile force because God’s delivering action contradicts what Sheol typically signifies. David had been in such a state that he perceived himself to have one foot in the grave, a grave reserved for those who are in God’s disfavor, but when David cried out to God, God saved him from such a death, and thus invalidated any force that sought to contradict God’s favor on David. Thus has David portrayed God’s deliverance of him as a confirmation of favor and blessedness. These notions will be important in other texts, as well.

Psalm 30:3/4 lacks the Divine Warrior imagery, but still describes the speaker (David according to the superscript) as having once been in Sheol. The most probable rendering of the parallel is to take it is a plural participle—as the LXX and Vulgate also attest—referring to God keeping alive or restoring alive the speaker “from among those who go down to the pit.” Naturally, this refers to the speaker being rescued from some life-threatening crisis, as v. 9 also makes clear. The larger context of this verse also emphasizes how this deliverance was a change in direction of God’s apparent action from apparent disfavor (hiding his face or being angry) to confirmation of favor (vv. 5–12, esp. vv. 5–7). The impression of being in Sheol or the pit comports with temporary impression of disfavor, while deliverance from the same gave an impression of favor.

Psalm 86:13 uses a past deliverance from Sheol as a basis for expectation of God’s further deliverance from the present circumstance. Likewise, Ps 116:3 uses imagery similar to 2 Sam 22:6//Ps 18:5 to describe a past event for the speaker from which God delivered them. The bones being scattered at the mouth of Sheol in Ps 141:7 is also suggestive of a lack of proper burial, which is a further common image of apparent disfavor (cf. Ezek 37). But even with such a vividly described distress, the speaker anticipates God listening to his plea and providing deliverance.

Finally, Jon 2:2 is part of the prayer of Jonah spoken in hope of God’s deliverance while he is in Sheol. But of course, we know he is not literally in Sheol, but in the belly of the great fish. This is thus another demonstration of the permeability of the condition of what one might call “living Sheol.” But it is also illustrative of some other points we have seen. One, Sheol is linked with the depths, although here it is connected with the sea. Two, while Jonah is not yet dead, he is on the threshold of that condition, and so while Sheol most directly applies as a condition of death, its influence extends into certain dire conditions of the present. Three, this is certainly a condition of disfavor, as Jonah has arrived at his present condition as a result of running away from God’s commission to bring his message to Nineveh. Indeed, more than anything else, it is the sense of disfavor—perceived or real, or even as presumptuously embodied by hostile forces—that defines the condition of Sheol, whether it is the proper Sheol of the dead or the sense of the living Sheol.

Psalm 16:10: Expected Deliverance from Sheol

I will return to the text of Ps 16 in my series on resurrection in the OT, and I have written on it in published work.⁸ It is important to note for now that can be distinguished from the previous group of text by the fact that there is no clear indication that the speaker is or was in Sheol (the superscript attributes it to David, which would mean we can infer he perceived himself in that way at least once). Rather, the speaker expresses that God will not abandon them to Sheol or allow the חסיד to see שׁחת. I have left these terms untranslated for now because of how crucial they are to unpacking what is going on in this text and to further explicating Sheol belief therein. The initial statement that the speaker will not be abandoned to Sheol is an acknowledgment of what I have noted elsewhere: that Sheol is not the proper abode of the righteous. It is thus the positive complements to the negative statements one sees in texts like Isa 38:18 that the dead cannot praise God, that Sheol cannot thank him, and so on. But again, as Galenieks rightly notes (92–96, 325–26), we are not dealing with a text about a disembodied afterlife when the text says God will not abandon “my נפשׁ.” As I have noted elsewhere, this is not a reference to a soul that can be disembodied and carry on the person’s identity like how people tend to describe souls, but simply to “life” or creatureliness (in some contexts). It can, much like the Greek equivalent, also be used as a roundabout way of referring to the self/personality. In contexts like this, it can further have the sense of evoking God’s grant of life: God will not abandon the life that he has given to David in Sheol.

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). 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.⁹ While we need to consider another time what type of deliverance the speaker expects, the point to note for now is that this phrasing provides further confirmation of what I have suggested about the dynamics of Sheol and its relation to God’s favor or lack thereof.

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).¹⁰ 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.¹¹ 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.

Otherwise, I find it sufficient to quote an excerpt from my article on this point:

Elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures, the term normally connotes a consequence for the wicked, who oppose God and who receive a fate that befits that enmity (Ps 55:23; Ezek 28:8; cf. Job 17:14). In fact, this belief most often manifests in the expectation that God delivers the repentant and favored from שׁחת (Job 33:18, 22, 24, 28, 30; Ps 30:9; 49:7–9, 14–15; 103:4; Isa 38:17; Jon 2:6). As with the Sheol texts, these texts do not proceed to describe the nature of the alternative state for the delivered, except to say that these people will enjoy continued lovingkindness in the presence of God. Still, the texts sufficiently demonstrate that שׁחת as a condition of death is not an expectation for God’s favored ones.¹²

Psalm 49:14–15/15–16 is similar both to this text and the texts from our second category. 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, but it also fits better with the notion of a reversal for one who is apparently in Sheol, rather than simply a stay of execution for one who will need to go to Sheol eventually upon death (a point that Galenieks misses altogether). 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 89:48/49 and Ecclesiastes 9:10

That leaves two other texts to discuss, the only two texts that unambiguously declare belief that Sheol is the destination of all. The reference in Ps 89:48 is on the other side of the tonal shift in v. 38 as the speaker mourns how God has divested David’s line of power and has hidden from the people, this despite the great promises to David and his line. Consequently, the line of David—and by extension the kingdom—has been subjugated and humiliated. Only in that context does the speaker claim that human life is vanity and that Sheol is its goal. It is only with this sense of a world gone terribly wrong with the crises of losing the kingdom, exile, and godforsakenness that this expectation arises. Sheol is still not the proper abode of the lamenter, but it is the continuation of the dire circumstances of apparent disfavor. Galenieks, in focusing on the parallelism of death and Sheol here (378–81), overlooks this crucial aspect of the context and thinks that the speaker is simply affirming a truth about mortality.

In the case of Eccl 9:10, the common destination of the righteous and the wicked, the wise and the foolish, is a major theme, and he only presents this expectation about Sheol in a context of absurdity. Qohelet is describing the vanity of life under the sun, as is his wont, and how there is a common fate for both the righteous and the wicked. Sheol may be more of a roundabout reference to the grave here, but it is still not the grave simpliciter. It is rather the grave with the overarching connotations of Sheol. It is not surprising for Qohelet to extend his view of the vanity of life into post-life. But in any case, Ecclesiastes is hardly typical in Hebrew Scripture in any regard and the way Qohelet references Sheol fits that characterization.

1. K. R. Harriman, “‘For David Said Concerning Him’: Foundations of Hope in Ps 16 and Acts 2,” JTI 11 (2017): 241–43 (and authors cited there).

2. Walter Harrelson, “Death and Victory in 1 Corinthians 15:51-57: The Transformation of a Prophetic Theme,” in Faith and History: Essays in Honor of Paul W. Meyer, ed. John T. Carroll, Charles H. Cosgrove, and E. Elizabeth Johnson (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 158. Also see Harrelson, “Death and Victory,” 151, 157.

3. Harrelson, “Death and Victory,” 156.

4. Harrelson, “Death and Victory,” 158.

5. Lukasz Popko, “Why Paul Was Not Wrong in Quoting Hosea 13:14,” BibAn 9 (2019): 505.

6. Jon D. Levenson, Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 169. Also see Levenson, Resurrection, 72–75, 168–69.

7. Levenson, Resurrection, 74.

8. Harriman, “For David Said,” 239–57.

9. Harriman, “For David Said,” 244–45.

10. 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.

11. Waltke, “Psalms,” 4:1113; Trull, “Exegesis,” 318.

12. Harriman, “For David Said,” 243.