Sheol Belief in the OT, Part 2

Lingering Questions

(avg. read time: 3–7 mins.)

Last time, I addressed the nature of Sheol in the OT and the beliefs surrounding who occupied it, when, and why, as well as its location, and expectations of deliverance from it. But in my overarching proposal that Sheol belief relies the assumption that it is typically the proper abode of those not favored by God, and so it came to be associated primarily with the wicked, I have not yet accounted for the assumed equivalent state of the righteous. I did of course note that 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. But if they are delivered from Sheol and Sheol is not to be their ultimate destination anyway, what is the ultimate fate of the righteous in the OT?

This question would not ultimately be resolved until the revelation and emergence of eschatological resurrection, which would itself be based on precedented portrayals of God’s action in terms of resurrection. But this belief was not always present in the OT; it was at most adumbrated in earlier texts. Prior to this point, the OT does not directly address this matter; we can only draw implications. Nor does the OT clearly present or even license the notion of a conscious, blissful intermediate state between death and resurrection, a positive, blessed counterpart to a negative, punitive Sheol. It speaks of Sheol without ever going into much detail, but it does not describe a positive counterpart.

The main reason why we do not see any descriptions of such a counterpart is that the hope for God’s faithful love was directed towards this life, not in any expression after death. When God is described as showing faithfulness to, say, Abraham and David after their deaths, it is because he shows such faithfulness to their families. After all, the general contrast of Sheol is God’s creative and loving provision—usually in connection with a covenant—as we see in texts such as Isa 40. This is especially demonstrated in God’s multiplication—hopefully indefinitely—of one’s family, since the family was the extension and constitution of one’s identity (Pss 128; 129; cf. Gen 3:20; 15:5; 38:6–11; 50:23; Lev 26:9, 22; Deut 25:5–10; 28:4, 53–63; 30:9; Ruth 1:20–21; 4:11–22; 1 Sam 2:30–33; the inclusio of Job’s narrative featuring his children; Ezek 37:26). After a faithful person has died, the biblical narrative—as well as poetry and prophecy, or other forms of direct divine speech—no longer comments on their existence, but it turns to how God continues to show favor to the dead by carrying on the promises to and through the descendants. This pattern fits one of the key elements of the covenantal framework of the OT concerning the history of the extended family known as Israel from the patriarchal narratives to the present time as a testimony to God’s faithful love to the covenant people.

Naturally, such reasoning could not ultimately form a satisfactory eschatology, unless Israel could manage to remain faithful enough to avoid the crisis of exile and its attendant problems of subjugation and familial/national disintegration. It also left unaddressed particular situations like those of the eunuchs or the liminal state of the resident aliens living among Israel by simply appealing to a generalized picture (hence Isa 56). In this framework, life simply meant following the covenant made with the God of life (Deut 30:19–20; Pss 1; 119). Through the people’s adherence to this covenant, they would live in the promised land (Lev 26:9–13; Deut 28:1–14). The promised land served not only as a fulfillment of promises to Israel, but as the ever-present reminder of God’s larger promises for creation (Gen 12:1–3; Exod 19:4–6; Deut 28:1–14). The promised land was thus a crucial symbol of God’s covenant with Israel and the larger purposes of God (Ps 72; Isa 2:2–5; 42; 49; 61; Ezek 36; Mic 4).¹ Thus, exile was not an arbitrary punishment for unfaithfulness; it was an organic and effective punishment proclaiming the brokenness of the covenant and thus the end of the covenantal way of and to life (Lev 26:33–39; Deut 28:63–68; 29:22–28; 30:19–20). By the same token, restoration of the covenant and return from exile would mean return to life (Lev 26:40–45; Deut 30:1–10; 32:15–42), or resurrection, as Ezekiel describes it.

This state thus provided a crucial entryway for the hope of resurrection, as it poignantly raised questions of what it would look like for God to be faithfully loving and just given all that happened. When times were good, it seemed satisfactory to speak of God’s favor on the dead by reference to their living family, and to let the dead remain dead. With this profound crisis, and others that faced the people of Israel, questions arose about God’s favor being shown to particular dead individuals, individuals who did not live to see God’s great promises come to pass, especially the eschatological promises for after the exile. But these are subjects to take up another time.

What About Samuel and the Witch of Endor?

Finally, I want to address what I know is the biggest question posed to my proposal, especially since I have said that the OT does not present a notion of a conscious afterlife prior to resurrection in either the Sheol passages or in any expectations concerning the fate of the righteous. That is: what about the appearance of the dead Samuel in 1 Sam 28?

On this passage, I admittedly feel the need to echo Martin Luther’s opening statement in his lecture on Zech 14: “Here, in this chapter, I give up. For I am not sure what the prophet is talking about.”² But just like Luther in that lecture, that does not mean I have nothing to say. I am not convinced of what to make of it. It is clearly not presented as something normative, as the witch’s practice of necromancy and Saul’s consultation of the same are not presented favorably. Personally, I am inclined to agree with Galenieks and interpreters as far back as Tertullian and Eustathius of Antioch that there is demonic illusion involved, so that a demon appears as Samuel, but repeats the message the living Samuel had already given Saul. As Galenieks says, “Just as Pharaoh’s magicians were enabled to counterfeit the miracles of Yahweh by satanic aid (Exod 7:14-12:36), so the medium of Endor was able to call up an apparition of Samuel by drawing on exactly the same demonic powers of necromancy (see also Deut 18:10-11)” (294). That being said, because I know this is such a controverted text and I have not devoted nearly enough time to weighing the various views presented in the history of interpretation, I am not as convinced on this front as I am on others, and I know that it is not without issues.

But one fact remains incontrovertible that shows why this text is not an obstacle to my proposal about Sheol, whether in terms of conscious existence there or whether the righteous reside there. That is: the passage never once mentions Sheol. The only way one can make it apply to Sheol is by presumptive inference. At best, one could argue that this text implies a conscious afterlife, but on what basis could one call that state of afterlife “Sheol”? Whatever one makes of this anomalous text, it does not clearly have to do with Sheol.

1. Cf. 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.

2. Martin Luther, “Lectures on Zechariah From the German Text (1527),” Lectures on The Minor Prophets III: Zechariah, Luther’s Works 20, ed. Hilton C. Oswald, trans. Walther M. Miller (St. Louis: Concordia, 1973), 337.