Sheol. The grave. The pit. Hades. What do all these have in common?
They’re the same thing. At least, in the Bible they are.
The Hebrew word sheol, ubiquitous in the Old Testament, is translated in various Bible passages and translations as “the grave” or “the pit”, and in others left as is. The Alexandrian Jews who translated the Old Testament into Greek around 200 BC (the Septuagint), seeing what they considered an equivalent concept in Greek thought, used the Greek word Hades to translate the Hebrew word.
Hades was thought by the Greeks to be the location of the underworld for all the dead, good and evil alike; the earliest conception of the underworld was that it was a place not of torture or delight, but of bland oblivion. This, indeed, was the conception of Sheol throughout the Old Testament; in fact, the word “sleep” is used to describe the Sheol experience. Neither the righteous nor the unrighteous relished the thoughts of going to Sheol. It is unclear if the early Hebrews truly thought there was an otherworldly holding ground or if they were using a metaphor to describe post-mortem nothingness: non-existence is a lofty concept, and it is much easier for the human mind to speak of a dead soul existing somewhere else, even without a developed belief in an after-life. Yet the existence of a holding place for the souls of the departed was bolstered in Scriptures such as Daniel 12:2, which promised to surrender its sleeping prisoners at the time of the Promised One. This is the most clear indication that anyone living in Old Testament times was expecting what is known in later Jewish thought and in the New Testament as “The Resurrection of the Dead”. It was partly because this doctrine was not as well-established in the Tanakh as we tend to think it was that the Sadducees scoffed at the concept (Matt 22).
The Resurrection of the Dead mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4, 1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 20, etc. are the fulfillments of Daniel’s prophecy of the emptying of Sheol. Daniel 12 and Matthew 25 (the “Sheep and the Goats” parable) teach that the souls of the departed were to be brought to life and judged, each according to his deeds.
Paul shows the dead being resurrected and the living changed at the time the trumpet sounds and Jesus returns (1 Thess 4). Typical dispensational and other futurist dogma has our physical corpses rising and being replaced by new, not wholly spiritual bodies. Paul, however, was quite clear on what he thought of that in 1 Cor 15:35-44, which concludes,
So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. (NIV)
What could Paul have said differently if he wanted to convince us that the Resurrection was to be spiritual and not physical?
Some argue that since Jesus was raised physically and He was the first fruit of the Resurrection (1 Cor 15:20), then the fruit that follows must be in the form of physical resurrection. Yet this is a false, albeit understandable, conclusion. Christ’s physical resurrection served as an observable confirmation of the unobservable spiritual reality of His spiritual resurrection; the spiritual aspect of His resurrection was sure what was unprecedented and unique, since many physical bodies had been resurrected before Christ’s resurrection. The Resurrection of the Dead was the spirit’s quickening and subsequent transformation to immortality (or “incorruptibility”, see 1 Cor 15:53,54).
If, as preterists contend, the coming of the Son of Man in clouds of glory was apocalyptic imagery for the judgment of the Old Covenant system and apostate Israel, then the Resurrection of the Dead has already occurred (or rather, been occurring). It is all tied in together.
Filed under: Eschatology, Preterism, Theology | Tagged: christianity, Eschatology, Preterism, Theology
Good stuff! As a partial preterist and an amillennialist, I’m a little uncomfortable with the last statement, since Revelation 20:4-6 can be read that the first resurrection strictly applies to the first-century martyrs rather than the all of the dead. Can you expound more on your last paragraph?
[...] resurrection of the dead, sheol Steve at Undeception has an interesting article today about Sheol and the Resurrection of the Dead: The Hebrew word sheol, ubiquitous in the Old Testament, is translated in various Bible passages [...]
Be on the look-out for more discussion of this. Thanks for the ping!
As I stated on ElShaddai’s site,
I have heretofore held the opinion that all dead souls from the beginning of time “slept” until AD70 in which the arose from their graves, were judged (a la sheep and goats) and are now in heaven or hell, respectively. Then from there on out souls immediately go to Heaven or Hell. But this “rather, been occurring” statement has me wondering…
Do I believe that resurrections are taking place throughout history? Is this simply a way of saying what I just said in my next to last sentence to ElShaddai above? I am anxiously awaiting for more info.
Josh, I would read “have been occurring” as the same as your statement: “Then from there on out souls immediately go to Heaven or Hell.” That is, we are immediately resurrected from our fleshly death into our new bodies. I’m just not (yet) convinced that post-final judgment Heaven is a reality right now.
You’ve surprised me. With some of your other comments, I had assumed that you would take a covenantal (transmillenial) view of the resurrection.
Or, perhaps you would for certain texts?
I’ve gone back and read your post on the Millennium and the Resurrection again. I guess I don’t see how you square the two.
I’m not sure I know what you’re getting at here. My guess is that you’re referring to individual vs. corporate resurrection. The fact is, I am not settled on these points. I didn’t realize, however, how apparent this indecision was between posts! The fact is that I am not quite sure that there is any real discrepancy, but I admit that the terms sometimes seem contradictory.
As I have said frequently, the timing of the Resurrection is what I’m sold on, while the details of the nature of the Resurrection are still under investigation. Frost, whose views I quote occasionally, is a transmillennialist a la Max King. Preston, who I follow in more cases, is not. I see much merit with both, and little fault with either; in other words, I don’t vacillate because I see problems with one or the other but rather because I see a lot that rings true with both. I have much sympathy for the transmillennial view because it recognizes the corporate emphasis of first century Judaism; on the other hand, we obviously can’t impute the entire Jewish mindset to the Christian mindset, and there are a number of passages that speak of individuals.
Yet these may be opposite sides of the same coin. For instance, transmillennialists such as Frost speak of individual appropriation of the Resurrection. Perhaps the truth of the Resurrection is somewhat more mystical than either corporate or individualistic.
I hope this post wasn’t all based on a misunderstanding of your comments! Please let me know what you find contradictory.
Hi Steve,
I guess I couldn’t tell if you thought that the resurrection was 1) the release of individual souls from Sheol, 2) the rise of the church as the corporate resurrection of Israel or both.
I can see elements of both and wondered if you simply thought that sometimes it refers to one and sometimes to the other, or perhaps your view has changed.