The Afterlife in the OT

[Josh]

Why do you think God waited so long to reveal some truth about the state of the dead?

Most of the OT authors treated death as virtually ceasing to exist, such as in Psalm 6:5:

Among the dead no one proclaims your name.
Who praises you from the grave?

or declared a glaring agnosticism on the topic, as in:

Ecc. 3:21

Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?”

Despite a few hints at a possible life after death (Job 19:25?), the OT doesn't really start addressing an afterlife until Daniel, one of the last books written.

Any theories on why God would choose to only reveal His plan for eternal life nearly simultaneously with the advent of His son?

I'd like to share some thoughts soon, but I'd love to hear other's views.

[christopher]

Well, actually, we really don't know what God revealed to the ancients and when. There could have been things passed on by oral tradition that simply were never written down by the time of Moses. We know that at least Enoch was considered to have some sort of afterlife experience in that he didn't die but was taken by God. That's pretty early. Also, before any of the NT was written, the Pharisees had some sort of belief in the resurrection of the dead where the Saducees did not (acts 23). The rich young ruler somehow knew to ask Jesus "how do inherit eternal life?" It is also thought that the story of Lazarus and the rich man was borrowed by Jesus by an ancient source.

I suspect that There may have been just as many views on the afterlife in ancient times as we have today. So can we really say we have more revelation from God now then they did?

[Josh]

Well, actually, we really don't know what God revealed to the ancients and when. There could have been things passed on by oral tradition that simply were never written down by the time of Moses.

And yet unknown to authors such as David or Solomon?

We know that at least Enoch was considered to have some sort of afterlife experience in that he didn't die but was taken by God.

Granted, we have the enigmatic stories of Enoch and Elijah, but the point with them was that they were definitely exceptions to the seemingly overarching rule that to go to Sheol was to descend into a shadowy existence at best (very similar to the Greek idea of Hades).

Sidenote: Interestingly, the Greeks believed, strangely prophetically, that the dead in Hades, in their shadow-existence, merely muttered unintelligably unless someone was to bring them a sacrifice of blood, which would (temporarily) restore them to their former minds.

Also, before any of the NT was written, the Pharisees had some sort of belief in the resurrection of the dead where the Saducees did not (acts 23).

that's because the Saducees only accepted the older portions of Scripture, whereas the Pharisees were influenced by later books such as Daniel and even Maccabees.

The rich young ruler somehow knew to ask Jesus "how do inherit eternal life?" It is also thought that the story of Lazarus and the rich man was borrowed by Jesus by an ancient source.

Most of the Israelites favored the Pharisees position on the afterlife.

When you say ancient, how ancient are you talking?

I suspect that There may have been just as many views on the afterlife in ancient times as we have today. So can we really say we have more revelation from God now then they did?

Again, how ancient are you talking? There were certainly many views on the afterlife in the first century. But if one goes back to 1000, the only Mideast culture that really seems to have had strong views about an afterlife was Egypt.

Most skeptical scholars think that the Israelites got the idea of the afterlife from the Zooroastrians during the Babylonian captivity. But, the evidence is sparse enough that the influence could have been the other way around.

In any case, I think we can say that some of the prophets got clearer information from God on the subject than all their forbears.

I'll be back with C.S. Lewis' view on why God may have help off going into detail on the subject of the afterlife:

[Josh]

"It does not now astonish me [that God would not have revealed much to the early Israelites about the afterlife]. For one thing, there were nations close to the Jews whose religion was overwhelmingly concerned with the afterlife. In reading about ancient Egypt one gets the impression of a culture in which the mian business of life was the attempt to secure the well-being of the dead. It looks as if God did not want His chosen people to follow that example. We may ask why. Is it possible for men to be too much concerned with their eternal destiny? In one sense, paradoxical though it sounds, I should reply, Yes.

For the truth seems to be to me that happiness or misery beyond death, simply in themselves, are not even religious subjects at all. A man who believes in them will of course be prudent to seek the one and avoid the other. But that seesm to have no more to do with religion than looking after one's health or saving money for one's old age. The only difference here is that the stakes are so very much higher. And this means that, granted a real and steady conviction, the hopes and anxieties aroused are overwhelming. But they are not on that account the more religous. They are hopes for oneself, anxieties for oneself. God is not in the centre. He is still important only for the sake of something else. Indeed, such a belief can exist without a belief in God at all. Buddhists are much concerned with what will happen to them after death, but are not, in any true sense, Theists.

It is surely, therefore, very possible that when God began to reveal Himself to men, to show them that He and nothing else is their true goal and the satisfaction of their needs, and that He has a claim upon them simply by being what He is, quite apart from anything He can bestow or deny, it may have been absolutley necessary that this revelations should not begin with any hint of future Beatitude or Perdition. These are not the right point to begin at. An effective belief in them, coming too soon, may even render almost impossible the development of (so to call it) the appetite for God; personal hopes and fears, too obviously exciting have got in first. Later, when after centuries of spiritual training, men have learned to desire and adore God... it is another matter. For then those who love God will desire to not only enjoy Him but to "enjoy Him forever", and will fear to lose Him. And it is by that door that a truly religious hope of heaven and fear of hell can enter; as corollaries to a faith already centered on God, not as things of any independent or intrinsic weight. It is even arguable that the moment heaven ceases to mean union with God and hell to mean separation from Him, the belief in either is a mischevious superstition; for then we have, on the one hand, a merely "compensatory" belief (a sequel to life's sad story in which everything will "come all right") and on the other, a nightmare which drives men into asylums or makes them persecutors....

All this is only one man's opinion. And it may be unduly influenced by my own experience. For I [have said in another book] how I was allowed to believe for a whole year in God and try- in some stumbling fashion- to obey Him before any belief in a future life was given me. And that year always seems to me to have been of very great value. It is therefor perhaps natural that I should suspect a similar value in the centuries during which the Jews were in the same position."

C.S. Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms

[christopher]

I have no problem with oral traditions escaping the writings of David and Solomon, why should we? And the fact that other cultures had similar views only strengthens the argument that they may have existed. We see many such echoes of judeo/Christian truths in other cultures which could simply be residual traditions befor the people were scattered and their tongues confused (gen 11).

But my main challenge to your original premise is that we know so much more about the afterlife than did the ancients. If that is so, why are there still so many divergent views about it? I submit we really don't know a whole lot more than they did. I have a few disagreements with Lewis as well, but I'm typing from my phone so I'll save it for later.

[Josh]

I have no problem with oral traditions escaping the writings of David and Solomon, why should we?

first off, it wouldn't be just a minor oral tradition. It's be a pretty big deal. Secondly, I'm not only saying it escapes their writings, I'm pointing out that their writings contradict an positive view of the afterlife.

And the fact that other cultures had similar views only strengthens the argument that they may have existed.

The Egyptians were exceptional in their views of a positive afterlife. The norm was a negative, shadowy existence.

Admittedly, however, we do see positive views on an afterlife slowly creeping into other pagan belief systems as time went by [after 1000 BC] (such as ellysium with the Romans, valhalla with the norse, etc.) But, like the Egyptians, these heavens were reserved for a very small chosen few.

We see many such echoes of judeo/Christian truths in other cultures which could simply be residual traditions befor the people were scattered and their tongues confused (gen 11).

Is this in reference to what I said about the Zooroastrians? Because the reason most scholars hold that there is some direct relationship between the two culture's views on the afterlife is that their views are so distinctly simliar, especially regarding drawing a firm line between heaven and hell.

But my main challenge to your original premise is that we know so much more about the afterlife than did the ancients. If that is so, why are there still so many divergent views about it? I submit we really don't know a whole lot more than they did.

Admittedly, there is still more we don't know about the afterlife than we do know. But, with the advent of Jesus,

In My Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

or

"Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

is a far lot more information than:

Among the dead no one proclaims your name.
Who praises you from the grave?

and


Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?”

[christopher]

Secondly, I'm not only saying it escapes their writings, I'm pointing out that their writings contradict an positive view of the afterlife.

I disagree. I think there is both in there. How about this one?

Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will rest secure, because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay. Psalm 16:9-10

I realize this is a Messianic Psalm, but David had to at least see that there was hope beyond the grave and not just for the Messiah.

Also, I don't think we should necessarily use Ecclessiates as a barometer of what Solomon thought on the issue because I think he's taking the reader through his journey from "all is vanity" to "fear God and obey Him"

Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole [duty] of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil. Ecc 12:14

If He concluded that God will bring every deed into judgment, why should he care if he thought there would be no consciousness after death?

Also, it was commonly believed that mediums could talk to the dead (why else would it be commanded against?), even Saul thought he could bring Samuel back from the dead through the witch at Endor. Samuel was greatly distressed about it, why do you think would he be distressed?

I think there's more to it than meets the eye if you think about it.

I don't know what your view is of what the conscious state of the dead was before Christ, but many think that they had no consciousness at all until after the resurrection. I think there is some merit to that view. So perhaps the reason you read so much in the OT about simply going to Sheol is because they were right.

Now, back to what we think we know about the afterlife, the verse you quoted from John 14 is a good example. Most people see that as a picture of heaven, but I think it is more likely a metaphor of the church and Jesus isn't talking at all about heaven. Whether I'm right or wrong doesn't matter. The point is that we can't assume those kinds of statements are revelations about the afterlife when there are other plausible explanations possible. SO, how much do we really know about the afterlife.

[christopher]

Some additional verses to balance against the negative OT view of afterlife:

Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever. Ps 23-6



You guide me with your counsel, and afterward you will take me into glory.

Whom have I in heaven but you? And earth has nothing I desire besides you.

My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever. Ps 73:25-26



Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence?

If I ascend into heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there. Ps 139:7-8

.....

Search me, O God, and know my heart; Try me, and know my anxieties;

And see if there is any wicked way in me, And lead me in the way everlasting. Ps 139:24

And the clincher (I think) is this. The (inspired) author of Hebrews says of all the ancient heroes of the faith (from Abel to Abraham):

These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For those who say such things declare plainly that they seek a homeland. And truly if they had called to mind that country from which they had come out, they would have had opportunity to return. But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them. Heb 11:13-16

[Josh]

I disagree. I think there is both in there. How about this one?Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will rest secure, because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay. Psalm 16:9-10
I realize this is a Messianic Psalm, but David had to at least see that there was hope beyond the grave and not just for the Messiah.

I think David here is merely saying that he can now rest secure from his enemies, he has been delivered from death and death's decay in the present- he's been granted a "new lease on life"- probably after Saul's death or one of his many risky situations.

[Josh]

Also, I don't think we should necessarily use Ecclessiates as a barometer of what Solomon thought on the issue because I think he's taking the reader through his journey from "all is vanity" to "fear God and obey Him"
Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole [duty] of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil. Ecc 12:14


If He concluded that God will bring every deed into judgment, why should he care if he thought there would be no consciousness after death?

The OT authors were very concerned with justice and God's judgment, but it seems to have at first been focused on God's justice and judgment in this life. It's the very frustration that that doesn't always happen that seems to lead them to hope as time passes for justice in a future age (as is strongly present by the time Daniel and Maccabees were written).

[Josh]

If He concluded that God will bring every deed into judgment, why should he care if he thought there would be no consciousness after death?
Also, it was commonly believed that mediums could talk to the dead (why else would it be commanded against?), even Saul thought he could bring Samuel back from the dead through the witch at Endor. Samuel was greatly distressed about it, why do you think would he be distressed?

It's not that Jews didn't think there was any consciousness at all- just a shadowy sort of existence.

Lewis on Samuel/ the Witch:

"It is difficult to know how an ancient Jew thought of Sheol. He did not like thinking about it. His religion did not encourage him to think about it. No good could come of thinking about it. Evil might. It was a condition from which very wicked people like the Witch of Endor were believed to conjure up a ghost. But the ghost told you nothing about Sheol; it was called up solely to tell you think about our own world...."

Do you see the difference in focus on the afterlife between the old testament and the new testament?

I don't know what your view is of what the conscious state of the dead was before Christ, but many think that they had no consciousness at all until after the resurrection. I think there is some merit to that view. So perhaps the reason you read so much in the OT about simply going to Sheol is because they were right.

Um, okay. are you now potentially agreeing with me? I wouldn't say no consciousness at all, or the Samuel reference above doesn't make sense. But minimal consciousness or consciousness only for exceptional circumstances (like being woken from sleep- thus why Samuel was so ticked)

This, again, is very similar to how the dead are depicted in the Odyssey.

Now, back to what we think we know about the afterlife, the verse you quoted from John 14 is a good example. Most people see that as a picture of heaven, but I think it is more likely a metaphor of the church and Jesus isn't talking at all about heaven. Whether I'm right or wrong doesn't matter. The point is that we can't assume those kinds of statements are revelations about the afterlife when there are other plausible explanations possible. SO, how much do we really know about the afterlife.

Well, I'd like to discuss that particular passage with you elsewhere sometime. However, let's strip in down to basics. We now know in light of the late Old Testament/ New Testament that we will be bodily resurrected. That is something the ancients didn't know- and only rarely seemed to have aspired to (the Job 19:25 reference, for example)

[Josh]

Aug 28, 2011 17:21:51 GMT -8 christopher said:

Some additional verses to balance against the negative OT view of afterlife:

Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever. Ps 23-6



You guide me with your counsel, and afterward you will take me into glory.

Whom have I in heaven but you? And earth has nothing I desire besides you.

My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever. Ps 73:25-26



Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence?

If I ascend into heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there. Ps 139:7-8

.....

Search me, O God, and know my heart; Try me, and know my anxieties;

And see if there is any wicked way in me, And lead me in the way everlasting. Ps 139:24

And the clincher (I think) is this. The (inspired) author of Hebrews says of all the ancient heroes of the faith (from Abel to Abraham):

These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For those who say such things declare plainly that they seek a homeland. And truly if they had called to mind that country from which they had come out, they would have had opportunity to return. But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them. Heb 11:13-16

Here's where the fact that "forever" in the OT as well as the NT need mean only age-enduring, or age-long.

The Psalm 139 reference has some merit in the sense that it says God is everywhere, even among the dead. Although since the dead cannot praise God, according to the Psalmist, I'm not sure how comforting that thought could have been.

Regarding the Hebrews reference, I don't think that means that the OT patriarchs somehow knew consciously or rationally that there would be a resurrection/ eternal communion with God. I think it just means that subconsciously, by faith, they trusted that God had some trick up His sleeve. Maybe sometimes they dared to hope that it might be eternal life, but I don't think they walked around saying to themselves, "I'm gonna live forever consciously with the Lord" until late in the era of the Prophets. Just like they couldn't have told us how God would redeem Him people exactly through the life and death of Jesus, just that He would make it alright somehow.

[christopher]

C'mon, you're not gonna give me anything here? Throw a guy a bone or two.

I think I've provided some pretty solid verses that should at least cast a a shadow of challenge to the notion that the OT saints had NO positive outlook on afterlife (and indeed contradicted it as you say). What does Hebrews say the saints were "assured" of? What (or who) do you think gave them that assurance?

[christopher]

We now know in light of the late Old Testament/ New Testament that we will be bodily resurrected.

Unless you're a full-preterist....just sayin'

[Josh]

Aug 28, 2011 21:08:00 GMT -8 christopher said:

C'mon, you're not gonna give me anything here? Throw a guy a bone or two.

How about a dry bone?

Ezekiel 37:2
He led me back and forth among them, and I saw a great many bones on the floor of the valley, bones that were very dry.

But seriously, did I ever say that the OT had NO positive hints about the afterlife? (don't have time to look back right now). I will grant you that there do seem to be HINTS in the OT about an afterlife that held some positive promise. But still much more unclear than the NT.

[christopher]

In so many words...

I'm not only saying it escapes their writings, I'm pointing out that their writings contradict an positive view of the afterlife.

But...

I will grant you that there do seem to be HINTS in the OT about an afterlife that held some positive promise. But still much more unclear than the NT.

Agreed. But that's the way time works isn't it. Isn't most (all?) revelation progressive? It could even be argued that we know more now than even the apostles did if you count 2000 years of church history.

[Josh]

Agreed. But that's the way time works isn't it. Isn't most (all?) revelation progressive? It could even be argued that we know more now than even the apostles did if you count 2000 years of church history.

Yes, and I appreciate Lewis' attempts to speculate on why God would use progressive revelation rather than through it all at humanity all at once. It makes a lot of sense that he treats us as a whole as we do our children- explaining things more fully as time goes by.