Sheol

STEVE SAID:
DEAN DOUGH SAID:

“Numbers 16:28-34. Here the descent is clearly not metaphorical.”

True, given the genre. A historical narrative description.

“You can certainly argue that ‘sheol’ here means ‘grave’ or ‘place of physical burial’ and nothing more, but on what basis?”

It doesn’t detail a subterranean necropolis–with shades going to and fro. Rather, the offenders are buried alive by a miraculous crevasse that suddenly opens beneath them, then closes over them.

“What about the ‘spirits of the departed’ rising from their thrones in 9b? Are they metaphors? For what? Or are only the ‘thrones’ and the ‘rising’ metaphors?”

The passage exploits popular beliefs regarding the afterlife to fashion a satirical taunt-song. Beyond that, I don’t think we can say much one way or the other given the parodic genre of the passage. Although it’s consistent with belief in the afterlife, I wouldn’t say it endorses the postmortem imagery beyond the intended moral of the story: death is the great leveler.

“If you want to take the entirety of 14:9-11 as picture language meaning simply that the Babylonian Empire will be destroyed and remembered by succeeding generations as a catastrophic failure borne of overweening arrogance, you have ally here.”

Commentators are divided on whether or not it singles out a particular king, targets a stereotypical king, or personifies a kingdom.

“If you want to take some elements of 14:9-11 literally but not the spatial language of 9a, how do you decide?”

I think I’ve answered that. (See above.)

The Biblical doctrine of the afterlife is a theological construct. It isn't based on any one verse.

Some passages have more informational content than others. Some passages use concrete, picturesque language while other passages use abstract terminology.

The question at issue is not what a given passage allows, but what it disallows or what it positively teaches.

i) I've already explained the cosmographic metaphors in terms of temple imagery.

ii) Spatial metaphors can illustrate general/abstract concepts which are not dependent on the specific details of the graphic illustration. For instance, in the separation of the sheep and goats, the abstract idea of what it means for one group to be kept away from another doesn't rely on that specific imagery. Same thing with the parable of Lazarus and Dives. Or the damned who are banished from the precincts of the New Jerusalem.

iii) Likewise, mental states can be expressed in figurative terms without the underlying idea being dependent on the figure of speech. Taking "hungering" and "thirsting" for God. That uses sensory metaphors to illustrate an emotional/psychological state. And we can easily abstract the intended concept from the metaphor.

iv) Part of sound theological method is to begin with a fairly prosaic passage, like 1 Cor 15 (on the resurrection of the just), and use that as a general framework. Other passages can help to fill in some of the details. 1 Cor 15 helps to delimit the options.


STEVE SAID:
DEAN DOUGH SAID:

“Steve, ‘positively teaches’ -- exactly. Numbers 16:28-34 positively teaches that Moses's opponents descended alive into ‘sheol.’"

i) Which is a statement about how they died, and not what, if anything, happened to them after they died. It describes their mode of execution, and not the mode of the afterlife, if any. Like a skier who accidentally falls to his death by stepping into a hidden crevasse. He’s alive on the way down.

ii) They “descended” because that was the particular method of execution in this instance. There are different ways in the Pentateuch that God executes sinners. He may send a plague, or rain down fire and brimstone, &c. yet each mode of execution hardly represents a different mode of postmortem existence.

“How do you know what the author meant by ‘sheol?’”

i) We may not have sufficient information to say. In this case the answer would depend, in part, and what else the Pentateuch may have to say (or not) regarding the afterlife.

ii) There is also the question of cultural expectations, although we have to be careful with that since the Bible is often countercultural in polemicizing against the prevailing cultural preconceptions.

“The absence of a detailed description indicates only that the intended audience would understand his point without further explanation. And the exact point is a matter of dispute.”

It isn’t clear to me what you think you’re opposing vis-à-vis my own position when you make statements like this.

“Walton, for example, believes Ps 55:15, using language almost identical to that of Numbers 16:30, refers to the realm of the dead, not just the grave: ‘It would be difficult to imagine that the psalmist hopes for his enemy to be buried alive.’ (ANE Thought and the OT, p. 320). In your favor, I don't agree with Walton that it is difficult to imagine the psalmist wishing his enemies would be buried alive.”

Different passages focus on different themes. In the case of Isa 14, it depicts death as the great leveler. In life the “king of Babylon” was high and mighty, but in death he’s been reduced to the common fate of mortal flesh.

But even in the OT there are passages that go beyond death as the great leveler to death as a reversal of fortunes. The righteous who suffered in this life will prosper in the next life while the unrighteous who prospered in this life will suffer in the next life.

“We don't have a sound basis for this distinction: If spatial language is used to describe ‘sheol,’ take it literally when ‘sheol’ means the physical grave, and metaphorically when ‘sheol’ means the realm of departed "spirits.’”

i) I don’t think there’s a general distinction to that effect. The interpretation is context-dependent.

ii) I don’t have any antecedent objection to sheol denoting a realm of departed spirits. The reason I don’t press that imagery in Isa 14 is due to the satirical genre of the passage.

iii) Scripture uses spatial metaphors to distinguish the fate of the wicked and the righteous. They go to different “places.” That’s a graphic way of indicating divergent destinies. That doesn’t mean the notion of an afterlife is figurative, but simply the imagery which is used to depict the afterlife. Different passages may use different imagery to depict the afterlife, yet they may also share common, underlying ideas. So it’s possible to distinguish the picture-language from the core concept it illustrates.