INTRODUCTION

The Hebrew conception of šeôl (Heb. ‫ שׁﬡוֹﬥ‬or ‫ )שׁﬡﬥ‬has occasioned significant scholarly

output during the course of the last 200 years. The term itself occurs 66 times in the Hebrew

canon.1 Various proposals have been set forth concerning its etymology and precise semantic

value, and while some are more convincing than others, most scholars today agree that all such

attempts have failed. As Johnston has observed, its generic distribution is striking. With the

exception of eight occurrences in narrative texts, the remaining 58 are found in poetic texts,

underscoring its inherently personal, reflective nature.2 Its predominance in non-literal texts

which largely employ figurative language, moreover, has compounded the exegetical difficulties.

Before James Barr’s influential work etymological considerations were afforded a

prominent place in the study of the semantics of biblical words.3 Commenting on šeôl, Gesenius

declared, “I think that I have lighted on the true etymology of the word.”4 Few today would

speak so clearly, and fewer agree that this special status should continue, for though words in

Semitic languages often have similarities in terms of the consonants that compose them, they are

in fact different words in wholly different languages, used in different times with different

1
65 times, unless ‫ שׁﬡﬥﬣ‬in Is 7:10 is read as ‫( שׁﬡוֹﬥ‬so BDB and HALOT). The Greek versions of
Symmachus, Aquila, and Theodotion read έις ἅδην. This reading is justified, especially if ‫ שׁﬡﬥﬣ‬is read as ‫ שׁﬡוֹﬥ‬with
an accusative ‫ ﬣ‬and an elided ‫וֹ‬.

2
Johnston, Shades of Sheol: Death and the Afterlife in the Old Testament (Downers Grove: InterVarsity,
2002), 79. He observes also that its narrative usage is confined to direct discourse, in Genesis 37, with one
exception: Num 16:33, which is the narrator’s account of the fate of the sons of Korah in language very similar to
that used by Moses when he predicted their fate.

3
J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (London: Oxford, 1961). See also J. Barr, Comparative
Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987).

4
W. Gesenius, Hebrew Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 7722.

1
senses. Nevertheless, because šeôl occurs only once outside the Hebrew Bible5, it is

understandable that such focus was given to its ANE parallels.6

Accordingly, historical critics, etymologists, and biblical theologians each have made

their own particular contributions to the vast discussion. Proliferation does not equal consensus,

however, and while scholars agree on a very basic definition – that šeôl in the OT is the realm of

the dead – further agreement is scarce. Specifically, the questions concern its nature (is it the

grave or the underworld, or merely a state?), its location (did the Hebrews understand it to be in

the earth?) and its inhabitants (do all men go there without distinction?).

SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF THIS PAPER

As Johnston has observed, it is this last question which is often given the least treatment

in the literature.7 This paper, therefore, will attempt a preliminary answer to this question.

Specifically, will the Hebrew Bible support the claim that šeôl is the realm of all the dead, just

and unjust alike? I am aware that my main question will restrict the inquiry of this paper

significantly. Further, I am aware that my method may occasion criticism from some in critical

biblical-theological circles. For although I am writing a paper on a Hebrew concept, found

exclusively in the OT, due justice cannot be given to the entire canonical witness by considering

šeôl apart from the NT teaching regarding death.8 It is my contention that the NT clarifies or

5
In an Aramaic text dating from the 5th century BC. See A. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.
C.” (London: Oxford, 1923), 180. Here it most likely refers to the grave, since the subject of the verb “to go down”
is ‫גרםיך‬, Aramaic for “your bones.”
6

7
Johnston, Shades of Sheol, 80.

8
In essence, this comes down to differing conceptions of the object of biblical theology. Since Gabler’s
famous Altdorf address, in which he argued that biblical theology must be carried out independent of the role of the
rule of faith, the latter has been characterized by atomistic approaches (considering OT in contrast to NT theology,
or the theology of Paul or Peter in contrast to that of John). This trend has not been without its detractors, especially
in the latter half of the 20th century. Brevard Childs has argued that the task of biblical theology is incomplete until it
takes account of the canonical function of the two testaments as Christian Scripture. In other words, from a Christian
point of view, it is improper method to consider the OT in isolation from the NT (or vice versa) because it is both
OT and NT which exercised decisive influence on the formation of the Christian community. See B. Childs, Biblical
Theology: A Proposal (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002).

2
even expands the Hebrew conception of the intermediate state, and explicitly teaches that the just

and unjust are bound for quite different places after death (Luke 16:19-31; cf also 23:43). This is

an interpretation which has been shared by many in the history of the church (even if all did not

agree in the particulars).

Biblical Theology and the OT in Relation to the New: Some Notes on Method

Many have overstated the discontinuity between the OT and NT (Marcion, Bulltmann,

Shcleiermacher, classic dispensationalists) while others have perhaps overstated the continuity

(covenant theologians). I will take a mediating approach here, following Childs. The OT has its

own canonical “voice” which speaks to the Christian community with clarity and integrity.

However, its canonical integrity does not negate its promissory nature. “The Old Testament

bears its true witness as the Old which remains distinct from the New.”9 The relevance of this

observation for our present topic is twofold. First, the OT speaks clearly about the intermediate

state; thus its teaching has canonical integrity and authority for the church, and for this reason the

OT data will be given primary importance in this study. Second, though the OT speaks clearly, it

does not speak exhaustively. While many have perhaps overstated the ambiguity of the OT

teaching on the afterlife, it is nevertheless true that its teaching awaits further revelation in the

NT; Christ has “brought life and immortality to light through the gospel” (2Tim 1:10, NASB).

Therefore, the biblical data in the OT will not be considered apart from the larger canonical

witness of both testaments of Christian Scripture.

Sheol As the Realm of All Dead

9
Ibid., 52.

3
 In general, the discussion on the nature and inhabitants of šeôl may be organized into

three separate views. The first view we will consider is that šeôl is the realm of the dead, just and

unjust alike, but is divided into two compartments or levels. This view has the least biblical

support and seems to have its origin in a theological motivation to keep the two classes of spirits

separate while still maintaining that šeôl houses all the dead without distinction. For the purposes

of our study, we will give this view no further consideration.

The second view holds that Sheol is the postmortem destiny of the wicked in the OT. In

my judgment, this position best explains the biblical data, as I will attempt to show. It is,

however, a minority view, and it is incumbent on those who hold it to explain the texts which

prima facie indicate that šeôl is the destiny of all men, righteous and unrighteous. Often this

difficulty is resolved by maintaining that in the case of the righteous šeôl simply means “grave.”

This is the position adopted by Harris10, Wächter11, myself, and others.

The second view, and certainly the most prevalent, maintains that šeôl is the realm of the

all the dead, just and unjust alike. There is no barrier to divide those individuals who are morally

or socially distinct, for such distinctions do not exist.12 All go to šeôl at death, with no

exceptions. This view has predominated both in evangelical and liberal theological circles. This

is the view which will receive detailed treatment in this paper.

Argument or Assumption?

10
R. Harris, “sheôl,” TWOT 2:892-93.

11
L. Wächter,‫שׁאוֹﬥ‬ še’ôl, TDOT, 14:239-48.
12
Some do, however, see Sheol as having compartments into which the righteous and unrighteous were
divided, but most argue that this is a later development of the doctrine.

4
 What is most interesting is the way this view is presented in the scholarly literature. More

often than not, what one finds is not a presentation of the evidence and an evaluation based on it,

but rather an assumption. In other words, it is difficult to find a sustained and convincing defense

of the nature of šeôl as the realm of the dead without moral distinction based on the biblical

texts themselves. The following representative (yet by no means exhaustive) survey of the

several of the most important works on the topic will attempt to defend this contention.

Robert Martin-Achard

R. Martin-Achard, in his important work From Death to Life, links the Hebrew concept

of šeôl with the common ANE belief in a large underground realm as the abode of all dead,

among whom there is no moral distinction. “The differentiations prevailing among the departed

[in Sheol] are by no means contingent on moral considerations.”13 He states his position in even

clearer terms: “For Sheol is not in fact a place of punishment reserved for the impious, the abode

of the perished is not identical with Gehenna; all the departed are in it.”14 But he contradicts his

thesis when he argues that šeôl has lower levels reserved for those whose crimes “have deserved

a particularly pitiless punishment” or who were not properly buried.15 Thus he is inconsistent in

his representation of the OT underworld, and apart from appealing to Job 3:1916, he offers no

biblical justification for his positions.

Nicholas J. Tromp

13
R.Martin-Achard, From Death to Life: A Study of the Development of the Doctrine of the Resurrection in
the Old Testament (London: Oliver and Boyd, 1960), 39.

14
Ibid., 39-40.

15
Martin-Achard, From Death to Life, 39.

16
“The small and the great are there” (Job 3:19, ASV).

5
 In a chapter of Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Netherworld in the Old titled

“Inhabitants and Conditions,” Tromp deals almost exclusively with the meaning of the Hebrew

‫( רפאים‬generally rendered “shades”) in light of recent Ugaritic textual discoveries.17 Attention is

primarily given to the meaning of the term in its biblical and extra-biblical occurrences. While

there are what he calls “local distinctions” in Sheol, these are not moral in nature but physical,

pertaining to the structure of Sheol. It is divided into upper and lower levels, a conclusion he

draws from the usage of the adjectival ‫( תחתּית‬often rendered “lowest”). Like Martin-Achard,

Tromp thus argues that Sheol contains compartments for those who have committed the worst of

crimes or those who were not properly buried. For all men without distinction, it seems, Sheol is

an “unavoidable and infernal reality.”18 And like Martin-Achard, Tromp does not justify his

position.

Edmond Jacob

Not surprisingly, we find a similar conclusion in Jacob’s Old Testament Theology (1955).

Like the others considered above, Jacob argues for social distinctions in Sheol, as well as

distinctions between unrighteous and righteous based on Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 32.19 These latter

distinctions between the righteous and unrighteous must await the 2nd century BC for their full

development. But far from disproving his case, Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 32 are exceptions that

prove the rule: “The majority of texts know nothing of any differeniation of a moral order among

the dwellers in Sheol.”20 To maintain this position, he is forced to view passages like Job 19,

17
N. Tromp, Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Nether World in the Old Testament (Biblical et
Orientalia, 21; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969), 176-210.

18
Ibid., 212.

19
E. Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament (trans. Arthur W. Heathcote and Philip J. Allcock; New York:
Harper & Row, 1958), 304.

20
Ibid.

6
Psalm 16, and Psalm 73, which speak of the hope of the believer that he will not be abandoned to

Sheol, as later, exceptional developments in Israel’s conception of the afterlife.21 Sheol remains

the realm of all the dead, with no exceptions.

Gustav F. Oehler

Like Martin-Achard, Tromp, and Jacob, Oehler sees social distinctions in Sheol but none

moral. In his own words: “In no part of the Old Testament is a difference in the lot of those in the

realm of death spoken of” (emphasis in original).22 Though he appeals to Job 3:17-19 for support,

he cites this text alone. And like Jacob, he appeals to Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 32 as exceptions that

prove his point. In all other texts (“elsewhere”) one finds “only a division into peoples and races,

and not a division of the just and unjust.”23

Conclusion of Survey

By now, the pattern has become clear: Sheol is assumed to be the postmortem destiny of

all men regardless of spiritual state or relationship with God. Occasionally a text or two is given

in support, but more often no effort is made to justify this conclusion. If I am correct that

scholarship has neglected this issue, as I hope the previous survey has shown, I am likewise

justified in reexamining its legitimacy.

Toward A Re-Examination of The Data

21
Ibid., 308-309.

22
G. Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament (trans. George E. Day; New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1883),
173.

23
Ibid. Oehler’s appeal to Job 3:17-19 is easily answered. For in Sheol it is the “wicked” who no longer
rage and the “weak” or “weary of strength” (v. 17, NASB) and the “prisoners” who rest together (v. 18). As for v.
19, the small (Heb. ‫ )קטן‬and great (Heb. ‫ )גדול‬are not terms for moral distinctions but for stature and social status, as
in Gen 1:16 and Est. 1:5. Commenting on this text, Keil and Delitzsch argue that Job’s point is that “great and small
are like on another in the grave; all distinction has ceased.” See C. Keil and F. Delitzsch, “Psalms,” vol. 4 in
Commentary on the Old Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2006), 288.

7
 As mentioned above, Philip Johnston’s Shades of Sheol provides a helpful categorization

of each text in which the Hebrew šeôl is found. Now I would like to call attention to his

contextual analysis of each text. In the section titled “Sheol as a destiny,” he classifies each of

the term’s 66 occurrences into five categories, organized as follows: 1) five times indicating

“cosmological extremity”, 2) 13 times as a general term for the “underworld,” 3) seven times as

a personification of the underworld, 4) and 34 times indicating postmortem human destiny.24

This last category, human destiny, is especially important for our purposes because it

highlights two peculiar features of the term’s usage which are often overlooked in the scholarly

literature. First, šeôl does not primarily point to the concept of the “underworld.” Rather, if

Johnston’s analysis is correct, this specific usage accounts for only 13 of its 66 occurrences, just

over 20%. By contrast, Sheol as the place of human destiny after death accounts for just under

50% of its total usage. Although there is no doubt that Sheol was understood by the OT writers

as a real place people go after death (the “underworld”/”netherworld”), it primarily is represented

not in terms of a place but as a destiny. Johnston writes, “For the Hebrew writers this was clearly

the most notable aspect of the underworld.”25 Second, and related to the first, Sheol is primarily

portrayed as the destiny of the wicked, not the righteous. Johnston demonstrates this by further

subdividing this last category into three subcategories. Of the 34 contexts in which the term

refers to human destiny, 25 texts closely link šeôl with the postmortem destiny of the

unrighteous, accounting for 73%. Moreover, Johnston notes that there are more texts which also

associate the underworld with the wicked but which use different terms for it. He concludes that

while “scholars often portray Sheol as the destiny of all, without qualification,” his analysis

24
Johnston, Shades of Sheol, 80.

25
Ibid.

8
shows that the term “is used predominantly as the fate of the wicked.”26 Similarly, Cunnington,

while uncertain regarding the clarity of OT teaching on Sheol, notes the same fact: “What we do

know is that the unrighteous were predominantly in view and that the Old Testament held out the

hope of avoidance, or at least release, from the clutches of Sheol.”27

Sheol and the OT Saints

What has been presented so far of Johnston’s work, however, does not explain the texts

which seem to portray Sheol as the postmortem destiny of the OT saints in addition to the

wicked. In general, Sheol is represented as the unavoidable destination for righteous and

unrighteous (Psalm 89:48; Eccles. 9:10), as a present rather than future reality for some OT

saints (Psalm 88:3), and as a definite future reality for others (Is 38:10; cf. also Gen 37:35, 42:38,

& 44:29,31). Moreover, it is often maintained that Samuel was in Sheol when summoned by the

so-called witch of Endor. Indeed, it is these texts which are often cited in favor of the prevailing

view that Sheol is the realm of the dead, just and unjust. Do the righteous in fact join the

unrighteous in Sheol?

Johnston again begins by looking at the context of each occurrence, rightly observing that

the texts in which the righteous seem to harbor expectations that Sheol will be their future

destiny are marked by trials, suffering, sickness, and other generally unpleasant circumstances.

He writes, “Hezekiah, Job, and the psalmist interpret their circumstances explicitly as divine

judgment.”28 Thus, a better term than “expectation” is “fear.” The Hebrews did not assume that

Sheol was the realm of the dead, just and unjust alike. Rather, they assumed that it was strictly

the abode of the wicked dead, and thus the place of divine punishment after death. When in
26
Ibid., 81.

27
R. Cunnington, “A re-examination of the intermediate state of unbelievers,” EQ 82.3 (2010), 228-229.

28
Ibid., 81.

9
God’s sovereignty trials threatened to overcome the OT believer, Johnston suggests that he

mistakenly interpreted his situation as divine judgment rather than the gracious hand of divine

providence.29

While it is beyond the scope of this paper to do exegetical justice to each of these texts, I

will attempt to illustrate Johnston’s thesis by examining two instances which often claimed to

prove the universal view of Sheol.

Jacob: A Case Study on the Righteous in Sheol

Jacob reflects on his own death at least four times in Genesis, and three times he does so

with an expectation of Sheol as his postmortem destiny. In Genesis 37, Joseph’s brothers sold

him to a band of Ishmaelite traders bound for Egypt, yet dipped his clothing in the blood of a

slaughtered goat to deceive Jacob into believing that his beloved son had died a brutal death.

Refusing to be comforted by his children, Jacob proclaimed: “Surely I will go down to my son

mourning, toward Sheol” (v. 35).30 The key is to realize that Jacob’s grief is informing his own

view of his future, as also is the case in Genesis 42. Here Jacob laments what he fears is the

imminent end of Simeon, who has remained in Egypt at the behest of Joseph. When informed

that the “lord” in Egypt requests that they return with Benjamin as well, Jacob characteristically

laments: “You have bereaved me. Joseph is no more, and Simeon is no more. And you would

take Benjamin!” (v. 36). Reuben’s pledge of the life of his two sons fails to reassure Jacob, and

it is crucial to recognize the similarity of his response in v. 38 with that of Gen 37:35. He

declares, “My son will not go down with you, for his brother is dead, and he alone remains. Now

harm will befall him on the road you are traveling, and you will bring my hair down to Sheol” (v.

38). The same usage is found when Jacob’s last response is reported verbatim to Joseph (Gen

29
Ibid.
30

10
42:29,31). It is clear that in each of these three instances, Jacob’s expectation that he is bound for

Sheol are tightly associated with his own experience of distress.31

What is particularly striking is the way Jacob views his death when it is actually

imminent.32 Following the blessing of each of his twelve sons in Genesis 49, he speaks of his

own death in terms of being gathered to his people (v. 29), and when he actually dies, the

narrator confirms this same fate: “…he breathed his last, and was gathered to his people” (v. 33).

It is crucial to note that none of his previously expressed fears materialized, and now Joseph has

not only been reunited with Joseph, but has had the opportunity to see Joseph’s children (Gen

48:11). Jacob’s fears have been allayed, and prosperity has returned. He no longer fears Sheol.

Jacob’s example is decisive: when the righteous speak of descending to Sheol, they speak from

within the context of their own distress and tribulation. As Johnston suggests, perhaps this may

be explained by means of a misinterpretation of their circumstances as God’s judgment. For our

purposes it is sufficient to note that the texts that speak of the righteous spending eternity away

from God in Sheol do not necessarily support the conclusion that Sheol is the realm of all he

dead, just and unjust alike.

Was Samuel in Sheol?

31
This is also the conclusion of Ralph Cunnington (p, 228). He admits the existence of texts which suggest
that the righteous will inhabit Sheol, but observes that “these texts each recall the words of righteous men under trial
and it is quite possible that they are the words of those who have interpreted their current circumstances as evidence
that they are under God’s judgment.”

32
Johnston terms this “the selective use of Sheol,” (p. 81) and notes that such use is “largely unnoticed” by
commentators (note 58). While this may be an overstatement, it is nonetheless true that scholars have failed to give
attention to this “selective” use of language in reference to Jacob’s death and its implications for the larger teaching
on Sheol. An partial exception to this is Von Rad, who observes that in the earlier reference to his own death Jacob
speaks “with pathos.”

11
 It is often assumed that the prophet Samuel, an Old Testament saint if ever there was one,

was in Sheol when summoned by the witch of Endor at the behest of King Saul (1Sam 28:3-19).

In fact, this is often taken as decisive proof that the righteous inhabit Sheol as well, along with

Samuel’s promise to Saul that he and his sons will join him the following day (v. 19). However,

the word šeôl does not occur in the narrative, and in fact no reference is made to Samuel’s exact

location from which he was summoned. Rather, upon seeing Samuel, the medium simply says

that he is coming up from the “earth.”33 Rather than indicating Samuel’s physical location, this

language in direct speech may simply reflect what the spirit medium actually saw. Moreover,

when Samuel promises that Saul and his sons will die the following day, he simply says they will

join him where he is, without naming or describing that same place. Clearly, 1 Samuel 28 by no

means confirms that Samuel was in Sheol when summoned by the spirit medium, and thus

cannot serve as evidence that the righteous inhabit Sheol.

Recalling our previous discussion and survey of some of the most important works on the

Hebrew conception of the underworld, it becomes clear that there exists a wide gap between the

OT’s own usage of the term itself, on the one hand, and the focus of modern critical scholars on

the other. No one will deny that the predominant view is that Sheol in the OT is the place of the

dead, just and unjust alike. Yet competing theories are to be judged by their explanation of the

relevant data, and it is apparent that the majority view has failed to sufficiently reckon with the

biblical evidence.

W. G. T. Shedd: Greco-Roman Pagan Theology and the Comparative Method

33
Hebrew ‫ארץ‬, a well-known synonym of ‫שׁאוﬥ‬. This fact likely accounts for the association of Samuel’s
habitation with Sheol. However, as Osborne notes, scholars increasingly are questioning the entire three-fold
structure of Hebrew parallelism into synthetic/antithetic/synonymous and, in particular, that “there is no true
synonymous parallelism as previously stated.” See G. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive
Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2006), 227. It is thus exegetically misguided
to mistake semantic similarity with semantic identity; caution is demanded when considering the precise relationship
between parallel terms.

12
 The foregoing discussion has attempted to show 1) that the majority of OT scholars have

assumed with little justification that Sheol is the realm of the dead, just and unjust alike, and 2)

that this is an unfair treatment of the evidence. In particular, it fails to recognize that the vast

majority of occurrences of the Hebrew šeôl occur in connection with the wicked. If I have

succeeded, it is incumbent upon me to account for this assumption. The hermeneutical and

theological enterprises never occur in a vacuum; what historical-cultural forces may have been

behind this major blind spot?

Pagan Influences on Post-Patristic and Medieval Exegesis

The great Presbyterian theologian W. G. T. Shedd is particularly helpful here. He begins

with two important observations. First, he notes that šeôl has two primary meanings: 1) the place

of future, divine punishment and 2) the grave. Second, he observes that these meanings are

consistent with the early patristic and Reformation views yet inconsistent with later patristic,

medieval and modern Protestantism. For Shedd, these inconsistencies owe much to the influence

of two anti-Scriptural forces: 1) pagan Greek ideas of the afterlife [affecting the church in the

later patristic and medieval] and 2) scholarly opinions that the OT writers borrowed uncritically

from their neighbors regarding the afterlife [affecting the church in the post-Reformation and

modern eras].34

Hades in Greco-Roman Philosophy

The Greco-Roman conception of Hades was the subterranean netherworld, “in which all

departed souls reside,”35 and which was divided into two regions, Elysium and Tartarus. Thus the

pagan conception of Hades was “wide and comprehensive” when compared with the OT

34
W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology (3d ed.; ed. Alan W. Gomes; Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and
Reformed, 2003), 833.

35
Ibid.

13
conception of the OT’s “narrow and exclusive” view of the netherworld as comprising only

wicked men. Moreover, the netherworld was vague and indefinite, “nondescriptive of moral

character” while the OT view of the netherworld was wholly descriptive of moral character.

Shedd describes this pagan view of hades as one of “mythological indefiniteness.”

In later Judaism, under the influence of Greco-Roman philosophy, this “wide and

comprehensive” view of the afterlife began to replace the “narrow and exclusive” view contained

in the Hebrew Scriptures. In other words, under heavy cultural influence, the Jews began to

misread their own Scriptures (the LXX, which translated šeôl as ἅδης 60 of its 66 times),

importing pagan ideas into the pages of the inspired text. Shedd writes: “This mythological

indefiniteness, when injected into the definiteness of the inspired representation of hades, takes

of the solemn and terrible aspect which it has for the sinner in Scripture and paves the way for

the assertion that when the sinner goes to hades he does not go to punishment and misery.”36

Shedd sees this same interpretation in Josephus, who claims that Samuel was in Hades/Sheol

when the medium at Endor summoned him.37 If Shedd is correct, then the assumption of critical

scholars that Sheol is the realm of the dead, just and unjust alike, owes more to Greek philosophy

than solid historical-grammatical exegesis of the OT.38 Such was the case of later and post-

36
Ibid., emphasis added.

37
Josephus, Ant. 6.14.2. Yet in Wars of the Jews (3.8.5) he vacillates, stating that the ones who pay the debt
God requires of them enjoy “eternal fame” and “a most holy place in heaven,” while those “whose hands have acted
madely against themselves, are received by the darkest place in Hades.” See W. Whiston, trans, The Works of
Josephus (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987).

38
I am aware that there is a growing tendency to see Greek philosophy as exerting a decisive influence on
much of patristic theology, and that this argument must be used with caution, because the earliest fathers viewed
Scripture as the supreme authority in theology. However, my larger point is that the preundersatnding of the
interpreter is formidable, and its influence has been ever-present throughout each stage of church history. Only
now, at this late date, have the criticisms of postmodernism and reader response theories brought this reality to light.
Indeed, the theologians of the future will be privy to our own cultural blinders of which we are not presently aware.

14
patristic interpretation of the concept of Sheol. More sober exegesis prevailed in the Reformation

era, but was short-lived.

OT Historical Criticism and the Re-Entry of the Pagan Concept

After the Enlightenment, biblical studies took a decisive turn. The story is well known

and will not be repeated here, but it is sufficient to say that for interpretations of biblical texts to

have validity in the scientific sense, objectivity in exegesis was viewed as essential. This

involved a critical distancing of the interpreter from his theological convictions, and a growing

tendency to read the various books of the Bible in their particular historical contexts. For the OT

in particular, this involved a study of the ancient religions of Israel’s neighbors. The historical

approach has some limited value, and Shedd certainly does not deny this. Rather, he simply

argues that a general continuity was assumed between Israelite religion and the religion of their

ancient near eastern neighbors. He cites Robert Lowth: “A popular notion prevailed among the

Hebrews, as well as among others nations, that the life which succeeded the present was to be

passed beneath the earth; and to this notion the sacred prophets were obliged to allude,

occasionally, if they wished to be understood by the people, on this subject.”39 In other words,

the Hebrew poets borrowed uncritically from the mythological conceptual world of their pagan

neighbors. Shedd cites Herder’s similar view: “No metaphorical separation of the body and soul

was yet known among the Hebrews, as well as among other nations, and the dead were

conceived as still living in the grave, but in a shadowy, obscure, and powerless condition.”40
39
Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 833. The italics are mine. He here cites the eighth lecture from Lowth’s
Lectures on the Poetry of the Hebrews.

40
Ibid. The italics are mine. Shedd here cites Herder’s Hebrew Poetry. See also Hans Frei’s insightful
survey of post-Enlightenment hermeneutics in general and of Herder in particular. Frei notes Herder’s quest for the
essential human spirit expressed in and contained behind the text. This “spirit” was not peculiar to the Hebrews but
was, rather, universal. He writes: “It seemed to Herder that understanding an ancient language in its poetic
effulgence is a matter of entering imaginatively and empathetically the world of the imagination and culture that
produced it.” (p. 184). H. Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative (New Haven: Yale, 1974). Because the “spirit” of
the age or culture which produced the text was the object of exegetical study, and since this “spirit” is not something
inherently personal but universal, shared by all peoples in all times, it is easy to see why such continuity was

15
 For Shedd, then, these two writers in particular, whose works were seminal and exerted a

decisive influence, reintroduced the old pagan concept of Sheol and Hades as the realm of the

dead where all men go without distinction. As for the prevalence of the view today, the writings

of Lowth and Herder passed quickly into commentaries and lexicons, which “formally defined

hades as the underworld.”41 More to the purposes of my argument, that Sheol is the OT

intermediate destiny of the wicked and that the prevalent view is based on an unjustifiable

assumption, are Shedd’s words: “Because the Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, and

Romans believed that all human spirits at death go to one and the same underworld, it does not

follow that it is a fact or that the circle of inspired men who wrote the Scriptures believed and

taught it.”42

Excursus: Sheol and Hades

As is to be expected, there is considerable disagreement as to the precise relationship

between Hades in the NT and LXX and Sheol in the OT. At the very least, we can observe that

the LXX translates 60 of the 66 OT occurrences of šeôl with ἅδης, indicating a degree of

semantic overlap between the terms in the minds of the translators. The same is generally true in

the NT ἅδης, and while it is possible that the NT writers simply followed the conventions already

in place due to the LXX usage, it is also possible that there existed a contemporary conceptual

link between the two concepts.

That Hades is the NT equivalent of Sheol is the view of many evangelical systematic

theologians. Ladd argues that Sheol is the “Old Testament manner of asserting that death does

perceived between Israel and their pagan neighbors.

41
Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 833. Shedd is here using Hades and Sheol interchangeably based on the
same use of the term in the scholarly literature.

42
Ibid., 834.

16
not terminate human existence”43 while Hoeksema virtually equates the two as referring to “the

state of the dead.”44 Brand argues likewise: “Sheol in the OT is roughly analogous to hades in the

NT.”45

This opinion is not unanimous, however, and some scholars see more discontinuity than

similarity between the biblical portrayals of Sheol and Hades. Berkhof acknowledges that most

scholars assume complete continuity between the two concepts, but concludes that, in general,

Sheol is the primarily the grave and only secondarily hell, while Hades in the NT is the reverse.46

Clendenen takes a similar view.47

The concept of Hades thus enjoys some of the same problems as Sheol. In Homer’s

works, Hades referred to the god of the underworld (Pluto).48 In the NT, however, its

predominant usage is to refer to the realm of the dead.49 Based on the usage of ἅδης in texts like

Matt 11:23 (cf. Luke 10:15), Rev 20:13-14, and especially Luke 16:23, Hades seems to be the

NT representation of the abode of the wicked dead and thus the intermediate state of unbelievers.

Clendenen agrees: “Hades in the NT, on the other hand, can represent a place of torment for the

wicked.”50 If this is correct, and based additionally on the NT writers’ translation preferences
43
G. E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 194.

44
A. Hoekseman, Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Reformed Free, 1966), 755. Interestingly, however,
he sees both Hades and Sheol as the realm of the dead, just and unjust alike, with distinctions between the two
groups. “Yet from the viewpoint of the distinction between the elect and reprobate, the righteous and the ungodly,
believers and unbelievers, Sheol and Hades are at once distinguished into a state of glory and a state of eternal
desolation.” For support he cites Matt. 5:30, Matt 25:46, and Luke 23:43.

45
C. Brand, “Sheol,” Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville: Holman, 1998), 1484.

46
L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 686,

47
Clendenen, “Hades,” 699.

48
G. Abbott-Smith, Manual Greek Lexicon of the NT (London: T&T Clark, 1922), 9.

49
Ibid.

50
See E. Clendenen, “Hades,” HIBD, 699, who sees only 60 such translations in the LXX.

17
outlined above, then we are coming close to the view of Sheol defended in this paper. I conclude

therefore, that there is enough overlap between the two terms to consider them virtually

synonymous in referent. Sheol is the intermediate state for unbelievers in the OT, while Hades is

the same for the NT.

NT Teaching on The Intermediate State

While the NT teaching on the intermediate state of the elect is formidable, its teaching on

that of the non-elect is scarce indeed. However, where it does speak, it speaks clearly. There are

two important texts in which Jesus himself teaches directly or indirectly that the intermediate

states of the righteous and unrighteous are not identical. The first is Luke 23:43, which records

Jesus’ words to the contrite thief hanging beside him: “Truly I say to you, today you will be with

me in Paradise” (NASB). While space prohibits even a cursory treatment of the nature of

Paradise, the Greek πάράδεισος here along with μεθ΄ εμου, clearly indicates that Paradise is the

place of Christ’s presence after his death.51 Indeed, “all three NT occurrences [Luke 23:43; 2Cor

12:14; Rev 2:7] refer to the abode of the righteous dead.”52 Also, presumably, the thief was

justified by his faith and thus converted, confirming his postmortem destination in the presence

of Jesus. No NT commentator would argue that both Christ and the criminal went to Sheol.

Rather, it seems that Jesus specifically and the NT authors generally understood the intermediate

51
The term itself is an Old Persian loanword meaning “enclosure” or “park.” Thus in the LXX it is used to
translate ‫גן‬. Yet some scholars view Paradise as the later Jewish and NT equivalent of Sheol in terms of the
postmortem dwelling of all the dead. The following note on this text by Scherer is exemplary: “The idea that the
souls of the righteous would go at death to their eternal reward gradually found a place in Jewish thought besides the
earlier belief that disembodied spirits would dwell in Sheol pending the resurrection and final judgment, and
sometimes coalesced with it.” J. Knox, G. Scherer, G. Buttrick, et al, “Luke-John” (IB 8; Nashville: Abingdon,
1952), 411. In other words, Sheol as the realm of all dead was a primitive Jewish belief which existed concurrently
for a time with the idea of Paradise as the abode of the righteous dead and which eventually gave way to it
altogether.

52
“Paradise,” HIBD, 1247. This text also rules out the interpretation of 1Pet 3:18-19 and Eph 4:10, an
article of faith in the early church (cf. Apostles’ Creed), that Christ spent time between his death and resurrection in
Hades.

18
state of the righteous to be marked by joy in the presence of Christ. While it is admittedly an

argument from silence, the happiness of the elect after death would seem to imply that the

reverse is true of the non-elect.

More decisive is the so-called parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31).

Both men die, and both men go somewhere after that death, but they do not go to the same place.

Rather, Lazarus is carried to “Abraham’s bosom” while the rich man is buried yet survives his

death and descends into Hades, where he is in “torment” (Gk. βασάνοίς). There is no hint that

Hades is here portrayed as divided into two compartments (i.e., Hades for the unrighteous and

the bosom of Abraham for the righteous). Rather, from Hades the rich man saw Abraham “far

away” and is informed by Abraham that a “great chasm is fixed” between the two locations. A

parable is a potentially problematic basis for doctrine,53 and such would be the case here; but we

have seen that Luke 23:43 directly states that the righteous go to Paradise after death and thus

implies the opposite, and Luke 16:19-31 clearly teaches both.

The NT, then, expands and clarifies the OT teaching on the intermediate state of the

unbeliever, confirming that unbelievers go to a place of conscious torment after death. Indeed,

such has been the view throughout much of church history. The Westminster Confession (chap.

33) states that “the souls of the wicked [after death] are cast into hell, where they remain in

torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day.” In a recent article,

however, Ralph Cunnington has challenged this view, arguing that it fails to explain the several

NT texts in which the wicked at the judgment are surprised at the verdict they receive. Regarding

Luke 16, he argues that most commentators say this text likely was not intended to describe the

53
See Osborne, Spiral, 307. He cites this parable in particular as an example of those who would argue for
a “compartmentalized Hades,” something not clearly established by any other biblical text and which must be
rejected as formal doctrine.

19
afterlife.54 While Jesus may be using figurative language, it is to be noted that Luke does not call

this text a parable. Moreover, the “figurative language” argument cannot so easily be used to

dismiss texts which teach unpleasant doctrines. As Lewis and Demarest observe, the main point

surely is that the righteous go to one place after death and the unrighteous to another.55

The NT, then, will not allow us to build a doctrine of the intermediate state in which

righteous and unrighteous dwell together awaiting the final resurrection and judgment. This

confirms and helps us better understand the OT view of Sheol as the realm of the wicked dead.

From a canonical perspective, this may in fact settle the matter, for later revelation clarifies

earlier revelation but may never contradict it. But the argument is valid as well from a

hermeneutical and historical perspective. By their words, we see that Jesus and the NT authors

knew their Scriptures far better than we do today. Rather than having borrowed uncritically from

later Judaic theology, they were sensitive readers of the Hebrew canon, displaying their

conclusions in the texts they composed.

Sheol as The Postmortem Existence of The Wicked

If šeôl overwhelmingly refers to human destiny, and such human destiny is tightly

associated with the wicked, perhaps a better theory is one that recognizes the distinct usage of

the term outlined by Johnston above. Indeed, our study thus far has highlighted a very important

factor in biblical semantics, namely, context. Earlier word studies operated on the assumption

that word studies were theologically decisive, exhausting the meaning of the term.56 Yet recent

54
R. Cunnington, “A re-examination of the intermediate state of unbelievers,” EQ 82.3 (2010), 234.

55
Lewis and Demarest argue that even if the account is a parable, its message must be dealt with. “Even if
the language is highly figurative, the figures convey two radically different situations of conscious joy and conscious
torment after death.” G. Lewis and B. Demarest, Integrative Theology (Vols. 1-3; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996),
3:474.

56
Osborne, Spiral, 84.

20
studies have emphasized that the context in which the word appears is often just as decisive.

Based on our study thus far, it seems that earlier commentators assumed that the term had but

one meaning, and read that meaning into each text in which it occurs. But as we have seen, the

context of many of the occurrences of šeôl is one of association with the wicked, associating the

term with the unrighteous. It is thus likelier that Sheol is the place of postmortem punishment

rather than the world of the dead for righteous and unrighteous alike.57 Yet there are two final

texts with which we must briefly deal before we may formulate our final conclusion. I must state

up front that these texts are admittedly difficult, and here I pretend to offer no definitive

interpretations, but rather potential suggestions.

Psalm 89

The key text in Psalm 89 is verse 49 (v. 50, MT): “What man can live and not see

death? // Can he save his soul from the power of Sheol?” Taken alone, verse 49 is indeed

problematic. However, a close look at the entirety of Psalm 89 reveals that verse 49 does not

require the interpretation that the righteous go to Sheol after death. The psalmist begins by

praising YHWH’s lovingkindness (Heb. ‫ )חסד‬exemplified in the Davidic covenant (vv. 3-4)

which assured Israel that a righteous descendant of David would forever reign over them in

justice and righteousness. In this psalm in particular, the blessings of the Davidic covenant are

closely associated with victory in battle over Israel’s enemies (vv. 22-23). Moreover, though

David’s descendants may violate Torah, he will remain faithful to his original covenant (vv. 30-

34): over all its enemies the Davidic throne will have victory, and through all ages it will endure

(vv. 34-36).

57

21
 The psalmist, however, looks at his present circumstances and wonders what has become

of these ancient promises. Rather than triumphing over its enemies, Israel’s enemies have

triumphed over them and even rejoice at its demise (v. 42). YHWH has frustrated Israel’s

attempts to defend itself and has “not upheld him in battle” (v. 43). The psalmist concludes with

a cry for justice from an anguished saint: “How long, O Lord?” (v. 46).

It is within this context that the psalmist makes his observations on the inevitable end of

every human being: death (“Remember my duration, [and] for what vanity you have created all

the sons of man,” v. 47). He then asks: “What man can live and not see death? // Will he save his

soul from Sheol?” (v. 48). Not only do we observe the circumstances of distress and trouble

which are ever-present when šeôl is used of the righteous, but we also observe that the overall

context of the psalm is one of judgment on Israel, seen in God’s perceived abandonment of the

Davidic covenant, for its disobedience to the Mosaic covenant. Just as God’s lovingkindness is

exemplified in his faithfulness to the covenant, so his judgment is evident in its perceived

nullification.

With this in view, there are two possibilities. First, just as with the other texts mentioned

above in which the righteous seemingly expect to go to Sheol after death, Psalm 89 is composed

by one who is interpreting his circumstances from within the framework of the judgment he

perceives. His expectation of Sheol is more of a fear than a certainty. However, it must be

admitted that this is not a plain reading of the Hebrew, which literally reads “who [is the] man

[who] will live and not see death? // can he save his life from the hand of Sheol?” (v. 49).

Johnston and others offer another solution. It is not all mankind who are destined for

Sheol, but rather that portion of mankind under judgment.58 This, however, is not fully

58
Johnston, Shades of Sheol, 82. See also C. Brand, “Sheol,” HIBD, 1482-1484.

22
satisfactory either. For though it fits a plain reading of the Hebrew, it neglects the context. It is

not all of humanity under judgment in vv. 38-45 but rather Israel, and specifically David’s kingly

descendants which have brought distress on Israel and made it a reproach among the nations. If

read this way, in light of this larger context, v. 49 would seem to imply that all Israel go to Sheol.

Perhaps a better solution is to recognize precisely who the text indicates will not be able

to save their lives from Sheol: the sons of man (Heb. ‫)בני־אדם‬. All men die, not just Israel, so

perhaps šeôl here simply means the grave or even death itself. 59 It is noteworthy that šeôl is

paralleled with ‫“( מות‬death”). The psalmist, then, is asking God to remember that vanity of life of

the ones he created in his image, who must one day die, the certain truth of which makes the

present circumstances all the more difficult. This view by no means solves all the difficulties, but

seems to best fit both the context and the lexical data.

Ecclesiastes 9

The problematic text is Ecclesiastes 9:10, which reads: “For there is no activity or

planning or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol where you are going” (NASB).60 But this passage is

decisive only when taken solely at face value apart from its larger context. A key text for

Ecclesiastes in general is 1:14. “I have seen all the works which have been done under the sun,

and behold, all is vanity and striving after wind” (NASB). Qohelet here limits his perspective to

what can be observed (“under the sun”) and his worldview borders on materialism at points.
59
Johnston argues that “vanity” (‫ )שוא‬more likely means “falsehood” or “deceit.” He then interprets the
second line of v. 49 as “humanity as created for falsehood.” This is a puzzling interpretation, for ‫ שוא‬is here paired
with ‫ברא‬, which seems to be a reference to the creation account of Gen. 1 rather than the fall. It seems more likely
that here “vanity” is simply a reference to death, especially given its association with the short span of human life.
This also seems to be the view of the New Revised Bible Commentary. See D. Guthrie and J. Motyer, eds., The New
Bible Commentary: Revised (3rd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 507. “It seems that God has made men for a
mere nothing; all must die and that comparatively quickly.” The author also links deliverance from this death with
the renewal of the Davidic covenant: “Unless God reaffirms the covenant speedily the Davidic dynasty, the trusting
psalmist and all men come together to the grave and deliverance will be too late.”

60
The Hebrew, when translated woodenly, is quite strong and definitive: “For there is neither work nor
planning nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol, which you are going there,” ‫אשר אתה הלך שמה‬.

23
Longman observes a “distance” between Qohelet and God, noting the absence of the covenantal

YHWH and the presence of elohim, but, contra Crenshaw, argues that the message of Qohelet

himself must be separated from the message of the book.61 The latter, he argues, is decisively

shaped by later editors and particularly found in the epilogue (here the text shifts from first- to

third-person narration). Longman thinks that the final editor, whose work begins in 12:8,

becomes increasingly critical of Qohelet and his worldview.

What is most helpful for our purposes is the criticism of the editor directed toward

Qohelet’s eschatology. Though it may seem from empirical observation that the same fate awaits

all men, good and bad, this observation remains strictly empirical and nothing more. Good and

bad men alike die and are buried. But the final editor (Longman: the “second wise man”)

instructs his readers to fear God and obey his law, offering the final judgment as motivation

toward such an end (12:14). In conclusion, in 9:10 Qohelet refers to death itself as the fate which

awaits all mankind without moral distinction. This is consistent, as well, with the usage of Sheol

as the grave in Psalm 89:49.

CONCLUSION

To sum up, in modern scholarship the predominant view of Sheol is that it is the realm of

all the dead in the OT, righteous and unrighteous alike. This paper has shown that this view is

rarely defended but often assumed, and that certain historical and cultural influences may

account for this assumption. Moreover, this assumption is exegetically unjustified, since the term

is overwhelmingly associated with the wicked, the texts cited in support of the predominant view

do not stand up to close scrutiny, and the NT clearly teaches that the righteous and unrighteous

go to different places after death. Where the righteous expect Sheol as their postmortem destiny,

they may be viewing their death in light of their current circumstances, and in those texts where
61
T. Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 35ff.

24
the righteous and unrighteous alike are portrayed as bound for Sheol, the term may refer simply

to the grave.

By no means do I harbor any illusions that this paper settles the complexities of this

issue. Many questions are left unanswered and more work must be done. However, my purpose

simply has been to reexamine the prevalent view, offer some explanations for its predominance,

and humbly propose an alternative.

Bibliography

Barr, James. Comparative Philology and The Text of The Old Testament. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 1987. Pages 413-436.

25
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Pages 679-688.

Berlin, Adele. The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Pages 64- 99.

Botterweck, G. Johannes, Helmer Ringgren, Heinz-Josef Fabry, et al, eds. Theological

Dictionary of the Old Testament. Pages 239-248.

Brand, Chad, Charles Draper, and Archie England, eds. Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary.
Nashville: Holman, 1998. Pages 699, 1247, 1482-1484.

Brown, F., S. Driver, and C. Briggs. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007.

Buttrick, George A., gen. ed. Luke-John. Vol. 8 in The Interpreter’s Bible. New York:
Abingdon, 1956. Page 411.

Cowley, A. Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. London: Oxford, 1923. Pages 180-181.

Craigie, Peter C. Psalms 1-50. Vol. 19 in Word Biblical Commentary. Waco: Word, 1983.
Pages 356-361.

Cunnington, Ralph. “A re-examination of the intermediate state of unbelievers.” Evangelical

Quarterly 82.3 (2010): 215-237.

Freedman, David Noel, ed. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 2. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Pages 104-105.

Frei, Hans. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century
Hermeneutics. New Haven: Yale, 1974. Pages 1-324.

Garrett, James Leo, Jr. Systematic Theology. Vol. 2. North Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL, 2001.
Pages 711-750.

Van Gemeren, Willem A. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis.
Vol. 4. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997. Pages 6-7.

Gesenius, Wilhelm. Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated by Samuel P.

Tregelles. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979. Page 798.

Guthrie, D., J. Alec Motyer, et al, eds. The New Bible Commentary: Revised. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1970. Pages 507, 575-576,

Harris, R. Laird, Gleason L. Archer, Jr. and Bruce K. Waltke, eds. Theological Wordbook of the
Old Testament. Vol. 2. Chicago: Moody, 1980. Pages 892-893.

26
Hill, Andrew E. and John H. Walton. A Survey of The Old Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2000. Pages 365-371.

Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. Pages 713-770.

Hoeksema, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics. Grand Rapids: Reformed Free, 1966. Pages 746-758.

House, Paul. Old Testament Theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998. Pages 470-481.

Jacob, Edmund. Theology of The Old Testament. Translated by Arthur W. Heathcote and Philip
J. Allcock. New York: Harper & Row, 1958. Pages 299-316.

Johnston, Philip. Shades of Sheol: Death and The Afterlife in the Old Testament. Downers
Grove: InterVarsity, 2002. Pages

Keil, C. F. and F. Delitzsch. Commentary on The Old Testament 10 vols. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 2006. Pages 5:586-590, 6:760-761.

Koehler, Ludwig and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament.
Vol. 4. Translated by M. E. J. Richardson. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Page 1370.

Lewis, Gordon R. and Bruce A. Demarest. Integrative Theology. 3 Vols. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1996. 3:457-474.

Longman, Tremper. The Book of Ecclesiastes. New International Commentary on The Old
Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Pages 32-40.

Martin-Achard, Robert. From Death to Life. Translated by John Penney Smith. Edinburgh:
Oliver and Boyd, 1960.

Metzger, Bruce M. and Michael D. Coogan, eds. The Oxford Companion to The Bible. New
York: Oxford, 1993. 444.

Oehler, Gustav F. Theology of The Old Testament. Translated by George E. Day. New York:
Funk & Wagnalls, 1883. Pages 169-174.

Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2006. Pages 83-93,
291-308.

Shedd, William G. T. Dogmatic Theology. 3rd ed. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2003. Pages 831-862.

Sutcliffe, Edmund F. The Old Testament and The Future Life. The Bellarmine Series 8.
Burns Oates and Washbourne: 1946. Pages 36-58.

Tromp, Nicholas J. Primitive Conceptions of Death and The Nether World in The Old Testament.
Biblica et Orientalia 21. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969. Pages 167-210.

27
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of The Bible. Grand Rapids:
Baker, 2005. Pages 438-441.

Vos, Geerhardus. The Eschatology of The Old Testament. Edited by James T. Dennison.
Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2001.

Waltke, Bruce K. An Old Testament Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007. Pages 964-969.

28