Six Feet Under
“Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me.” Psalm 23:4 Woman’s Day
Death – After that rant about Deuteronomy 31:8 you’re probably wondering why I would ever decide to pick another “out of context” example from Woman’s Day. Yeah, I’m sort of wondering too. But this sort of metamorphosis of the real text needs one more nail in the coffin before we put it six feet under. What is the comforting message that Woman’s Day uncovers in this verse from the twenty-third psalm? “The Good News: Even death cannot separate us from the never-failing love of God.”
Is this what 23:4 really says? Let’s look at the Hebrew vocabulary for starters. “Valley of the shadow of death” is (transliterated) be•gei tzal•ma•vet. The key word is tzal•ma•vet (ṣalmāwet).
Deep darkness. (ASV prefers “the shadow of death” and also has “thick darkness,” “thick gloom”; RSV prefers “deep darkness” and also has “gloom.”) Some treat it as a combination of ṣalāmu “be dark” (Akkadian, also Arabic) plus ût as an abstract ending. Most versions understand it as combination of “shadow” and “death.” D. W. Thomas accepts the latter, but convincingly argues that mût possesses superlative force: “very deep shadow,” “thick darkness.” M. Dahood agrees, vocalizing it ṣal-mawet and citing other compound nouns in Ugaritic (PsalmsI, AB, p. 147). It describes the darkness of eyelids tired from weeping (Job 16:16), the thick darkness present in a mine shaft (Job 28:3), the darkness of the abode of the dead (Job 10:21f.; 38:17), and the darkness prior to creation (Amos 5:8). Emotionally it describes the internal anguish of one who has rebelled against God (Ps 107:10–14; cf. 44:19f. [H 20f.]). Thus it is the strongest word in Hebrew for darkness.[1]
Do you understand what this means? This verse has nothing to do with death! The verse does not say anything about God’s never-failing love or its continuation after death. In fact, the “Good News” of Woman’s Day is based entirely on the post-Tanakh Greek idea of the eternal existence of the soul. In Hebrew, when you die you are in fact separated from God. God might still show up in She’ol, as David once suggested, but generally She’ol is the underworld where there is no praise, no real sense of life, no sound. A helpless sort of semi-existence, if even that. In Semitic thought, when you die you just no longer exist because there is no existence once the animated body ceases. Miriam’s answer to Yeshua’s question about seeing her brother again confirms this. She expects to see him at the resurrection of the dead, not when she dies.
Once more we see Hellenistic theology anachronistically incorporated, providing us with assurance and comfort without real biblical support. This is “feel-good” theology. In the ancient world, six feet under is six feet under and that’s where this kind of eisegesis belongs.
Topical Index: death, She’ol, ṣalmāwet, deep darkness, Woman’s Day, Psalm 23:4
[1] Hartley, J. E. (1999). 1921 צָלַל. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 767). Chicago: Moody Press.
Before I continue with my comments, let me state that I am in decidedly in your camp on this so, here we go. In thinking about what you have expressed in this TW, don’t you think that Paul also has a lot to do with establishing in the mind of the Christian that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord and the Lord is obviously in heaven. Even Yeshua in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man would certainly lead one to believe in an afterlife of reward and punishment. The TANAK has very little to say about the afterlife and really nothing to say about going to heaven or hell after you die. Most of the ideas of an afterlife crept into Judaism by way of syncretism. In the diaspora, Greco-Roman philosophy began to heavily influence Judaism and consequently what would later become Christianity. I guess one of the many things Christians would find so troublesome about this line of inquiry is if Yeshua was influenced by Greco-Roman thought and incorporated that into his teaching knowingly or unknowingly then he would be just a product of the religious milieu of his time and that would be another thing that would call the whole god/man thing into question. Could this not also indicate Judaism was handicapped from the outset with God only giving Moses and the Hebrews only partial information by leaving the whole life after death idea out of the equation. A lot here to try to unpack. Thankis for challenging us/me to think.