If the Israelites Weren't Materialists Why Doesn't the Hebrew Bible Talk More about the Afterlife?

I wrote a post a while ago concerning whether the ancient Israelites were materialists and argued in the negative. They clearly have the view of their surrounding cultures when it comes to the existence of the immediate afterlife. Some would use Psalms like Psalm 88, for instance, to try to argue for a diversity of thought in the Hebrew Bible, as though there are some nihilistic materialists among the Israelites, but these texts often contrast the land of the living and what can be accomplished there versus the land of the dead and the ceasing of any accomplishments there. They are not meant to be statements about whether the afterlife exists.

But why doesn't the Hebrew Bible talk more about the afterlife if the people so clearly believe that there is one? I would argue that it is due to their teleological emphasis. Now, this teleology may not necessarily be different than that of the surrounding culture, depending upon what the surrounding culture is at the time, but there is a difference upon the emphasis that is placed on it.

In the Hebrew Bible, the end goal of all of God's people is not the afterlife, but rather the possession of the land of Israel as it rules the entire earth that is restored into a garden of Eden-like state. This is why land is so important and this belief evidences a belief in a physical resurrection of the people of Israel.

Much is made in scholarship of the fact that there may only be one resurrection passage in the Bible and it is a very late one (i.e., Dan 12:1-3). I would argue that this misunderstands the nature of the promises to Abraham and his descendants. In fact, the very promise tells us that it is to Abraham and his descendants, not just some of Abraham's descendants in the future.

In Genesis 13:14-17, 

The Lord said to Abram after Lot had parted from him, “Look around from where you are, to the north and south, to the east and west. All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring^[a] forever. I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust, then your offspring could be counted. Go, walk through the length and breadth of the land, for I am giving it to you.”

To whom is God giving it? One could argue that God gives it to Abraham only because he gives it to his descendants, but that is not what is promised here. God does not say that I am giving this to your descendants, but rather I am giving this to you. Because he gives it to Abraham, he also gives it to his descendants. This is due to the idea of federal headship. What Abraham receives, his offspring receive. That means not only must Abraham receive it in order for the others to receive it, it means that everyone from Isaac forward must also receive it. The problem is that none of these people ever received it. In fact, it hasn't been received in the way it is promised both here and throughout the Law and the Prophets to this very day. 

What this means is that in order for this to be true, and in order for Abraham to have confidence that God would make this true of both him and his descendants, God must resurrect them all from the dead. Hence, Auctor argues this very point when discussing the Akedah in Hebrews 11:17-19. If Abraham was to receive the promise through Isaac, and God does not lie, then resurrection must be on the table.

Likewise, I would argue that the very analogies made in Isaiah, Hosea, and Ezekiel all have a literal referent in order for the analogies to work. But something even more important than this is the fact that the punishment of the wicked in the Hebrew Bible is removal from the land of the living represented by the garden, wilderness community, land of Israel, etc. Would the Israelites really believed that if they were faithful they would all ultimately removed from the land of the living? It doesn't make much sense if the punishment and the reward are the same in respect to the land that is promised to Abraham and his descendants.

Furthermore, in Isaiah 53, the suffering servant is both killed for the sins of Israel, even though innocent, but because of his innocence, he will receive the reward of long life and see his offspring. How exactly is that possible if he is dead?

My point then is that the Hebrew Bible does not talk about the immediate state of the afterlife very much because it focuses its people on the eternal state of resurrection and restoration of and to the land of the living/garden/earth/Israel in contrast to the wicked who are blown away from it like chaff. Why, then, talk about and describe a spiritual world if the end goal and hope is to possess the current one?


“I will deliver this people from the power of the grave;
    I will redeem them from death.
Where, O death, are your plagues?
    Where, O grave, is your destruction? (Hos 13:14)

Hence, Daniel 12:1-3 is simply an explicit statement of what is implicit throughout the Hebrew Bible.

“At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered.

Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.