^ " Sheol," in general conception, corresponds to the Greek Hades, and must be carefully distinguished from " the grave." The distinction is rightly preserved in the Eevised Version. It is true there are particular phrases, as " to go down to Sheol," the general sense of which is sufficiently represented by the English idiomatic expression "to go down to the grave"; and this has accordingly been retained in the Revised Version : but " Sheol " in such cases stands on the margin {e.g., 1 Sam. ii. 6, Isa. xxxviii. 10), and elsewhere it is used in the text. Occasionally " hell " has been retained from the Authorized Version (Isa. v. 14, xiv. 9, 15); this, it need scarcely be said, is used (as in the Creed) in the old sense of the term, and not in that of a place of torment. The ordinary Hebrew belief was conscious of no distinction in the future lot of the righteous and the wicked. The impossibility of a return, or resurrection, from Sheol was also strongly felt (Job vii. 9 f ., xiv. 7-12, Jer. li. 39, 57, Isa. xxvii. 14) : the possibility
2 TIMOTHY I. lo 167
of another life entrances Job (Job xiv. 14 f., E.V.), but he rejects it as incredible.^
4. Among the Jews at the time of Christ. — The Gospels open by revealing to us the Hebrew world and church previous to the in- fusion of the Christian element; and from them we learn that a future life, and even a resurrection of the dead, had then become a part of the prevalent and popular creed. There was a learned sect, indeed, distinguished by denying them. The Sadducees believed in nothing beyond the present life and material forms ; they said " there was no resurrection," or separate state — " angel or spirit " ; but then there was another class, equally learned and more numerous, and having far greater influence with the people, who believed and taught " both " and all. The sister of Lazarus was not indebted to the teachings of Jesus, but to her previous creed, for the promptness with which she replied to His assurance that her brother should rise again, "I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day." And this, there can be little doubt, was the general belief of the Jewish people (with the exception referred to), at, and immediately before, the coming of Christ. We find St. Paul, some years afterwards, not only refer- ring to it as such, but describing it as the result of the revelations given through the prophets. "I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. . . . Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead ? " I believe " all things which are written in the law and in the prophets ; and have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust."
The popular belief of the Jews at the time of Christ regarding the life to come was largely taken from certain Apocalyptic books, of which by far the most important was the Book of Enoch. Now in its eschatology, as in its Christology, the Book of Enoch is based essentially upon the Old Testament ; it is an imaginative development and elaboration of elements derived thence. Of distinctively Christian truth, of the truths, that is, which centre in, or radiate from, the doctrine of the Incarnation, it does not ex- * S. E. Driver, Sermons on the Old Testamc7it, 95.
i68 LIFE AND IMMORTALITY
hibit a trace. Its resemblance to the writings of the New Testa- ment is limited to externals. The utmost that can be said of it, in this respect, is that it may have lent to the Apostles, perhaps even to our Lord, certain figures and expressions in which they could suitably and conveniently clothe their ideas. But this is no more than what happened in numberless other instances, in which the teaching of both Christ and His disciples is cast in the mould of contemporary Jewish thought. Even where the resemblance appears to be closest, a careful comparison will disclose signi- ficant features of difference. The originality of the fundamental conceptions of Christianity is not impaired by the acknowledgment that Jewish thought, reflecting upon the Old Testament, may have provided symbols for their expression, or, io the case of less dis- tinctive ideas, may even have reached them in anticipation. It remains that, in its full significance, the doctrine of a future life was first enunciated in the gospel; and that it was He who " abolished death," who also was the first to bring " life and incor- ruption to light."
IL
The Difference which Christ made.
1. There are three benefits which Christ brought in bringing life and incorruption.
(1) He gave certainty to the hope of life everlasting. — The sombre death-scene is changed by the revelation of Christ through the gospel. The best of the patriarchs never rose to a higher temper than that of placid, solemn resignation to the will of God. They died without the sense of triumph. Their gaze turned to the coming fortunes of their children in the Land of Promise rather than towards the dim realms into which they were passing. Stephen, Paul, and the generation which caught their spirit, anticipated the time of departure with joy and eager hope. A different atmosphere had been created, and over the riot of viol- ence and brutality the Lover of human souls hovered, stretching out His arms to receive disciples into the fellowship of His im- mortal reign. The kindling of these new hopes had made a revol- ution. It is true saints sometimes suffer, and in their last days