(5 minute read)

It Depends on How You Look At It

Image by wirestock on Freepik

There are two common but different models of scholarship of the emerging and diverse myths of the Christian heaven. We must evaluate these models first.

The theocentric model and anthropocentric model.

Both have a very different way of looking at not only biblical scholarship but the world, as well.

The theocentric (God-centered) model stresses an individual’s relationship with God and assumes all interpretations of faith stemming from there.

The emphasis in this model is based on a personal relationship between the believer and their maker. Top-down tenets dictate this model. These tenets are believed to be “handed down” directly by God.

The anthropocentric (humanistic-centered) model emphasizes the human ties between community, family, and friends. The emphasis in this model is based on cultural values. It also focuses on behaviors developed in particular communities. These are dictated by human interaction with the world and the people in it.

Anthropology is the more common term used and it is the study of the development of societies and cultures.

Out of the theocentric model, there is a major misunderstanding at best and a willful omission of reality. There are huge leaps of faith that requires the use of intellect.

The Christian faith community did not appear out of thin air. They were a community that developed over long periods of time. The interaction they experienced with their world and the people in it drove their decisions. It was more influential than any “dictation” written by “chosen men inspired by God.

What Came First, the Chicken or the Egg?

…or in this case, does the tenet of faith create the belief? Or does the belief come before the tenet of faith?

Most adherents think tenets are developed from the top down and that a systematic study of scripture establishes those tenets. But those scriptures written and the tenets do not develop in a vacuum.

These writings, that would later be elevated to scripture status, were created by communities. They were influenced by the circumstances and world in which they lived. The anthropological influence is greater. Studying the cultures surrounding these early Christian communities is enlightening.

It is thought that theology influences a communities view of heaven and hell. Rather, the opposite is true. How communities come to view the afterlife, heaven in particular, sets the boundaries for their theological concepts.

As cultures and societies change throughout history so does their view of heaven.

The early church, for example, suffered from persecution under the Roman. This persecution dramatically shaped their image of what they wanted and needed heaven to be. The changing and evolving image of heaven mirrored events as they unfolded throughout history.

The Hebrew Myth of Heaven

Ancient Israelites myth of the afterlife did not include a heaven for themselves. Rather, the concept of heaven to the early Israelites was that it was the exclusive place where God resided. God created the heavens, the sun, the moon, and the stars. These were also created for God’s vantage point to look down on his creation.

The Israelites believed that after death, everyone, both good and bad, dwelt together in Sheol. It was a neutral underworld that neither gave pain nor pleasure. It offered no reward or punishment.

In the Hebrew scriptures, it is referred to as “the Pit”. It is a land of eternal darkness. It is also called “the land of forgetfulness”.

It cannot be ignored that this belief in the afterlife was NOT unique to the Israelites. Assyrian, Babylonian, and Greek cultures had similar characteristics of the afterlife. It is hard to ignore that they likely co-opted or borrowed these ideas.

The myth of heaven began to emerge after the First Temple was destroyed in 586 BCE. This was also when the Jews were exiled to Babylon. Without a Temple or homeland to practice their faith, the Exile affected the Israelites. It seems the Exile caused them to consider heaven seriously. Heaven became a destination for the reward of the righteous.

After Babylon defeated the Israelites, Babylon was defeated in war against the Persians. The Israelites were influenced by the Persians. As a result, they adopted characteristics of the Persian afterlife as well. The Persians myth of the afterlife described a process. A person would be judged four days after death. Their judgment was based on the good deeds they performed while alive.

The Persians believed that if the good outweighed the bad then the person was rewarded admittance into heaven. If they were found to be evil they were sent to hell, a cold and foul smelling place.

For the exiled Jews, the idea of spending an eternity with God in heaven as a reward became very appealing. They began to question their past beliefs. They doubted a God who delivered both the wicked and good to the same place after birth.

God, they began to reason, must reward virtue otherwise there was no reason to be virtuous.

This reasoning of reward for the Israelites grew even stronger after the Maccabean War (170-160 BCE). A band of rebellious Israelites led by Judas Maccabeus revolted. They opposed the desecration of the Temple by the Syrian King, Antiochus.

According to scholars the war brought a fundamental change in Jewish belief about the afterlife. In their struggle against Antiochus, the community faced an existential question. What future awaits the valiant rebels who died for Israel?

Are their deaths in vain? Why would they be motivated to give of their life?

Read Emerging Christian Myths, Pt. 4

Resources

• Charles Panati, Sacred Origins of Profound Things, Penguin/Arkana Books, 1996
• Russel Shorto, Gospel Truths, Riverhead Books, 1998
• Jeffrey Burton Russell, A History of Heaven, Princeton University Press, 1997