(9 minute read)

Image by Freepik

(From the previous post): [The] reasoning [for developing a system of] reward for the Israelites became more compelling. This change occurred after the 10-year Maccabean War from 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.

The war brought about a fundamental change in Jewish belief about the afterlife.

In their struggle against Antiochus, the community faced an existential question. What happens to the valiant rebels who died for the cause? More importantly, how might those still living be motivated to go on?

The answers they developed are in various writings. One example is the Book of Daniel. It was apparently written to inspire their community to fight for the cause.

“Many of those who will sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life.”

Daniel 12:2

Similar references become more prevalent in later writings.

“The righteous live forever, and their reward is with the Lord.”

Psalms 37:28 & 146:8-9; Isaiah 41:10-11)

The idea of a reward for hardships in this life begins to take hold.

A side note: It is sometimes easy to gloss over a sentence like “the 10-year Maccabean War.” We often do this without considering the logistical expectations for a modern army. Let alone an ancient culture at war.

The First Testament accounts give little detail. They mention how ancient Israeli armies were formed, trained, and battled.

Outside resources are also scarce. We are left with archaeological finds like the Tel Dan Stele. We do our best to piece together the details.

Specific details are not available. Yet, we can assume some things based on what we know about the logistics of warfare. It is no small feat.

First, like every culture that has had to form an army, there needs to be a time to recruit soldiers. Then, you must equip them. Lastly, train the units of soldiers.

Second, there is also a need for physical provisions like shelter and food. The larger the army the more provisions are needed.

Third, logistical long-term plans need to be developed like financing and supply chain routes.

Fourth, how to continually motivate the troops needs also to be addressed. How do we develop group think, unity, allegiance, and pride within the units?

Fifth, how are the troops managed not just during the campaigns but afterward, as well. How do we care for the wounded, the dead, the survivors?

These are just some of the things we often take for granted. We come across them when engaging with narratives about war. We also meet them when considering the troops that fight in these wars.

Defending a nation requires significant effort and resources. Thus, it is no wonder that motivations and messages must be developed and communicated. This is necessary to convince people to join the cause and overcome their basic human instinct for self-preservation.

And, so, as an emerging nation fights for its very survival, it stands to reason that several issues need attention. Questions about the logistics of warfare must be addressed. Existential answers need to be provided, as well.

The only sect of Israelites that didn’t follow this new existential way of thinking about the afterlife were the Sadducees. They still clung to the belief that with death comes only the grave. There is no reward. There is no hope of an afterlife, let alone a reward.

During the early centuries of the common era, Roman persecutions of the Israelites intensified. Israelites became more determined for a personal heaven, corporeal resurrection of the dead, and eternal life for the righteous.

Events like Elijah’s accession into heaven were a beginning sign to all Israelites. They indicated that heaven was no longer just a place for God to live. It was open to be a home for all the faithful, as well.

“As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind. Elisha saw this and cried out, ‘My father! My father! The chariots and horsemen of Israel!’ And Elisha saw him no more.”

2 Kings 2:11-12

The third century Jewish scholar Rav elaborated on the rewards coming in the afterlife.

“In heaven there would be no eating, drinking, or begetting of children. There would be no business dealings, jealousy, hatred, or competition. The righteous will sit with crowns on their heads and enjoy the glory of God’s radiance.”

It is a very good promise. All the worries of life on earth simply go away. Nothing to do but bask in the glowing aura of God.

This embedded interpretation of heaven was prevalent at the dawn of Christianity. It became the foundation of the early Christian myth of heaven.

Early Christian Myth of Heaven

The Jewish community began to enlarge and redefine their beliefs in the afterlife.

Moses’ vision of God in Ex. 24:10 was significant. Ezekiel’s dramatic writings contributed to their beliefs. Isaiah’s vision of the Lord in Is 6:1 also influenced their myth.

Christianity started out as a schism of the Jewish faith at best, a cult at worse.

Christians still considered themselves as Jewish. It stands to reason that the new sect would hold on to some of the Jewish beliefs. Until it was obvious that they could not.

As in other areas of the emerging Christian myths and beliefs, changes from the Jewish faith were needed. The idea of heaven was useful, though details we are familiar with would be added in the 13th century CE. The concept of heaven needed expansion to specifically help the Christian community form their own identity.

The split with their Jewish counterparts occurred after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE. The majority of the Israelites blamed the Christian “cult” for bringing sin into the faith. They were then banished from the Jewish community.

The banished community still considered themselves as having Jewish roots but separate from the rest of Judaism.

As time went on the new sects began to read the Jewish scriptures in a literal way. They provided new meaning to them and often applied specific lines to their messiah, Jesus the Nazarene.

That they literally hijacked the Jewish scriptures is hotly denied by literalists (*See note). Yet, it is clear that most Jewish interpretations fell away as they were replaced. While Christians respected the Jewish writings they repurposed them to fit the narration of their messiah.

By the fifth century CE, they had already been using the writings for their own purpose. They merged them with new writings from various communities. Eventually, they proclaimed all of them the holy infallible writs of God. The “Old” Testament and “New” Testament.

Scholars today prefer to refer them as the First and Second Testament.

Just as the early Israelites used reward for their martyrdom the early Christian church did the same. The martyred needed an amped up reward system for their faithful. As with other cultures they borrowed heavily from others. There are strong similarities in the Greco-Roman traits of the afterlife and the Christians.

The Odyssey, Aeneid, Plato, and Dante’s Inferno influences the eventually formulated Christian tenets of the afterlife. The similarities are not a coincidence.

We can easily see the differences by comparing the Hebrew Scriptures on the afterlife to those of the Christian’s. We notice many distinctions. The new religion would be greatly obsessed with the afterlife.

The first writers of the new faith provided greater details and definitive promises of rewards. They also issued warnings about punishments.

By the time the early Christians developed their myths on the afterlife, heaven was more than just where God resides. It had become a realm where every faithful single soul would co-exist for an eternity.

Every person outside of the faith would be destined to burn forever in hell. They would be separate from God with no hope of a reprieve. This makes it one of the severest religions based on a cruel system of rewards and punishments.

_____________________

* Note on the theocentric model and anthropocentric scholarship model.

In the previous post I referenced the theocentric model of scholarship. This is also known as the God-centered model. It stresses an individual’s relationship with God. It assumes all interpretations of faith and scripture stem from this relationship.

In comparison, the anthropocentric, or humanistic-centered, model of scholarship emphasizes the cultural values and the behaviors of communities, i.e., the development of societies and cultures.

In an attempt at personal transparency, for the first two decades my faith was based on the theocentric model. I believed that God handed down the “dos and don’ts of life” through the scriptures. My main purpose was to develop a “personal relationship with Jesus.”

A shift began to take place in earnest when I started formal theological studies.

The result was a maturation of faith, much as Paul wrote.

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I understood like a child, and I thought like a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 

1 Corinthians 13:11

Simply put, my worldview about the Christian faith changed from the theocentric model to an anthropocentric one.

The transition would take some time but, ultimately, it personally provided me a sustained deep inner-peace never experienced before.

This peace was settled on the fact that man was not made in god’s image. In fact, over time man had fashioned gods in man’s image.

In other words, they made this shit up.

Read Emerging Christian Myths, Pt. 5

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