The book of Isaiah Chapter 1, verses 2 to 7, of the Bible:
Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth; for the LORD has spoken: “Children have I reared and brought up, but they have rebelled against me. (3) The ox knows its owner, and the donkey its master’s crib, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand.” (4) Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, offspring of evildoers, children who deal corruptly! They have forsaken the LORD, they have despised the Holy One of Israel, they are utterly estranged. (5) Why will you still be struck down? Why will you continue to rebel? The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. (6) From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no soundness in it, but bruises and sores and raw wounds; they are not pressed out or bound up or softened with oil. (7) Your country lies desolate; your cities are burned with fire; in your very presence foreigners devour your land; it is desolate, as overthrown by foreigners.
The worst thing that can asail a person is not so much evil done to you, but betrayal. Betrayal mostly is thought out as a Judas Iscariot type of scenario, although most of the time it does not have to be that way. I believe the hardest type of betrayal is rebellion. Rebellion basically is “a refusal to accept authority”, more appropriately linked to a previously accepted authority. Right authority. The quote from Isaiah sets the tone of the authority; it was a paternal type authority.
The logic is fairly simple; a child’s rejection of the parent’s authority. A child (Israel) who has been raised up with proper instructions and prosperity is now defiantly against the hand that fed. In reality, this might not give us much impact since we are living in an age where teenagers are called to exercise their own independence and freedom from their parents; but the imagery here is more suitable to be used for a child below his or her teens. A child at that age would not be wise enough to understand the reality of life and consequences of actions, and thus parental guidance and care is demanded, nay, necesitated. Therefore, it is utterly unacceptable for a child to consciously deny any such authority when the authority is made for the good of the child. That is the spiritual rebellion which is being potrayed by the prophet.
The message in those verses is made more true with this main point: What man create is man’s own. In the end, there is nothing significant that man can create for his (or her) self. It basically crumbles to dust. And that is a result of his (or her) rebelliousness and we should not accept it any other way.
A Creator creates for a purpose. Too often, the cariculture of God is a of a man with a sandbox or at a game of chess… but this imagery is too far from the truth as it combines a bias of linking God to the limitation of man (human) kind. If God is god, then the concept of it must transcend limitation. And again, it makes more sense to treat God as a Creator, as the trappings of a creator is more neutral. Basically, a creator creates something for a purpose. There is a design, and linked to it must be a purpose and of course, ownership. A flawed design, an unachieved purpose (resulting rom a flaw in function or execution) would mean that the created is subject to the will of the Creator to be either ‘left as it is’ or ‘destroyed & make anew’.
This concept of Creator and created is exemplified in real life. If this concept is taken as a subset (a shadow) of a bigger scope of things, then it may ‘shed’ (not reveal completely, hence the word subset) more light to the character of The Creator, which is God and His relation to the created (us creatures).
Push the logic a bit more, and the rationale (logical assessment) is clear for the case of an angry Creator. One may argue then the imagery of a human being obstinately angry over his creation as a grumpy person… which is true, because it is a human… the man (no matter how disappointed with the creation) is still by himself flawed and thus should be able to accept ‘failures’… but to translate that to God would be unrealistic, as God is not flawed (again the concept of God is transcendent of any human limitation and constraint). In fact, because of God’s natural perfection, any flaw (sin) is considered anathema (accursed) to God (e.g. a black ink dot is accursed to a white sheet of paper).
Thus, the pronouncement to Israel of the rebellion, and its appropriate consequence. There is something devastating on it… which is why a person lives basically two ways in reaction to this:
1) The person lives like there is no tomorrow (when you die, you cease any existence). Therefore, the person strives to make the best use of it and to gain more for the ‘now’, as you’ll never know when you’ll expire. In fact, that is a fatalistic approach to life. There is no hope, and does not deal with the possibility of the soul not being destroyed.
2) The person lives to go on living (does not want to die). Therefore, the person just strives to ensure life is preserved (through dieting, healthy living, balanced meals, exercising regularly & fanatically, etc.) This approach to life basically seeks to prolong whatever time we have on earth, while basically denying the fact that death is not something we can control at all. Probabilistic theory is as best chaotic.
There is basically judgment after death, if you are willing to give the Creator-created model a try logically. There must be. And if that is so, Isaiah 1 makes sense. At least it does to me.