Volunteer Imaging
Here is a theory which needs work and involves a sort of liberal view of the Old Testament:
Various people and peoples through history have volunteered themselves as God’s representative(s) on earth. God lets them have a go at that for a while. From time to time there are crisis points, when there is a face-off between the volunteers and their enemies. At these points God steps in and either vindicates the volunteers as his true representatives, or visibly rejects them and ‘promotes’ the enemies.
This notion came to me when I came across Ezekiel 31, where Assyria and Egypt almost seem like proto-Israels, that is, proto-True-Adams.
I learned this morning that President Bush once declared that his favourite political philosopher was Jesus Christ, and I wonder if I can use this theory to predict future calamity for the United States.
[Update in response to a comment from John]
It’s possible this whole idea won’t prove helpful, it’s very sketchy at this point. Here is where the liberalness comes in: The theory is that Isaiah & Ezekiel are speaking from Israel’s POV as The Chosen One, but from say Babylon’s POV perhaps there was a time when they thought the same thing about themselves. This occured to me when I noticed Babylon (Ez 17) and Egypt (Ez 31) are described using the language of big tree with lots of birds nesting in it’s branches. Langauge which is later used by Jesus to describe the kingdom of God. So that makes me think perhaps those countries were in a way failed attempts at being the kingdom of God. And then I think, well did God fail? No, it was people grasping towards Him but failing in the end, after a promising start. Like with Israel – they were rejected in the end, did God fail? No, Israel did.
The imaging stuff comes from my idea that the most basic fact of people’s and peoples’ existance is that they are “made in the image of God”, which I understand to mean “made to image God”, that is “made to represent God”.
21 responses to “Volunteer Imaging”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
wow so indie, predicting calamity for the US
i think this is intelectual vertigo
Intellectual vertigo is never accompanied by sarcasm.
nor is it exclaimed with poor spelling.
nor is it exclaimed against without an appropriate verb-modifying preposition
Nor is its exclamation exlcaimed against with a pretentious correction of grammar or diction.
alas, you are correct tim (as often is the case).
sorry dan; please forgive my correction of your syntax. it was both pretentious and x, where x is an appropriate adjective.
If there’s one thing you don’t get me started on, it’s pretentiousness. You, of all people, should know that, Richard.
face,
Use of the semicolon adds to pretentiousness; I recommend less of it.
Prepare to be delteated all, for my precious site into an MSN-level conversation.
Matthew, on a more serious note, in relation to your imaging theory, I don’t understand the whole emphasis on “imaging” and where you got it from, and the parts that I think I understand I don’t agree with.
To my mind, the Assyrians were not imaging God or holding themselves as his “representatives” but were his unwitting tools. There was no volunteering by the Assyrians, and no conscious effort to “image” God. They were chosen and used. If you read Isaiah 10 (which like Ezekiel 31 condemns the pride of the Assyrians), it makes clear that Assyria is a tool in vv 5-7 “Ah, Assyria, the rod of my anger; the staff in their hands is my fury! Against a godless nation I send him,
and against the people of my wrath I command him… But he does not so intend, and his heart does not so think;” and even clearer in v15 “Shall the axe boast over him who hews with it, or the saw magnify itself against him who wields it? As if a rod should wield him who lifts it,or as if a staff should lift him who is not wood!” To me this says that Assyria was an unwitting tool rather than a self-styled conscious representative of God.
I see what you mean. And it’s possible this whole idea won’t prove helpful, it’s very sketchy at this point. Here is where the liberalness comes in. The theory is that Isaiah & Ezekiel are speaking from Israel’s POV as The Chosen One, but from say Babylon’s POV perhaps there was a time when they thought the same thing about themselves. This occured to me when I noticed Babylon (Ez 17) and Egypt (Ez 31) are described using the language of big tree with lots of birds nesting in it’s branches. Langauge which is later used by Jesus to describe the kingdom of God. So that makes me think perhaps those countries were in a way failed attempts at being the kingdom of God. And then I think, well did God fail? No, it was people grasping towards Him but failing in the end, after a promising start. Like with Israel – they were rejected in the end, did God fail? No, Israel did.
The imaging stuff comes from my idea that the most basic fact of people’s and peoples’ existence is that they are “made in the image of God”, which I understand to mean “made to image God”, that is “made to represent God”.
So is “imaging” a pre-existing state, an inherent part of our fabric, or is it something we aim towards in our thoughts and deeds? Was Hitler “made in the image of God”?
Yes, by which I mean – when God made Hitler He told him, as he tells each of us, “Represent Me well, Adolf, or there’ll be hell to pay”.
so obviously Hitler did not “image” God and so was not made in the image of God? Or is “image” a 2-part concept – you are created in the image, but you also have to maintain the image or you lose it, and you maintain the image by “representing” God? I get a little confused here.
‘Imaging’ in my world is a job rather than a status. Represent=image. Image=represent. If you can’t make sense of that, I’m sorry.
Sorry for what? For living? For being a web-designer?
ha.
O yeah, I’d resolved only to apologise for those things which I aim to change. What I meant was “If comment 15 is unsuccessful, I won’t keep trying to convince you of my POV, John”.
Matt, you take “made in the image of God” to mean “made to image God” which you then turn into “made to represent God”. Your ‘image=represent’ theory seems to be based on your own personal ‘take’ on the words “made in the image of God”. While I can see validity in the idea, what happens if we fail the job? Are we no longer made in God’s image? That would then seem to imply that God failed at His job of creating us in His own image. Confusing.
Apologies if that doesn’t make sense. Me not much of a philosophier.
Tim, if you appoint a representative, *you* don’t fail if your representative is treacherous. Although you will be jealous for your honour, because your treacherous representative is impugning it before others. Seems to me that’s the situation with us and God.
FWIW, even in the more traditional formula of image (righteousness, holiness and truth), that image is not mainatained after the fall. So both views must say something about why that is not *God’s* failure.
First point: I understand. Cher.
Second point: I’m sure you’re correct, but where in the Bible does it say that after the fall the image was not maintained? Could it be the case that when God forgives our sins He in fact allows us to maintain His image?