O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
I have been thinking about the following two issues:
1) Israel going into captivity was their death, implying they were alife before then. The parousia was resurrection from Adam's death yet was the expectation of Israel to return from exile.
2) Jesus in Matt 23 said Jerusalem would be guilty of all the blood shed from Abel. Now how and why would God hold Jerusalem for the blood of Abel?
I have been thinking that maybe Adam is actually Israel. Implying the creation story is post exilic and is actually and truly the story of being expelled from Canaan and the hope for return from exile.
Is there any merit in this or how can it be proved wrong?
Here's my 2 cents contribution toward your second point. Remember, it's not just all the blood shed from Abel - it's particularly all the righteous blood shed from Abel to Zacharias. These "righteous" ones who were killed were composed of those who by faith were considered by God to be IN CHRIST from Abel's time forward.
If Jerusalem's leaders were guilty of killing Christ, as Stephen testified in Acts 7:52, then they were in essence guilty of killing everyone who was IN CHRIST their representative. Similarly, if a modern-day nation should kill the ambassador of another country while he or she is a guest visiting that nation, this is the equivalent of an offense against that ambassador's entire country which they represented, resulting in severe consequences.
At least that's my take on that one point. Does that make any sense?
I hear where you are coming from but at the moment seems a bit of a stretch. I look at the parables of Jesus and I see the guilt of Israel being of actually killing God's messangers directly.
But will keep that option at the back of my mind
Certainly, no one could possibly deny that Israel killed God's messengers directly. Their continual history of doing so was brought up by Stephen's Acts 7:52 testimony, ("Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute?...), and Christ himself in Luke 13:34 and elsewhere (" O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets..."). We have also the testimony in Revelation 18:24 of the harlot's (Jerusalem's) guilt for the slain blood of prophets and saints.
But your question was directed more towards how Israel could be guilty of all the righteous blood shed on the earth before the nation of Israel had ever existed. This is where my two-cent explanation attempted to give a reason that would fit: i.e. guilt incurred by killing the corporate head (Christ) that represented all the slain righteous ones who were IN HIM.
I would grant you that there is a definite pattern repeated since creation of an exiled condition followed by a return. But this need not indicate that there is only one event in view that is being pictured in metaphoric style.
This is where my two-cent explanation attempted to give a reason that would fit
As I indicated, this was not just an innocent question but one with a catch to it. Thus having two option either that Adam was a real person or that the story about Adam is actually about Israel, which veiw holds more sway. Thats what Im wondering. So I kinda need a knockout punch.
Im also considering that resurrection was achieved by taking out the law, yet resurrection is undoing what was lost in Adam. This would suggest Adam had the law, yet we know tha law came through Moses. So could it be that Adam is actually Israel.
There are various threads of thoughts in my head but they seem to point towards the same direction. Thus I just need a strong explaination to the contrary or an affirmation that these are valid lines of thought.
Quiet interesting and exciting to realise that my thoughts are not perculiar to me. I somehow didnt get a preterist feel to the articles and wonder about the authors eschatological views.
I think these questions of mine are more forceful for preterists. I assume there are preterists who believe that Adam was an individual or some prototype but not that he actually was Israel. I am wondering whether any other Adam other than Adam being Israel results in a coherent theology.
Should there be those who do not see Adam as actually Israel I am curious as to how they have a consitent theology from beginnings to endings, the entrance of the law into the world, death in Adam, death of Israel into exile and resurrection.
This becomes particularly interesting for me as a futurist, since without Adam distinct from Israel I wonder whether I can remain a futurist.