I've been meaning to comment on your last few posts but have fallen behind. Sorry about that. So much to say, but let me start with this...
When Luke writes, "There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” >> ... how should a Christian today read those words? Is this describing what already happened... or what will happen -- or is happening -- right now?
Without doubt, this should be read as something that is absolutely fulfilled in 70AD in it's ENTIRETY, it is definitely a past event. And even then, it should be pointed out that this was NOT a condemnation of Judaism itself, but rather hypocrisy (which is a human condition that effects us all, not one particular group).
In terms of the possibility of "dual fulfillment", if there was a second fulfillment coming future to us, it seems quite clear to me that it would the wrath of God towards the Christian church, which now shares the stature with the global State authorities that the Jewish elites once did. Although hypocrisy remains in every group and religion, the Christian church now enjoys the very wealth and prosperity that blinds from the original teachings of Christ, this being the state of comfort that Revelation warned about to the church at Loadicea.
But particularly regarding Matthew chapters 23-25, this was all fulfilled against the religious elites and the zealouts at the time. I will actually still yet be adding a section to this page getting more into how the temple was erected in coordination with Rome, some really good extra info I have come into which will help round this section out.
And the "eternal life" and "eternal punishment" mentioned at the end of Matthew 25 should be absolutely NOT read as ACTUALLY "eternal" but rather, as was the case in all such old testament language, read as permanent destruction of those who lived inconsistently with their own stated values
Thanks. But let me ask: when your add this post to the Notes section, and add this teaser -- “When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies…” -- do you honestly believe most people will lean in for a 2,000-year-old history lesson?
Also: Jerusalem "getting trampled until the time of the Gentiles has been fulfilled" -- what is the Second Coming if not a way of saying, "the Glory of the Story is not yet completely fulfilled; more to come"?
Point well taken, I can see how that would be misunderstood. I had reasoned to myself that mentioning Jesus son of Ananias in the title would mitigate against that, but you're probably right that it's probably not enough, another good reason I appreciate readers like you! I changed the title in the notes now. Also too, please note at the beginning of this article, I discuss how Jesus was not warning against Judaism itself, but rather hypocrisy.
And regarding the "second coming", as the next sections will show, that actually happened at AD70 also. Jesus did indeed "come on the clouds of heaven" in judgment at AD70. Further sections will explain how "the time of the Gentiles" was indeed fulfilled/started past AD70. Does that make sense? We've been living in the "time of the Gentiles" for the last 2,000 years.
It no doubt will be a shock to many readers, but the "second coming of Christ" came with the judgment against the hypocrisy of the religious elites and the temple in AD70.
Further dual fulfillment "comings" (judgments) are possible, but it could not be directed towards Judaism or Jewish elites because, as a someone I heard recently commented online: "The protestants rule the world." (ie: "the time of the Gentiles" is what we live in, and the hypocrisy of the Christian church throughout the world is the greatest of hypcrisies by far)
As I read your posts, I'm regularly reminded of something I think AJ Heschel wrote in "Israel: An Echo of Eternity." I can't find the exact quote, but it says something like this: Most of the time, the Bible doesn't speak metaphorically or allegorically. It says what it means. Jerusalem is not a heavenly city or a place in your heart of some future utopia; Jerusalem is that city you can visit, right now, today, just southeast of Tel Aviv. Bread is what you get when you mix flour, yeast, and water. Wine is what you get when you squeeze and ferment grape juice. Only when the language is clearly symbolic -- "G*d's hand stretched out..." -- we're not supposed to think four fingers and a thumb.
So much of our confusion, I think, comes from an allegorization of the Bible. When we read about Jerusalem "getting trampled until the time of the Gentiles has been fulfilled," you need to work hard to remind people to read allegorically. That the actual words are pointing to something else, somewhere else, someone else. That the words don't mean precisely what they say. The result is that so much of what I see in the New Testament is language that you say is supposed to indict ALL of us, yet it requires the sort of interpretation that I'm afraid is generally beyond what most people are inclined to embrace... especially with Jews still wandering around among us.
I've always been fascinated by the Mormons. They took the Jesus story, and asked: What does a Jewish carpenter who lived on the other side of the world have to do with us and our struggles. And so Joseph Smith comes up with a Story that turns North America into center stage. I'm not defending the theology. But the Storytelling is top shelf.
The belief that everything happened, everything was fulfilled, everything was consummated 2,000 years ago is essentially saying: The Big Stuff already happened. You've arrived at the party rather late. And I'm afraid that can rub some people the wrong way. ... I'm babbling here. What I'm trying to say is that Jerusalem "getting trampled until the time of the Gentiles has been fulfilled" seems to scream (to me, anyway): "Look! Jerusalem is about to get trampled yet again, and our Time, as Gentiles, has not yet been fulfilled because the Second Coming is yet to come. Glory be to G*d!"
Shorter version: Jerusalem "getting trampled until the time of the Gentiles has been fulfilled" is language that sounds a lot like: "Sure, Jerusalem will get trampled again and again, and if a lot of people get killed during the trampling, well, that's all part of the glory of the Story."
I hope and pray we can rediscover a Story that doesn't call for more human sacrifice.
"it requires the sort of interpretation that I'm afraid is generally beyond what most people are inclined to embrace... especially with Jews still wandering around among us."
It is indeed a difficult task... just getting to the point where I could write this series required so much blood, sweat, and tears. Yet it seems to me those who refuse to think more deeply (most of christendom) quite ironically end up becoming those very Pharisees that they claim to be against. The irony of it all is pretty terrible.
"What I'm trying to say is that Jerusalem "getting trampled until the time of the Gentiles has been fulfilled" seems to scream (to me, anyway): "Look! Jerusalem is about to get trampled yet again, and our Time, as Gentiles, has not yet been fulfilled because the Second Coming is yet to come. Glory be to G*d!"
Yes, and it seems to me that the only way to mitigate this is tell the story in it's proper context. Since understanding the Bible this way, it has opened up to me in a way that I have never known my whole life, and all I want is just for those who have "ears to hear" (who are open to this way of understanding) to have a chance to understand it. IMHO, it brings a profound respect to history, to Judaism, Christianity, and the unfolding story, while simutaneously not allowing for short-sighted bigotry, which is common.
The title of the next chapter is: "VV#60 - ANNIHILATION - The "Second Coming" and the "Lake of Fire" at AD70"
"I hope and pray we can rediscover a Story that doesn't call for more human sacrifice."
And that is precisely where I believe the story ends (and begins again). But you cannot get there without understanding the past properly.
Re: "a profound respect to history, to Judaism, Christianity, and the unfolding story," -- I understand. And as I think I've mentioned before, I find your interpretation quite compelling, but I stumble upon the story of Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, Isaac and Ishmael. Because your reading ignores Islam -- more than a billion people who must be written off as deluded for your Glory of the Story to cohere.
I recently asked an Episcopalian minister to give me his interpretation of the Ishmael story. He said it was nothing more than a married couple dealing with the struggles of infertility; and it was most certainly not about Ishmael becoming the progenitor of Islam. Because if he went down that narrative path, then his Story begins to fall apart. Me? I love that Ishmael story, for it prompts the question that has long mesmerized me: Why screw up the family tree -- which son gets the blessing? -- right at the very beginning?
I should not say “fault” like that, but rather “shortcomings”. And no one nation is anything, but rather different nations seem to play different roles at different times
I've been meaning to comment on your last few posts but have fallen behind. Sorry about that. So much to say, but let me start with this...
When Luke writes, "There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” >> ... how should a Christian today read those words? Is this describing what already happened... or what will happen -- or is happening -- right now?
And just to be clear, I should make sure you have read this beginning part, which is really important for the broader story:
https://open.substack.com/pub/thevitalvillain/p/the-vital-villain-2-power-and-prestige?r=2rvuja&utm_medium=ios
Without doubt, this should be read as something that is absolutely fulfilled in 70AD in it's ENTIRETY, it is definitely a past event. And even then, it should be pointed out that this was NOT a condemnation of Judaism itself, but rather hypocrisy (which is a human condition that effects us all, not one particular group).
In terms of the possibility of "dual fulfillment", if there was a second fulfillment coming future to us, it seems quite clear to me that it would the wrath of God towards the Christian church, which now shares the stature with the global State authorities that the Jewish elites once did. Although hypocrisy remains in every group and religion, the Christian church now enjoys the very wealth and prosperity that blinds from the original teachings of Christ, this being the state of comfort that Revelation warned about to the church at Loadicea.
But particularly regarding Matthew chapters 23-25, this was all fulfilled against the religious elites and the zealouts at the time. I will actually still yet be adding a section to this page getting more into how the temple was erected in coordination with Rome, some really good extra info I have come into which will help round this section out.
And the "eternal life" and "eternal punishment" mentioned at the end of Matthew 25 should be absolutely NOT read as ACTUALLY "eternal" but rather, as was the case in all such old testament language, read as permanent destruction of those who lived inconsistently with their own stated values
Thanks. But let me ask: when your add this post to the Notes section, and add this teaser -- “When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies…” -- do you honestly believe most people will lean in for a 2,000-year-old history lesson?
Also: Jerusalem "getting trampled until the time of the Gentiles has been fulfilled" -- what is the Second Coming if not a way of saying, "the Glory of the Story is not yet completely fulfilled; more to come"?
Point well taken, I can see how that would be misunderstood. I had reasoned to myself that mentioning Jesus son of Ananias in the title would mitigate against that, but you're probably right that it's probably not enough, another good reason I appreciate readers like you! I changed the title in the notes now. Also too, please note at the beginning of this article, I discuss how Jesus was not warning against Judaism itself, but rather hypocrisy.
And regarding the "second coming", as the next sections will show, that actually happened at AD70 also. Jesus did indeed "come on the clouds of heaven" in judgment at AD70. Further sections will explain how "the time of the Gentiles" was indeed fulfilled/started past AD70. Does that make sense? We've been living in the "time of the Gentiles" for the last 2,000 years.
It no doubt will be a shock to many readers, but the "second coming of Christ" came with the judgment against the hypocrisy of the religious elites and the temple in AD70.
Further dual fulfillment "comings" (judgments) are possible, but it could not be directed towards Judaism or Jewish elites because, as a someone I heard recently commented online: "The protestants rule the world." (ie: "the time of the Gentiles" is what we live in, and the hypocrisy of the Christian church throughout the world is the greatest of hypcrisies by far)
Thanks for your reply...
As I read your posts, I'm regularly reminded of something I think AJ Heschel wrote in "Israel: An Echo of Eternity." I can't find the exact quote, but it says something like this: Most of the time, the Bible doesn't speak metaphorically or allegorically. It says what it means. Jerusalem is not a heavenly city or a place in your heart of some future utopia; Jerusalem is that city you can visit, right now, today, just southeast of Tel Aviv. Bread is what you get when you mix flour, yeast, and water. Wine is what you get when you squeeze and ferment grape juice. Only when the language is clearly symbolic -- "G*d's hand stretched out..." -- we're not supposed to think four fingers and a thumb.
So much of our confusion, I think, comes from an allegorization of the Bible. When we read about Jerusalem "getting trampled until the time of the Gentiles has been fulfilled," you need to work hard to remind people to read allegorically. That the actual words are pointing to something else, somewhere else, someone else. That the words don't mean precisely what they say. The result is that so much of what I see in the New Testament is language that you say is supposed to indict ALL of us, yet it requires the sort of interpretation that I'm afraid is generally beyond what most people are inclined to embrace... especially with Jews still wandering around among us.
I've always been fascinated by the Mormons. They took the Jesus story, and asked: What does a Jewish carpenter who lived on the other side of the world have to do with us and our struggles. And so Joseph Smith comes up with a Story that turns North America into center stage. I'm not defending the theology. But the Storytelling is top shelf.
The belief that everything happened, everything was fulfilled, everything was consummated 2,000 years ago is essentially saying: The Big Stuff already happened. You've arrived at the party rather late. And I'm afraid that can rub some people the wrong way. ... I'm babbling here. What I'm trying to say is that Jerusalem "getting trampled until the time of the Gentiles has been fulfilled" seems to scream (to me, anyway): "Look! Jerusalem is about to get trampled yet again, and our Time, as Gentiles, has not yet been fulfilled because the Second Coming is yet to come. Glory be to G*d!"
Shorter version: Jerusalem "getting trampled until the time of the Gentiles has been fulfilled" is language that sounds a lot like: "Sure, Jerusalem will get trampled again and again, and if a lot of people get killed during the trampling, well, that's all part of the glory of the Story."
I hope and pray we can rediscover a Story that doesn't call for more human sacrifice.
"it requires the sort of interpretation that I'm afraid is generally beyond what most people are inclined to embrace... especially with Jews still wandering around among us."
It is indeed a difficult task... just getting to the point where I could write this series required so much blood, sweat, and tears. Yet it seems to me those who refuse to think more deeply (most of christendom) quite ironically end up becoming those very Pharisees that they claim to be against. The irony of it all is pretty terrible.
"What I'm trying to say is that Jerusalem "getting trampled until the time of the Gentiles has been fulfilled" seems to scream (to me, anyway): "Look! Jerusalem is about to get trampled yet again, and our Time, as Gentiles, has not yet been fulfilled because the Second Coming is yet to come. Glory be to G*d!"
Yes, and it seems to me that the only way to mitigate this is tell the story in it's proper context. Since understanding the Bible this way, it has opened up to me in a way that I have never known my whole life, and all I want is just for those who have "ears to hear" (who are open to this way of understanding) to have a chance to understand it. IMHO, it brings a profound respect to history, to Judaism, Christianity, and the unfolding story, while simutaneously not allowing for short-sighted bigotry, which is common.
The title of the next chapter is: "VV#60 - ANNIHILATION - The "Second Coming" and the "Lake of Fire" at AD70"
"I hope and pray we can rediscover a Story that doesn't call for more human sacrifice."
And that is precisely where I believe the story ends (and begins again). But you cannot get there without understanding the past properly.
The story ends where it began. Not with "the Jews" (or anyone else), but rather with Eden. Do you know that quote by TS Elliot?
"And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time."
That one?
Re: "a profound respect to history, to Judaism, Christianity, and the unfolding story," -- I understand. And as I think I've mentioned before, I find your interpretation quite compelling, but I stumble upon the story of Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, Isaac and Ishmael. Because your reading ignores Islam -- more than a billion people who must be written off as deluded for your Glory of the Story to cohere.
I recently asked an Episcopalian minister to give me his interpretation of the Ishmael story. He said it was nothing more than a married couple dealing with the struggles of infertility; and it was most certainly not about Ishmael becoming the progenitor of Islam. Because if he went down that narrative path, then his Story begins to fall apart. Me? I love that Ishmael story, for it prompts the question that has long mesmerized me: Why screw up the family tree -- which son gets the blessing? -- right at the very beginning?
Sarah's "fault"? Nah. A necessary plot point for the glory of the story.
Which nation(s) do you think is/are the black sheep?
I should not say “fault” like that, but rather “shortcomings”. And no one nation is anything, but rather different nations seem to play different roles at different times