Isaiah 65:2-5.

Numerous threads have arisen recently concerning the prophesies of Isaiah. Many of them seem to use Isaiah 65:2-5 as something like the Grand Central Station of prophetic utterance: Isaiah 65:2-5 seems to be in the very midst תוך of most of the prophetic passages that have Israel's future as the crux of the prophetic utterance. Which is to say that whenever Israel's future is in the cross-hairs of the prophesy, what we find in the mists of Isaiah 65:2-5 seems to be fancied in the very middle ---in the midst תוך ---- of Israel's past and future as though it's the present, in the middle, in the midst, of Israel's past and future.



John

John D. Brey said:

Numerous threads have arisen recently concerning the prophesies of Isaiah. Many of them seem to use Isaiah 65:2-5 as something like the Grand Central Station of prophetic utterance: Isaiah 65:2-5 seems to be in the very midst תוך of most of the prophetic passages that have Israel's future as the crux of the prophetic utterance. Which is to say that whenever Israel's future is in the cross-hairs of the prophesy, what we find in the mists of Isaiah 65:2-5 seems to be fancied in the very middle ---in the midst תוך ---- of Israel's past and future as though it's the present, in the middle, in the midst, of Israel's past and future.

Click to expand...

Isaiah (Yeshayah) is, as Rabbi Hirsch's son Julius points out, not a historian except to the profane readers of his treatise. Every word uttered in his prophesy is of a divine origin, and has meaning and significance for all time to come. Yes, the divine message may be hidden beneath a historical epoch, a history lesson, or narrative (ala the Torah), but as the Zohar expounds, Woe betides those who read the wine-skin, try to drink the wine-skin, while pouring the wine out on the ground.

Every reading of Isaiah that leans too heavily on the historical narrative covers up the divine element of the prophesy hidden in the very midst of the historical narrative. And since the historical narrative is so often centered on Israel, and her history, only the laxest exegete would fail to realize that the deepest and most meaningful prophesies of Isaiah find themselves centered on the very center of Israel's history as a nation, which is to say, in the very midst of Israel's natural history--- centered as it is in the middle of her past and future.


John

John D. Brey said:

Numerous threads have arisen recently concerning the prophesies of Isaiah. Many of them seem to use Isaiah 65:2-5 as something like the Grand Central Station of prophetic utterance: Isaiah 65:2-5 seems to be in the very midst תוך of most of the prophetic passages that have Israel's future as the crux of the prophetic utterance. Which is to say that whenever Israel's future is in the cross-hairs of the prophesy, what we find in the mists of Isaiah 65:2-5 seems to be fancied in the very middle ---in the midst תוך ---- of Israel's past and future as though it's the present, in the middle, in the midst, of Israel's past and future.John

Click to expand...

However, since Pentecost, the Israel of God, is No longer natural fleshly Israel but ' spiritual Israel '
Jerusalem 'above' is now the seat of government for the international Christian congregation - Galatians 4:26
Spiritual Israel or the Christian congregation a spiritual nation no matter where located on Earth.
A spiritual nation that is Not found located on any map and has No borders or boundaries.
- see 1 Peter 2:9; 1 Peter 2:5
You might find Isaiah 65:8-9 to be of interest.

Simply in terms of the context of the time it was written as a part of the Tankh Hebrew scripture it refers to the Hebrews and their falling away and disobedience to God commandments, and of course in context of scripture the consequences.

John D. Brey said:

Every reading of Isaiah that leans too heavily on the historical narrative covers up the divine element of the prophesy hidden in the very midst of the historical narrative. And since the historical narrative is so often centered on Israel, and her history, only the laxest exegete would fail to realize that the deepest and most meaningful prophesies of Isaiah find themselves centered on the very center of Israel's history as a nation, which is to say, in the very midst of Israel's natural history--- centered as it is in the middle of her past and future.

Click to expand...

The foregoing statement hides a prophetic inference of its own; an inference which if true, becomes something like a blood-stained mezuzah on the very doorpost, entrance, to the deepest vein's of Isaiah's divine narrative since it implies that when Isaiah is speaking of the great sign in the midst of Israel (Isaiah 66:17-19) he's speaking of a sign, an event, that's in the very center, the midst, of Israel's natural (pre-Kingdom) history.

If Abraham's circumcision is the start of the Jewish people/nation, and if Abraham died in 1975 BCE at the age of 175 (Wikipedia), and was circumcised at 99 (Genesis 17), then the people/nation of Israel started somewhere around 2051 BCE. And since this examination is taking place in the year of our Lord 2021, the inference that we're nearing the end of the age would situate the center of the history, i.e., the midst of Israel (events in their midst ---the mist of their history) somewhere around the first century of the current era, which is about the time the Talmud claims the doors of the temple began opening up on their own, and the strip of cloth associated with the scapegoat quit turning white.



John

shunyadragon said:

Simply in terms of the context of the time it was written as a part of the Tankh Hebrew scripture it refers to the Hebrews and their falling away and disobedience to God commandments, and of course in context of scripture the consequences.

Click to expand...

Agreed. But there are numerous falling-aways associated with Israel's natural history. What I suspect Isaiah is talking about when he talks about the granddaddy of falling-aways, is the one that takes place in midst of Israel, and in the midst of Israel's natural history as a nation.

The divine revelation concerning Israel would then be found if only we could know where the midst of her history is. And if we were so pretentious as to portend the nearing of the end of the age, then simple math could give us the central time of the nation of Israel, such that we might look there for the central sign of Deutero-Isaiah.



John

John D. Brey said:

The divine revelation concerning Israel would then be found if only we could know where the midst of her history is. And if we were so pretentious as to portend the nearing of the end of the age, then simple math could give us the central time of the nation of Israel, such that we might look there for the central sign of Deutero-Isaiah.

Click to expand...

I quoted Julius Hirsch pointing out that according to the Talmud, Megilla 14a, no true prophetic utterance relates primarily to the time of writing, or a historical event of the past, specifically to suggest that what's good for the goose, in this case Isaiah, is good for the gander, say Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and all the other prophets.

Whereas we find Rashi, and the Jewish sages, trying to relate the statements of the aforementioned prophets to the historical narrative that presumably hides the true divine utterance inside the relating of a historical event, we suspect they're (Rashi and the sages) merely protecting their tradition and it's understanding of these things, by not allowing the removal of the outer garment (the historical narrative) that would make the divine revelation, His arm as it were, too nakedly visible to those outside Israel, which is to say, the nations.



John

URAVIP2ME said:

However, since Pentecost, the Israel of God, is No longer natural fleshly Israel but ' spiritual Israel '
Jerusalem 'above' is now the seat of government for the international Christian congregation - Galatians 4:26
Spiritual Israel or the Christian congregation a spiritual nation no matter where located on Earth.
A spiritual nation that is Not found located on any map and has No borders or boundaries.
- see 1 Peter 2:9; 1 Peter 2:5
You might find Isaiah 65:8-9 to be of interest.

Click to expand...

I don't think the "spiritual Israel" you note can exist without "Israel after the flesh." Otherwise the latter wouldn't have been needed, and wouldn't have come before, historically speaking, the former.

So while I understand the complete scriptural legitimacy you speak of, I don't think it's the whole story.

This thread is concerned with what the late Paul Harvey would have called, the rest of the story.



John

John D. Brey said:

I don't think the "spiritual Israel" you note can exist without "Israel after the flesh." Otherwise the latter wouldn't have been needed, and wouldn't have come before, historically speaking, the former.
So while I understand the complete scriptural legitimacy you speak of, I don't think it's the whole story.
This thread is concerned with what the late Paul Harvey would have called, the rest of the story. John

Click to expand...

Yes, fleshly-national Israel comes first, then came -> Romans 2:28-29.
After Pentecost, then both Jew and non-Jew can both become part of the spiritual nation of spiritual Israel.
Yes, Paul Harvey (RIP) the rest of the story. After his resurrection he will be part of the nation of spiritual Israel.

URAVIP2ME said:

Yes, fleshly-national Israel comes first, then came -> Romans 2:28-29.
After Pentecost, then both Jew and non-Jew can both become part of the spiritual nation of spiritual Israel.

Click to expand...

What about the Jew and non-Jew who lived, and were god-fearers, before Christ?

The scripture seems to imply that Christ was hidden, really hidden, from Israel. Which could imply that today non-Christian Jews are just as much a part of the commonwealth of believers as they were before Christ.

If, as Paul of Tarsus implies, a supernatural veil is over the eyes of Israel, then Israel is under duress and cannot be expected to see what's withheld from their eyes. If God is the cause of the duress, then his actions appear to be beyond our ken such that we would do well to tread lightly where these things are concerned.

For my part, I could say I've been educated and edified, motivated and graciously guided, by non-Christian Jews, even more than I have by my Christian mentors. Rabbi Hirsch has taught me more than even Martin Luther. Though I consider both great and beloved mentors. Not withstanding Luther's brilliance, from where I stand he doesn't rise to the level of Hebrew exegete that Ibn Ezra does.



John

John D. Brey said:

Agreed. But there are numerous falling-aways associated with Israel's natural history. What I suspect Isaiah is talking about when he talks about the granddaddy of falling-aways, is the one that takes place in midst of Israel, and in the midst of Israel's natural history as a nation.

The divine revelation concerning Israel would then be found if only we could know where the midst of her history is. And if we were so pretentious as to portend the nearing of the end of the age, then simple math could give us the central time of the nation of Israel, such that we might look there for the central sign of Deutero-Isaiah.



John

Click to expand...

I believe that the interpretation of these verses cannot reasonable go beyond the relationship between God and the Hebrews in history.

John D. Brey said:

If Abraham's circumcision is the start of the Jewish people/nation, and if Abraham died in 1975 BCE at the age of 175 (Wikipedia), and was circumcised at 99 (Genesis 17), then the people/nation of Israel started somewhere around 2051 BCE. And since this examination is taking place in the year of our Lord 2021, the inference that we're nearing the end of the age would situate the center of the history, i.e., the midst of Israel (events in their midst ---the mist of their history) somewhere around the first century of the current era, which is about the time the Talmud claims the doors of the temple began opening up on their own, and the strip of cloth associated with the scapegoat quit turning white.

Click to expand...

John

I just did an internet search for "random book passage" and found the following on randompassages.com. The first quote wasn't appropriate for younger readers so I took the second entry:

I could interpret this as a Christian prophecy as follows: The "first part of your life" is the history of humanity up until the crucifixion of Christ, when we realized we had "lost" our happiness in the form of the perfect son of god. Then came the "second age," when we realized our salvation had never been assured but was contingent on our faith in Jesus. "Belle" refers to this modern age. Clearly, the "third age" refers to the tribulation of the end times, when our clinging to earthly happiness may prevent us from achieving eternal life. Thus the time of the first covenant, the death and resurrection of Jesus, and the end times are foretold with supernatural accuracy. There's no way mere man could have made such a precise prediction.

Do you see how easy this is? How useless and uninformative it actually is?

For a prophecy to be credible, it should:

1. Be intended as a prophecy when written
2. Be written before the supposed fulfillment of the prophecy
3. Be very specific and fulfillable by only one single clear event at a specific time, place, and circumstance
4. Be fulfilled by this specific, single event
5. Not be achievable simply by people working toward fulfilling it
6. Not be subject to reasonable different interpretations

No prophecy I've seen in the Bible meets these basic criteria. Even then, if there's a match, how do you rule out coincidence? Educated guess? A time traveler? Aliens playing pranks? Natural emanations from a wormhole? Or any other infinite number of alternate explanations that are not the Christian god?

It is hard to express in words how unconvincing this is to someone who doesn't already believe in prophecies, or who doesn't believe in your faith, or who simply interprets a scriptural passage differently. There's just no utility here.

shunyadragon said:

I believe that the interpretation of these verses cannot reasonable go beyond the relationship between God and the Hebrews in history.

Click to expand...

I think we're on the same sheet of music. But what I attempted to imply is that according to the Talmud, Megilla 14a, when a prophet prophesies, the divine element of the prophesy is never subsumed in relaying the natural historical narrative come from the prophet such that the divine element of the prophesy is alive and well long after history minded exegetes, focusing on a historical event, tie that event to the words of the prophet.

For example, we read in Jeremiah 4:15-17:


Jewish exegetes, thinking this prophesy occurred prior to the midst of Israel's natural history (prior to the first century CE) are wont to interpret "Nazarenes" (and from nations outside Israel) as "watchers" (as is found in the MT and the KJV). Whereas we who know the divine element isn't subsumed in some baser rebellion of Israel, and some lesser threat from God, can look at the word "Nazarenes" and realize we find the word in a parallel passage in Isaiah speaking of the same event in the midst of Israel's natural history:


The later interpretation of Isaiah 65:2-5, based on the naked Hebrew text (ketib), lends itself to Jeremiah 4:15-17, as the latter lends itself to Isaiah 65:2-5, both of which are clarified by a proper interpretation of Isaiah 66:17-19, which is vouchsafed and made nearly undeniable by statements found in Lamentations chapter 4. Just like Isaiah 65:2-5, Isaiah 66:17 speaks of:




John

John D. Brey said:

They that sanctify themselves and purify themselves in the gardens, set apart [sanctified], from a unique tree hidden in the midst of the pork-eaters, i.e., the cultist-abomination שקץ and the glory כבד, that shall be caught up and consumed together saith the Lord.​

Click to expand...

John

AlexanderG said:

I just did an internet search for "random book passage" and found the following on randompassages.com. The first quote wasn't appropriate for younger readers so I took the second entry:

"During the first part of your life, you only become aware of happiness once you have lost it. Then an age comes, a second one, in which you already know, at the moment when you begin to experience true happiness, that you are, at the end of the day, going to lose it. When I met Belle, I understood that I had just entered this second age. I also understood that I hadn’t reached the third age, in which anticipation of the loss of happiness prevents you from living." - From "The Possibility of an Island"
​

I could interpret this as a Christian prophecy as follows: The "first part of your life" is the history of humanity up until the crucifixion of Christ, when we realized we had "lost" our happiness in the form of the perfect son of god. Then came the "second age," when we realized our salvation had never been assured but was contingent on our faith in Jesus. "Belle" refers to this modern age. Clearly, the "third age" refers to the tribulation of the end times, when our clinging to earthly happiness may prevent us from achieving eternal life. Thus the time of the first covenant, the death and resurrection of Jesus, and the end times are foretold with supernatural accuracy. There's no way mere man could have made such a precise prediction.

Do you see how easy this is? How useless and uninformative it actually is?

For a prophecy to be credible, it should:

1. Be intended as a prophecy when written
2. Be written before the supposed fulfillment of the prophecy
3. Be very specific and fulfillable by only one single clear event at a specific time, place, and circumstance
4. Be fulfilled by this specific, single event
5. Not be achievable simply by people working toward fulfilling it
6. Not be subject to reasonable different interpretations

No prophecy I've seen in the Bible meets these basic criteria. Even then, if there's a match, how do you rule out coincidence? Educated guess? A time traveler? Aliens playing pranks? Natural emanations from a wormhole? Or any other infinite number of alternate explanations that are not the Christian god?

It is hard to express in words how unconvincing this is to someone who doesn't already believe in prophecies, or who doesn't believe in your faith, or who simply interprets a scriptural passage differently. There's just no utility here.

Click to expand...

And yet you did a great job, in my opinion, not just of expressing how unconvincing this stuff is for you, but also how, nevertheless, you willingly marshaled the time and energy to express your argument clearly.

In my opinion, whomever understands your argument knows that in context it's correct. And I think I understand your argument and its correctness.

Unfortunately faith is not fully accountable to logic and reasonable thought, partly since, as Popper showed, they are not ----logic and reasonable thought are not ----themselves a self-consistent means of arriving at anything like truth.

Exegeting scripture correctly isn't a science, though it requires it, or fully logical within a general understanding of logic, nor reasonable, where reasonableness is quasi-democratic.

The mature person of faith hasn't faked himself out about the legitimacy of your argument. He feels the pain of the duality between truth and logic, truth and reasonableness, truth and purported fact, as powerfully as anyone does. And yet his faith isn't blind. It's a new kind of means for perception that doesn't belong in this world, or in his physical body, but which he finds there nevertheless, perhaps as surprised and unexplained as if a pig might comprehend the jewel placed in his snout as a joke.

Perhaps faith is placed in some of us as a joke; just like we might place a pearl of great value in a pig's snout as a joke? Irregardless, this little piggy intends to cash it in for every penny it's worth so that then the joke will be on whomever put it there on a misplaced whim.




John

John D. Brey said:

The mature person of faith hasn't faked himself out about the legitimacy of your argument. He feels the pain of the duality between truth and logic, truth and reasonableness, truth and purported fact, as powerfully as anyone does. And yet his faith isn't blind. It's a new kind of means for perception that doesn't belong in this world, or in his physical body, but which he finds there nevertheless, perhaps as surprised and unexplained as if a pig might comprehend the jewel placed in his snout as a joke.

Click to expand...

In its genius, Judaism has dealt with this conundrum brilliantly through the concept of "lishmah." The concept of "lishmah" implies that all things done for the sake of truth must be done for the sake of truth alone, regardless of what might come from it.

Say you do something for the sake of truth and get a reward. So you do it more because you like the reward. But then you do something for the sake of truth and get a kick in the teeth. So you don't like doing that for the sake of truth so much.

Any thought or action related to truth must be done for the sake of truth itself and not for any reward or hardship that comes from it. In this way we can pursue truth without weighing out whether it's good for us, or bad for us.

A person who accepts that truth can only be pursued lishmah, can, if he truly accepts that as the mezuzah into the house of true knowing, be trusted to handle truth to the degree he's willing and able to sacrifice everything for the sake of truth.



John

John D. Brey said:

And yet you did a great job, in my opinion, not just of expressing how unconvincing this stuff is for you, but also how, nevertheless, you willingly marshaled the time and energy to express your argument clearly.

In my opinion, whomever understands your argument knows that in context it's correct. And I think I understand your argument and its correctness.

Unfortunately faith is not fully accountable to logic and reasonable thought, partly since, as Popper showed, they are not ----logic and reasonable thought are not ----themselves a self-consistent means of arriving at anything like truth.

Exegeting scripture correctly isn't a science, though it requires it, or fully logical within a general understanding of logic, nor reasonable, where reasonableness is quasi-democratic.

The mature person of faith hasn't faked himself out about the legitimacy of your argument. He feels the pain of the duality between truth and logic, truth and reasonableness, truth and purported fact, as powerfully as anyone does. And yet his faith isn't blind. It's a new kind of means for perception that doesn't belong in this world, or in his physical body, but which he finds there nevertheless, perhaps as surprised and unexplained as if a pig might comprehend the jewel placed in his snout as a joke.

Perhaps faith is placed in some of us as a joke; just like we might place a pearl of great value in a pig's snout as a joke? Irregardless, this little piggy intends to cash it in for every penny it's worth so that then the joke will be on whomever put it there on a misplaced whim.

John

Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply, and I commend your self awareness. Really, my thoughts on prophecy extend to religion in general. I agree with you that faith is unreasonable and illogical, and is not a reliable method to arrive at truth. I agree that scriptural interpretation is not something for which any reliable method has been discovered. One person's interpretation is seemingly as justified as anyone else's, namely not justified in any demonstrable way beyond a subjective personal appeal. It's intriguing to me that you realize this and still stick with it.

I see no use for faith and no value in its application. If I cannot use reason, logic, or reliable evidence to justify a proposed belief, then I don't believe it. How is that not the superior epistemology? For me, there is no tension between truth and logic, nor between truth and reason or truth and demonstrable facts. I have no need to struggle under this burden of cognitive dissonance because I'm am free to be intellectually honest. I'm free to set my standard uniformly and simply be reasonable about everything I believe. In particular, I can derive my own self-worth, purpose, and meaning without emotional dependency on a seemingly unreasonable doctrine. This is the freedom that comes when we leave religion behind.

Instead of squinting at vague words written thousands of years ago by people who were profoundly ignorant by today's standards, why not embrace all the knowledge and wisdom we've found between that time and our present day? There is so much more we can do and explore, and more ways to truly treat each other well, once we sever the ball and chain of bronze age sensibilities and their awkward subsequent reinterpretations. Religion and faith give us nothing we cannot get elsewhere, and it carries a lot of negative, irrational baggage that we would be better off without.

AlexanderG said:

Really, my thoughts on prophecy extend to religion in general. I agree with you that faith is unreasonable and illogical, and is not a reliable method to arrive at truth. I agree that scriptural interpretation is not something for which any reliable method has been discovered. One person's interpretation is seemingly as justified as anyone else's, namely not justified in any demonstrable way beyond a subjective personal appeal. It's intriguing to me that you realize this and still stick with it.

Click to expand...

There's a slight distinction between what I said and what you say above. My claim is that reason and logic aren't truth, nor even a path to truth. Truth is something they have no access to. They have access to facts and inductive inferences based on interpreting empirical observations, but not truth. An atheist, or at least agnostic, like yourself, i.e., Karl Popper, pointed out as much and admitted that reason and logic aren't an avenue to arrive at truth.

Faith doesn't arrive at truth. It doesn't surmise what is true. It doesn't figure out, in any way, what is true. It either accepts it, or doesn't. And if it questions the truth, or tries to test it, then faith fails and falls into reason and logic. Which is why a reasonable man, a man who lives his life by reason and logic, isn't likely to have, nor require, faith.

I see no use for faith and no value in its application. If I cannot use reason, logic, or reliable evidence to justify a proposed belief, then I don't believe it. How is that not the superior epistemology?

Click to expand...

Too much is already given in the equation. As Popper and Eccles point out in their book, The Self and Its Brain (Kant beat them to the punch), every single sight, sound, or perception, is merely the result of "theories" incorporated into the design of the genetic mechanisms that hear, see, and perceive. In other words, what you take as the real world, the simple basic truth, is in truth, the result of billions and trillions of evolutionary guesses and theories about how to interpret the blooming buzzing confusion that's the electromagnetic waves and pulses that your body, by it's genetic design, feeds up to you as the shiny attractive world you swallow hook line and sinker.

It's real, in some sense, but its a lie. It's a terrible lie. And it's faith-perception and theological thought that first got the scientific ball rolling.

In the thread we did here last year on Karl Popper, which got redacted into an essay, here, I show why all modern science is the product not of agnostics and atheists doing hard science, but that modern science is based on theological inferences suggesting that the world is lying to us. In the thread redacted into the essay I show some semantic gaffs on Popper's part that when corrected show that he concedes that modern science is a product of theological observations and inference.

For me, there is no tension between truth and logic, nor between truth and reason or truth and demonstrable facts. I have no need to struggle under this burden of cognitive dissonance because I'm am free to be intellectually honest. I'm free to set my standard uniformly and simply be reasonable about everything I believe.

Click to expand...

At one point everyone believed the earth was flat. And for good reason. And the sun looked like the same size as the moon. And it looked like they both revolved around the much larger earth. But that's an illusion that's not corrected by our natural means of perception. And Karl Popper points out that it was in fact mytho-theological reasoning that first proposed heliocentrism:


All modern science derived from theologians, priests, and mystics, who reasoned that the natural world, and the natural human body, conspire, to keep us thinking like animals who are servants of the natural world rather than like a new spiritual species endowed with the mind of God and designed to take over nature and bend it to our almost unlimited imagination and will.

In particular, I can derive my own self-worth, purpose, and meaning without emotional dependency on a seemingly unreasonable doctrine. This is the freedom that comes when we leave religion behind.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, from the perspective I'm espousing, that freedom is merely accepting slavery to nature, and to the lies served up by the genetic frame, in order to live peaceably and comfortably in what to religious minded-men has always been a broken world designed as more as a prison than a garden of Eden.

Instead of squinting at vague words written thousands of years ago by people who were profoundly ignorant by today's standards, why not embrace all the knowledge and wisdom we've found between that time and our present day? There is so much more we can do and explore, and more ways to truly treat each other well, once we sever the ball and chain of bronze age sensibilities and their awkward subsequent reinterpretations. Religion and faith give us nothing we cannot get elsewhere, and it carries a lot of negative, irrational baggage that we would be better off without.

Click to expand...

From my perspective this is a modern prejudice with little historical accuracy since nearly every great founder of modern science was a Jew or a Christian. Isaac Newton for instance wrote more written words about what you consider bronze age sensibilities, i.e., biblical exegesis, than he wrote about scientific principles. And he claimed dogmatically and unequivocally that the former was the source for the latter. Einstein was a Jew, and claimed that for him, no man was a greater thinker or scientist than Newton.

Copernicus was a true man of faith and derived his cosmology from theology. Kepler was a devout believer in what you call bronze age sensibilites. None of the greatest of scientific thinkers thought that science was anything but the realization of theology. It's a modern prejudice derived from the shallow indoctrination of the university today that's attempting to create a new world order by denying the reality of the old world order.




John

John D. Brey said:

What about the Jew and non-Jew who lived, and were god-fearers, before Christ?....................

Click to expand...

Yes, before Christ (John 3:13) and that includes people like King David (Acts of the Apostles 2:34) and the people of Hebrews 11:13; Hebrews 11:39.
No one (Jew or non-Jew) who lived before Christ could put faith/confidence in Jesus.
The coming resurrection will then give them the opportunity to learn and know about Jesus - Acts of the Apostles 24:15.
Note: that I mentioned a ' coming resurrection' because verse 15 uses the 'future tense' that there ' is going to be ' a resurrection......
That resurrection takes place during Jesus' Millennium-Long Day of governing over Earth for a thousand years.
Then, ALL who are resurrected will have the opportunity for everlasting life as Jesus' promised.
This even includes 'God-fearing Noah' and family, etc.
They are all 'resting in peace' (RIP) just as Jesus taught at John 11:11-14.
Jesus who believed and taught the old Hebrew Scriptures such as: Psalms 115:17; Isaiah 38:18; Ecclesiastes 9:5