Resources on: 1) Salvation in the O.T. 2) Future of the Unevangelized

I'm looking for recommendations on resources that will provide information pertaining to four things:

1) Old Testament Jewish perspectives regarding their own salvation/relationship with God.

E.g., they believed they were God's chosen people via the Abrahamic covenant, but...

Did they believe an individual's obedience to the Mosaic law affected the person's inclusion or exclusion in the covenenant, or did they believe every individual's place was totally secure in the covenent simply because the individual was the seed of Abraham?

What was their understanding regarding offerings and sacrifices. E.g. what purpose did they believe offerings and sacrifices served if they believed their relationship with God was secure simply because they were Abraham's children?

If they believed the offerings and sacrifices were necessary, does that suggest they realized something more was needed than just being the seed of Abraham, or perhaps even something more than their best attempts to obey the Mosaic law?

Note: I just want to get a historical/cultural understanding of what they believed. I'm not interested in any debates about what they should have believed.

2) Old Testament Jewish perspectives regarding the salvation of gentiles.

3) Current theological perspectives on the salvation of gentiles prior to the incarnation.

E.g., if salvation after the incarnation is based on a person's faith in Christ, what was salvation based on before the incarnation. I realize Christ's atonement applies to the elect who lived and died before the incarnation as well as those who came during/after, but since before the incarnation, a person's salvation could not be based on a profession of faith in Christ as it is today, what was it based on?

4) Current theological perspectives on the future/eternal state of the unevangelized.

There is an abundance of soteriological related resources regarding the debate between Arminianism and Calvinisim, but not so much (at least that I've found) regarding the items above. I have read through some of Grudem's and Geisler's soteriological teachings via their systematic theology materials. I've also read "Across the Spectrum" by Boyd and Eddy. But I haven't found the level of content that I'm desiring regarding the four points above.

I'm still in the process of searching and am gathering some leads, but would really appreciate recommendations others might have.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

BriM

4) Current theological perspectives on the future/eternal state of the unevangelized.

I recently read 'No Other Name: Can Only Christians be Saved?' by Sanders. This covers several positions, giving pros and cons. Sanders covers the positions fairly, although he makes clear that he is not an exclusivist. He starts off with a section on "Control Beliefs" where he basically says that our pre-conceived understanding will colour our interpretation of scripture. So don't expect to be suddenly converted from your existing belief to something totally new - you'll easily see counter-arguments to the positions you don't agree with. However, I did find the book useful in putting the opposite views clearly and making a far better case than I expected. He also lists many famous Christians throughout history who held the different views, which strengthens his case that there have been many understandings of this topic.

Positions covered are:

Universalism - all will be saved;

Exclusivism - only those who believe in Christ during their lifetime will be saved;

Universal Evangelisation - God uses Middle Knowledge to ensure that all who would respond to the Gospel get to hear it;

Universal Evangelisation Post Mortem - People get a chance to hear the Gospel after death if they didn't beforehand;

Inclusivism - People are saved by faith in the degree of revelation they have received, even from other faiths.

Sadly, the book isn't in Logos so I had to get a paper copy.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/476430#Comment_476430

In public domain and free on Kindle:Jewish Theology: Systematically and Historically Considered by Kaufmann Kohler

Note: you can load a Kindle reader down to your PC

DMB

RAusdahl ... just adding to the conversation; not disagreeing, etc.

But your questions assume a jewish monolyth of beliefs, etc. This won't answer your questions, but any of the Logos 2nd Temple books (period between the return and the Roman destruction) will quickly paint a rainbow of differing views (similar to the later Christians) that back into the OT period (for which there's very little information).

Saved from? Gentile nations, Assyria, Babylon, Antiochus IV, Rome, Satan and the host of demons ...

Who saved? 'Israel' (living in Judea, Jerusalem, or including the diaspora?), specific sects in Israel (e.g. Qumran), or village (e.g. Jesus vs Capernaum and mentioned in the Talmud), or specific individuals (as also implied in Jesus' teaching).

Converts? Some jewish groups refused them completely; some accepted but limited access, etc. Some were inclusive to whoever lived among them and accepted a limited series of tenets.

And finally saved? This point connects to 'who', but 'saved' also overlapped sickness/death which in-turn was closely associated with Satan and his host (thus many of Jesus' statements).

One clue in the NT, that points to what you're alluding to is 'preaching to the dead' and 'baptism for the dead', both reflecting non-evangelized but gone.

MJ's suggestion probably might be the simplest.

David Thomas

This book by Walt Kaiser is currently on sale from round 3 of March Madness - http://www.logos.com/product/17276/the-promise-plan-of-god?utm_source=logosmarchmadness.com&utm_medium=productlink&utm_content=logosmarchmadness2013&utm_campaign=logos2013q1

Allen Browne

I'm looking for recommendations on resources that will provide information pertaining to ... Old Testament Jewish perspectives regarding ... salvation

Hi RAusdahl.

Is this something you need to to quickly, e.g. for an essay due next week? Of is it something you want to research more deeply?

It it's a rush job, I suggest you start with dictionaries. They will open up perspectives for you, and list relevant resources as well. One of my favorites is:
The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by Collins, John J. and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010.
It will put you in touch with the Jewish perspectives. For example, if you look under "Salvation" it points you to the article on "Eschatology." That's already useful for you. Hopefully you know how to make a collection of your bible dictionaries/encyclopedias, and then how to search for those that have Salvation as a heading or as large text. Post back if you need help with that. And do include lexicons (like TDNT). Some word studies provide OT background too.

If you want to really understand the 2nd temple Jewish mindset, there is no substitute for actually reading the literature of the period: the later OT books, Apocrophya, and Pseudepigrapha. You'll find an amazing diversity. Regarding the gentiles, for example: in places you'll find they believe their gentile oppressors would be destroyed (obliterated) when Israel was saved. In other places, they expected gentiles to be submissive to the restored Davidic king. In the Letter to Aristeas, you discover that some Jewish apologists even imagined that the wise men from the 12 tribes could teach a Gentile ruler (Ptolomy) to rule according to Torah.

In essence, you'll need you'll need a much wider understanding of the diverse perceptions they had regarding the word 'salvation' and related concepts. It probably didn't mean anything like what Christian doctrine means by evangelised/unevangelised. The replies you received from BriM, M J Smith, and DMB should help give you that wider perspective also.

All the best with this research.

Rick Ausdahl

As so often seems to be the case, I owe a debt a gratitude to each of you for your timely, thoughtful, and helpful comments.

BriM

It looks like the resource you noted regarding the unevangelised, covers about every option I've seen mentioned with the exception of annihilationism. I will check it out. One Logos resource I was thinking about checking out is The Possibility of Salvation Among the Unevangelised: An Analysis of Inclusivism in Recent Evangelical Theology.

MJ. Smith

The resource you suggested looks like it may be a helpful starting point regarding Jewish perspectives. It is now downloaded and on my Kindle.

DMB

Your point that my "questions assume a jewish monolyth of beliefs, etc.", is well taken--especially in regard to the time-period you noted. I should have been more specific regarding the O.T. time period I had in mind. I was thinking more in terms of the wilderness wanderings through the first few hundred years after. Perhaps there just isn't enough known about the historical/cultural Jewish mindset during that time-frame for anyone to speak with authority about it.

David Thomas

Thank you for the resource reference. I'll check it out.

Allen Browne

Thanks for contributing! It didn't occur to me prior to submitting my post, but I realize now I overlooked a very basic piece of information that I should have shared as part of my original post--i.e. who/what I am and why I'm seeking the information. So, I'll do that now. [:)]

I'm just a lay-person... someone of faith, who is seeking understanding regarding that faith. I'm not in ministry. I'm not taking any classes, I'm not teaching any classes, nor do I have any desire to debate theological points. I just want to develop a theology that is hopefully in line with scripture and then walk accordingly. So in answer to your question, no--I'm not in a rush.

My time and financial resources are limited however (surprise, surprise), so my goal is to find resources from credible authors and publishers that will do two things.

1) Provide historical/cultural insights as I seek answers to my O.T. questions.

2) Present their views about the unevangelised, using an irenic approach that is respectful of other views and that accurately represent the views of those with whom they disagree, if they choose to make statements regarding those opposing views.

In regard to item 1, per my note to DMB, my current goal is to better understand the Jewish mindset regarding the covenants, the Mosaic law, and the sacrifices, during the times of the exodus and the early years in Canaan. I'm only slightly aware of 2nd Temple Judaism. I expect I will want to understand that down the road, but I'm not that far yet.

Thanks again for every post. Your thoughts, feedback, and suggestions are very much appreciated!

Allen Browne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/476540#Comment_476540

I owe a debt a gratitude to each of you

Great. And thanks for sharing a little more of yourself. You're asking good questions, so all the best as you proceed.

If I can contribute a little further, the term "second temple Judaism" may be somewhat unfamiliar, but it's really quite straight-forward. Solomon built the first temple, and Babylon destroyed it. After the exile, the second temple was dedicated around 515 BC (from memory), and lasted until the Roman invasion of AD 70. So, that's the second-temple period. You're asking questions about the views within Judaism during the (later part of) the 2nd temple period, so anything you can read on that will help.

The EDEJ that I suggested is often the first secondary resource I reach for in Logos. Before the A-Z dictionary starts, there's around 200 pages of essays by top scholars explaining what was going on in that period: Jewish history, Jewish texts, how they understood Scripture, how the rabbis fitted in, and so on. If you want their mindset (rather than just our questions about them), it's a resource I'd recommend.

And just to share back with you: my personal interest in how the Jewish people thought in the later second temple period is so I can better understand Jesus and his hearers in their context (so I don't make the mistake of imposing our twenty-first century worldview on what he said).

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/476540#Comment_476540

In regard to item 1, per my note to DMB, my current goal is to better understand the Jewish mindset regarding the covenants, the Mosaic law, and the sacrifices, during the times of the exodus and the early years in Canaan.

Logos offers a Hebrew history set => http://www.logos.com/product/3746/hebrew-history

Searching for antiquity Israel => http://www.logos.com/products/search?q=antiquity+israel finds a number of resources, including => http://www.logos.com/product/5701/memory-in-jewish-pagan-and-christian-societies-of-the-graeco-roman-world that is included in Verbum Capstone and Portfolio.

I'm only slightly aware of 2nd Temple Judaism. I expect I will want to understand that down the road, but I'm not that far yet.

A resource to consider => http://www.logos.com/product/2984/in-the-shadow-of-the-temple

A pubiisher => http://www.logos.com/products/search?q=jewish+publication+society&Publisher=Jewish+Publication+Society&start=&sort=title&pageSize=15 has a number of interesting resources, including => http://www.logos.com/product/17020/finding-our-way-jewish-texts-and-the-lives-we-lead-today and => http://www.logos.com/product/9760/the-shema-spirituality-and-law-in-judaism

Keep Smiling [:)]

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/476540#Comment_476540

I should have been more specific regarding the O.T. time period I had in mind. I was thinking more in terms of the wilderness wanderings through the first few hundred years after.

'Salvation' in the Christian sense presupposes a belief in a life after death. I believe scholars generally consider such beliefs to have appeared fairly late in Judaism. Before that people generally expected rewards and punishments to come in this life.

Also, it presupposes a fairly modern sense of individualism, while ancient Israelites were probably more concerned with the future of the people than the future of themselves. Look at Joshua 7, for example, to see how the covenant is all about the people, not the individual. Or, rather, the people is the individual -- daughter Sion, God's intended bride -- while what we would call the individuals are more like skin cells that can be scrubbed off, hairs that can be dragged out, toes that can be amputated if they start doing the body more harm than good. Thus 'salvation' becomes mainly a question about the survival of the people, and the survival of the covenant.

David Thomas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/476744#Comment_476744

'Salvation' in the Christian sense presupposes a belief in a life after death. I believe scholars generally consider such beliefs to have appeared fairly late in Judaism. Before that people generally expected rewards and punishments to come in this life.

I may be making some bad assumptions here, but indulge my progression. The Hebrews were redeemed out of Egypt. King Tutankhamun (whose tomb was filled with belonging for him to enjoy in the afterlife) seemed to have been aware of an afterlife and he died around 1323 BC. The Logos Timeline dates the Exodus as somewhere between 1440 BC and 1325 BC. If the Hebrews were redeemed out of Egypt, I don't believe it is a stretch to say that they were familiar with "life after death"

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/476540#Comment_476540

My time and financial resources are limited however (surprise, surprise), so my goal is to find resources from credible authors and publishers that will do two things.

1) Provide historical/cultural insights as I seek answers to my O.T. questions.

2) Present their views about the unevangelised, using an irenic approach that is respectful of other views and that accurately represent the views of those with whom they disagree, if they choose to make statements regarding those opposing views.

In regard to item 1, per my note to DMB, my current goal is to better understand the Jewish mindset regarding the covenants, the Mosaic law, and the sacrifices, during the times of the exodus and the early years in Canaan. I'm only slightly aware of 2nd Temple Judaism. I expect I will want to understand that down the road, but I'm not that far yet.

I very much understand the desire to figure things out by starting to understand the beginnings, and so to start with Moses. But the further back into the past you go, the murkier the knowledge we have... We now have a fair number of texts from the "second temple" period, talking about many things, and so can begin to see more about how Jesus fit in with the various teachers of his day. But even this is hotly debated. In the time period you mention, we have some biblical texts, which probably have been reworked a bit since the events described, a passing reference in the Egyptian Amarna Letters of the "habiru", and a few archeological remains, which are difficult to date with much specificity.

As has been pointed out above, while we automatically think of "salvation" as something that is at least not limited by our earthly lives, this concept is not that obvious in the earliest texts of what became the Bible. Heck - even in Jesus' day, belief in the Resurrection of the Dead was not an understanding shared by all the people of Israel, and so the Gospels speak of the Sadducees as those who do not believe in the Resurrection... It is questionable if your question would really make sense to the people on the Exodus or early Settlement.

For basic information about some of the issues involved in your question, take a look at the entry on "Sheol" in the Lexham Bible Dictionary (I think this is still available for free) as well as any other bible dictionaries you may have. This should get you started in at least understanding the questions, even if the answers remain murky.

SDG

Ken McGuire

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/476758#Comment_476758

Now David ... today is an excellent chance for you to pick up NT Wright's volume on the resurrection.

You may or may not agree with his views. But he starts off with fairly detailed discussion on exactly 'what' resurrection would have meant to the major cultures in the 'cosmos'. If I remember right (it's been hours since I passed that chapter), he suggested Egyptians viewed death as life; not a return to life.

I haven't yet gotten to the period of Judah (Israel being scattered); I'm interested in what he postulates for what appears to be a death cult in Judah.

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/476758#Comment_476758

I may be making some bad assumptions here, but indulge my progression. The Hebrews were redeemed out of Egypt. King Tutankhamun (whose tomb was filled with belonging for him to enjoy in the afterlife) seemed to have been aware of an afterlife and he died around 1323 BC. The Logos Timeline dates the Exodus as somewhere between 1440 BC and 1325 BC. If the Hebrews were redeemed out of Egypt, I don't believe it is a stretch to say that they were familiar with "life after death"

Yes, the Egyptians did seem to believe in life after death. If I recall a probably way over simplistic view of things, they viewed the afterlife as part of an eternal cycle between life and death, like the annual floods of the Nile.

But whatever else the Exodus may be, it is a rejection of Egyptian domination. Israel's God is not the "safe" god of the steady, repeatable floods. It is rather a God who upset the applecart, so to speak, by picking a family to leave one of the Superpowers (Abraham leaving Ur) and then rescuing those people from the other Superpower (Egypt) - rejecting the ways of both of them. And so while it would be stupid to assume that Israel was not aware of ideas going on in Egypt and Mesopotamia, it is not safe to assume that she accepted them either.

Much of the information we would desire for an accurate intellectual history of that era for Israel seems to be lost to history, for better or worse.

David Thomas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/476766#Comment_476766

Much of the information we would desire for an accurate intellectual history of that era for Israel seems to be lost to history, for better or worse.

Fair enough. I recall studying the Hebrew vs. Greek notion of death/paradise/hell and agree that the ancient Hebrews were very vague in their concept of afterlife. I just thought it was unfair to insinuate that there was NO awareness of it.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/476744#Comment_476744

I should have been more specific regarding the O.T. time period I had in mind. I was thinking more in terms of the wilderness wanderings through the first few hundred years after.

'Salvation' in the Christian sense presupposes a belief in a life after death. I believe scholars generally consider such beliefs to have appeared fairly late in Judaism. Before that people generally expected rewards and punishments to come in this life.

Which is why I have so little respect for most scholars.

Heb. 11:13, 14,15, 16, 17, 18, 19 ...and the clincher, of course, coming from the oldest book in the Book Job 14:14

Scholars can be as dense as dolomite. [8-)]

Unix

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/476770#Comment_476770

DMB, I wish You happy reading Wright!
David Paul, congratulations on Your 1555th post!

David Paul

1) Old Testament Jewish perspectives regarding their own salvation/relationship with God.

E.g., they believed they were God's chosen people via the Abrahamic covenant, but...

A) Did they believe an individual's obedience to the Mosaic law affected the person's inclusion or exclusion in the covenenant, or did they believe every individual's place was totally secure in the covenent simply because the individual was the seed of Abraham?

What was their understanding regarding offerings and sacrifices. E.g. what purpose did they believe offerings and sacrifices served if they believed their relationship with God was secure simply because they were Abraham's children?

C) If they believed the offerings and sacrifices were necessary, does that suggest they realized something more was needed than just being the seed of Abraham, or perhaps even something more than their best attempts to obey the Mosaic law?

Note: I just want to get a historical/cultural understanding of what they believed. I'm not interested in any debates about what they should have believed.

In a nutshell, the Hasmonean aggregation (combining) of both king & high priest into one human individual scandalized the group that was the proto-Pharisees, which included some priests and also non-priests. They considered this two-in-one role an abomination because it created a unity of roles that was reserved for the Messiah alone. Though they could see this wrong being committed, they had no "lawful" recourse to address and rectify it. But since doing nothing was for them not an option, the path of acquiring that means of recourse was the fabrication of the so-called "chain of unbroken transmission" of oral law passed down from YHWH to Moses and then through Ezra down to themselves. Being completely "oral", this fabrication could not be denied. Once a roomful of leaders agreed to the charade, anyone who questioned the "institution" could simply be told that they hadn't received the memo, thus proving that they weren't eligible to be part of the "in-crowd".

To gain the following of the people and subvert the polluted Hasmonean priesthood, the coalition that became the Pharisees began taking upon themselves certain priesthood type functions (minus the temple service and structure, which was in the hands of the Hasmoneans, who created their own counter-group called the Sadducees), and in particular they commandeered the instruction of the people. To facilitate this "take over", they instituted the mechanism of the synagogue. The advantage of this was that teaching of the Word was brought into nearly every hamlet in the land and the common person could get a much more steady stream of religious instruction than they had received previous to that point. The disadvantage, obviously, was the can of worms opened by the introduction of this imaginary oral law concept. Yes, the people got to hear the Law and the Prophets week by week, but they were also force-fed "proper" interpretation by the newly minted creatures called the rabbis. These were the in-crowd individuals who received the oral law, which they of course insisted gave them absolute authority to be the ONLY legitimate interpreters of the Law...thus sealing and certifying their sole right to lead the people, except for the thorny problem of temple service. The Hasmonean Sadducee priesthood were firmly entrenched and not going anywhere, so an uneasy truce was brokered. Unfortunately, this entire boondoggle had long prior resulted in the impudent flouting of Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, & Eccl. 3:14. The name of this new invention, an entirely POST-exile religion, was Judaism.

There is no such thing as Biblical Judaism. That is a misnomer contradiction, like a square circle. Yeishuu'a constantly railed against Judaism as a false religion. This is what folks need to understand--the religion called Judaism is NOT the religion of the Bible. This is something that Christianity has misunderstood from day one. NO PHARISEE EVER KEPT THE LAW OF YHWH, by definition. Josephus confirms this fact. In contradiction to the nearly universal Christian notion that the Pharisees were fastidious keepers of the "Old Testament" law, Josephus, himself a Pharisee, clearly asserts that it was the Hasmonean Sadducees (who themselves were ironically and hopelessly Hellenized in spite of Matthithias's initial resistance) who were the group that actually tried to keep to the "script" of the Law and the Prophets. The Qumran crowd saw the corruption of both groups, and withdrew in an attempt to avoid the debacle.

My point is this...the religion of the Bible was essentially lost by the time Malachi laid down his quill...until John came along. But that means one extremely important and crucial thing--apart from Tanakh itself, there is virtually NOTHING in recorded extra-Biblical history that is an exemplar of what YHWH said should be practiced by His people. The DSS would likely be the closest, but there are some obvious variations. The only legitimate measure of "proper" Biblical practice is Tanakh itself. This is precisely what Yeishuu`a promoted throughout His ministry as Messiah. To query any available Jewish documents about the Jewish perspective is to necessarily receive instruction in un-Biblical practice.

Your first question (which I labeled A), can be answered historically, but it cannot possibly shed any light on proper Biblical practice. The Pharisees, because they had drastically removed themselves from the law in a misguided and ham-fisted attempt to protect the law, began to believe their own fiction. For them, it was adherence to Oral Law that led to salvation. For the Qumran crowd, they clearly believed that keeping Tohraah was what YHWH expected and rewarded, but their marginalization resulted in some oddball practices.

So, to sum up...I'm not sure asking about what "Jews of the time believed" will get you any answers that are Biblically relevant. In other words,from the Bible's perspective, asking what Jews believed in the time of Yeishuu`a is about as pertinent as knowing what Buddhists of that time believed.

Your second question is essentially irrelevant, because those whom you describe are the group who invented their own religion of man-made, rabbi-fabricated and endorsed rules. Trying to get inside their mind to understand what & why they "did what they did" and "believed what they believed" is an exercise in vanity. It simply doesn't matter. If you reframe your question around what the Bible teaches, then an answer would be both possible and germane.

Your third question concerns the same group of people and so the same general answer applies, but I will add this, just a reminder--they WERE NOT keeping the law of Moses under any circumstance; they were instead, in violation of the law, keeping their own fabricated commands.

2) Old Testament Jewish perspectives regarding the salvation of gentiles.

Your phraseology, "OT Jewish perspectives", is again essentially a mutually exclusive misnomer if by "Jewish" you mean those who practice Judaism. The only place in Tanakh where something called Judaism could be said to exist is in the religious practice that Malachi was excoriating. Judaism, in YHWH's sight, utterly abandoned Tohraah for their own idolatrous religion of men which became the Mishnah, Talmud, etc. If you want the Bible's view on the matter of salvation and to whom it applied...Exo. 12:49.& Ezek. 18:27 (& the whole chapter).

The Jews of Yeishuu`a's day, because of the encroachment of Hellenization and their own internal fracturing and factionalization, had significantly upped the ante from what Scripture said. They became more and more insular and cliquish, and began adding "secret handshakes" and fraternal hazing to assure that their recruits were on-board. This being the case, one must at all costs avoid the massive mistake of assuming that getting an answer to any question about "what the NT/2ndT Jews did or thought" has ANYTHING to do with the expressed expectation and will of YHWH. Unfortunately, Christians almost universally equate Second Temple Jewish practice with what they call "Old Testament" practice. In YHWH's sight, there is virtually no overlap whatsoever.

***I wrote the above before I saw your comment that you were primarily concerned with the period of the Exodus and wilderness wandering. For that period it is simply a fact that the only textual record that exists is the Bible itself. Also, I will suggest an adjustment in your terminology concerning the use of the word "Jewish". That word really has no legitimate value until the time of the Babylonian exile and after. Prior to that time is was Israel, and during the divided monarchies, Israel and Judah. It is an anachronism to speak of the Jewish Exodus. It was the Israelite Exodus. Considering what I have outlined above, it is also a anachronism to speak of the Jewish Law, unless you mean exclusively the so-called oral torah.

I won't address the 3rd and 4th questions...they are too liable to get out of hand.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/476442#Comment_476442

In public domain and free on Kindle:Jewish Theology: Systematically and Historically Considered by Kaufmann Kohler

Note: you can load a Kindle reader down to your PC

Thanks for pointing to this...am reading it now.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/476796#Comment_476796

Unfortunately, Christians almost universally equate Second Temple Jewish practice with what they call "Old Testament" practice.

Huh? I've never met anyone who equated the desert/tabernacle practice to the first temple practices to the second temple practices. You either need better statistics or a different class of Christians. Ever hear of the unfolding plan of salvation?

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/476855#Comment_476855

Huh? You've never met anyone who equates the tabernacle to the temple? WOW... [:|]

...moving right along...

The number of Logos resources that describe keeping the Law of Moses as "Judaizing" is legion. It has been the refrain of Protestantism from birth. Perhaps your Catholic clan has not done so (yet I know for a fact that they have), but you really must be joking if you say you've never heard that thought expressed. I assume all of your senses are working, so that is the best explanation I can surmise for your saying you haven't seen that.

By "unfolding plan of salvation" I suppose you mean "time". What of it? He's got a 7000 year plan He's working through, so obviously some things happen before others. What of it? Obviously there will be differences based on time's passing, but that doesn't constitute "change". The fundamental principle always remains. It's called Tohraah..."every word that proceeds from the mouth of YHWH." Perceive that how you will, there is no difference from Adam to Abraham to David to Yeishuu`a...there is only the one principal in effect...

DO WHAT I SAY.

Those who do are blameless in His sight. Done.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/476855#Comment_476855

Ever hear of the unfolding plan of salvation?

Quote below taken from the same Kindle book you mentioned above...is this what you mean by "unfolding"?

Judaism, then, far from being the late product of the Torah and tradition, as it is often considered, was actually the creator of the Law. Transformed and unfolded in Babylonia, it created its own sacred literature and shaped it ever anew, filling it always with its own spirit and with new thoughts. It is by no means the petrifaction of the Mosaic law and the prophetic teachings, as we are so often told, but a continuous process of unfolding and regeneration of its great religious truth.

Kohler, Kaufmann (2011-03-24). Jewish Theology (Kindle Locations 272-275). . Kindle Edition.

YIKES!! [:O]

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/476855#Comment_476855

I hate to admit this (bite my keyboard!), but DP's probably correct on both counts (tabernacle/temple/temple, and 2ndTemple judaism being the OT).

I ONLY mention this to help fgh's challenge of getting more jewish volumes into the Logos library.

I don't think I'm a whole lot different from those at my church (well a little different). But everyone's image of 'the temple' is drawn almost wholely from Herod's Temple. When one raises their hand and asks about the other gods in the 1st Temple, it's a complete silence (thus the angry prophets). Or its smallness. Or the 'other' temples in Israel both before 'the' temple and during 'the' temple. The list goes on. When one points out that temples/shrines tended to be built in high places, and 'highest' was 'best-est', and the 1st temple was built below the competing temples erected at the same time, another quietness ensues. Or that 'the' Temple was erected by Baal devotees (what happened to the 'unclean'?).

The same occurs relative to today's Christians and 'the jews'. Most have your wandering Israelites, David and the Temple, and then the Pharisees (the in-between part is a series of kings, the Judah ones 'good' and the Israel ones 'bad'; most don't notice only 4 in the whole sequence reported as 'good'). Nor notice the captivities BEFORE Assyria. Nor the destructions in Jerusalem BEFORE Assyria. Nor that after the exile, they had trouble getting the 'jews' to 'come back'. Nor the centuries between the 2nd Temple re-start and when somebody that thought 'the Temple' was important.

Once you arrive at Pentecost, another 'blank' ensues with today's Christian imagery, completely ignoring the repetitive problem of 'the Temple' in almost every NT writer's theology discussion. And the repetitive use of 'Tabernacle' and 'Abraham'.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/476901#Comment_476901

Just to establish that I'm not hallucinating...

Wikipedia article on Judaizers

According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (1977) this term includes groups such as Jewish Christians, Quartodecimans, Ethiopian Christians, descendants of English Puritanism such as the Seventh-day Adventist Church and others, who claim the necessity of obedience to the Mosaic Laws which are found in the first five books of the Christian Old Testament, though this is something likely disputed by members belonging to these groups, notably the Seventh-day Adventist Church, as the term Judaizers is typically used as a pejorative.

However...

Yeishuu`a, the final authority, said plainly that the Pharisees didn't keep the law of Moses Jn. 7:19

Instead, they kept their own law, the oral law, which Yeishuu`a called "the traditions of men", which the Pharisees called the "traditions of the elders". Mt. 15:2, 3, 6; Mk. 7:5, 8, 9, 13.

The summation is this...if one isn't practicing Judaism, one isn't a Judaizer. Judaism, by authority of the Son of YHWH, rejects the Law of Moses. Therefore, "obedience to the Law of Moses" can't be called Judaizing...because it isn't Judaism.

The upshot is this--it is an anachronism and just plain wrong to refer to obedience to the will of YHWH as Judaism. There is no overlap in YHWH's sight at all.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/476859#Comment_476859

but you really must be joking if you say you've never heard that thought expressed. I assume all of your senses are working, so that is the best explanation I can surmise for your saying you haven't seen that.

Well, I won't vouch for the fact that I've never seen it in the forums - I see so many oddities here that I don't even try to remember them all. I assume that is the experience of most forum users - everything is an oddity to someone. But to the best of my memory, people at least make the distinctions:

pre-exodus
pre-temple
temple 1
exile
temple 2
diaspora

I only know a few people who would connect Deut. 33:2 with Midrash Tanhuma, Genesis 1

For those who don't want to figure the reference out - the reference is to the Torah existing before creation written in black fire on white fire. A perfect example of why I think everyone runs into oddities in the forums ... this is one.

Just to establish that I'm not hallucinating...

I think the hound doth detect a fallacy[:)]

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/477061#Comment_477061

MJ, I am wondering if you and David are talking past each other. You admit that you see "so many oddities" here in the forums - as have I. I also confess I have seen it amoungst the communities of the faithful in which God has planted me, even sometimes by teachers in parishes...

Yes, the real scholars make distinctions like you mention. But it has not filtered down to everyone yet, and people get sloppy - even when they know better.

SDG

Ken McGuire

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/477061#Comment_477061

But to the best of my memory, people at least make the distinctions:

pre-exodus

pre-temple

temple 1

exile

temple 2

diaspora

What is so distinct about these distinctions? I distinctly remember that He makes the same demand in each era: "Do what I say."

Just to establish that I'm not hallucinating...

I think the hound doth detect a fallacy

Flush the quail then.

Of course, you might get a bear or lion instead.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/476871#Comment_476871

Ever hear of the unfolding plan of salvation?

Quote below taken from the same Kindle book you mentioned above...is this what you mean by "unfolding"?

Judaism, then, far from being the late product of the Torah and tradition, as it is often considered, was actually the creator of the Law. Transformed and unfolded in Babylonia, it created its own sacred literature and shaped it ever anew, filling it always with its own spirit and with new thoughts. It is by no means the petrifaction of the Mosaic law and the prophetic teachings, as we are so often told, but a continuous process of unfolding and regeneration of its great religious truth.

Kohler, Kaufmann (2011-03-24). Jewish Theology (Kindle Locations 272-275). . Kindle Edition.

YIKES!!

Not terribly important, but I came across the following quote last night...

Even Pompeii, although St. Paul probably never walked its lanes, is extraordinarily instructive. It not only furnishes us with texts; it has, by its peculiar fate, been itself preserved with all the actuality of petrifaction, and we may regard it as a typical town.

Adolf Deissmann and Lionel Richard Mortimer Strachan, Light from the Ancient East the New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910). 273.

It is quite coincidental that the bolded word from the Deissmann quote, one which I think I had never encountered before yesterday, was the second encounter of the word in just a few hours time. The other instance (underlined above) is found in the quote from Kohler's book that I posted earlier yesterday. I of course know what the word means, because I recognize the relationship to "petrified", but this particular morphology is new to me. It is unquestionably a rare word, extremely so in my experience, and to have two encounters with it in such a short time is rather noteworthy...at least it seems so to me--so I have noted it!

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/477510#Comment_477510

petrifaction

....

It is quite coincidental that the bolded word from the Deissmann quote, one which I think I had never encountered before yesterday, was the second encounter of the word in just a few hours time....I of course know what the word means, because I recognize the relationship to "petrified", but this particular morphology is new to me. It is unquestionably a rare word, extremely so in my experience, and to have two encounters with it in such a short time is rather noteworthy...at least it seems so to me--so I have noted it!

Actually, it's more common on the Internet (328,000 Google hits vs. 12,800) than the more familiar (to me anyway) and similar word putrifaction. Also, petrifaction is in my spelling dictionary and putrifaction isn't. Odd, since I'd never heard of petrifaction before but putrifaction is well known to me.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/477561#Comment_477561

While I don't hear "putrifaction" bandied about on a daily basis, it is a much more familiar word to me as well. I am rather certain that the profusion of Google hits for "petrifaction" are going to be from the scientific realm rather than from common (or in this case, uncommon) pedestrian conversation.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/477566#Comment_477566

I can tell you are a word aficionado like me. I don't often see people employing words like bandied, profusion, and pedestrian in online communication. Bravo!

Allen Browne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/477575#Comment_477575

Agreed. Profusely bandied articulations are non-pedestrian. :-)

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/477590#Comment_477590

Obviously you guys don't visit the southwest much, where everybody and their brother has at least one petrified forest in their backyard, and of course the even more common petrified dinosaurs (none of which would have been preserved had putrification set in).

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/477614#Comment_477614

Which makes me wonder...do you think said dinosaurs were unevangelized? And if so, what of their salvation?

I wonder what the 2T Jews thought about this?

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/477620#Comment_477620

I wonder what the 2T Jews thought about this?

Sorry, I just got home from picking up a 2 TB hard disk, so I read that as "2-terabyte Jews" [:)]

Rick Ausdahl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/477654#Comment_477654

Wow! I was away from the forums for a few days and see there have been several new posts since I was last here. Thanks again to everyone for the posts--I'll have a read through them.

Rick Ausdahl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/476635#Comment_476635

You're asking questions about the views within Judaism during the (later part of) the 2nd temple period, so anything you can read on that will help.

The EDEJ that I suggested is often the first secondary resource I reach for in Logos. Before the A-Z dictionary starts, there's around 200 pages of essays by top scholars explaining what was going on in that period: Jewish history, Jewish texts, how they understood Scripture, how the rabbis fitted in, and so on. If you want their mindset (rather than just our questions about them), it's a resource I'd recommend.

And just to share back with you: my personal interest in how the Jewish people thought in the later second temple period is so I can better understand Jesus and his hearers in their context (so I don't make the mistake of imposing our twenty-first century worldview on what he said).

Allen,

Thanks for the additional feedback.

I have to apologize that my original post was not clear in regard to the time-frame I had in mind in items 1 and 2, when referring to Old Testament Jewish perspectives. I had to clarify this for DMB as well. Here's an excerpt from that clarification: I should have been more specific regarding the O.T. time period I had in mind. I was thinking more in terms of the wilderness wanderings through the first few hundred years after. Perhaps there just isn't enough known about the historical/cultural Jewish mindset during that time-frame for anyone to speak with authority about it.

I should also clarify that I was/am aware of the two temples to which you referred. But I thought that the phrase "Second Temple Judaism" went beyond just the fact of the 2nd temple--i.e. that it is a topic of discussion that has generated considerable debate in recent years. Perhaps I'm mistaken about that. In any event, I do agree that knowing more about the Jewish mindset in New Testament times would be helpful in understanding aspects of the New Testament record. It's just not what I'm trying to a grip on at the current time.

The EDEJ does sound like a worthwhile resource however and has been duly noted. [:)]

PS: My reply here is nicely formatted in the composition window when writing this. I don't know why the formatting is lost when posting it.

Rick Ausdahl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/476637#Comment_476637

In regard to item 1, per my note to DMB, my current goal is to better understand the Jewish mindset regarding the covenants, the Mosaic law, and the sacrifices, during the times of the exodus and the early years in Canaan.

Logos offers a Hebrew history set => http://www.logos.com/product/3746/hebrew-history

Searching for antiquity Israel => http://www.logos.com/products/search?q=antiquity+israel finds a number of resources, including => http://www.logos.com/product/5701/memory-in-jewish-pagan-and-christian-societies-of-the-graeco-roman-world that is included in Verbum Capstone and Portfolio.

I'm only slightly aware of 2nd Temple Judaism. I expect I will want to understand that down the road, but I'm not that far yet.

A resource to consider => http://www.logos.com/product/2984/in-the-shadow-of-the-temple

A pubiisher => http://www.logos.com/products/search?q=jewish+publication+society&Publisher=Jewish+Publication+Society&start=&sort=title&pageSize=15 has a number of interesting resources, including => http://www.logos.com/product/17020/finding-our-way-jewish-texts-and-the-lives-we-lead-today and => http://www.logos.com/product/9760/the-shema-spirituality-and-law-in-judaism

Keep Smiling

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus,

Thanks so much for the resource suggestions--they look to be very interesting. At least some of them are available for Kindle as well. I'll be taking a closer look.

Rick Ausdahl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/476744#Comment_476744

I should have been more specific regarding the O.T. time period I had in mind. I was thinking more in terms of the wilderness wanderings through the first few hundred years after.

'Salvation' in the Christian sense presupposes a belief in a life after death. I believe scholars generally consider such beliefs to have appeared fairly late in Judaism. Before that people generally expected rewards and punishments to come in this life.

fgh,

Your point is well taken. I was aware of that after a fashion, which is why in regard to item #1 in my original post it says "salvation/relationship with God". I included "relationship with God", in an effort to acknowledge that while it may not be salvation as we think of it, I should still allow for the fact that there was likely an eternal aspect to it--not just a temporal one.

I'm trying to understand how (during the first few hundred years following the Exodus) the Jewish people viewed the role/purpose of obedience to the Mosaic law, in relation to the role/purpose of the sacrifices, and whether or not they saw it all as affecting their relationship with God.

Rick Ausdahl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/476796#Comment_476796

1) Old Testament Jewish perspectives regarding their own salvation/relationship with God.

E.g., they believed they were God's chosen people via the Abrahamic covenant, but...

A) Did they believe an individual's obedience to the Mosaic law affected the person's inclusion or exclusion in the covenenant, or did they believe every individual's place was totally secure in the covenent simply because the individual was the seed of Abraham?

What was their understanding regarding offerings and sacrifices. E.g. what purpose did they believe offerings and sacrifices served if they believed their relationship with God was secure simply because they were Abraham's children?

C) If they believed the offerings and sacrifices were necessary, does that suggest they realized something more was needed than just being the seed of Abraham, or perhaps even something more than their best attempts to obey the Mosaic law?

Note: I just want to get a historical/cultural understanding of what they believed. I'm not interested in any debates about what they should have believed.

In a nutshell, the Hasmonean aggregation (combining) of both king & high priest into one human individual scandalized the group that was the proto-Pharisees, which included some priests and also non-priests. They considered this two-in-one role an abomination because it created a unity of roles that was reserved for the Messiah alone. Though they could see this wrong being committed, they had no "lawful" recourse to address and rectify it. But since doing nothing was for them not an option, the path of acquiring that means of recourse was the fabrication of the so-called "chain of unbroken transmission" of oral law passed down from YHWH to Moses and then through Ezra down to themselves. Being completely "oral", this fabrication could not be denied. Once a roomful of leaders agreed to the charade, anyone who questioned the "institution" could simply be told that they hadn't received the memo, thus proving that they weren't eligible to be part of the "in-crowd".

To gain the following of the people and subvert the polluted Hasmonean priesthood, the coalition that became the Pharisees began taking upon themselves certain priesthood type functions (minus the temple service and structure, which was in the hands of the Hasmoneans, who created their own counter-group called the Sadducees), and in particular they commandeered the instruction of the people. To facilitate this "take over", they instituted the mechanism of the synagogue. The advantage of this was that teaching of the Word was brought into nearly every hamlet in the land and the common person could get a much more steady stream of religious instruction than they had received previous to that point. The disadvantage, obviously, was the can of worms opened by the introduction of this imaginary oral law concept. Yes, the people got to hear the Law and the Prophets week by week, but they were also force-fed "proper" interpretation by the newly minted creatures called the rabbis. These were the in-crowd individuals who received the oral law, which they of course insisted gave them absolute authority to be the ONLY legitimate interpreters of the Law...thus sealing and certifying their sole right to lead the people, except for the thorny problem of temple service. The Hasmonean Sadducee priesthood were firmly entrenched and not going anywhere, so an uneasy truce was brokered. Unfortunately, this entire boondoggle had long prior resulted in the impudent flouting of Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, & Eccl. 3:14. The name of this new invention, an entirely POST-exile religion, was Judaism.

There is no such thing as Biblical Judaism. That is a misnomer contradiction, like a square circle. Yeishuu'a constantly railed against Judaism as a false religion. This is what folks need to understand--the religion called Judaism is NOT the religion of the Bible. This is something that Christianity has misunderstood from day one. NO PHARISEE EVER KEPT THE LAW OF YHWH, by definition. Josephus confirms this fact. In contradiction to the nearly universal Christian notion that the Pharisees were fastidious keepers of the "Old Testament" law, Josephus, himself a Pharisee, clearly asserts that it was the Hasmonean Sadducees (who themselves were ironically and hopelessly Hellenized in spite of Matthithias's initial resistance) who were the group that actually tried to keep to the "script" of the Law and the Prophets. The Qumran crowd saw the corruption of both groups, and withdrew in an attempt to avoid the debacle.

My point is this...the religion of the Bible was essentially lost by the time Malachi laid down his quill...until John came along. But that means one extremely important and crucial thing--apart from Tanakh itself, there is virtually NOTHING in recorded extra-Biblical history that is an exemplar of what YHWH said should be practiced by His people. The DSS would likely be the closest, but there are some obvious variations. The only legitimate measure of "proper" Biblical practice is Tanakh itself. This is precisely what Yeishuu`a promoted throughout His ministry as Messiah. To query any available Jewish documents about the Jewish perspective is to necessarily receive instruction in un-Biblical practice.

Your first question (which I labeled A), can be answered historically, but it cannot possibly shed any light on proper Biblical practice. The Pharisees, because they had drastically removed themselves from the law in a misguided and ham-fisted attempt to protect the law, began to believe their own fiction. For them, it was adherence to Oral Law that led to salvation. For the Qumran crowd, they clearly believed that keeping Tohraah was what YHWH expected and rewarded, but their marginalization resulted in some oddball practices.

So, to sum up...I'm not sure asking about what "Jews of the time believed" will get you any answers that are Biblically relevant. In other words,from the Bible's perspective, asking what Jews believed in the time of Yeishuu`a is about as pertinent as knowing what Buddhists of that time believed.

Your second question is essentially irrelevant, because those whom you describe are the group who invented their own religion of man-made, rabbi-fabricated and endorsed rules. Trying to get inside their mind to understand what & why they "did what they did" and "believed what they believed" is an exercise in vanity. It simply doesn't matter. If you reframe your question around what the Bible teaches, then an answer would be both possible and germane.

Your third question concerns the same group of people and so the same general answer applies, but I will add this, just a reminder--they WERE NOT keeping the law of Moses under any circumstance; they were instead, in violation of the law, keeping their own fabricated commands.

2) Old Testament Jewish perspectives regarding the salvation of gentiles.

Your phraseology, "OT Jewish perspectives", is again essentially a mutually exclusive misnomer if by "Jewish" you mean those who practice Judaism. The only place in Tanakh where something called Judaism could be said to exist is in the religious practice that Malachi was excoriating. Judaism, in YHWH's sight, utterly abandoned Tohraah for their own idolatrous religion of men which became the Mishnah, Talmud, etc. If you want the Bible's view on the matter of salvation and to whom it applied...Exo. 12:49.& Ezek. 18:27 (& the whole chapter).

The Jews of Yeishuu`a's day, because of the encroachment of Hellenization and their own internal fracturing and factionalization, had significantly upped the ante from what Scripture said. They became more and more insular and cliquish, and began adding "secret handshakes" and fraternal hazing to assure that their recruits were on-board. This being the case, one must at all costs avoid the massive mistake of assuming that getting an answer to any question about "what the NT/2ndT Jews did or thought" has ANYTHING to do with the expressed expectation and will of YHWH. Unfortunately, Christians almost universally equate Second Temple Jewish practice with what they call "Old Testament" practice. In YHWH's sight, there is virtually no overlap whatsoever.

***I wrote the above before I saw your comment that you were primarily concerned with the period of the Exodus and wilderness wandering. For that period it is simply a fact that the only textual record that exists is the Bible itself. Also, I will suggest an adjustment in your terminology concerning the use of the word "Jewish". That word really has no legitimate value until the time of the Babylonian exile and after. Prior to that time is was Israel, and during the divided monarchies, Israel and Judah. It is an anachronism to speak of the Jewish Exodus. It was the Israelite Exodus. Considering what I have outlined above, it is also a anachronism to speak of the Jewish Law, unless you mean exclusively the so-called oral torah.

I won't address the 3rd and 4th questions...they are too liable to get out of hand.

David Paul,

I haven't read through this post yet, but will do so. I definitely appreciate the time and effort you put into it.

Rick Ausdahl

After reading through some of the replies to my original post, I'm thinking I might have avoided some confusion, consternation, and debate, if I had worded things a little differently in items one and two. So... I've taken a stab at a few wording changes that I think (hope) might make those first two items less problematic.

Regarding items 1 and 2, based on some initial responses, it sounds like there simply may not be much information available--at least not in the form of answers that would enjoy a consensus across a broad spectrum of researchers. I did get a few resource suggestions in earlier replies and I am thankful for them--some do look promising. However, if you have any additional resource suggestions or anything else to add, please feel welcome to do so.

Regarding items 3 and 4, there was very little feedback. Please note it is not my desire to stir up debate--no one has to prove anything. I'm simply looking for resources that might address those items.

Here's a revised version of the original post. Hopefully it is more clear and more accurately worded.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm looking for recommendations on resources that will provide information pertaining to the four things listed below.

Please note, that in regard to "Old Testament Israelite perspectives" under items one and two, I'm specifically concerned with the period of the Israeli Exodus from Egypt through the first 100 - 200 years in Canaan.

1) Old Testament Israelite perspectives regarding their own position/relationship with God.

E.g., they believed they were God's chosen people via the Abrahamic covenant, but...

Note: I just want to get a historical/cultural understanding of what they believed. I'm not interested in any debates about what they should have believed.

2) Old Testament Israelite perspectives regarding the status and options of non-Israelites in regard to their relation with God.

If a non-Israeli person believed in the God of Abraham, did the Israelite mindset allow that the person could have a relationship with God that would result in God's blessing on the person, in his/her temporal and/or eternal life? If so, were there any requirements that the non-Israelite must follow? e.g.

A) Must the person follow the Mosaic law?

Must the person join the Israeli community or could he/she live outside the community?

3) Current theological perspectives on salvation prior to the incarnation.

4) Current theological perspectives on the future/eternal state of the unevangelized.

I'm still in the process of searching and am gathering some leads, but would really appreciate recommendations others might have.

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/478620#Comment_478620

You are right - there has not been much of a response to this. Part is because of the lack of biblical data. Part is rules against theological debate here.

#3 - 1 Pet 3:19 has often been taken as Jesus going into hell and setting those free who came before him. A library search of <1 Pet 3.19> on my library finds nearly 2000 hits - it is a much debated verse. As for me, if by 1 Cor 1.19, in Jesus all God's Promises find their "yes", then I humbly trust him to somehow make it happen - that they will be there. I don't know how, and while more than a part of my mind would like to know, I want to simply stand on the comfort of hearing (and sometimes witnessing) that I have been brought in rather than arguing about who is or isn't brought in on all this.

#4 - There is even less biblical witness to this question. It seems to me that this question is more of a concern to us than to the authors of scripture (including the Holy Spirit). This should maybe give us pause. There is a marvelous meditation by Martin Luther (AE LW 43, p, 247-250) for women who have just undergone a miscarriage in which he reaches out the the efficacy of prayer - that God would listen to our pleas of agony and somehow bring that lost life into the kingdom. He then runs through a list of the biblical promises about prayer.

Our God can do more than we can even ask or imagine (Eph 3.20), and I have learned that within enough personal reversals to trust in this. It seems foolish to limit that to only my personal issues, even if I have to admit I can be that foolish...

SDG

Ken McGuire

Rick Ausdahl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/478620#Comment_478620

Well, It appears that the well of resource recommendations has been exhausted. [*-)] I had hoped there might be more resources available--that I just hadn't found them--but I am grateful for the ones that have been suggested.

As usual, everyone has been great, and I'm thankful for a forum like Logos, where a layperson can go for help/feedback from Christian brothers and sisters who have had formal Bible/religious historical training and who may also be in ministry.

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/478713#Comment_478713

You are right - there has not been much of a response to this. Part is because of the lack of biblical data. Part is rules against theological debate here.

#3 - 1 Pet 3:19 has often been taken as Jesus going into hell and setting those free who came before him. A library search of <1 Pet 3.19> on my library finds nearly 2000 hits - it is a much debated verse. As for me, if by 1 Cor 1.19, in Jesus all God's Promises find their "yes", then I humbly trust him to somehow make it happen - that they will be there. I don't know how, and while more than a part of my mind would like to know, I want to simply stand on the comfort of hearing (and sometimes witnessing) that I have been brought in rather than arguing about who is or isn't brought in on all this.

#4 - There is even less biblical witness to this question. It seems to me that this question is more of a concern to us than to the authors of scripture (including the Holy Spirit). This should maybe give us pause. There is a marvelous meditation by Martin Luther (AE LW 43, p, 247-250) for women who have just undergone a miscarriage in which he reaches out the the efficacy of prayer - that God would listen to our pleas of agony and somehow bring that lost life into the kingdom. He then runs through a list of the biblical promises about prayer.

Our God can do more than we can even ask or imagine (Eph 3.20), and I have learned that within enough personal reversals to trust in this. It seems foolish to limit that to only my personal issues, even if I have to admit I can be that foolish...

SDG

Ken McGuire

Peace, Ken! I've read your post on this thread a number of times, and want to thank you for it and for many others of your posts which demonstrate to me The Holy Christian Faith that the Holy Spirit has placed into your very being! I DO thank God for you! I've been a Parish Pastor (now retired!) for more than 50 years and really haven't had the opportunity to have become the theologian that I would have liked to have been. (I am aware, of course of ..... oratio, meditatio, tentatio faciunt theologum!)

(But, by the Grace of God, I AM what I AM! *smile* ) and... I AM truly a "Happy Camper"! I wish you lived a little closer to me so that I could now and again "sit at your feet" occasionally and meditate on your fantastic "sharings" (in many ways!) of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ over a cup of tea (or whatever!).

I respect you highly and am grateful for the part of your signature that does Glorify our Gracious God! You have certainly enriched the Logos Forums and I do pray for you as I have opportunity.