Saved Without Hearing The Gospel?

[Charlie24]

What was the substance of his faith? Believing that a god, or even The God of the bible exists does nothing for a man. He was aware that it was sin to go with the king into the King's pagan temple:

2 Kings 5:18 But may the Lord forgive your servant for this one thing: When my master enters the temple of Rimmon to bow down and he is leaning on my arm and I have to bow there also—when I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the Lord forgive your servant for this.”

So, this seems to suggest that he was aware of the Law and had knowledge of God that we are unaware of, just as with Rahab. The bible doesn't give every single detail of what people knew, but the fact they (rahab, naaman, etc) means that they knew more than just "the God of Israel exists" and there is no indication that anyone has ever been saved apart from the gospel at any point.

There was no Gospel before the Law, that's why Paul said, "sin is not imputed where there is no Law."

we have so much knowledge of God now that we can't imagine what it was like 4-5000 years ago when there was only God's creation for the Gentiles to recognize.

 

[Silverhair]

Oh man, we in this present dispensation of Grace with the knowledge given to us through the NT Scripture have tons of knowledge Naaman didn't have in the dispensation in which he lived. Simply believing in God in not enough, we have instructions from God what we must do to be saved that they didn't have.

Charlie you have to remember that those of a certain particular view have limited the sovereignty of God.

They will say He is absolutely sovereign then deny just that.

 

[Silverhair]

It’s impossible to be more clear than this;
Acts 17:30; John 14:6; Acts 4:12.

Will we be like the pope, and start believing muslims and brothers and sisters in Christ?

The Bible says all in Adam are dead. All in CHRIST are alive. Christ is the Ark. Everyone not in the Ark are lost.

Does the Pope or Muslims believe in the true living God of scripture? No they do not.

If you read through what I posted you will see that it points to the faith in the true God of scripture.

Those that are in God/Christ will be saved. That is what we see in both the OT and the NT.

Isa 55:6 Seek H1875 the LORD H3068 while He may be found H4672; Call H7121 upon Him while He is near H7138.

the LORD H3068

H3068
- Original: יהוה
- Transliteration: Y@hovah
- Phonetic: yeh-ho-vaw’
- Definition: Jehovah = the existing one
1. the proper name of the one true God


Act 15:17 SO G3704 THAT THE REST G2645 OF MANKIND G444 MAY SEEK G1567 THE LORD G2962, AND ALL G3956 THE GENTILES G1484 WHO G3739 ARE CALLED G1941 BY MY NAME G3686,'

THE LORD G2962

G2962
- Original: κύριος
- Transliteration: Kurios
- Phonetic: koo’-ree-os
- Definition:

2. in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor
c. this title is given to: God, the messiah

 

[John of Japan]

I've been laying off for a while, but this thread begs for good theology.

First of all, no one has mentioned the protoevangelion, Gen. 3:15, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." With this prophecy we see that all from Adam and Eve on could know that God was going to send the Seed of the woman to give salvation. So salvation before the cross was trust in the coming Messiah. And God's salvation has always been by faith; the Bible is clear about that. "The just shall live by faith" (Hab. 2:4, Gal. 3:11, Heb. 10:38).

Was there a "gospel" before the cross? Well, of course "gospel" simply means "good news," and there was plenty of good news before the cross. Prov. 25:25 says, "As cold waters to a thirsty soul, so is good news from a far country." It was certainly good news for a saint before the cross to learn that repentance (as per John the Baptist) and faith provided salvation through the coming Messiah. If someone wants to insist that there was not the NT Gospel of Christ before the cross, fine, you don't have to call it the Gospel of Christ per se, but there was certainly the good news of the coming Messiah.

As for the idea that there can be any kind of salvation in the NT era without Christ, the Bible is very clear in many passages about that. Without faith, "the just" cannot live righteous lives. Furthermore, I've researched all the main religions as a missionary, and preached to Buddhists, Muslims, Shintoists, and Hindus, and others, and I'm here to tell you that all of those religions lead directly away from the true God and His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. You cannot get saved through them or any religion. Only Christ can save.

And if that is not true, folks, I wasted 36 1/2 years of my life (deputation plus evangelism) giving the Gospel to the Japanese. And the Great Commission is then a wasteful effort, with the inerrant Bible mistakenly telling us to get the Gospel into all the world. Not to mention, when I teach missions, lay hands on missionaries and send them away, that is also a waste if someone can get to Heaven without knowing Christ.

 

[Silverhair]

I've been laying off for a while, but this thread begs for good theology.

First of all, no one has mentioned the protoevangelion, Gen. 3:15, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." With this prophecy we see that all from Adam and Eve on could know that God was going to send the Seed of the woman to give salvation. So salvation before the cross was trust in the coming Messiah. And God's salvation has always been by faith; the Bible is clear about that. "The just shall live by faith" (Hab. 2:4, Gal. 3:11, Heb. 10:38).

Was there a "gospel" before the cross? Well, of course "gospel" simply means "good news," and there was plenty of good news before the cross. Prov. 25:25 says, "As cold waters to a thirsty soul, so is good news from a far country." It was certainly good news for a saint before the cross to learn that repentance (as per John the Baptist) and faith provided salvation through the coming Messiah. If someone wants to insist that there was not the NT Gospel of Christ before the cross, fine, you don't have to call it the Gospel of Christ per se, but there was certainly the good news of the coming Messiah.

As for the idea that there can be any kind of salvation in the NT era without Christ, the Bible is very clear in many passages about that. Without faith, "the just" cannot live righteous lives. Furthermore, I've researched all the main religions as a missionary, and preached to Buddhists, Muslims, Shintoists, and Hindus, and others, and I'm here to tell you that all of those religions lead directly away from the true God and His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. You cannot get saved through them or any religion. Only Christ can save.

And if that is not true, folks, I wasted 36 1/2 years of my life (deputation plus evangelism) giving the Gospel to the Japanese. And the Great Commission is then a wasteful effort, with the inerrant Bible mistakenly telling us to get the Gospel into all the world. Not to mention, when I teach missions, lay hands on missionaries and send them away, that is also a waste if someone can get to Heaven without knowing Christ.

I agree that those that hear the gospel message are responsible to make a real choice. But I also believe that as you said "the Bible is clear about that. "The just shall live by faith" (Hab. 2:4, Gal. 3:11, Heb. 10:38)."

Those that respond to the various means that God uses to draw them to Himself and place their trust in the living God of scripture will be saved. I am thankful that God does not need to hear words but looks at the heart.

So, no you did not waste your time for 36 1/2 yrs. I just do not limit the sovereign God of creation to what man thinks He has to do.

 

[Charlie24]

I've been laying off for a while, but this thread begs for good theology.

First of all, no one has mentioned the protoevangelion, Gen. 3:15, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." With this prophecy we see that all from Adam and Eve on could know that God was going to send the Seed of the woman to give salvation. So salvation before the cross was trust in the coming Messiah. And God's salvation has always been by faith; the Bible is clear about that. "The just shall live by faith" (Hab. 2:4, Gal. 3:11, Heb. 10:38).

Was there a "gospel" before the cross? Well, of course "gospel" simply means "good news," and there was plenty of good news before the cross. Prov. 25:25 says, "As cold waters to a thirsty soul, so is good news from a far country." It was certainly good news for a saint before the cross to learn that repentance (as per John the Baptist) and faith provided salvation through the coming Messiah. If someone wants to insist that there was not the NT Gospel of Christ before the cross, fine, you don't have to call it the Gospel of Christ per se, but there was certainly the good news of the coming Messiah.

As for the idea that there can be any kind of salvation in the NT era without Christ, the Bible is very clear in many passages about that. Without faith, "the just" cannot live righteous lives. Furthermore, I've researched all the main religions as a missionary, and preached to Buddhists, Muslims, Shintoists, and Hindus, and others, and I'm here to tell you that all of those religions lead directly away from the true God and His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. You cannot get saved through them or any religion. Only Christ can save.

And if that is not true, folks, I wasted 36 1/2 years of my life (deputation plus evangelism) giving the Gospel to the Japanese. And the Great Commission is then a wasteful effort, with the inerrant Bible mistakenly telling us to get the Gospel into all the world. Not to mention, when I teach missions, lay hands on missionaries and send them away, that is also a waste if someone can get to Heaven without knowing Christ.

The way I see it and understand it is that the Gospel actually goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden. But no where close to the understanding we have today with the completed canon of Scripture.

When Adam a Eve sinned, God provided for them coats of animal skins. This is a picture of the atoning work of Christ in the future.

Those animals gave their life for Adam and Eve to be covered, as Christ gave his, the perfect Lamb of God.

That covering for Adam and Eve did not mean salvation, it meant that salvation was possible by faith.

There is no evidence in Scripture that Adam and Eve ever repented of their sins, and if they didn't the covering provided for them by God gained them nothing. Just as today, the atonement of Christ is of no benefit unless one repents and believes.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

There was no Gospel before the Law, that's why Paul said, "sin is not imputed where there is no Law."

Respectfully Charlie, I believe your response is faulty in its interpretation of that verse. Adam in the very beginning was told not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil - he transgressed therefore he sinned and was in need of good news of which @John of Japan referred to, right at the fall of man God was giving the gospel. Romans 5:12 precedes v.13 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—" So if death came to all people because of Adam's sin, and they themselves sinned having a sin nature, obviously God dealt with men according to their sins, thus the gospel had to have existed (logically speaking - and of course scripturally speaking it did) even if a specific Law didn't exist.

 

[Charlie24]

Respectfully Charlie, I believe your response is faulty in its interpretation of that verse. Adam in the very beginning was told not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil - he transgressed therefore he sinned and was in need of good news of which @John of Japan referred to, right at the fall of man God was giving the gospel. Romans 5:12 precedes v.13 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—" So if death came to all people because of Adam's sin, and they themselves sinned having a sin nature, obviously God dealt with men according to their sins, thus the gospel had to have existed (logically speaking - and of course scripturally speaking it did) even if a specific Law didn't exist.

If you read post #26 you will see what I meant. There is much to be explained in order to understand that the Gospel has always existed but there were many in the world who had no access to it.

There was no Gospel for them to understand unless God sent someone to them.

If you can understand what I mean.

 

[Charlie24]

If you read post #26 you will see what I meant. There is much to be explained in order to understand that the Gospel has always existed but there were many in the world who had no access to it.

There was no Gospel for them to understand unless God sent someone to them.

If you can understand what I mean.

Those that lived thousands of years ago before the Law of Moses had no Law and sin was not imputed where there is no Law, as Paul said.

But that did not set them free from the fact they were sinners and lost in this world.

Their sins were not imputed in the sense that judgement will not be near as severe for them as it is for those who have the knowledge of God as we do, or even those who had the Law.

Paul said they still have no excuse by the presence of God's creation and a conscience that gave them some sense of right and wrong.

 

[canadyjd]

Let's take the Syrian general, Naaman for example. I think it was a form of leprosy he had, if I remember correctly.

In his household was a young Jewish servant that told him she knew of a prophet in Israel that could heal him. Finally Naaman went to Israel to find this prophet.

Cutting the story short, Naaman was healed and said, now I know that there is one God in Israel. He was saved by faith in Jehovah God, his sins were covered by the coming Messiah.

He was saved the same way as Abraham, justified by faith in believing God, and it was counted to him for righteousness.

He was saved by the knowledge available at the time he lived, along with so many more.

First, the passage in 2 Kings concerning Naaman says absolutely nothing of him being “saved” as Abraham was. It never says his “faith” was counted as righteousness. It doesn’t say he was “saved” at all.

The passage says Naaman was ordered to go to Israel by his king. Once in Israel, he became angry at the prophet Elisha for not coming out to greet him, sending a messenger instead. He was angry about the message to bath 7 times in the Jordan, claiming it was filthy and the rivers in Syria were much cleaner.

The passage says Naaman’s servants convinced him to do as the prophet had said, pointing out it was but a small thing to bath in the river.

Naaman did not go into the river by faith. His “profession” came only after God had healed him without him showing any faith. If anything, that is a foreshadowing of the work of God Holy Spirit in regenerating prior to faith.

Was he saved? I Don’t know but look at how he responded. He did say there was no other God but the God of Israel. He then attempted to pay the prophet, who refused. He then collected dirt to build an altar back in Syria to make Sacrifices to the God of Israel.

Do you believe sacrifices on an altar in Syria were pleasing to God. No, of course not. God was very careful to describe in detail how sacrifices were to be done. It is possible the Jewish captives instructed him more closely concerning God and His promised Messiah, but that is assuming something not in the passage.

We know very little of Naaman, but to claim he “responded to the light he was shown” for salvation apart from faith in the promised Messiah is not supported by the text.

Peace to you

 

[Charlie24]

First, the passage in 2 Kings concerning Naaman says absolutely nothing of him being “saved” as Abraham was. It never says his “faith” was counted as righteousness. It doesn’t say he was “saved” at all.

The passage says Naaman was ordered to go to Israel by his king. Once in Israel, he became angry at the prophet Elisha for not coming out to greet him, sending a messenger instead. He was angry about the message to bath 7 times in the Jordan, claiming it was filthy and the rivers in Syria were much cleaner.

The passage says Naaman’s servants convinced him to do as the prophet had said, pointing out it was but a small thing to bath in the river.

Naaman did not go into the river by faith. His “profession” came only after God had healed him without him showing any faith. If anything, that is a foreshadowing of the work of God Holy Spirit in regenerating prior to faith.

Was he saved? I Don’t know but look at how he responded. He did say there was no other God but the God of Israel. He then attempted to pay the prophet, who refused. He then collected dirt to build an altar back in Syria to make Sacrifices to the God of Israel.

Do you believe sacrifices on an altar in Syria were pleasing to God. No, of course not. God was very careful to describe in detail how sacrifices were to be done. It is possible the Jewish captives instructed him more closely concerning God and His promised Messiah, but that is assuming something not in the passage.

We know very little of Naaman, but to claim he “responded to the light he was shown” for salvation apart from faith in the promised Messiah is not supported by the text.

Peace to you

I guess you would say the same of Rahab after she acknowledged God.

 

[canadyjd]

I guess you would say the same of Rahab after she acknowledged God.

No. Rahab is mentioned as an OT Saint in Hebrews. She is one who looked forward, seeing the promises of God concerning His Messiah and had faith.

Our conversation is about Naaman, who you claimed had faith like Abraham that was credited to him as righteousness. That is no where in the text, and his actions prove otherwise.

OT Saints were saved the same way we are, by faith in God’s Messiah, and by His grace.

Peace to you

 

[Van]

There is a heresy of “mental assent” called sandemanism (sp?) and that is being expressed here.

@Van changes to words of our Lord Jesus to fit his secular philosophy. Jesus you must “born again” by God Holy Spirit. @Van says you you must believe “some aspects” of the gospel.


Again, @Van changes scripture to fit his secular philosophy, denying the Words of our Lord Jesus.

Jesus says we are drawn by God Holy Spirit. @Van says we are drawn by God’s loving kindness expressed by the gospel. He changes the external work of Almighty God into an internal effort by the man.

Let all beware the secular philosophies of some posters on this board. Do not be led astray.

Peace to you

Once again a false teacher addresses me personally, offering an idiotic charge that stating in my own words what I believe God is saying is somehow wrong. Every translation existing does the same thing!

Next this false teacher claims accepting as true at least some aspects of the gospel is heresy. Claiming belief without commitment is heresy but that is not what I said or suggested. So once again the false teacher offers a false charge to change the subject to me.

Final point, this false teacher does not seem to know scripture says people are "drawn" by God's lovingkindness. Biblical illiteracy on display.

Does scripture teach that under the New Covenant, the lost must believe at least some of the aspects of the gospel of Christ to be saved? Yes!

God loved humanity in this way, He gave His uniquely divine Son so that everyone "believing into Him" would not perish but have everlasting life.

Thus John 3:16 teaches we must believe some things about Jesus to be saved.

In John 1:12 we see we must "receive" (i.e. not reject) Christ, we must believe into His name, referring to His divinity, Messianic mission, virgin birth, sinless life, perfect sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin, His bodily resurrection from the dead, and His ascension into Heaven where He sits at the right hand of the Father.

No one comes to Jesus unless drawn (attracted by God's lovingkindness expressed by the gospel) and all who come not only heard but learned (paid heed to the requirements of the gospel). Such as making Christ our overriding priority, no matter the cost in suffering.

 

[Charlie24]

No. Rahab is mentioned as an OT Saint in Hebrews. She is one who looked forward, seeing the promises of God concerning His Messiah and had faith.

Our conversation is about Naaman, who you claimed had faith like Abraham that was credited to him as righteousness. That is no where in the text, and his actions prove otherwise.

OT Saints were saved the same way we are, by faith in God’s Messiah, and by His grace.

Peace to you

It's ok if you don't believe God seen faith in Naaman and arranged everything for him believe in the one and only God to his salvation.

It all began with God showing favor to Naaman, to make his salvation possible, knowing he would believe.

2 Kings 5:1

"Now Naaman, captain of the host of the king of Syria, was a great man with his master, and honourable, because by him the Lord had given deliverance unto Syria: he was also a mighty man in valour, but he was a leper."

God granted Naaman victory over hid enemies and then led him to his salvation.

I know it's difficult to to accept that God has dealt differently with man through the dispensations of time, according to the knowledge man had available to be saved.

Naaman was a pagan in a pagan land, and the Scripture doesn't say, but I believe many in Syria also became believers in the one true God of Israel when they heard Naaman's testimony and seen that he had been healed.

Just one of many examples of God reaching out to man in his depravity.

 

[canadyjd]

It's ok if you don't believe God seen faith in Naaman and arranged everything for him believe in the one and only God to his salvation.

It all began with God showing favor to Naaman, to make his salvation possible, knowing he would believe.

2 Kings 5:1

"Now Naaman, captain of the host of the king of Syria, was a great man with his master, and honourable, because by him the Lord had given deliverance unto Syria: he was also a mighty man in valour, but he was a leper."

God granted Naaman victory over hid enemies and then led him to his salvation.

I know it's difficult to to accept that God has dealt differently with man through the dispensations of time, according to the knowledge man had available to be saved.

Naaman was a pagan in a pagan land, and the Scripture doesn't say, but I believe many in Syria also became believers in the one true God of Israel when they heard Naaman's testimony and seen that he had been healed.

Just one of many examples of God reaching out to man in his depravity.

And again, you are assuming many things not found in scripture.

I will base what I believe on what scripture says. Scripture tells us the OT Saints were saved the same way we are, by faith in God’s promised Messiah.

I know it’s difficult for you to accept this very clear truth, because it runs counter to the very recent, man-made philosophy of dispensationalism. That’s ok. Believe as your conscience leads you.

We are talking past each other now, no need to continue.

I wish you well.

Peace to you

 

[Charlie24]

And again, you are assuming many things not found in scripture.

I will base what I believe on what scripture says. Scripture tells us the OT Saints were saved the same way we are, by faith in God’s promised Messiah.

I know it’s difficult for you to accept this very clear truth, because it runs counter to the very recent, man-made philosophy of dispensationalism. That’s ok. Believe as your conscience leads you.

We are talking past each other now, no need to continue.

I wish you well.

Peace to you

Naaman did exactly what Rahab did, both being pagans in a pagan land, and both were gloriously saved by faith.

 

[canadyjd]

Naaman did exactly what Rahab did, both being pagans in a pagan land, and both were gloriously saved by faith.

Rahab is mentioned in Hebrews as an OT Saint that was saved by believing the promise of the coming of God’s Messiah. Naaman is not.

Rahab believed and acted, prior to God delivering her. Naaman grumbled and complained and had to be convinced to go into the water. His “profession” came after he was healed. Rahab did not take dirt and build her own altar to worship the God of Israel.

They didn’t do “exactly” the same thing.

No matter how you say it, they are not the same

Scripture is clear, the OT Saints were saved the same way we are, by faith in God’s Messiah. Anything less is an assault on our Lord Jesus, His work, His sacrifice, His death, His resurrection.

Peace to you

 

[John of Japan]

The way I see it and understand it is that the Gospel actually goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden. But no where close to the understanding we have today with the completed canon of Scripture.

When Adam a Eve sinned, God provided for them coats of animal skins. This is a picture of the atoning work of Christ in the future.

Those animals gave their life for Adam and Eve to be covered, as Christ gave his, the perfect Lamb of God.

That covering for Adam and Eve did not mean salvation, it meant that salvation was possible by faith.

There is no evidence in Scripture that Adam and Eve ever repented of their sins, and if they didn't the covering provided for them by God gained them nothing. Just as today, the atonement of Christ is of no benefit unless one repents and believes.

I mostly agree with this, but I do think there is evidence of faith in Adam and Eve because of their son Abel, who was said to be righteous, and I think that was because of parental training. Abel knew the correct sacrifice to make.

 

[John of Japan]

I agree that those that hear the gospel message are responsible to make a real choice. But I also believe that as you said "the Bible is clear about that. "The just shall live by faith" (Hab. 2:4, Gal. 3:11, Heb. 10:38)."

Those that respond to the various means that God uses to draw them to Himself and place their trust in the living God of scripture will be saved. I am thankful that God does not need to hear words but looks at the heart.

Here's a big problem with the idea that a sinner does not need to hear the Gospel to be saved. "14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!" (Rom. 10:14-15). So God's clear plan is the proclamation of the Gospel. There are no Scriptures that say God saves anyone apart from the Gospel, though He certainly could if it were His His plan. To say that God saves people outside of the Gospel is to look for Scripture that is not there.

Now here is a practical problem with the view that God saves people without the Gospel. Where are they? Have you ever heard a single testimony from such a person? Have you ever met such a person? God has graciously allowed me to spend 33 years giving the Gospel to the Japanese. But I gave the Gospel hundreds of times in the US before going there. I have preached the Word in 6 different countries, and never one single time have I ever met someone who had a testimony of being saved before hearing the Gospel.

If there were such a person, Don Richardson would certainly have written about him in his book Eternity in Their Hearts. Are you familiar with it? Richardson chronicles people groups all over the world with legends or customs that prepared them to hear the Gospel. My favorite of those stories is of the Karen tribespeople in Burma, who had a tradition that a white man with a precious book by God. Secular visitors recorded the tradition, and once a Muslim even visited with a Quran. However, it was when the Christian missionaries finally arrived with the Bible and the Gospel that the Karen tribe turned to Christ en masse.

So again, if there were people saved without the Gospel, where are they? I suppose I have close to 100 books on missions and reaching the world for Christ, and I teach "Advanced Missions" and "The History of Missions" in our Bible college. But never in all of my years have I heard or read a testimony of someone saved without the Gospel.

So, no you did not waste your time for 36 1/2 yrs. I just do not limit the sovereign God of creation to what man thinks He has to do.

It is not limiting the sovereign God to say that He Himself limits salvation to those who hear the Gospel. God can certainly save without the Gospel if He wants to. But His plan (cf Greek boule, βουλή) is that the Gospel be the means of people getting saved through the death of Christ on the cross. As Paul said, "For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel (boule) of God" (Acts 20:27). God only has one plan of salvation.

 

[Charlie24]

Rahab is mentioned in Hebrews as an OT Saint that was saved by believing the promise of the coming of God’s Messiah. Naaman is not.

Rahab believed and acted, prior to God delivering her. Naaman grumbled and complained and had to be convinced to go into the water. His “profession” came after he was healed. Rahab did not take dirt and build her own altar to worship the God of Israel.

They didn’t do “exactly” the same thing.

No matter how you say it, they are not the same

Scripture is clear, the OT Saints were saved the same way we are, by faith in God’s Messiah. Anything less is an assault on our Lord Jesus, His work, His sacrifice, His death, His resurrection.

Peace to you

Christ is hidden in the OT Scripture but is very much present in types and shadows.

He was there at the bitter waters in Mara when God told Moses to cut down the Tree and cast in the water. That Tree represented the Cross of Christ and what He there did. And the waters became sweet.

He was there when the Ninevites repented in sackcloth and ashes at the preaching of Jonah. It was a foreshadow of the coming repentance and faith in the Lamb of God. Did Jonah preach, repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved? They would have believed him to be insane according the knowledge these pagans had at that time. But Christ was there in foreshadow of what was to come through faith a repentance when Christ was revealed to the world.

He was there when Rahab believed in God and obeyed the spies by placing a scarlet thread out of her window. The scarlet thread represented the Blood of Christ.

He was there when Naaman obeyed the prophet and dipped 7 times in the Jordan River. A foreshadow of the cleansing power of Christ both physically and spiritually.

He was there when Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness. The Bible's introduction of justification by faith over 2000 years before Paul made it known it in his epistles.

Hopefully you can see what was happening according to the knowledge of man at the time he lived.