Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour (Mt 15:21-28).
In a rare and unusual move, Jesus left the territory of Israel and traveled to the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, the land of Phoenicia, also known as Canaan. A woman, whose daughter was possessed by evil spirits, came after him and pleaded for her healing. Jesus refused to do so. For the very first time, he denied someone’s request to act on his or her behalf. This was out of the ordinary, out of his character. The language he used with the woman was also harsh, for lack of a better word. His exact response, “It is not meet to take the children’s bread and cast it to dogs.” Edwards notes that this “reference to the woman as a dog ranks among the most offensive sayings of Jesus” (219).
Harrington says the following about this passage:
The assumption of the saying taken over by Matthew is that “children” represent Israel and “dogs” represent Gentiles. The harshness of the saying is softened somewhat by the use of the diminutive kynarion (“puppy”) and by the assumption in 15:27 that these are “house-dogs.” Be that as it may, Jesus clearly affirms the traditional Jewish approach to salvation history-to the Jews first (235).
The woman was a Canaanite, a land north of Israel. This land is now known as the country of Lebanon. She must have heard about Jesus through other Canaanites since news of his wonders in Israel had also reached many surrounding territories. In fact, among the multitude following Jesus were inhabitants of the coastal towns of Tyre and Sidon (Mk 3:8, Lk 6:17). In addition, one of Jesus’ twelve disciples, Simon (not Simon Peter) was a Canaanite (Mt 10:4). Many foreigners were attracted to the ways and customs of the Jews. They had found Judaism to be unique and intriguing. Several aspects of the Jewish culture and religion were appealing to them. Some of them had even converted to Judaism. Such an example would be the Greeks of John 12:20. They were “among them that came up to Jerusalem to worship at the feast” and went to the disciples and asked to see Jesus. Matthew stated that among the multitude following Jesus were also people from Decapolis and from beyond the Jordan (Mt 4: 24-25). Decapolis is the land east of the Jordan River and was comprised of ten cities; hence, its name. This territory is now the country of Jordan. Other foreigners or Gentiles leaving in land of Israel had benefited from the healing ministry of Jesus as well. Among them was the Ro the man centurion who went to Jesus to ask for healing for his sick servant (Lk 7:1-3).
God’s vision was that through coming in contact and interacting with His chosen people, their close and distant neighbors would come to appreciate and espouse their wise ways and vibrant religion. The exceptional manner in which the Greek culture spread during the Hellenistic Age may have provided the closest illustration of the manner in which God wanted to spread His knowledge and ways through the world. Kinnard writes:
The Greeks strongly exerted their influence on neighboring cultures. They did not need to enforce Greek ways – because of their success people desired to be like them. The Greek culture strongly influenced Palestine, and its influence can be seen in the fact that the New Testament was written in Koine Greek, the Greek used in everyday life. The Phoenicians and Philistines became so enamored by the Greeks that they exchanged their language for Greek, and the distinctive aspects of their culture were lost (105).
The Canaanite’s woman’s reply to Jesus’ statement is very interesting. When Jesus refused her request, she could have turned around and go her way. She could have taken offense at Jesus’ less than flattering choice of words. Instead, she embraced and humbly accepted his statement. She went along with his description of her: “Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.” Jesus was blown away by her faith and humility, and, without further delay, granted her request, and proceeded to praise her, “O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt” (15:28). Matthew added that at that same hour, her daughter was healed. The Canaanite woman was very smart and tactful. She knew what her goal was – obtaining healing for her sickly daughter. She refused to take no for an answer, and accepted any seemingly mistreatment in the process.
Why was Jesus so harsh with her? He is known to be a compassionate person, willing and dedicated to alleviate the sufferings of his fellow human beings. In fact, healing fellow members of the human race was an integral part of his earthly ministry. In Matthew 4:24. it is written,; “And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatics, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.” He made it a point to go from town to town to spread his two-headed ministry; the good news of the kingdom, and healing of the people of their diseases (Mk 1:38-39). Yet, this time, he refused to perform the healing requested by the Canaanite woman. This illustrates one aspect of his character; the same Jesus who wants to save all human beings is also the same one who, one day, will stand to carry out his Father’s judgment against humanity by punishing it accordingly (Mt 25:31-34, 41, 46). The same Jesus who is the personification of compassion and forgiveness, and who even forgave his tormentors while on the cross (Lk 23:34), is also the same one to whom the concept of mercy will be alien once the grace period is over (Mt 7:23, Rev 9:6, 16:21).
The main reason Jesus refused the miracle to the Canaanite woman, though, was because he came for the children of Israel, not for the Gentiles. This was one of the rare occasions he stepped out of the territory of Israel. He focused his ministry exclusively in Galilee and Judea, with occasional passing into Samaria. He used his miraculous powers to benefit his own countrymen; he healed their sick of whatever ailment tormented them, and taught them the ways of God by revealing unto them his Father’s doctrine. When he spoke to the Samaritan woman who brought up the point about the conflicted views between her people and the Jews in regards to whether God should be worshipped on Mount Gerizim in Samaria, or at Jerusalem, Jesus gave her an unequivocal answer; the Jews are the ones who are right on this issue. And he added, “Salvation is of the Jews” (Jn 4:20-22). When he sent the twelve disciples on their first missionary journey, he specifically forbade them to go to any city of the Gentiles or of the Samaritans (Mt 10:5-6). He knew that his Father sent him to bring light to the Jews, those of the house of Israel, and that is exactly what he did. The Jewish nation was the chosen one of God.
For over two millennia, God Had revealed Himself to their ancestors and had blessed them. He gave them His laws through Moses and taught them His ways through the judges and the prophets. When the nation strayed away from Him, He sent them many prophets to bring them back to Him and to correct their evil and idolatrous ways. Jesus was the last one in this long and distinguished line of prophets, the promised Messiah, the one who descended from heaven itself to give to his people their last chance to conform to the ways of the Father, and thus retain their privileged status of chosen people. Therefore, he made sure that he gave the Jews his undivided attention; he made sure that he did not shortchange them.
He was mindful not to take away anything that was rightfully theirs and to give it to the Gentiles. As he said to the Canaanite woman, “It is not meet to take the children’s bread and to cast it to dogs.” Even when he stayed with the Samaritans, Jesus did not perform any miracles among them. He did not put his miraculous powers at their benefit. He stayed with them a mere two days, and only did so at their request (Jn 4:40). In passing, it is necessary to point out that Jesus, at times, did heal people who were not Jews, but these were people who were brought to him while he was ministering in the different towns and cities of Galilee and Judea. He did heal people during some of his rare trips outside of Israel (Lk 17:11-16), but that was clearly not the norm.
God’s plan of salvation was that through His chosen nation, Israel, all the other nations of the earth would come to know His ways. Through Abraham and his descendants, He had hoped to bless all the peoples of the earth (Gen 12:1-3, 18:18). God the Son came down to his people to make one last attempt to fulfill this plan through them. The location of the land God promised to Abraham and his descendants, the Hebrews, was among the most fertile of the region. It was often referred to as the land where “floweth milk and honey.” God stayed true to His tendency of desiring and providing the best for His people.
However, this may not have been the only reason why He gave them this specific land. A closer look at the map of the region reveals an interesting characteristic of the land. Canaan, which was later purposely renamed Palaestima (land of the Philistines) by the Roman general, Titus, after he destroyed Jerusalem and its temple in AD 70 (Kinnard 118), is located at close proximity to several major regions of the world; to its south were the ancient land of Egypt and the other countries of Africa. To its right stood the land of Assyria (modern Syria), modern Jordan, ancient Babylon (modern Iraq), Persia, and the rest of the middle-east and other Asian countries. To its north laid the vast and imposing land of modern Turkey. Ancient Greece and Rome could be seen to its northwest. It was a geographically strategic area. Conquering nations, such as the Assyrians (2 Kings17:1-6, 24-28), Babylonians (2 Kings 25:1-26), the Persians, the Macedonians of Alexander the Great (Kinnard 105-106), and the Romans of Julius Caesar, coveted and controlled it successively for many centuries. Canaan or Palaestima was a bridge to several different regions, an important commercial route easily accessible by both sea and land. Edward Flannery describes it as “a crossroads between Asia, Europe, and Africa…” (6).
God may have picked this land, which is at such close proximity to various regions of the world, and gave it to His chosen people because it would allow for an easier and faster dissemination of His knowledge. The Apostle Paul himself launched three of his missionary journeys from Jerusalem. In four trips, he was able to spread the gospel through much of the civilized world. About two millenniums earlier, the knowledge of the God of heaven among the peoples of the earth had grown dim. After the fall of Adam and Eve, their sons and daughters had knowledge of what had happened to their parents; they learned from them how sin had been introduced into the world. Their son Abel put this knowledge of the Creator into practice and lived a righteous life until it was cut short by his brother Cain (Gen 4:1-10). Enoch was also among the descendants of Adam who preserved the knowledge of the God of heaven and reflected it in his own life (5:21-24). However, the majority of Adam’s descendants decided to follow the desires of their own hearts and to live their lives irrespective of God’s will. Sin became a common currency and the thoughts of the hearts of men became continually evil (6:1-7). The story of the devastating flood that swallowed them up was the direct consequence (7:11-24).
The three sons of Noah who survived the flood, and later their descendants, were more than aware of the God of heaven. The story of the flood that drowned their ancestors was still fresh in their minds. After they spread out over the face of the earth, they recounted that story to their offspring generation after generation. This is probably the reason why several ancient civilizations, such as the Babylonians, have in their tales some mentions of a flood that engulfed the earth and its inhabitants at one point in time. But over the centuries, this story has been watered down, with almost each generation adding to it its own wrinkle, although its core elements tend to remain the same – a god warning a righteous man of earth and its inhabitants destruction because of their wickedness, and to build an ark. The Babylonian flood written in the “Epic of Galgamesh” has so many similarities to that of the Hebrew Bible some have argued that it must have been copied from a Hebrew story or vice-versa (7) (Sheler 54).
Sheler states that scholars critical of the biblical flood story point out that since both the Sumerian Gilgamesh and the Old Babylonian myth of Atrahasis, which contain a similar version of the flood narrative, predate the writing of Genesis, (the latter believed to have been written in the Late Bronze Period 1550 – 1200 BC, the former in the third millennium BCE, then the Genesis account must be the one to have borrowed materials from its earlier counterpart (54). This is not necessarily so. Though Moses wrote in the Late Bronze Age, his dating of the Flood story goes almost toward the creation of the earth, an event which some put in 4004 BC, others as early as 7000 BC (Free 23). What can be safely stated is that the Babylonians were the first to have put the Flood story in writing. About a millennium later Moses, under divine inspiration, would do the same. But he did much more than that; he recorded the very beginnings of the story of the earth. Because one was not the first to write of an event does not necessarily follow that similar materials in his account must have been copied from the earlier version. One would expect two or multiple writers to have many similarities in their account of an historical event, whether or not they lived in different eras, and did so independently of each other.
The descendants of the sons of Noah also remembered too well of the God of heaven thwarting their plan of settling into a plain found in the land of Shinar during their eastward journey. They had desired to build a city and tower there, which were to “reach into the heavens.” God put a stop to that plan because they had gone against His command to spread out over the face of the earth and replenish it (11:1-9) (See also topic “Mankind: a race created a little lower than the angels”). Unfortunately, decades and centuries after they had spread over the face of the earth, their knowledge of the God of heaven had become almost extinguished and replaced with the gods of nature; gods of their own creation. This illustrates a striking characteristic of human nature; it has a strong tendency to worship, follow, or idolize some external element greater than itself, preferably something that is the product of its own mind, the product of its own creation. The history of ancient civilizations is filled with references of the inhabitants of the earth turning the elements of nature (sun, moon, rain, trees, stones, etc.) into gods to be bowed down to.
However, there were pockets of individuals here and there that had some limited knowledge of God. Melchizedek, the king of Salem, is referred to as “the priest of the most high God” (Gen 14:18). Salem was a city not far from that of Sodom. The king of Sodom also had some vague knowledge about the God of heaven, (vv. 18-20). Abimelech and Phicol, two men of whom little is said about in the Bible, also had some knowledge of the living God (21:22-34). These were contemporaries of Abraham. As a side note, the biblical narratives concerning him and the later patriarchs, Isaac and Jacob, and Joseph have been heavily scrutinized and branded by some in the biblical scholarship community as mythology:
…This lack of corroborating evidence, along with their own critical analysis of the text, has prompted biblical scholars such as Robert Coote, of San Francisco Theological Seminary, to assert that ‘the period of the patriarchs…as devised by the writers of Scriptures…never existed.’ Niels Peter Lemche, a professor at the University of Copenhagen and a leading voice among the biblical minimalists, flatly categorizes the stories of the patriarchs as ‘fiction written around the middle of the first millennium’ BCE to help establish a historical pedigree for Israel after the Babylonian exile. Archaeological data from the second and third millennium, says Lemche, ‘do not contain a single direct reference to any of the features mentioned in the Old Testament narrative. Even the Evangelical magazine Christianity Today, in a 1998 cover story on archaeology and the Bible, had to concede that ‘not one shred of direct archaeological evidence has been found for Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob…(Sheler 72).
Scholars skeptical about the patriarchal age, Sheler affirms, also argue against its historicity based on alleged anachronisms such as the reference to Abraham in the eleventh chapter of Genesis as coming from “Ur of the Chaldeans.” This city of Southern Mesopotamia or modern-day Iraq, they contend, was settled by the Chaldeans “not earlier than the ninth or eight centuries” BCE, according to Lemche, that he says is more than a thousand years after Abraham’s time and at least four hundred years after the time of Moses, who tradition says wrote the book of Moses (72).
These arguments have been satisfactorily answered by those within the conservative branch of the academy, suggests Sheler:
Many scholars find no reason to doubt the substantial accuracy of the patriarch tradition. Some, like Barry Beitzel, professor of Old Testament and Semitic languages at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, are neither surprised nor troubled by the apparent lack of direct archaeological evidence for Abraham’s existence. Why, they, argue, should one expect to find the names of an obscure nomad and his descendants in the official archives of the rulers of Mesopotamia? The Genesis narratives, says Beitzel, ‘talk about men getting wives, wives getting babies and babies getting inheritances.’ These are family stories,’ he says, and not geopolitical history of the type one might expect to find preserved in the annals of kings…(73).
Regarding the alleged anachronism charge leveled against the patriarchal tradition, Sheler states:
Nor do traditionalists find the apparent anachronisms in the patriarch stories to be particularly problematic. For a later redactor of the biblical narratives to have identified Ur with the Chaldeans, they argue, is not much different than for historians today to speak of Columbus landing in the Dominican Republic. In both cases, the anachronism is a rhetorical device employed to help a ‘modern audience’ visualize a historical setting. It hardly amounts to evidence of fakery or of garbled history, and it certainly does not mean there is not historical core behind the stories themselves (73).
Circumstantial evidence in the archaeological records have been found and presented in favor of the patriarchal narratives. Examples of them include the price of slaves in Genesis 37:28 for that period, and the nature and structure of treaties in Genesis 21, 26, and 31 that have been found to be consistent with those found in ancient Mesopotamian records of that same period (Sheler 73-74). A criticism of a similar nature – lack of archaeological evidence – is made against the biblical era of the exodus, of which it is said that the Sinai desert and peninsula where the Hebrews reportedly sojourned for forty years in the middle of the second millennium BCE have yielded no traces of such presence. Conservative scholars, on the other hand, respond to this charge as follows:
It is important to remember, too, when pondering holes in the archaeological records, that arguing from an absence of evidence is always a tenuous proposition. ‘Archaeology,’ after all, writes Leslie Hope, ‘can uncover only what has survived, and what has survived and has been discovered is the result of sheer accident.’ Who can say what archaeological bombshells of the mind-changing magnitude of the King David inscription lie hidden in the sands of Egypt or the hills and caves of the Levant? At many important tells, even some that have been excavated for decades, only a small fraction of the ground has been explored. Dozens of recently discovered sites have undergone little more than a superficial survey (Sheler 122).
Returning to the topic of this discussion (the Salvation Plan), during the days when the children of Israel started to conquer peoples and lands left and right on their way to the Promised Land, there was another individual in one of these pagan lands that was also known as a man of God, although subsequent descriptions paint him with an unflattering brush (Num 22:22, 32-33). His name was Balaam, and he lived in the land of the Moabites, or very near it. Through him, the king of Moab, Balak, and his princes, acquired some knowledge of the God of heaven, and became acquainted with some prophetic visions (Numb 22:1-20, 36-41, 23:1-30, 24). These were, however, isolated cases of people who knew about God. The knowledge of the God of heaven started to grow on a larger scale with the deliverance of the Hebrews from Egypt and the birth of their nation.
The stories of the Hebrews and their worship of only one God purported to be all-powerful and the Creator of heaven and earth were unique and had reached legendary status among their idolatrous neighbors. The Egyptians of North Africa and several other peoples of that continent knew too well about the ten plagues the God of Israel had struck the Egyptians with in order to deliver His people from their century-old bondage. Many foreigners had heard of the wonders the God of Israel had wrought in their favor. They had heard of the story of Him separating the Red Sea into half to let His people cross over to the other side on their way out of Egypt, while the armies of Pharaoh were drowned when attempting to do the same. One of the most striking testimonies uttered from the lips of a pagan regarding the God of the Hebrews might have come from the harlot Rahab, an inhabitant of the city of Jericho. She was so convinced that the Hebrew deity was the true and the most powerful “god” that she risked her own life and those of her household in order to protect two of His servants (Josh 2:1, 4). She explained the reason for her faith as follows:
I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you. For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites, that were on the other side Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom ye utterly destroyed. And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you: for the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath” (Josh 2:9-11).
Many of the people who lived in the cities west of the Jordan River were frightened by the victory of the Hebrews over Sihon, king of the Amorites, and Og, King of Bashan (Num 21:21-35). These two kings occupied the lands east of the Jordan River (modern Jordan and Syria). The conquest of these lands was prophesied in Genesis 15:18-21. However, the children of Israel initially did not seek to do battle with the inhabitants of these lands. Moses and the Hebrews requested safe passage from King Sihon and the Amorites on their way to the Jordan River, in order to get ready for its crossing, and start the conquest of the cities on the other side. That request was rudely denied. On top of that, the Amorites came out of their cities to do battle with Israel; not surprisingly, they were handily defeated, exterminated, and their lands repossessed. The king of Bashan and his people, possibly in a show of solidarity to their Ammorite brethren, also came down from the North to fight the Hebrews, without any provocation; he and his people suffered the same fate (Num 21:21-35). .
After the children of Jacob completed the first step of their conquest of the territories west of the Jordan - the defeat of the city of Jericho, news of that victory spread to the near and far away cities. The miraculous way in which the God of heaven brought about the fall of the massive walls of this fortified city once thought of as impenetrable, without the Hebrews lifting a finger (Josh 6), and the merciless extermination of its inhabitants, were more than enough to make the bravest and fiercest warriors of those lands shake in their boots. Tidings about the subsequent destruction of the city of Ai and its inhabitants had also spread. Some of the inhabitants of Canaan became terrified at the fact that they were next on the list of the children of Israel to be attacked. They acknowledged that they stood no chance in defeating the Hebrews. According to their reasoning, who would be foolish enough to try to fight a people whose God has dried up the Red Sea to let them cross over on the other side? Who would be foolish enough to line for battle against a people whose God just duplicated the same feat by separating the Jordan River to let His people walk through on dried grounds (Josh 3 and 4)?
To avert their sure and impending destruction, the inhabitants of four of these cities, Gibeon, Chephira, Beeroth, and Kirjah-jearim, got together and concocted a ruse. They sent a delegation to Joshua and the congregation of the Hebrews, encamped at Gilgal, to talk them into signing a peace treaty with them. They spoke in the following terms, “From a very far country thy servants are come because of the name of the LORD thy God: for we have heard the fame of him, and all that he did in Egypt, And all that he did to the two kings of the Amorites, that were beyond Jordan, to Sihon king of Heshbon, and to Og king of Bashan, which was at Ashtaroth…We are your servants: therefore now make ye a league with us” (Josh 9: 6-27). They meant every word of the above statement, except for the part, “From a very far country thy servants are come.”
The people from these four cities, however, were not cowards; they were not novices in the art of warfare. Neither did they shy away from a battle. What distinguished them from the inhabitants of the surrounding cities was that they had enough good sense to realize they stood no chance in defeating the Hebrews whose commander was God himself. Of the city of Gibeon (one of the four cities) it is written, “It was a great city, as one of the royal cities…and all the men thereof were mighty” (Josh 10:1-2). Forty years earlier, ten of the twelve spies sent by Moses to scout the land of Canaan and its people described its inhabitants, including those of Gibeon, as follows, “…They are stronger than we. And all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature. And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight” (Num 13:31-33). This testimony may have been somehow exaggerated, but on the overall, it was true.
The Gibeonites were men who themselves inspired great fear into the hearts of their neighbors, such as those living in the city of Jerusalem. The good sense of the inhabitants of these four cities paid off. When the king of the city of Jerusalem, Adonizedek, became enraged at them for allying themselves with the children of Israel, he sought to make them pay for their “betrayal.” He leagued himself with the kings of four other cities (Hebron, Lachish, Jarmuth, and Eglon) and converged on the city of Gibeon to utterly eradicate it from the face of the earth. The men of Gibeon sent for help from Joshua who came promptly to their rescue. God made the men of Gibeon and Joshua victorious over their attackers. The writer of the book of Joshua describes the miraculous defeat and destruction of their attackers as follows, “And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, and were in the going down to Bethhoron, that the LORD cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which died with hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword” (10:11).
The men of Gibeon, Chephira, Beeroth, and Kirjah-jearim had believed in the mighty nature of the God of Israel based on what they heard of His past exploits and on what He did to the people of Jericho. Now they saw with their own two eyes His invisible but active hand in fighting the battles of His chosen people; they witnessed the giant stones falling from the sky onto the fleeing warriors of the king of Jerusalem and his allies. They watched in amazement His halting of the sun, at Joshua’s command, to prevent it from going down, and His halting of the moon to stop it from coming up. Whether their neighbors would continue to see them as traitors and cowards was now irrelevant to them; they felt vindicated in their decision to enter into a peace treaty with the children of Israel. After the conquest of Canaan, they became servants to the Hebrews as a punishment for their ruse, and in return for their lives having been spared (Josh 9:21-27). The last verse of the ninth chapter of the book of Joshua reads as follows, “And Joshua made them that day hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation, and for the altar of the LORD, even unto this day…” Many of them likely adopted the God of the Hebrews as theirs because they now knew for a certainty that He was the only true and living God in heaven above and on earth below.
Many other foreigners also trembled at the mention of the name of the God of Israel. They include the pagan seamen, who, after witnessing the might of Jonah’s God, “feared the Lord exceedingly, and offered a sacrifice unto the Lord, and made vows” (Jon 1:4-16). There are many other examples of foreign nations and or dignitaries that had come to the knowledge of the true God of heaven through their interaction with the Hebrews. Among them was the Queen of Sheba, who came all the way from deep into the African continent to hear the Wisdom of Solomon (1 Kings 10:1-13, Mt 12:42). At the conclusion of her visit and tête-à-tête with the wise and powerful Ruler, she declared, “Blessed be the LORD thy God, which delighted in thee, to set thee on the throne of Israel; because the LORD loveth Israel forever…” She returned to her country convinced the God of Israel was the only true and living God, unlike the idols worshipped in her land. Naaman, a valiant and esteemed army general from the land of Syria, came to Israel in search of healing from his leprosy. After his flesh was cleansed and became as supple as that of an infant, he confessed to the prophet Elisha “there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel,” and that he “will henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice unto other gods, but unto the Lord (2 kings 5:1-17).
The King of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, one of the most powerful and fearful rulers in history, and who arose to power in 605 B.C., once had a dream so troubling that it awoke him from his sleep. He summoned the magicians, astrologers, sorcerers, the Chaldeans and demanded that they not only explain to him the disturbing dream but also to reveal to him the dream itself because he had forgotten it. Only one person, in the whole kingdom, was up to that challenge – the humble prophet Daniel. After hearing from the latter both the dream and its interpretation, Nebuchadnezzar “fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel, and commanded that they should offer an oblation and sweet odours unto him. The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret” (Dan 2:46-47).
In another episode, the same king had ordered three young Hebrews be thrown into a fiery furnace for refusing to bow down to his golden image. To his amazement, he saw a fourth individual in the midst of the fire conversing with the three Hebrews, and who had the appearance of the “Son of God.” Through this memorable episode, God schooled Nebuchadnezzar a second time about His nature and might. The King decreed the following as a result, “Every people, nation, and language, which speak anything amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made a dunghill: because there is no other God that can deliver after this sort” (3:29). King Darius, the Ruler of the Persian Empire, after witnessing the miraculous way in which the prophet Daniel’s God delivered him from the mouths of the lions, proclaimed, “I make a decree, that in every dominion of my kingdom men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel; for he is the living God, and steadfast forever, and his kingdom that shall not be destroyed, and his dominion shall be even unto the end” (6:25-26).
Decades later, many of the inhabitants of the Persian Kingdom would join themselves to the Jewish people after they witnessed the most improbable turn of events. The destruction of the Jews had been decreed and set in stones by the Persian monarch, Ahasuerus, under the manipulation of Haman, with an appointed date, only to be miraculously reversed sometime later. Fearing for their lives, these inhabitants joined themselves to the Jews. The manner in which the God of the Jews intervened on their behalf left a lasting impression on these former pagans (Esth 8, cf. 17, 9:27).
Three wise men or astrologers, from deep into the Middle-East, came to Jerusalem to worship the newborn king of Israel. They were fascinated with the religion of the Jews, had studied their sacred texts, and had come to learn about the Messiah promised to the Jews. God helped them to understand that the birth of this king would be signaled by the appearance of a bright star in the sky (Mt 2:1-2). During Jesus’ ministry, people from the surrounding lands came to Israel to see who was that individual whose fame had reached all the way to their lands, to bring him their sick and diseased, and to learn of his message (Mt 4:24-26). Some of those lands were Trachonitis (modern Syria), Decapolis (modern Jordan), and Phoenicia (modern Lebanon).
Simon, one of Jesus’ twelve disciples, was a Canaanite, the land north of Israel (Mt 10:4). It seemed that he also had found the Jewish religion and culture appealing and had espoused their religion. He must have been living in Israel at the time Jesus issued to him the call to follow Him. Jesus himself stayed in the land south of Israel, Egypt, for a while when his parents had to flee Bethlehem to escape the coming massacre of the infants of that town at the order of the cruel King Herod. One Roman officer and those in his house became strong believers in Jesus after his sick servant was miraculously healed by the latter (Mt 8:5-13). Jesus defined the scope of the salvation plan as follows, “Many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 8:11). Old Testament prophets predicted that “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among the nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Lk 24:47).
Since the chosen nation as a whole failed in its duty to carry out the divine plan, Jesus instead chose twelve disciples to do so; he chose twelve disciples to replace the twelve tribes of Israel. God stubbornly clinged to His plan of blessing the world. He was intent on keeping the promise made to Abraham, that all the nations of the earth would be blessed through him. He chose the twelve apostles, to which Paul was later added, and sent them to both Jews and Gentiles, to “…give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death…” (Lk 1:79). The devout and just Simeon expressed his understanding of the future life of baby Jesus in the following prophetic words; he will be “a light to lighten the gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel” (Lk 2:32).
Jesus’ descent and thirty-three-year existence onto the earth has left it a much better place than it was prior to his coming. More than two millennia later, the world is still a better place as a result. The world is or should be grateful that God did not abandon His salvation plan when it could not be carried out in its initial form. Many laws that govern a number of modern societies in the western world today are of a Judeo-Christian heritage. Many charitable organizations that send missionaries to many poor corners of the earth, and labor on behalf of the destitute, do so out of their Christian convictions, and as a response to Jesus’ call to care for the poor and the less fortunate. Many brave men and women who have stood up against social injustices and economic inequalities, against the oppression and exploitation of the disadvantaged, such as Martin Luther King, had a strong Christian background.
When the future king of Israel finally made his long anticipated entrance into the world, heaven rejoiced greatly because its inhabitants, the angelic beings, knew too well that this event would alter the course of mankind’s history forever. That night when Mary gave birth to baby Jesus, heaven was not able to contain its joy. A cohort of its inhabitants rushed to earth to share this great news with the “sons and daughters of men.” There were several shepherds in the fields of Bethlehem tending to their flocks. An angel of the Lord appeared unto them and “the glory of the Lord shone round about them.” He declared unto them, “Fear not; for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.” Seconds later, “there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men (Lk 2:8-14).
It is an amazing thing to observe the enthusiasm and wholehearted interest with which the angels, holy beings who have never sinned, show toward the salvation of humanity, a race created a little lower than theirs (Ps 8:4-5). They have been and will continue to be until the very end, willing, dedicated, and full cooperative agents in this godly endeavor. Of them, the author of Hebrew wrote, they are “ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation” (1:14). The Psalmist added the following comforting words: “The angel of the LORD encamps around those who fear him, and he delivers them” (Ps 34:7).
More than two millenniums later, the celebration of the birth of baby Jesus, Christmas, continues to be the most joyous holiday season of the year in many regions of the globe. Is this because Christmas has been so commercialized? This may have a lot to do with it, but on the overall, the yearly celebration of baby Jesus’ birth, in and of itself, is a joyous occasion, and a significant event for humanity, because with this birth was renewed mankind’s hope of deliverance from its spiritual oppressor, and the promise of the future restoration of the earthly and eternal paradise God had always intended for members of the human race.
Millions celebrate Christmas every year. For many, this holiday season is the most anticipated one of the year. It is a season many look forward to for the mutual expression of love exhibited through the happy exchange of gifts, and where relatives and friends get together to catch up on good old days and enjoy each other’s company. It is the season to be jolly. As the angelic beings joined together to sing a joyful song of praise to their Maker, mankind, in a remarkable display of talents, have recorded some of the best Christmas carols ever to brighten the holiday spirit and to make pleasing and memorable sounds to the human ear. The luminous decorations, displayed in front of many houses, add a special element to this unique season. Some of these decorations are so creative, exquisite, and elaborate that one, at times, feels compelled to slow down or to stop altogether in order to admire and savor these sceneries so pleasing to the eye.
The contrast with the first celebration of Christmas, however, is startling; the two of them are as night and day. The angels of Luke 2, in a simple and joyful manner, praised God for the wonders He was about to wrought on mankind. They invited the shepherds to share in their joy by visiting baby Jesus, lying in a Bethlehem manger, with his excited parents at his side (2:8-20). The three wise men came all the way from the east looking for the infant whose star in the sky was brighter than any they had ever observed (Mt 2:9-10). When they were finally in the presence of baby Jesus, they “fell down and worshipped him” and presented to him various gifts; gold, frankincense, and myrrh (v. 11). The whole celebration was simple and Christ-centered.
Nowadays, Christmas celebration is the total opposite. Some use this occasion as license toward the enjoyment of every pleasure under the sun. This celebration has mutated to include all kinds of hard liquor consumption, and debauchery in food and other extravaganzas. This is the season when law enforcement officers are on heightened alert for drunk driving incidents and other illegal behaviors, all, in the name of Christmas. What a far cry from the first celebration, and how ironic that these celebrations of the birth of baby Jesus are as Christ-less as possible.
Unfortunately, the substance of Christmas is lost, and it has become a yearly ritual that fail to move one’s hearts to appreciate and be grateful toward God for this selfless and thoughtful gift. Every year, it continues to fail to lift the eyes of many toward spiritual realities. The children of Israel offered a daily and yearly sacrifice to God as their sin offering (1 Chr 31:2, 23:28-31, Lk 1:8-9). Yet, they failed to understand the reason such sacrifices were being offered. The main reason God gave these ceremonial laws to Moses and His people was to direct their eyes toward the One who was coming to volunteer himself as a perfect sacrifice for the forgiveness of their sins. When he came in their midst to do so, they did not even recognize him. They were caught sorely unprepared. Jesus’ birth into the world also set into motion his Second Coming. Unfortunately, millions who celebrate his very birth year in and year out will also be caught sorely unprepared upon his return.
In Regards to the Salvation Plan, the children of Israel, unfortunately, did not live up to their end of the bargain. They did not understand the ways and purposes of God. As a whole, they were not willing to be obedient to God and to walk in His ways. Therefore God was unable to use them as a nation to make His name known to all the inhabitants of the earth. Today, many say that the Jews (his contemporaries) killed Jesus, which is true. However, the real question is; if God had chosen any other people on earth through which He would bless the world, if God had chosen any other past or modern nation to walk in His ways, would this nation act any differently than the Jews did? There is great doubt that any past or modern nation, as a whole, would have behaved any differently. If one looks at any one nation right now, what will be found is a small minority of individuals who call themselves Christians, and who are doing their best to walk in the ways of God. Even after all the light and truths that have been revealed in the Old and New Testament, even after Jesus’ tremendous sacrifice on the cross, the majority of people in each nation remains untouched.
The overwhelming majority of people, regardless of their race or ethnicity, are not walking in the ways of God, even after the gospel has been preached over and over. This is just human nature, which is naturally and inherently an enemy of God. Just like Cain, its desires are directed toward sins (Gen 4:7). Just like the antediluvians, “Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (6:5). So, if Jesus was sent to any other people as their Messiah, there is great doubt he would have been treated any differently.
