This entry was posted on Saturday, September 20th, 2008 at 12:03 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Pages:
Feeds
Categories:
- Administration (6)
- Apologetics (22)
- Church Growth (13)
- Culture (139)
- Devotional (21)
- Media (10)
- Misc. (31)
- Philosophy (19)
- Podcasts (22)
- Question (10)
- Scripture (21)
- Testimony (6)
- The Church (74)
- The Outlaw Church (3)
- Theology (82)
- Uncategorized (149)
Archives:
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
Meta:
Questions from Naaman
09.20.2008 by Tim Reed
in 2 Kings 5 we have the story of Naaman. The basic synopsis of the story is that a successful general of a successful kingdom develops leprosy. A Hebrew who he took as a slave points him to Elisha for help (hmmm…. a Hebrew slave points the person who made him a slave to salvation…. that sounds familiar for some reason). Elisha tells him to dip himself in the Jordan seven times and he’ll be cured. Eventually he does and is cured.
However, the story leaves us with some questions.
For example 2 Kings 5.1 says, “Now Naaman was commander of the army of the king of Aram. He was a great man in the sight of his master and highly regarded, because through him the LORD had given victory to Aram.” At this point Naaman is a pagan, involved in military campaigns that were at least threatening enough to Israel that the king of Israel later in the story believes the king of Aram is picking a fight with him, and he had taken at least one Hebrew as a slave in the course of his military campaigns. Why would God back a pagan commander against his covenanted people?
In 2 Kings 5.17 Naaman says, “please let me, your servant, be given as much earth as a pair of mules can carry, for your servant will never again make burnt offerings and sacrifices to any other god but the LORD. 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 bow there also—when I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the LORD forgive your servant for this.”
Essentially what Naaman is saying is that he’s going to be worshiping God, but occasionally he’ll be bowing down in a pagan temple to a pagan god to keep his king from killing him.
What? How can this be? Imagine someone saying, “well, I worship Jesus, but occasionally I go to pray at the local Mosque to keep my boss from firing me”. Surely Elisha is going to really let him have it.
“Go in peace,” Elisha said.
What’s going on here? I have no idea, it seems so contrary to much of scripture. Is there something more here that I’m missing? Or is this simply a combination of God reaching out to all people at all points in history combined with allowing new followers of God to grow where they’re at?
September 20th, 2008 at 12:51 am
I think it really is God allowing people to grow where they’re at. By our very rigid standards (some of which we’ve imposed on the Gospel), this would seem ridiculous. But this was not the first or last time God did something that doesn’t fit the template. Especially when you start to hear a lot of stories of how people in congregations came to Christ, you hear some stuff that doesn’t follow what we’ve come to think of as the normal path to God. (Not talking about salvation/baptism here, but how people come to that conclusion)
My question would be, how does God see pagan worship? Does he see it as a sin like murder? For example, you’ve got a flawed leader in David who sinned during his reign. Is this any more egregious, or any better than worshipping another God? I can see both sides of that very complex argument.
Good post, Tim!
BTW, this passage was the very first I taught on in youth group when I was 18. It’s still one of my favorites.
September 20th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Apparently Naaman wouldn’t have been required to do a lot of things that were required of the Israelites by the Law.
Interesting questions. I assume that when Jonah went to Nineveh, there were laws and commandments that they were not required to follow. It does not seem that any of these people were required to become proselytes (at least in the sense that we see in the N.T. where circumcision among other laws were to be followed in order to become a proselyte). So it appears that one could be a follower of God without becoming a part of the Mosaic covenant. That seems to fit with our theology, otherwise we are all in trouble…well, if you haven’t been circumcised that is.