The story of Naaman's healing from leprosy through Elisha's intervention is one of the best known in the Old Testament. I have earlier gone through this passage of Scripture verse-by-verse (see post entitled “II Kings 5”). But this time around, I would like to step back for a minute and look at the story as a whole.
The chapter has been characterized in a number of different ways in the past. As a children's story in Sunday school it is usually presented as the somewhat humorous scene of the powerful general Naaman dipping in a muddy river. Or it may be taught as a straightforward miracle story illustrating the power of the true God in contrast to the impotent pagan deities.
Another approach is to see the story of Naaman as a type of what a person needs to do in order to be saved: recognize his or her need, go to God as the only way of filling that need, humble yourself, demonstrate your faith by submitting to the waters of baptism, and living a life in concert with God's will – not to earn your salvation, but in gratitude to God for His free gift.
Or we could consider the main take-away lesson that Jesus himself derived from this story. In Luke 4:27, he utilizes it along with other OT examples to instruct a synagogue audience in the sad fact that sometimes the “pagans” are more willing to turn to God than the people of Israel. Thus, “No prophet is accepted in his own town.” This lesson of God as a Universal God, not just the God of Israel, is also brought out in II Kings 5. Although Elisha in v. 8 stresses that “there is a prophet in Israel” and Naaman in v. 15 states that “there is no God in all the earth except in Israel,” Naaman's symbolic carting of Israelite dirt off to Aram typifies the fact that God rules even outside the borders of the Holy Land.
I then decided to turn to my favorite interpretive tool, literary structure, to see if it could help uncover anything extra to say on the subject. Looking for similar or contrasting verses in this chapter, whether in terms of theme or language, one can arrive at an overall organization something like that shown below:
A. Opening Situation: Naaman has leprosy (v. 1)
B. Naaman listens to a servant girl (vv. 2-3)
C. Naaman goes to king of Aram (v. 4)
D. King of Aram's message (vv. 5-6)
E. King of Israel's angry reaction (v. 7)
F. Elisha: “there is a prophet in Israel” (v. 8)
C'. Naaman goes to Elisha (v. 9)
D'. Elisha's message (v. 10)
E. Naaman's angry reaction (vv. 11-12)
B'. Naaman listens to his servants (vv. 13-14)
-----------------------------------------------
B. Naaman “stood before” Elisha (v. 15a)
C. “Please accept” a present (v. 15b)
D. Elisha refuses the gift (v. 16)
E. Naaman's request (vv. 17-18)
F. Elisha agrees and sends him off in peace (v. 19a)
E'. Gehazi's request (vv. 19b-22)
D'. Gehazi accepts the gift (vv. 23b-24)
B'. Gehazi “stood before” Elisha (v. 25)
C'. “Is this a time to accept presents?” (v. 26)
A'. Closing Situation: Gehazi has leprosy (v. 27)
From this overall organization, we can see first of all that the chapter really consists of two related stories, not just one. In that respect, I see some very close parallels with the Parable of the Prodigal Son:
In both cases, the emphasis among Bible teachers is almost always on the first part of the story as being more upbeat and and instructive while ignoring the second half of the chapter as perhaps being too close to home for most believers to want to consider. Just note the way that (a) this parable is always named after the younger son and not his older brother and (b) II Kings 5 is always called “Naaman healed from leprosy” rather than “Gehazi given leprosy.”
Both contain two-part lessons in which there is a marked contrast between two of the main characters. In each story, one person starts out being far away from the Father, but repents and ends up close to Him. By contrast, another person who is apparently very close to the Father in the beginning, by the end of the story is excluded from His presence by his sinful actions and attitude. One valuable overall message of the chapter is that we should never consider ourselves, as the Pharisees did, as being uniquely God's children in contrast to “outsiders” who are not part of our chosen circle. Too much pride can easily lead to a fall.
Beside the contrast between the behavior of Naaman and Gehazi, there is a very similar contrast between (a) the King of Aram in v. 5 who is willing to admit that the God of Israel may be able to carry out a miraculous healing and (b) the King of Israel who feels that it is utterly impossible (v. 7).
Most commentators will rightly point out the key role played by the Israelite servant girl in the first half of this chapter. But they almost always ignore the equal importance of the other servants in the chapter. For example, Naaman not only has the humility to listen to her, but he also does the same thing in response to the pleas of his other servants in 13. Now, look at the way these loyal servants of a pagan general serve him (in the first half of the structure above), in contrast to the disloyal actions of Gehazi, the servant of God's prophet (the subject of the second half of the structure).
Finally, each half of the structure proposed above highlights in its center Section F the key words of Elisha. In verse 7, he pronounces firmly that “there is a prophet in Israel,” and in the first part of v. 19 he pronounces a benediction on Naaman as that Aramean returns to his own land guilt-free even though he knows that Naaman will continue to pretend to worship Rimmon. In this compassionate act, Elisha is merely copying his mentor Elijah who had earlier brought words of comfort to Obadiah, another closet believer serving in the house of a king (see I Kings 18).
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments