Naaman's Truth: II Kings 5:1-14 (I)

"Naaman, commander of the army of the king of Aram, was a great man and in high favour with his master, because by him the Lord had given victory to Aram. The man, though a mighty warrior, suffered from leprosy. 2 Now the Arameans on one of their raids had taken a young girl captive from the land of Israel, and she served Naaman’s wife. 3 She said to her mistress, ‘If only my lord were with the prophet who is in Samaria! He would cure him of his leprosy.’ 4 So Naaman went in and told his lord just what the girl from the land of Israel had said. 5 And the king of Aram said, ‘Go then, and I will send along a letter to the king of Israel.’ He went, taking with him ten talents of silver, six thousand shekels of gold, and ten sets of garments. 6 He brought the letter to the king of Israel, which read, ‘When this letter reaches you, know that I have sent to you my servant Naaman, that you may cure him of his leprosy.’ 7 When the king of Israel read the letter, he tore his clothes and said, ‘Am I God, to give death or life, that this man sends word to me to cure a man of his leprosy? Just look and see how he is trying to pick a quarrel with me.’ 8 But when Elisha the man of God heard that the king of Israel had torn his clothes, he sent a message to the king, ‘Why have you torn your clothes? Let him come to me, that he may learn that there is a prophet in Israel.’ 9 So Naaman came with his horses and chariots, and halted at the entrance of Elisha’s house. 10 Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, ‘Go, wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored and you shall be clean.’ 11 But Naaman became angry and went away, saying, ‘I thought that for me he would surely come out, and stand and call on the name of the Lord his God, and would wave his hand over the spot, and cure the leprosy! 12 Are not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them, and be clean?’ He turned and went away in a rage. 13 But his servants approached and said to him, ‘Father, if the prophet had commanded you to do something difficult, would you not have done it? How much more, when all he said to you was, “Wash, and be clean”?’ 14 So he went down and immersed himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the word of the man of God; his flesh was restored like the flesh of a young boy, and he was clean."

Introduction

We should read this illuminating story like we read other Biblical narratives--line by line, with attention to the turns of phrases, the human emotions expressed and the creation and resolution of problems. Biblical narrative is full of interesting twists and turns; in a few words it is able to portray with power the depths of human emotions and psychology. Thus, by "hearing" the story in a line-by-line exposition, we are better able to hear it as the Word of God for us today. In telling the story of Naaman the Syrian "verse-by-verse" I will divide it generally into three points: (1) Naaman's Problem (1-4); (2) The Letter to the King of Israel (5-8); (3) Naaman's Healing (9-14).

Naaman's Problem (vv. 1-4)

We begin with Naaman's greatness. He is a commander of an army of the King of Aram (unnamed) and he is held in high regard by the king. He has saved the king in earlier situations (the verb used for "victory" is derived from the verb "to save"), and so he is in the best possible situation. He commands troops and also the loyalty of his superior, the king. He is really at the top of his game. There is only one problem, which the narrator drops in skillfully at the end. He suffers from a leprous condition. The Hebrew is very brief. The entire phrase translated "The man, though a mighty warrior, suffered from leprosy," is five words in the Hebrew. Literally it reads: "And the man was a great man--leprosy." We add the "even though" or the other phrases in order to express the sense of the passage.

So the great man has a problem, something that hinders him significantly in his life. Thus it is that many visible people in the public eye have significant physical or mental debilities in their families that tether them to the realities of living. Congressmen of high standing have grandsons with autism; a US Senator has a son who committed suicide. The vulnerabilities of life happen regardless of a person's social or political standing. This was also the case with Naaman. He was a great man, but he suffered from leprosy.

In the context of his work there comes some knowledge of how he might be able to deal with the leprosy. A servant girl (the text says a "small girl") captured from Israel in one of Naaman's border raids comes to live in his home. She becomes the instrument of grace for him. Healing knowledge will come from a most unlikely source---a "small girl" from another culture who is now in his house. She tells Naaman's wife (not Naaman) about the (unnamed) prophet in Samaria who can heal him from his leprosy. This technique of telling the story makes us pause and smile, for it is a narrative technique that undermines the very power that is portrayed in v. 1. Naaman is the powerful person, but he is powerless with respect to an important aspect of his life. The one who has power with respect to Naaman's weakness, through possessing information about the prophet Elisha, is a foreign servant girl. Paul may have talked about things that are small and weak in the world shaming the proud and mighty (I Cor 1), but here we have an illustration of it. Knowlegde and healing will come from a supposedly weak source.

The irony of having saving knowledge come from "unofficial" sources is not only powerful in the narrative but instructive for us in our lives. One would think that the leading general would have had access to a "Cadillac" health insurance plan and be able to consult the best Aramaean doctors at his whim. Surely he had all the resources of the king at his beck and call to deal with his problem. But, apparently, nothing could be done. To Naaman's credit, he was alert to sources of information outside of the "official" channels. This is instructive for us because of the tendency, even the temptation, for people who have "made it" or are rapidly on the way to "making it" to ignore knowledge except as it comes from officially approved channels. Academics, with whom I have spent many years in my careers, are perhaps the greatest "sinners" in this regard. I know of people who refuse to read things that aren't "refereed articles." Knowledge can only come through channels that are tightly defined. If Naaman' had said, 'She is only a servant girl. What can she know?,' we would not have a story. Knowledge comes from unlikely sources. The story challenges us to think about the sources we "accept" as truth-bearing for our own lives.

The action then moves rapidly. Naaman goes directly to the king (no appointments seem necessary) and tells him what the servant girl has said. The Hebrew is interesting. It literally says, "He came and announced to the king, 'According to thus and thus the girl spoke...'" It is a sort of "yada yada" statement. The author need not repeat it for the reader. We already know the content of what Naaman communicates to the king.

II. The Letter (vv. 5-9)

Things happen immediately. No lengthy bureaucratic wrangling. No committee meetings to decide whether or not to dispatch Naaman. The narrative takes on a deliciously provocative note now. Naaman does not go alone to Samaria but will be accompanied by gifts and a letter. The alert reader might say, 'why isn't he armed with some troops?' since Naaman is probably no favorite of the people of Israel. But that won't happen. Even though the servant girl said that there was a prophet in Samaria who could heal Naaman, the king of Aram sends a letter to the king of Israel. Like deals with like. The social standing of antiquity precludes people addressing people of different ranks directly. The servant girl spoke to her mistress (Naaman's wife); Naaman's wife spoke to Naaman; Naaman spoke to the king; the king writes to the king. That is the way of the world, and it is observed in the narrative here.

Naaman is sent with gifts and a letter. Each carries with it a duality of significance. The gifts may in fact be a tribute of honor to the king of Samaria/Israel but they may also be a sort of "Trojan Horse," a false gift to lure the king either into complacency or into making a commitment that he will regret. How do you receive an offer of an olive branch from an enemy? Do you sincerely receive it? Cautiously receive it? Reject it? In any case, the gifts, extravagant by measures of antiquity, were complemented by a letter. The letter is written in the form of other ancient letters that scholars have found; it thus has a "ring" of authenticity. There is a lot of royal whoop-de-doo in the letter, with the focus of the request coming in the last two (Hebrew) words of it all-"and cure him of his leprosy." That is the reason for all the fanfare and gifts. The king of Aram wants a favor from the king in Israel.

Just as Mary, after being visited by the angel Gabriel, wondered "what sort of greeting" this was (Luke 1), so the king of Israel wondered immediately what kind of letter it was. The letter could have meant several things, but the king rushed to one interpretive possibility above others--he saw the letter as the king of Aram's way of picking a fight with him. The letter would be the pretext to another invasion. How so? Well, because the king of Israel had no saving power, he could not "heal" Naaman. This might be taken as a sign of uncooperative relations with another head of state, which would provoke retaliation.

This is the way that foreign heads of state (as well as intimate relational partners) sometimes deal with each other. They set up impossible demands on the other person and then, when the other cannot meet the demand, use it as a pretext to attack or dismiss the other. It is like setting a high-jump bar at 7'0'' for a middle school track meet and then wondering why no one can clear the height. This is how the king in Samaria interprets the letter from his counterpart in Aram. He is trying to pick a fight. But this interpretive strategy, accompanied by tearing of clothes and dramatic words ("Am I God?--literally "God am I?"--To put to death and give life..."?) only digs him further into an intellectual and practical pit. He has foreclosed other interpretive possibilities and thus is at his wit's end.

But the king of Israel could have done other things. He could have realized that there was, indeed, a prophet in his midst. If the servant girl knew about such a prophet, certainly the fame of Elisha had been so noised about that the great and mighty knew of it too. Kings make it their business to know about competing power sources in their kingdoms. Thus, the Israelite king was wilfully ignorant of the ways that he might respond to the king of Aram.

What is it about living that makes us often try to constrict our interpretive possibilities so that life works against us? Why would he/we jump to a conclusion that only paints him/us into a corner? Well, because he does so, the king of Israel is in as much difficulty as Naaman the Syrian. Both are now weak and vulnerable. The narrative tension rises. Now is the time for Elisha to enter. The next essay "resolves" the tensions.

2734

Pentecost + 6--July 8, 2007 Pentecost + 20--October 14, 2007

Pentecost + 6--July 8, 2007
Pentecost + 20--October 14, 2007