2 Kings 5
Naaman Healed of Leprosy
1 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. He was a valiant soldier, but he had leprosy.[a]
2 Now bands of raiders from Aram had gone out and had taken captive a young girl from Israel, and she served Naaman’s wife. 3 She said to her mistress, “If only my master would see the prophet who is in Samaria! He would cure him of his leprosy.”
4 Naaman went to his master and told him what the girl from Israel had said. 5 “By all means, go,” the king of Aram replied. “I will send a letter to the king of Israel.” So Naaman left, taking with him ten talents[b] of silver, six thousand shekels[c] of gold and ten sets of clothing. 6 The letter that he took to the king of Israel read: “With this letter I am sending my servant Naaman to you so that you may cure him of his leprosy.”
7 As soon as the king of Israel read the letter, he tore his robes and said, “Am I God? Can I kill and bring back to life? Why does this fellow send someone to me to be cured of his leprosy? See how he is trying to pick a quarrel with me!”
8 When Elisha the man of God heard that the king of Israel had torn his robes, he sent him this message: “Why have you torn your robes? Have the man come to me and he will know that there is a prophet in Israel.” 9 So Naaman went with his horses and chariots and stopped at the door of Elisha’s house. 10 Elisha sent a messenger to say to him, “Go, wash yourself seven times in the Jordan, and your flesh will be restored and you will be cleansed.”
11 But Naaman went away angry and said, “I thought that he would surely come out to me and stand and call on the name of the LORD his God, wave his hand over the spot and cure me of my leprosy. 12 Are not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Couldn’t I wash in them and be cleansed?” So he turned and went off in a rage.
13 Naaman’s servants went to him and said, “My father, if the prophet had told you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much more, then, when he tells you, ‘Wash and be cleansed’!” 14 So he went down and dipped himself in the Jordan seven times, as the man of God had told him, and his flesh was restored and became clean like that of a young boy.
Last Sunday this was the text of the sermon, and it got me thinking. I went past the obvious things to the simple.
I was struck by Naaman’s attitude toward the offer of healing; he was going to get exactly what he wanted, free for the asking, but he got angry. Why? Well, he wanted healing, but he wanted it to be difficult. Or impressive, or whatever his mind thought it should be. Instead he gets, “Go wash in the river”.
His servants tell him “If he’d asked you to do something hard you would have been done by now, go wash you idiot”
He did, and it worked.
Isn’t this like us?
How often do we pass up what’s right in front of us, because we want it to be more difficult? Is this why we have folks that think they can work their way into God’s kingdom? Is grace really too easy?
These are all good questions, but what really struck me is how this applies to how we read and interpret scripture.
How often do we skip over the plain meaning of the text, because it’s just too simple? It seems as though we just aren’t satisfied to read and accept the text as it is. We need Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic dictionaries, concordances, interlinears, and all kinds of other tools to look for something beneath the surface. I’m not saying these things are bad, nor am I saying that there aren’t layers of meaning in the scriptures. What I am saying is that I think that we’re afraid of the simple. We want there to be complexity. We want that feeling of discovering the hidden meaning. Like Naaman, we want it to be harder than it needs to be.
Personally, I think it has something to do with our desire to be in control, but I’m not sure that’s the entire story.
Which leaves one question. Why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Jonathan Edwards and others have suggested that we don't want God so much as we want what God has to offer. We want God's blessings on our terms. We want to "be like the Most High". Basic Human Nature 101.
No argument from me.
I think you hit on it when you said,
"We want there to be complexity. We want that feeling of discovering the hidden meaning."
That is, it seems that some take pride in discerning what they believe the average person doesn't or can't.
I, personally, am not a "layers of meaning" kinda guy. Though some may exist, I believe the top layer is the point and lesson to be learned.
I am not sure what you are talking about here. Biblical interpretation, religious doctrine and beliefs, or God's Grace?
Marshall,
Sorry for the delay, I just got back from Haiti.
Exactly, it's like the Bible code folks a few years ago or the Kabbalah strain of Judiasm. There are just people who feel it is necessary to find things that no one else can find, it has to be hidden and it has to be their discovery. I somewhat disagree with you on layers of meaning. I do think that there are passages that can be taken correctly on one level while also having other possible correct meanings as well. I do agree that the most obvious meaning is the most important, but do think there can be layers.
Jodie,
Ditto on the response. To be honest I'm not sure your question makes much sense. I was more specifically referring to Biblical interpretation and the desire of some to ignore the plain text and dig for something deeper that is not there. Although I can see that the same type of attitude could be present in those who have trouble with how "easy" God's grace is. As far as the religious doctrine and beliefs, I'd not put them in the same league with Scripture and grace.
Craig,
Well, it seems to me you did a pretty good job at finding a hidden meaning that went well beyond the plain meaning of the text.
But the story reminds me of the showmanship of faith healers and tele-evangelists. But God does not need to show off. When the Centurian told Jesus to just say the word and he knew his son would be healed, Jesus was amazed at his faith.
The Scriptures are beautiful works of art. You can look at a Van Gogh and see the plain meaning of his paintings. An empty room with a chair and stuff. A church in the road. A wheat field.
But there is also more. It's the more that makes it a work of art.
Jodie
Jodie,
Actually, I have to suggest that you are mistaken. I made no attempt to find any other meaning in the text. In fact the text is in the post only as an example of how some folks behave today, not as an object of study in and of itself.
Further, in your rush to disagree with me you have actually echoed my own words both in the original post as well as in my response to Marshall.
Perhaps a more careful reading, and/or setting aside your preconceptions/prejudices about what you think I am saying might help you understand what I wrote.
You have missed my point entirely it seems. So, I'll try to be clearer.
We live in a world where so many are in such a rush to find the deeper "hidden" meaning that they brush past the plain obvious meaning.
It seems that most of the hermeneutics texts that I have read would suggest exactly the opposite approach.
You are, of course, free to continue to disagree, but the fact that we've both said much the same thing leads me to wonder why.
Well, I either agreed with you as evidenced by echoing your own remarks, or I did not, as evidenced by your taking a text about God's grace and turning into a text about how we read text.
It seems that no matter how I respond to you, your answer back to me is that I missed your point. Which suggest that I either don't know how to read, or you don't know how to write.
My choice is that I completely get your point, but that I neither disagree with you nor do I agree. I am merely reflecting along with you.
I'd like it if you made the same choice.
Jodie,
Your comment seemed ambiguous as to your response, so I addressed your issues and pointed out why I thought you misunderstood the poin of my post.
I'm not sure where the fault lies, but feel free to reflect along.
I think what got me was the seemingly snarky statement about finding a hidden meaning.
Since I did not actually attempt to interpret the text, merely used it as an example, I (in this case) was not actually assigning any meaning to the text itself. I hope you can see why this might have led me to believe that your response was taking a different tone than you intended.
Any way, sorry if there was any misunderstanding on my part.
Craig,
If I could clarify my comment a bit...
I do not believe that there are necessarily intended multiple meanings in any verse. Not any that come to mind. Maybe you have something that could illustrate this. If one believes a verse can be taken two or three ways, it could be that one is not sure of what the intended meaning is and decides to use it to teach two or three lessons. But the point I was trying to make is that only one lesson is what was intended by the author or the person spoken of by the author.
One caveat would be the parables of Jesus. Each of them has two lessons. The obvious is the metaphor itself, such as seeds falling in various types of soil or ground. It is good farming to understand what will happen if the seed falls on good soil as opposed to rocky soil or ground thick with weeds, etc. But the true lesson is the spiritual one about the Word.
Other than parables, I can't see that "layers of meaning" is the result of intention in the writing.
Just sayin'...
MA,
I agree about the parables, maybe instead of layers applications might be a better way to put it.
Anyway, my original point stil stands. If we are ignoring the plain meaning in search of a deeper meaning or if the deeper meaning somehow contradicts the plain meaning there is a problem.
Craig,
I don't know if I have your email, though I seem to recall that you may have contacted me that way. Anyhow, unable to determine if that was so, I've decided to address this here.
I appreciate your defense of me at Geoff's blog. I also appreciate that that defense was mainly to clarify what my point was. Geoffie so often fails to understand the point. You may notice if you look at my recent additions that I had to clarify yet again what MY initial comment sought to address.
Anyway, regarding the use of name calling, I'm having a hard time being the Christian I should be. Always have struggled so. Lately, I'm strongly considering that I stop trying to be what I am not, lest I expose myself later like Dan when his psuedo-sanctimony fails him. I've always felt that to take too much notice of wise ass remarks, especially those accompanied by substantive arguments, is foolish and diversionary in some cases. You've noticed that Geoffie and little Alan say all sorts of nasty things about me. I don't really care. A little snark never hurt anyone, and the real deal like I now receive from these frauds doesn't hurt any worse. I consider the source.
But thanks again, and if you care to, send me an email (my address is on my profile) and I'll mark it as yours for future reference.
Post a Comment