Tag Archives: Unclean

2 Kings 5 Elisha Heals Naaman and Gehazi’s Poor Choice

3 Replies
Pieter de Grebber, Elisha Refusing Gifts From Naaman (1630) https://www.theleidencollection.com/artwork/elisha-refusing-naamans-gifts/

2 Kings 5: 1-19a 

1 Naaman, commander of the army of the king of Aram, was a great man and in high favor with his master because by him the Lord had given victory to Aram. The man, though a mighty warrior, suffered from a skin disease. 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 skin disease.” 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 skin disease.” 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 skin disease? 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 skin disease! 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.
  15 Then he returned to the man of God, he and all his company; he came and stood before him and said, “Now I know that there is no God in all the earth except in Israel; please accept a present from your servant.” 16 But he said, “As the LORD lives, whom I serve, I will accept nothing!” He urged him to accept, but he refused. 17 Then Naaman said, “If not, please let two mule loads of earth be given to your servant, for your servant will no longer offer burnt offering or sacrifice to any god except the Lord. 18 But may the LORD pardon your servant on one count: when my master goes into the house of Rimmon to worship there, leaning on my arm, and I bow down in the house of Rimmon, when I do bow down in the house of Rimmon, may the LORD pardon your servant on this one count.” 19 He said to him, “Go in peace.”

The healing of Naaman, along with Elijah’s ascent in the whirlwind, are probably the two best-known and most frequently used stories from 2 Kings in the life of the church. This story, along with Elijah’s provision of meal and oil for the widow of Zarephath, is utilized in Luke 4:27 as an explanation for the expansiveness of Jesus’ ministry, but it is also paired with Jesus’ healing of lepers in the gospels. Naaman is both the victorious mighty warrior who occupies a privileged position with the king of Aram and has servants and slaves along with the access to considerable wealth and power, but in Israel he is also a Gentile, an unclean one, and an oppressor. The story illustrates the fundamental differences between the world envisioned by the king of Aram and Naaman at the beginning of the story and the prophet Elisha when he enters in the middle of the story.

The position of Naaman, in the view of 2 Kings, is a result of the LORD the God of Israel granting him victory leading the Arameans. On the one hand this provides an explanation for the defeat of Israel by a foreign power, the defeat is a judgment on the unfaithfulness of Samaria. On the other hand, it makes the mighty warrior subject, unknowingly at the beginning of the story, to the LORD the God of Israel. Even a captive young woman from Israel knows what this mighty warrior cannot, that the hope for healing resides in Samaria. This young woman who is a captive and the mighty man who is a leader of armies may be on opposite sides of the power differential but in the story they are linked. Captured slaves often have an unfavorable view of their masters, yet in Naaman throughout the story we see that this mighty man is both respected enough by his servants for them to speak truthfully and compassionately to him and Naaman as their master listens. The commander of warriors who can deliver victories depends upon the knowledge willingly shared by a captured young woman residing in his household.

The skin disease which has been traditionally translated as leprosy is probably not what we today categorize as leprosy (or Hansen’s disease) but it was something that ancient cultures took very seriously. Leviticus 13-14 deals with the priestly role in the diagnosis, the social implications for a person diagnosed with this skin disorder and the method that they can also be reintegrated into the community once they are healed. The seriousness of the disease can be demonstrated by the incredible amount of wealth (ten talents of silver, six thousand shekels of gold, and ten sets of garments)[1] which the king of Aram sends to the king of Israel to bring about the healing of his favored commander.

In the ancient world there was no concept of separation of religious and state powers. For most ancient kings, even in Israel, there are religious figures including prophets in the royal court. The prophet Nathan was involved in the court of king David, and earlier in the Omri dynasty we saw the conflict between the prophets who spoke favorably to king Ahab and Micaiah who was a faithful prophet of the LORD but not in royal favor. As Alex Israel notes about the contrasting views of prophets between the kings of Aram and Israel:

The king of Aram was incapable of imagining a scenario in which the prophet would not be fundamentally subordinate to the king, and so he sought the prophet by means of the latter. By contrast, the king of Israel couldn’t conceive a situation in which the prophet would be responsive to his control, and so he failed to entertain the prospect of appealing to Elisha! (Israel, 2019, p. 98)

The king of Aram views the king of Israel as his subordinate who he can command, but Elisha does not answer to the king of Israel. Yet, Elisha does hear of the king’s distress and instructs him to send Naaman to him.

Naaman has probably encountered other healers and prophets in Damascus who attempted to heal his skin disease, and he has ideas of how that process should look for a person of his station. As a person of high status, he anticipated personal attention from the prophet. His status as a mighty warrior and commander of the armies of Aram have allowed him to be a person who is able to fulfill their request, but now he finds that this status means nothing before the prophet, and he is reduced to a “supplicant who comes to the healer as a leper.” (Brueggemann, 2000, p. 334) Yet, as previously we saw with the young woman from Israel, Naaman is a master who his servants are willing to speak to in an honest and compassionate way. Once Naaman has completed his complaint about the command delivered by an emissary to wash in the Jordan, his servants are able to convince him that the prophet has not asked a hard thing, and it is in Naaman’s interest to attempt this novel cure.

The washing in the Jordan results in Naaman’s skin becoming like a young boy. The description of Naaman’s skin utilizing the masculine form of the words used to describe the young girl at the beginning of the story now link the two together. In some way Naaman is now like this enslaved young woman even though they occupy vastly different places in the social hierarchy. Both stand in a place of dependency before God and Naaman has not only learned that there is a prophet in Samaria, but that there is no God in all the earth except in Israel.

After the healing Naaman stands, with all his company before the prophet Elisha. Naaman attempts to offer payment, but Elisha swears that he will take no payment.[2] Naaman then makes two requests when payment continues to be refused. First Naaman requests to take two mule loads of earth. Naaman likely believes that the God of Israel is tied to the land of Israel and bringing the earth will allow him to build an altar or worship space where he can access this God whom he has discovered. Secondly, he requests that in his state functions that God would not hold it against him when he escorts his master into the worship space of Rimmon, the god of Damascus. Elisha does not judge Naaman for these requests and instructs him to depart in shalom.

2 Kings 5: 19b-27

  But when Naaman had gone from him a short distance, 20 Gehazi, the servant of Elisha the man of God, thought, “My master has let that Aramean Naaman off too lightly by not accepting from him what he offered. As the LORD lives, I will run after him and get something from him.” 21 So Gehazi went after Naaman. When Naaman saw someone running after him, he jumped down from the chariot to meet him and said, “Is everything all right?” 22 He replied, “Yes, but my master has sent me to say, ‘Two members of a company of prophets have just come to me from the hill country of Ephraim; please give them a talent of silver and two changes of clothing.’ ” 23 Naaman said, “Please accept two talents.” He urged him and tied up two talents of silver in two bags, with two changes of clothing, and gave them to two of his servants, who carried them in front of Gehazi. 24 When he came to the citadel, he took the bags from them and stored them inside; he dismissed the men, and they left.
  25 He went in and stood before his master, and Elisha said to him, “Where have you been, Gehazi?” He answered, “Your servant has not gone anywhere at all.” 26 But he said to him, “Did I not go with you in spirit when someone left his chariot to meet you? Is this a time to accept silver and to accept clothing, olive orchards and vineyards, sheep and oxen, and male and female slaves? 27 Therefore the skin disease of Naaman shall cling to you and to your descendants forever.” So he left his presence diseased, as white as snow.

The stories of the previous chapter seem to indicate that the company of prophets (or sons of the prophets) continually struggle with poverty and this may inform Gehazi’s action contrary to his master Elisha. As Choon-Leong Seow remarks, “the faithfulness of Naaman’s slave girl at the beginning of the story stands in stark contrast to the treachery of Elisha’s servant at the end of the chapter.” (NIB III:192) While Elisha swore an oath (“as the LORD lives”) that he would accept no gift (literally blessing) from Naaman his servant Gehazi swears an oath that he will take something from this Gentile. Gehazi runs after Naaman’s party and Naaman, after dismounting his chariot asks, “Is all shalom?” Gehazi gives a reason for wanting a blessing/payment from Naaman, which Naaman is eager to grant giving double the initial request. For Naaman this is far less than the ten talents of silver he was willing to pay as payment for healing, but the roughly one hundred fifty pounds of silver with two sets of garments[3] which two of Naaman’s servants carry back to the citadel would be an incredible amount of wealth among the company of prophets. Yet, Gehazi’s secret is known by Elisha and the Hebrew indicates that Elisha’s heart went with Gehazi (NRSV ‘spirit’). Silver and clothing, land and livestock, servants and slaves for the company of the prophets is not where their security comes from. Gehazi has trusted in the same things that the king of Aram and Naaman trusted, and Elisha indicates that now Naaman’s skin disease will cling to Gehazi and his descendants.

The healing of Naaman does not end the conflict between Aram and Samaria which will continue in the narrative of the next two chapters. It is also not the end of Gehazi’s role in the story who will reappear in chapter eight. It is possible that the healing of Naaman is brought forward in the story to be a part of an Elisha cycle of miracles which reaches its peak with the thwarting of the king of Aram’s invasion of Israel. The king of Israel’s inability to heal his servant did not provide the provocation for a continued war, but ultimately the healing of Naaman did not end the conflict between Samaria and Damascus.

[1] The NIV notes that 10 shekels of silver is about 750 lbs (340 kg) of silver and 6,000 shekels of gold is about 150 lbs (70 kg).

[2] Numbers 22:18 and Daniel 5:17 are both times where two very different prophets (Balaam and Daniel) indicate that gold will not be acceptable to earn favor or as payment for a servant of the LORD.

[3] Garments in the ancient world are also expensive and an indicator of wealth.

Matthew 15: 1-20 Piety and Righteousness Revisited

3 Replies

James Tissot, The Blind in the Ditch (1886-1894)

Matthew 15: 1-20

Parallel Mark 7: 1-23; Luke 11: 37-41; 6: 39

Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands before they eat.” 3 He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.’ 5 But you say that whoever tells father or mother, ‘Whatever support you might have had from me is given to God,’ then that person need not honor the father. 6 So, for the sake of your tradition, you make void the word of God. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied rightly about you when he said:

8 ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; 9 in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines.'”

10 Then he called the crowd to him and said to them, “Listen and understand: 11 it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles.” 12 Then the disciples approached and said to him, “Do you know that the Pharisees took offense when they heard what you said?” 13 He answered, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. 14 Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if one blind person guides another, both will fall into a pit.” 15 But Peter said to him, “Explain this parable to us.” 16 Then he said, “Are you also still without understanding? 17 Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth enters the stomach, and goes out into the sewer? 18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. 19 For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.”

Jesus and the Pharisees and scribes, as presented here, have different points of reference as they enter this argument. The Pharisees in the gospel have had a growing list of complaints about the practices of Jesus and his disciples: they eat with the wrong people (9:11), they do not fast (9:14), they pluck grain on Sabbath when they are hungry (12:2), Jesus heals on Sabbath (12:10), in our current passage they don’t wash their hands before eating and in future readings will come questions of paying taxes to the Temple (17:24) and the emperor (22:17) (Case-Winters, 2015, p. 197) All of these visible practices which are not wrong or evil and may even be life giving in the right context (I’m writing on this passage on washing hands before eating in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic) also become ways of judging the righteousness of others or practicing one’s piety before others. These conflicts resonate strongly with Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount which I will discuss below, but also highlight the difference between piety and righteousness.

The Pharisees and scribes that come to engage Jesus’ practices now come from Jerusalem, and this is the first time we have indication, since the very beginning of Jesus’ ministry when great crowds from Galilee, the Decapolis, Judea, Jerusalem and beyond the Jordan came to Jesus, (4:25) that Judea and Jerusalem and their authorities are aware of Jesus’ ministry predominantly in Galilee. Jesus’ practices, or at least the practices of his disciples in this instance, do not fit within the frame of what holiness practiced by visible actions that demonstrate one’s faithfulness, one’s piety, according to the practices of these Pharisees and scribes. There is a lack of openness to the works that Jesus is doing because they do not fit within the expectations of these leaders who have come to challenge the worker of the acts of power and the teacher of a different understanding of the relationship between the law and the tradition.

Jesus has very little interest in piety, and this is one of the reasons that most English translations of Matthew 6 of dikaisune as piety instead of righteousness misunderstand what Jesus is attempting to state. Jesus in Matthew 6: 1 stated, “Beware of practicing your righteousness (not piety) before others in order to be seen by them;” because the very practices that Jesus is being judged for here are the things that fail to produce changed hearts. Pietas (often translated piety from Latin) was an important Roman concept which the orator and statesman Cicero describes as that, “which admonishes us to do our duty to our country or our parents or other blood relations.” Jesus’ understanding of righteousness is not limited to ‘doing one’s duty’, particularly as it is viewed by others. Central to the language of the Sermon on the Mount were these practices of righteousness done in a way not to call attention to the individual’s practices. The actions of the community of the faithful may be visible, but the individual practices of the disciple will not be. Jesus may not look like he and his disciples are ‘doing their duty’ as viewed by the Pharisees but Jesus does not view them as faithful guides for how a community should practice righteousness.

The practice of washing hands comes from places in the law like Exodus 30: 19-21 (priests washing before entering the tent of meeting), Leviticus 15: 11 (washing after a bodily discharge) and Deuteronomy 21: 6 (where washing absolves the leaders of a community of responsibility an unsolved murder). The tradition of the elders mentioned here would be an expansion of the practices outlined in the law which only become troubling when they become standards for judging the holiness or acceptability of others. Jesus’ response goes directly back to the commandment and the justifications, often religious, that people might use to not fulfill their covenant responsibility to others. As I mentioned in the discussion of the commandment on honoring parents in both Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, this commandment is not primarily about young children being obedient to parents but instead older children continuing to honor, respect, and care for elderly relatives. If this practice of dedicating wealth and property to the temple or to the priests in order to abandon one’s responsibility to a family member occurred, it would be masking unrighteousness in the appearance of socially respectable piety.

Jesus may bring about divisions in families and may call his followers to ‘let the dead bury their own dead’ or declare those who do the will of his Father in heaven are his ‘brother and sister and mother.’ But it is important for Matthew to continue to link Jesus as the fulfillment of the intent of the law. Jesus never declares that families do not have value and that family connections are not to be honored; they are simply not ultimate. The Pharisees who would practice this ‘dedication of one’s resources to God’ through the temple or the Pharisees, in lieu of caring for family probably felt they were making the same argument. Eyes opened to faith can see what is at the center of practicing righteousness and how faithfulness to Jesus takes a higher place than loyalty to temple or a religious community. The inability to distinguish between piety and righteousness leaves these Pharisees and scribes as blind guides leading the blind.

Hypocrites is a word that Matthew uses more than the rest of scripture, but its use here connects us both with its usage in the Sermon on the Mount (6:2, 6:5. 6:16, 7:5)  and Matthew’s frequent use of the term in the conflicts with the Pharisees in Jerusalem (22:18; 23: 13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29; 24: 51).  As I mentioned when discussing 7:5, when righteousness becomes reduced to piety to demonstrate our own faithfulness or righteousness, we become like the one blind to the log in their own eye while trying to remove the splinter from another’s eye. Our expectations of what piety should look like allow us to pre-judge (where the term prejudice comes from) others and may make us blind to the ways our own practices may lead others astray.

Jesus, like the prophets before him, continually had to remind people that religious practices were not enough. Anna Case-Winters, picking up on the language of the Isaiah quotation, cleverly calls attention to reality that ‘lip-service” is not enough. A heart oriented on God and the way of life God calls God’s people to live is far more central and allows the right intentions to flow out of the mouth and to proceed from one’s hands (washed or unwashed). The Pharisees are scandalized (took offense, NRSV) according to the disciples but Jesus remains unconcerned by their judgments. He views them similarly to the weeds sewn among the wheat (13: 24-30) and as those who in their blindness are leading others in blindness. Like the Pharisees in John 9 who cannot accept the blind man who can now see and become spiritually blind, these Pharisees remain unable to see and participate with the reality of the Kingdom of Heaven’s work and presence in Jesus. Their prejudgment of Jesus makes them unable to properly see the road they are walking down which leads them and others who follow them into a pit.

The Pharisees are not the only ones who have trouble seeing and understanding what Jesus is saying, even the disciples have to ask for clarification. Peter, on behalf of the other disciples presumably, asks for clarification and Jesus explains that it is not what goes into a person, but what comes out of a person that defiles. A clean heart is more important than washed hands, and the actions which destroy community cause far greater harm than the practices of how or what one eats. Yet, Matthew also does not include Mark’s note in the parallel story that “Thus he declared all foods clean.” (Mark 7:19b) Matthew does not discard all the practices that the Jewish people practiced, and many in Matthew’s community may have refrained from eating foods traditionally declared unclean like pork or shellfish. But Matthew also does not allow these practices to give the disciples permission to prejudge others who practice their righteousness in a different way. There will be surprisingly faithful ones among those who were once considered Gentile dogs.

Matthew 8: 1-4 Jesus Takes our Infirmities and Bears our Diseases part 1

5 Replies

Mosaic, Cathedral of the Assumption in Monreale, Sicily (12-13th Century)

Matthew 8: 1-4

Parallels (Mark 1: 40-45, Luke 5: 12-16)

1 When Jesus had come down from the mountain, great crowds followed him; 2 and there was a leper who came to him and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, if you choose, you can make me clean.” 3 He stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I do choose. Be made clean!” Immediately his leprosy was cleansed. 4 Then Jesus said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.”

Jesus comes down the mountain after the Sermon on the Mount and we see the kingdom of heaven in conflict with the forces that keep people enslaved in the world. In chapters eight and nine of Matthew’s Gospel we see three patterns of three stories each separated by some manner of conflict with those hearing the message and some explanation of what we are seeing. It has been noted that like Moses participating in God’s liberation of the people from Egypt with the ten signs and wonders in Exodus 7-12, there are in these two chapters a total of ten acts of healing, exorcism or miracles, (Case-Winters, 2015, p. 125) and while I would agree there is a strong Moses typology in Matthew’s gospel that both places Jesus in comparison and in contrast to Moses these ten signs that announce the kingdom of heaven’s approach. There is also resistance from the forces of the world to the approach of the kingdom of heaven which occur each time Jesus descends a mountain in Matthew’s Gospel. In Matthew eight and nine at the end of each set of three stories there is an expansion of the effect of the individual acts to the many or crowds that are brought into the sphere of influence of the kingdom’s activity.

The first healing in Matthew’s gospel is a person rendered unclean by a skin disease, and while this probably isn’t leprosy, or Hanson’s disease as we have long translated this term, it is for the people of Israel a disease that rendered a person unclean and forced them to live isolated from the community. Skin diseases were a significant concern among the people and the priests are given the role of properly identifying this as a disease that makes one unclean and excluding and reuniting the person with the community. Leviticus 13-14 give the details of how the priest is to diagnose, proclaim unclean, and if the person recovers to ritually declare the person clean again. This type of uncleanness was viewed as a punishment by God, for example Numbers 12 with Miriam, and many diseases in this time were viewed as either an affliction by God or the act of some demonic corrupting force. Yet, I do think it is interesting to note in comparison with Moses that the second sign God gives Moses is turning his hand diseased (leprous in most translations) before Moses goes to witness to Israel. Here Jesus reaches out his hand and touches an unclean man with an affliction of the skin and makes it clean. Matthew in narrating Jesus’ story moves this story ahead of the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law in Mark’s Gospel and perhaps he alludes this connection early in Moses’ ministry.

Regardless of allusions, the issues of what righteousness and the relationship to the law which were important to the Sermon on the Mount are immediately brought into concrete expression as Jesus encounters one who is ritually unclean and acts in ways both contrary and in concert with the law. The law would declare the person unclean and untouchable and there is a view that uncleanness is contagious and because it not only was there a fear of contagion but a fear that the inclusion of the unclean one impacted the purity of the community in its standing before God. Yet, in the kingdom of heaven cleanness is contagious and can be transmitted. Jesus in many of the healings and exorcisms that occur in the next two chapters will cross a barrier to inclusion created by disease, possession, bleeding, being a Gentile, and even being dead. Jesus exercises the authority to make the unclean now clean, unlike the derivative authority of the priest which can only declare that which God has made clean as clean. Something greater than the law is at work here and yet there is still the insistence to offer the gift commanded by Moses as testimony to the priest.

Matthew removes the secrecy motif which is a part of Mark’s narration of this story. In Mark the cleansed leper is commanded not to tell anyone but spreads the word freely which prevents Jesus from being able to enter town. In Mark’s telling there is a great reversal where the formerly unclean leper goes into town telling the message he was to keep silent and Jesus now becomes unable to enter town but now people come from everywhere to touch him. In Matthew the narrative ends after the command to offer the gift to the priest. Matthew also places this story before the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law later in the chapter which has him entering the town of Capernaum. Another key portion of Matthew’s narration is the title people use to address Jesus. Here, and frequently in stories with positive attributions of faith in Matthew, Jesus is referred to as Lord instead of ‘teacher’ (often when faith is questioned) or ‘son of God’ (normally demons but also the Centurion at the cross) or ‘son of David’ (those who are blind but see what others cannot). Lord may simply be a polite address of authority, like ‘sir’ in English, but it also has a strong connection with how the people of Israel referred to the God of Israel (using Adonai, translated LORD instead of the name of the God of Israel). Matthew has already demonstrated a propensity for using language and vocations reserved for the God of Israel to talk about Jesus, so the frequent use of the term Lord in a positive light may point to the nature of faith seeing in Jesus the God who is with us. This is also highlighted by the action of the unclean one kneeling before Jesus in a stance that is appropriate to worship. The act of kneeling could be a stance giving honor to Jesus, but Matthew probably intends for the reader to see in this act the appropriate stance of giving worship to the Lord.