# Believer Worshipping False god



## Hamalas (Jul 2, 2014)

Okay, so my girlfriend and I were reading through 2 Kings 1-8 this morning and when we came to the section in chapter five which tells the story of Naaman we both had a question. After being cleansed of his leprosy and turning to the Lord he asks of Elisha in verse 18: "In this matter may the LORD pardon your servant: when my master goes into the house of Rimmon to worship there, leaning on my arm, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, when I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, the LORD pardon your servant in this matter." Matthew Henry offers some helpful comments on this section and sees this as evidence of the tender nature of Naaman's faith, but Henry doesn't specifically address verse 19 which reads: "He [that is the prophet] said to him, "Go in peace.""

So our question is: how could the prophet of God encourage someone to go in peace in this circumstance? Can anyone shed some light on this for me?


----------



## VictorBravo (Jul 3, 2014)

Commentators are all over the place here. It looks like the Hebrew is in the infinitive, which could mean future, or possibly could mean an ongoing past-tense practice. Gill takes it as repentance over a past-tense continuous action. Others do, too (I don't recall them now).

Others take it as Elisha holding to his office as a prophet to the Hebrews, not Gentiles. In that case, the Mosaic Law is not strictly applicable and Elisha does not feel the need to say anything more.

And still others say that repentance, while true, does not necessarily have to be perfect.

Personally, I tend toward the past tense interpretation, especially because Naaman obviously wants to publish the great works of God by bringing back earth on which to perform his (still somewhat superstitious) sacrifices.


----------



## One Little Nail (Jul 3, 2014)

Hamalas said:


> verse 19 which reads: "He [that is the prophet] said to him, "Go in peace.""
> 
> So our question is: how could the prophet of God encourage someone to go in peace in this circumstance? Can anyone shed some light on this for me?




Elisha's comment could have been just a common courtesy , he most certainly didn't encourage him in his Idolatry or anything like that. Now I checked my Bible software, this is the Geneva Bible note: 



> (k) The prophet did not approve his act, but after the common manner of speech he bids him farewell.




Naaman does say that;



> thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice unto other gods, but unto the LORD



then seems to say that he will of necessity have to go to an Idol temple & perform Idol worship



> when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon: when I bow down myself in the house of Rimmon



thus I believe he shows evidence that he did not have saving faith but mere intellectual accent



> Behold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel



Naaman may not have been under the Mosaic Law but he was under the work of the law written in his heart Rom 2:15
as such having sinned without the law shall also perish without law Rom 2:12. _Idolatry_ being a capital offence.

for Paul also says that 1Cor 10:20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Namaan was a double minded man, unstable in all his ways, he received a knowledge of the truth only to turn back, narrow is the way of life. Matt 13:22 says that, He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful. 2 Kings 5:1 Naaman, captain of the host of the king of Syria, was a great man with his master, and honourable, & unfortunately seems to have chosen these things over righteousness.


----------



## Hamalas (Jul 4, 2014)

Interesting.

Any more thoughts on this? One of the things we thought about was the possible connection which some could draw between this passage and the Insider Movement discussions.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 4, 2014)

The problem with using a text like this to support InsiderMovement and the like, is that such appropriations pay scant attention to either: the whole range of biblical teaching or to the place of this text in the context of redemptive history. Plus, the IM supporter is assuming his particular read of the passage is correct, then leaning considerable weight on about 2vv.

If we step back from the minutiae for a moment, it should quickly be clear that this is a passage about conversion, and conversion of a Gentile at that. Furthermore if we pay attention to Jesus, that's how he seems to understand it as well, since he uses the example of Naaman to rebuke the _unbelief_ of the Jews in his own hometown, Lk.4:27.

Thus when it comes down to the smaller details (not that they are inconsequential), if we need to make a choice: whether what reads like a failure of faith--here asking for an excuse for bowing in the temple of a false god--is evidence of _weakness,_ or of _obdurate hardness_ of heart; it seem plain to me that we wisely err (if we must) on the side of charity.

Here's a quote from Lange's Commentary, auth. Bähr, _loc. cit._, with which I am in much agreement:


> It rather shows that he had a tender conscience, which desired to avoid an appearance of denying Jehovah, and which was forced to speak out its scruples and have them quieted. Such scruples would not have occurred to one who was wavering between service of God and service of the gods.....
> 
> [T]he prophet could not return a reply to a request which proceeded from conscientious scruples, such as the new convert here presented, nor give a reply which was at once yes and no, or neither the one nor the other. Naaman was to proceed on his journey “in peace,” not in doubt or restless uncertainty. If his request had been incompatible with a knowledge of the true God, the prophet would have been forced to show him that it was so; he could not have dismissed him with an ordinary, indifferent “formula of farewell.” That he omitted the correction and dismissed him in peace, shows beyond question that he acceded to the request.


As a side note, I'm somewhat amused by the fact that the American translator and annotater of the German _Doktor's_ efforts in this volume seem to me quite a bit more rationalistic than that of the academician, and show considerable cultural hubris and chronological snobbery, traits not uncommon in the 19th century. This is interesting because Germany was the hotbed of rationalistic (Enlightenment influenced) scholarship, and the Anglo-American schools were initially more resistant to the trend.

The Lange Commentary as a whole, though conceived with the intent of defending the integrity of Scripture against the growing influence of radical criticism, is not free of its influence. The set frequently reflects the ordinary biases of time and place, with usually a bit more "conservative" notations from the Anglo-Americans.​

Whatever one concludes about the faith of Naaman, the notion that it is acceptable to God to disguise one's religious allegiance--applying all sorts of "mental reservation" to one's outward behaviors and basically refusing to confess true doctrine and practice--that is just idolatry. It's hard for me to conclude from what Naaman says, that his intention is to color his new devotion with the dye of his former practices and associations. Moreover, we do not have any additional data concerning how Naaman's profession worked itself out in his life after these events. We only know he was solicitous at this point to know the continuing merciful mind of the one true God toward him--when soon his only present source of such knowledge (Elisha the prophet) would soon be far away and inaccessible to him.


----------



## Scott1 (Jul 4, 2014)

> Matthew Henry Commentary
> 
> 
> Verses 1-8 Though the Syrians were idolaters, and oppressed God's people, yet the deliverance of which Naaman had been the means, is here ascribed to the Lord. Such is the correct language of Scripture, while those who write common history, plainly show that God is not in all their thoughts. No man's greatness, or honour, can place him our of the reach of the sorest calamities of human life: there is many a sickly, crazy body under rich and gay clothing. Every man has some but or other, something that blemishes and diminishes him, some allay to his grandeur, some damp to his joy. This little maid, though only a girl, could give an account of the famous prophet the Israelites had among them. Children should be early told of the wondrous works of God, that, wherever they go, they may talk of them. As became a good servant, she desired the health and welfare of her master, though she was a captive, a servant by force; much more should servants by choice, seek their masters' good. Servants may be blessings to the families where they are, by telling what they know of the glory of God, and the honour of his prophets. Naaman did not despise what she told, because of her meanness. It would be well if men were as sensible of the burden of sin as they are of bodily disease. And when they seek the blessings which the Lord sends in answer to the prayers of his faithful people, they will find nothing can be had, except they come as beggars for a free gift, not as lords to demand or purchase.


.


----------



## One Little Nail (Jul 10, 2014)

Contra_Mundum said:


> If we step back from the minutiae for a moment, it should quickly be clear that this is a passage about conversion, and conversion of a Gentile at that. Furthermore if we pay attention to Jesus, that's how he seems to understand it as well, since he uses the example of Naaman to rebuke the _unbelief_ of the Jews in his own hometown, Lk.4:27.




I _don't_ think the passage is that clear on his conversion, & Jesus' words in Luke 4:27 ;


> And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.


 does not speak at all about Naamans faith but rather Jesus was declaring himself the fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy & mentioning God's Sovereign & Particular acts of mercy to 2 gentiles, of which Naaman was one, which seemed to get the synagogue into a state of excitement.



Contra_Mundum said:


> Thus when it comes down to the smaller details (not that they are inconsequential), if we need to make a choice: whether what reads like a failure of faith--here asking for an excuse for bowing in the temple of a false god--is evidence of _weakness,_ or of _obdurate hardness_ of heart; it seem plain to me that we wisely err (if we must) on the side of charity.




yes we ought to show charity in all things, but in truth as well & I can't see that there is to much Scriptural evidence to show that he, Naaman, was a converted man, though for his sake I wish it were so.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 10, 2014)

Robert,
I don't know what you expected Jesus to say, but Jesus' reference is _clearly_ to the *faith* of Naaman the Syrian, which got him cleansed (regardless of the quality of it) when he submitted to the word of the prophet; over against the rank faithlessness of the "many" Israelite lepers who never even sought out the prophet of God for his gracious word for cleansing, much less heeded his command. That's the main reason why they weren't healed, according to Jesus; what Naaman did--from start to finish--the Israelite lepers refused to do. (Did it never occur to them? Why not!?!)

Those faithless Israelites are being compared by Christ to the faithless Israelites in his own day, who also will not heed the Prophet _on his own terms _for his gracious word for cleansing. The Nazarenes wanted Jesus to prove himself on their terms: "Do here what you did in Capernaum," they command the Lord. "You left here and got a following, and now you think we should get on board? You tell us we need healing--poor, brokenhearted, captive, blind, oppressed.... _*Your*_ healing? Heal your own self!"

Yes, Jesus is declaring himself to be Messiah; and the people with the most prior preparation, who should respond eagerly, instead are dreadfully reluctant. In response to them, Jesus adduces the history of this people to demonstrate that what these are doing, their fathers also did. The ones who apparently come to Christ _on the terms he sets_ are those who understand how desperate they are: poor, marginalized, outcast, sinners, humble, yea and even Gentiles (Luke, companion of Paul, has Gentiles on the mind). But those with copious ordinary inducements provided by their sign-rich religion seem most oblivious to the Advent of the Subject.

Pointing out this reality takes a resentful situation in the Nazareth synagogue, and turns it positively hostile.

Those who receive the mercy of Christ do so on his terms. That's how Naaman received it. The "only" Scriptural evidence to Naaman's conversion is... the story of Naaman, from start to finish, including his own stated testimony, 2Ki.5:15,17, and the prophet's, v19. And Jesus' encouraging (to believers!) illustration, showing that no one (not even a Gentile) who comes to him *on his terms* has ever been denied, nor will be denied. That's the balance of the evidence, and the uncertainty/concern expressed in v18 does not seem to me like the key that bolts the door of grace.

Peace.


----------

