Naaman's Test of Trust

Many of us are familiar with the account of Naaman the Syrian in 2 Kings 5. He was the leprous captain of the Syrian king's host. This morning, it seemed to appear to me differently than it ever has before as I contemplated several different developments in doctrinal teachings that have surfaced recently.

In this chapter, the Syrians had brought back a captive from the land of Israel. Realizing that her master had leprosy, she mentioned that there was a prophet in Samaria who could help him recover. So, when the king of Syria heard about it, he immediately sent some of his servants to Samaria, as described in verses 5-6:

2 Kings 5:5-6 And the king of Syria said, Go to, go, and I will send a letter unto the king of Israel. And he departed, and took with him ten talents of silver, and six thousand [pieces] of gold, and ten changes of raiment. And he brought the letter to the king of Israel, saying, Now when this letter is come unto thee, behold, I have therewith sent Naaman my servant to thee, that thou mayest recover him of his leprosy.

Right away, we see him asking a man, the king of Israel, to heal his servant Naaman. He was putting his trust in him to restore Naaman to health. The letter was received with this response:

2 Kings 5:7 And it came to pass, when the king of Israel had read the letter, that he rent his clothes, and said, Am I God, to kill and to make alive, that this man doth send unto me to recover a man of his leprosy? wherefore consider, I pray you, and see how he seeketh a quarrel against me.

He realized that he, an ordinary man, was not in the slightest measure capable of healing Naaman. Despite this, the king of Syria had still asked him to do it, despite his being an ordinary man. Elisha, however, heard that the king had rent his clothes and told him to refer Naaman to him. We read in verse 9:

2 Kings 5:9-10 So Naaman came with his horses and with his chariot, and stood at the door of the house of Elisha. And Elisha sent a messenger unto him, saying, Go and wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean.

Now we see Elisha sending a messenger to meet Naaman. He didn't come out to him in person, and he was therefore not offering to heal Naaman himself. Instead, he referred him to the Jordan river, telling him he would be healed if he washed there, but this wasn't Naaman's idea of a prophet who was capable of healing him:

2 Kings 5 11-12 But Naaman was wroth, and went away, and said, Behold, I thought, He will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the LORD his God, and strike his hand over the place, and recover the leper. Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? May I not wash in them, and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage.

He had put his trust in Elisha's ability to "call on the name of Jehovah his God and strike his hand over the place" to heal him. On top of that, after hearing what Elisha said, he discounted his message by implying that Jordan's waters or any others in Israel would be less capable of healing him than the Abana and Pharpar rivers of Damascus. Since his trust was broken, he lost his temper and left enraged, but later on, his servants attempt to calm him down:

2 Kings 5:13 And his servants came near, and spake unto him, and said, My father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not have done it? how much rather then, when he saith to thee, Wash, and be clean?

Basically, they said that he should simply listen to what he was told, so he decided to try it out. He went to Jordan, as we read in verse 14:

2 Kings 5:14 Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.

So, he was healed in the end, and by following the word of God as spoken by Elisha. This was contrary to his original concept of either the king or Israel or Elisha healing him directly. As we read on in the chapter, we see great evidence that he has become saved. We see a great change in him, including his wish to worship the God of Israel in his home country. All in all, it seems like a conclusive Bible story with a good ending. However, it occurred to me earlier that there might be even more to this than I previously realized. In comparison of Scripture, we find that washing in water is a picture of salvation. Though it may only remove physical blemishes, it's often used as a picture of someone becoming saved. The water they are washed with is the Word of God.

Ephesians 5:25-27 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

The church mentioned here is the true church of all the elect. They are sanctified by the washing of water by the Word. There are other passages to support this as well. Therefore, if Naaman washed in the Jordan river and afterwards became saved, then it would be a picture of an elect person being washed by the Word of God and sanctified by it; this is easy to see.

But, of the other facets of this passage, another stood out to me. In the last few weeks, months, and years, there have been certain men of various groups putting forth doctrines that they claim have been "unsealed" to their understanding. They state that there are things like Christ's atonement, judgment, and other similar topics that have been taught incorrectly and have been in error. They may not directly say it, but they mean nonetheless that heresy was taught throughout the church age and technically throughout history. Unless they want to say that God literally changed everything, that now something is true that was not true before, and that what was held to be the truth is now a lie, they're really saying that anybody in history who didn't understand the timeline, judgment, the Trinity, Christ himself, or anything else the way they see it, or anyone who believed the doctrines held by the churches, was in error, and if they were in error, they wouldn't have had the true Gospel and thus wouldn't have been saved. However, many of their conclusions can only be understood by others, and not even fully understood, if one simply takes their word for it. We know from the Bible that this is not a righteous conclusion. The elect are never to put man before the Bible. If the Bible is the authority, and not man, and we cannot come to the conclusions of another man by reading the Bible, then if we do not listen to them, we are still trusting the Bible. Consider Naaman's case. He went first to the King of Israel and then to Elisha expecting those men to heal him. As he put it, he expected Elisha to strike his hand over the place and heal it. He was putting his faith in men. Then, he washed in Jordan. The Jordan river, as he said, was not a very appealing river. As he said, the rivers of Damascus were in his opinion superior to the rivers of Israel, somewhat like someone thinking that one gospel or another may look more appealing than another, such as one that teaches a judgment program that is easier to bear. However, the commandment was to wash in Jordan. If he had washed in any river other than Jordan, he would not have recovered.

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8-9 AV)

To sum up what I have concluded, I believe that God is trying to tell believers in these days that no matter what anybody says, we should never gain our understanding through a third party. If those who teach things we cannot understand in the Bible are correct, or even if they are not, if we do not see it, it is sin to believe them anyway.

Romans 14:23-b for whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin.

If we cannot see their doctrines regarding judgment, for example, then we should not trust them simply because we think they're probably right despite our own understanding. In a time when it seems that so many take their teachers at their word without understanding what they say, I believe that God is trying to teach us that the only thing we can trust is the Bible that we hold in our own hands.

“Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.” (Hebrews 6:1-2 AV)

As far as laying again the foundation of the first principles of the oracles of God is concerned, I believe that if we cannot see what these men teach, God still cannot judge us for it, for there are countless others who will never even hear, much less understand, their message. I pray that the Lord may use His Word to teach us all and lead us into truth in His perfect time.