I usually try to get out at least one ☧ost per week, but I’ve not done that lately. There are two reasons for that;

1. I kinda lose track of time when I’m doing exegesis, and I’ve been burying myself in 2 Kings 5 since my last ☧ost.
2. I’ve got an announcement to make but I’m not able to share it just yet.

I’m basically done with the most detailed work for the exegesis, and I will be sharing it below, but be warned: it’s long. It will become part of a book proposal for my next project, What About Us? The Earliest Attitudes Toward Military Service.

The bulk of the essay is being placed behind a paywall, which has to do with my next reason, the announcement I hope to be sharing soon. If you know what it’s about, please don’t go blabbin’ about… If word gets out, it won’t affect me so much as it will others, so please be considerate. I expect to share it no later than next week. Until then, please enjoy this lengthy (mostly paid) essay on Naaman the Syrian commander, the first person baptized in the Jordan River who foreshadows both the Rakes of Luke 3 and CPT Marvel of Luke 7…

Naaman the Syrian (2 Kings 5)

The commander of Syria’s army is a Gentile officer named Naaman. Despite being a great man (gāḏôl îš) and a mighty warrior (gibôr ḥayil), he suffers from a humbling skin disease. We learn that acquired a Jewish girl for his wife while leading a military raid. However, the girl is never called eḇeḏ (H5650), servant or slave, even though she came to be with Naaman’s family through a military action, a typical way of acquiring slaves in the ancient world. 

The fact that the girl is not called eḇeḏ stands out, as though the author is deliberately excluding her from the power dynamics of servitude and enslavement that this chapter otherwise focuses on; Naaman is the eḇeḏ of both his king (v.6) and of the prophet Elisha (vv.15,17,18), Gehazi is Elisha’s eḇeḏ (v.25), and a reference to female eḇeḏ (v.26) closes out the chapter. Although the girl calls Naaman “master” (v.3), his eḇeḏím address him as avi (H1), “father” (v.13). Although eḇeḏím is plural, if the spokesperson is addressing Naaman on their collective behalf, then avi could be translated “our father”, as the Common English Bible does.  

What all this does is to show how Naaman falls outside the norms expected of an enslaver. Not only do his so-called servants refer to him as family, but the girl herself also offers what should have been privileged information. Why would she speak up about a healer from her native land if she harbored animosity toward Naaman or his wife? Did she see her plight as hopeless, and offer a chance at healing so that she might not become unclean through her leprous captor? Maybe, but given how his servants address him, it is more likely that he is the kind of person his own servants look up to, imperfect but good.