Read on Twitter
1/ Last month I finished a paper on the way Jonathan Edwards used the character of Naaman in his sermons and writings as an example of hypocrisy. It's an interesting tale (to me anyway!) of how the fortunes of a biblical character change in exegesis over time.
2/ Here's the short version!
3/ The story of Naaman (2 Kings 5) is normally taken today as an example of the remarkable conversion of an Old Testament Gentile to the worship of the Lord. Being healed of his leprosy, he confesses: "Now I know that there is no God in all the world except in Israel."
4/ Leaving to return to Syria, however, Naaman requests: "But may the Lord forgive your servant for this one thing: when my master enters the temple of Rimmon to bow down and he is leaning on my arm and I have to bow there also – when I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the…
5/ …Lord forgive your servant for this.’
6/ How should this request be taken? Is it an acceptable act of civil obedience? Or an ambiguous, possibly unwise, maybe even sinful act - but the honest mistake of a brand-new convert? Commentators have debated at length, unsurprisingly.
7/ Jonathan Edwards, however, takes a different approach. Naaman, says Edwards, is an example of a hypocrite - not meaning, as in today's usage, someone whose actions don't match their words, but someone who is self-deceived.
8/ Naaman thinks it is sufficient to commit to worshipping Yahweh with reservations. He thinks he can retain one sin: "in this one thing, forgive". For Edwards, that he asks forgiveness is proof that he knows what he asks for is sinful.
9/ And so, Naaman is a prime example of "gracious affections, that are yet not truly saving." He is truly affected by his healing, yet in only temporary and non-saving ways: as proved by this reservation.
10/ Naaman turns up three times in Edwards' Religious Affections applied in this way.
11/ But it goes further than that: Edwards in fact regularly used Naaman as an example of hypocrisy in his sermons as well (ten times that I found, spanning his whole ministry from mid-1720’s to 1753).
12/ Where does this particular take on Naaman come from? Well, it's not from the commentaries Edwards had to hand. Looking at them, they are consistent in viewing Naaman as a genuine convert.
13/ His request is either a civil obedience issue (not idolatrous worship), or the mistake of a novice convert. In Poole, Henry, Patrick and others, this is the common opinion.
14/ And it's not from early Protestant exegetes either. Naaman gets a mention in a number of early Reformers, because his request to bow in the temple of Rimmon was used by some to argue for the propriety of Protestants attending Mass.
15/ But Calvin, Vermigli and others, in refuting this, don't cast aspersions on the genuineness of Naaman's conversion. Some are even prepared to speculate that Naaman would have changed his mind before getting home (and not have bowed).
16/ Where does Edwards' view come from then? Turns out there is a precursor: Puritan sermons and devotional literature also pretty uniformly take Naaman negatively. First example I found was 1591.
17/ Before this, Naaman is universally seen as a genuine (though maybe misguided) convert. After this point, all the big Puritan names use Naaman as an example of hypocrisy.
18/ Arthur Hildersham, Ralph Robinson, Samuel Crook, Obadiah Sedgewick, Thomas Brooks, Joseph Alleine, John Flavel, Stephen Crisp, and Thomas Watson...
19/ And most consistently of all, John Owen in eight (!) of his books. Owen is an obvious point of contact with Edwards: it's highly likely Edwards read Pnuematologia, which paints Naaman as a hypocrite, prior to his own first use of him in this way.
20/ After Edwards, the Naaman-as-hypocrite interpretation fell completely out of favour. Keil and Delitszch give it a nod, but modern commentaries don't even consider it. Naaman is an OT missiological bright spot!
21/ What's the lesson from all this?
22/ I find it fascinating that the Puritan devotional culture latched on to Naaman in this way: it's like the phrase "in this one thing" (they almost all note this wording Naaman uses) triggered their hypocrisy-spotting instincts.
23/ The early Reformers were universally much more charitable. Is that because changing historical circumstances impacted the changing fortunes of Naaman in interpretation?
24/ Exegetes of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, more secure in the establishment of Protestantism, may have seen more need for discerning between true and false believers than making reassuring allowances for new converts.
25/ If Edwards’ exegesis of the text was substantially directed by this tradition that used Naaman as a negative practical example, it is perhaps a salutary reminder of the power of a
devotional culture to shape exegesis.
devotional culture to shape exegesis.
26/ Especially given how transitory this tradition turned out to be.
27/ But such a warning would cut both ways. While greater sympathy for Naaman might be warranted, the one-time popularity of the Naaman-as-hypocrite reading may give pause when we consider how it has disappeared entirely from modern interpretations of Naaman.
28/ Conceivably, it is not only eighteenth-century exegetes who may be moulded by the readings in vogue in their time. Is there a better antidote for an incestuous hermeneutic than birthing our own interpretations from a gene pool that encompasses a greater breadth of the…
29/ …exegetical labours of past generations, especially those, like Edwards’, that are both founded on meticulous effort and yet display strikingly unfamiliar conclusions?
30/ If you've not had enough already, you can read the whole article for free here: https://jestudies.yale.edu/index.php/journal/article/view/401
