It always looks like Gehazi is working an angle. When he sees Elisha send Naaman away without
accepting payment he determines that he will get something out of the deal and
chases down the Syrian in order to extract something from him. His gambit is to lie, that two men have come,
sons of prophets even, and they are in need of some silver and some
clothing. Naaman’s gratitude towards
prophets was great and he willingly complied with the request. Gehazi apparently forgot that his master was
a prophet and thought he could lie to him as easily as he had lied to Naaman. The encounter with Elisha is reminiscent of
the encounter in the garden between God, Adam and Eve, but the fall has
advanced further than in that encounter.
Adam didn’t know how to lie well or didn’t know enough to lie while
Gehazi doesn’t seem to think twice about how to answer his master’s query about
where he has been. He is naked and
unashamed when he should be greatly shamed about his actions. Elisha’s response is to curse the man and his
descendants, more or less ensuring that the line will not continue long as
contact with lepers was forbidden.
Did moral law matter to Jesus? The moral law presumes certain things like
integrity in marriage which itself here is presented in terms only of man and
woman. The presumption concerning sexual
ethics is opposite sex attraction.
Marriage is conceived of in the second part as between a man and his
wife. The moral law is built on those
presumptions and precepts. What would
have happened in this early stage of Jesus’ ministry if He had supposed some
other configuration? No one would have taken anything He had to say with any
degree of respect at all. When He did
this moral teaching, He raised the standard beyond action to the heart in
matters of adultery, telling us to guard our hearts first. In marriage and divorce issues we have much
to consider in the culture of divorce and remarriage we have created. Regarding oaths, our speech should stand on
its own, no oath should be required. Do
we know anything more than Gehazi about shame in all these matters?
Paul is a bit upset about sexual immorality among the
Corinthians isn’t he? His prescription
is simple, throw the man out of the church.
Tolerance is not a virtue in Paul’s world. He is concerned about the leaven of sin among
the church, that tolerating such sin will ultimately contaminate the morals of
all. I don’t think it likely that he was
concerned that there would be an outbreak of men sleeping with their father’s
wives, but that all sexual morality would be corrupted by tolerating this one
sin. His concern was first for the
church but his concern was also for the sinner, that satan could destroy the
flesh. Destruction of the flesh only is
something Jesus said not to fear. Are we
prepared to be ruthless with respect to sin as Elisha, Jesus and Paul are
here? That goes for sin in the church
and also sin in our own lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment