Why did Naaman bathe in the Jordan? Because that was the only way he could possibly be healed of his leprosy? Did he ever have a choice in the matter? Was he exceptionally clever, that he discovered the Jordan's secret cleansing power? Was he driven to bathe in that muddy river by a fateful chain of events set in motion before the foundation of the world? Or, was he simply convinced that this was his only hope of ever being healed? Once healed, could he decide to go ahead and be a leper again?

(If you aren't familiar with the story of Naaman the Aramean [Syrian], check it out in 2 Kings chapter 5.)

As I was reading Gilbert K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy, it suddenly dawned on me what a wonderful type Naaman's experience is of God's salvation through Christ. In fact, in Luke 4, as Jesus rebukes his home village's inhabitants for not accepting Him as the Messiah foretold in Isaiah 61, He compares them to all the other lepers in Naaman's day. Thus, a directly analogous relationship can be established, not just by fancy, but by sound Scriptural enquiry, between salvation and the healing of this "bad" man.

For Naaman was, without a doubt, never depicted as a wonderful person. Aram had indeed been given success by God, and Naaman was the vehicle of that success. However, God's purpose in this was to chastise Israel for their continuing unfaithfulness, not because of the amazing righteousness of the Arameans. In fact, Naaman discovers Elisha only because he had a little Israelite girl among his slaves. As further evidence for his imperfection, he rejects God's healing through Elisha's word the first time, and gets angry about the whole thing. I'm not trying to say that Naaman was an exceptionally bad man, but I do want to make it clear that he was not an exceptionally good one.

What is my intent in this discussion? I believe that Naaman provides a wonderful evidence against that hideous heresy of extreme Calvinism that denies free will to man created in the image of God. One of the principal reasons given that free will must not be, is that it necessarily detracts from the infinite glory, authority and especially sovereignty that should rightfully be ascribed to our God.

To the contrary, I believe that only our God is sovereign enough to imbue man with the ability to make a real, valid choice. Baal or the Fates could create robots, then give them the illusion of free will, but only Yahweh could and would dare to make a little image of Himself, able to make causative decisions independent of a predetermined chain of events.

And certainly, in the story of Naaman, as in my own experience of God's saving grace, the healing was never due to anything particular to Naaman, except that he bathed in the Jordan. Likewise, there has never been anything particularly salvageable about me, except that I am found beneath the awful, cleansing torrent of Calvary. And just as no one would, even for a second, ascribe credit for Naaman's healing to his prowess, cunning, manly courage, righteousness, or anything else, so I hope that none would ever chalk my salvation up to anything good in me, for I know that nothing good dwells in me.

Nevertheless, I would contend two things: one, that Naaman would not have been healed short of his immersion in the Nile; and two, that Naaman did not have to bathe in the Nile - he chose to do it. In fact, Naaman at first did not choose to do it, and he continued as a leper. Silly Naaman. Likewise, though I never could have a restored relationship with God except through Christ, I did not have to come to Christ. I therefore thoroughly reject the predeterminist fatalism of extreme Calvinism.

Lastly, to soothe the concern of my Calvinist and Reformed (which mean essentially the same thing) brothers and sisters, all this does not mean that one can back out of salvation. That Naaman had a choice in the matter of his healing does not mean that he became leprous again the moment he got out of the river, or that he could make himself leprous by uttering precise invectives against the Jordan river. So neither can I decide to pluck myself out of His hand. In fact, the two issues are connected in different ways, and less connected at that, than it seems like most theologians will admit. That we have free will in the matter does not mean that we make our salvation, and thus does not mean that we can un-make it, nor that we can't.

Anyhow, I know that Calvinism vs. Arminianism has been hashed out plenty enough times over the last 2k years, but I have yet to hear Naaman brought into the mix, so I figured I'd better write it down before the thought flew off and left me.

The bottom line is, I love God, and I love His people, whether they are right or wrong, and, of course, whether I am right or wrong. Love is certainly the greatest of the virtues, yet the fierceness of the love that Jesus is putting in me for all people demands that I rejoice in the truth, and so these issues carry a certain importance, and have their place in my life, and in my love.