2 Kings 5:17 So Naaman said, “Then, if not, please let your servant be given two mule-loads of earth; for your servant will no longer offer either burnt offering or sacrifice to other gods, but to the LORD. 18 Yet in this thing may the LORD pardon your servant: when my master goes into the temple of Rimmon to worship there, and he leans on my hand, and I bow down in the temple of Rimmon—when I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the LORD please pardon your servant in this thing.”
19 Then he(Elisha) said to him, “Go in peace.” So he departed from him a short distance.
I read this today and the persecution of the Christians in ancient Rome came to mind. It seems that they could sometimes have avoided death by worshipping the Emperor as a god and even found precedence for it in their scriptures. Why did Elisha give Namaan dispensation in this case? Why has the dispensation not applied to others?
Footnote from the Geo. Haydock bible
haydock1859.tripod.com/ :
Ver. 19. Go in peace. What the prophet here allowed, was not an outward conformity to an idolatrous worship, but only a service which by his office he cowed to his master; who, on all public occasions, leaned on him: so that his bowing down when his master bowed himself down, was not in effect adoring the idols; nor was it so understood by the standers by, (since he publicly professed himself a worshipper of the only true and living God) but it was no more than doing a civil office to the king, his master, whose leaning upon him obliged him to bow at the same time that he bowed. (Challoner) — Some assert that the prophet does not even authorize this civil assistance in the temple of idols, but simply tells Naaman to go in peace, and to think no more of his former religion; that he will beseech the Lord not to suffer him to be exposed to the danger. (Junius and Piscator) (Calmet) — Some formerly pleaded this example, to excuse their occasional conformity in going to the Protestant churches, as the law required. But the case was very different. Greater perfection is required in the new law. They had not to act in the capacity of Naaman; and their attendance was considered a profession of a false religion. Their directors loudly condemned the practice. They ought rather to have imitated Eleazar, &c., who refused to eat swine’s flesh, 2 Machabees vi., and vii. (Worthington) — Though the king intended to adore the idol, Naaman referred his worship, to God alone. (Bristow, Mot. 23.; Theodoret, q. 19.; and a Greek interpreter.) — The Hebrew term signifies, either to adore mentally, or to bend down; which latter is the sense applicable to Naaman. (Cajetan) (Amama) — His “request must certainly refer to the time past, and not to that to come; as if he begged an indulgence in idolatry, or of countenancing his master’s idol-worship, by his presence.” (Button, Dict.) — The Jews foolishly pretend (Calmet) that “the proselyte of dwelling,” like Naaman, might return to the service of idols, in his own country, without its being imputed to him. (Selden, Jur. ii. 11.) (Maimonides) — The conduct of the Syrian convert, whether past or future, undoubtedly filled him with alarm. If he considered the danger of a merely civil attendance upon the king, in an idolatrous temple, we cannot condemn him for idle scrupulosity; (Haycock) since many have found a difficulty in admitting the lawfulness of such a practice, and have even blamed both Naaman and the prophet. (Greg. de Valentia, &c., ep. Cornelius a Lapide) (Calmet) — But if the practice was irreprehensible, as most interpreters assert, the answer of Eliseus might give this assurance to Naaman, and inform him that he need be under no farther apprehension on that account. God in peace. These words do not expressly solve the difficulty; but he mode in which they were uttered might intimate, either that the general would be no longer under that embarrassment, (as we do not read that he ever attended the king of Syria into the temple afterwards) or that God had forgiven his former offences, and particularly the scandalous idolatry which now gave him so much pain. The original, ver. 18, which is generally translated in the present of future, (Haydock) may be better rendered in the past tense, as the Chaldean has it. “In this thing the Lord pardon thy servant. My master going into the temple of Remmon to worship there, and leaning upon my hand, and I worshipped in the temple of Remmon, when I did worship in the temple of Remmon, that the Lord pardon,” &c. St. Jerome and the Septuagint seem to have read more correctly, when he, &c. We may also render it in the present tense, “and I worship,” or, “am wont to adore;” not that he meant to prevaricate any longer. The Syriac and Arabic read with an interrogation. “When I shall adore…(Calmet; or bow down, Haydock) wil the Lord pardon me?” But this rather increases the difficulty. (Calmet) — We may therefore conclude either that Naaman had no decision, or that he had leave to serve his master, (Haydock) in a civil capacity even in the temple; (Menochius; Tirinus; Alex. 2. dis. 7.; Santius, &c.) or, that he obtained pardon for his past transgressions. (Bochart; Calmet, &c.) …
