If your enemy is leprous, heal him…

2 Kings 5 neatly contains the story concerning Naaman the Syrian.

One gets a strong sense why Jesus (in his famously offensive sermon at the Nazareth synagogue – Luke 4) chooses – of all the stories in the Hebrew Bible – this story as one of the two stories to reference. The reason seems to be the particularly strong example the Naaman story provides of love for enemies.

The concept of loving your enemies is and always will be inescapably baffling. If the love we are talking about isn’t baffling, it can’t be enemy-love.

We tame this concept by talking about enemies as though they are not really that bad or hard to love. Enemies are the ones trying to kill you, shame you, discredit you or otherwise take you down. They are in direct opposition to you. To love your enemy is to think and act in favour of a person who is anti-you.

Loving your enemy is the ‘wrong’ thing to do, but nonetheless is ‘right’ in God’s economy.

There are a number of Godly ‘wrongs’ in this fascinating story:
We’ll just look at two. One by God, and one by a young girl…

God gives victory to Israel Syria!?

No, this passage is not written by someone with Dissociative Identity Disorder. God is for Israel! (verse 15) God is for Syria? (verse 1) No, this is indeed the Hebrew Bible, and the God revealed in this story is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel).

What we see here is not God switching teams willy-nilly, but rather we see something about the generosity and sovereignty of the God of Israel. We are told provocatively in verse 1 that “the LORD had given victory to Syria” through Naaman.

To say that God is the God of Israel is not to say that God only does things for Israel. God causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust. The God of Israel also gives land to other nations, and (as Paul says in Acts 17) is sovereign over the times and places where all people live. God has a specific salvation story playing out through a particular nation, but remains the universal cosmic Lord over all creation, all humanity and all nations. We see this in God giving victory here to Syria, and also in places like Deuteronomy 2 which describe God’s provision and protection for Moabite land.

Enslaved girl seeks her captives’ death healing!?

One doesn’t need a vast knowledge of ancient socio-political dynamics to grasp the tension between in this passage. Verse 2 makes it clear:

Now bands of raiders from Syria [a.k.a. ‘Aram’) had gone out and had taken captive a young girl from Israel, and she served Naaman’s wife.

2 Kings 5:2

It reads like a horrific newspaper headline. “Raiders… Taken Captive… Young girl.” Imagine this girls’ family reading the positive description of Naaman in verse 1!?

She must have been able to see Naaman’s humanity. Instead of wishing him dead, she wishes him healed. Verse 3: “If only” Naaman could see “the prophet who is in Samaria…”

This “young girl” is a shining example of one of the highest commandments in all of Scripture – “love your enemies” (Matthew 5:43-45).

diversity within the binary

Thinking about, let alone talking about matters of sex and gender and trans identity is controversial and therefore difficult. An experience I had this morning reminded me of something I don’t want to forget when it comes to all of this.

I walked past a clothing store which always has large banners with models showing some of their clothing store. In the past few months I’d noticed that some of the models at least seemed to be trans models. Both trans men and trans women. I’d theorised in my mind about the extent to which this choice of model (if they were indeed trans models) was motivated by sincere allyship to trans people, and how much it was to profit from being seen to be in line with the current of modern discourse.

Green-washing, rainbow-washing, and now trans-washing?

I didn’t linger too long on this curiosity. Who knows?


Over the last few days I’d noticed new banners with new models.

The figures were wearing women’s clothing, but their facial structure and features appeared masculine to me, which caused me to wonder – were these transwomen? At first this wonder quickly became an assumption: yes. But then I asked myself: to what extent is it helpful to assume they were indeed trans?

I was reminded of just how diverse peoples physical and facial characteristics can be.
Assumptions don’t really help, to my mind?

Aside from those who identify as non-binary, there remains a lot of diversity of physical characteristics even within the binary of male and female. The stereotypes have much to answer for.

There have always been, and always will be, men who are not very ‘macho’.
There have always been, and always will be, women who are not very ‘dainty’.

If God creates men that are macho and men that are not – shouldn’t we affirm and celebrate all their body types?
If God creates women that are dainty and women that are not – can’t we see the beauty in all body types?

As I said, talking about anything trans usually becomes very divisive almost instantly. Maybe… just maybe… instead of taking on the annoyed posture that asks everyone ‘what is a woman’, or maybe… instead of naming and shaming those who have views other than those reflected in the mainstream, we could learn something from all of this?

Maybe we can remember to appreciate the diversity of the bodies God creates.