Military Leaders And Jonah In The Writings Of Luke, Part 1

By Kenneth W. Yates

[Kenneth W. Yates is a retired Army chaplain and is pastor of Little River Baptist Church, Jenkinsville, South Carolina.]

Abstract

This two-part series argues that two Gentile military leaders, Naaman and Julius, form an inclusio in Luke–Acts. Both men are open to the revelation of God. Both are pious and are a rebuke to the unbelief of some Jews. As does the book of Jonah, these men show that God reaches out to Gentiles and can reach them within their pagan backgrounds. The reader of Luke–Acts is encouraged to go to them as well.

* * *

In the writings of Luke, Gentile military leaders play significant roles. In Luke’s Gospel, a Roman centurion becomes an example of great faith to the Jews who were following Jesus (Luke 7:1-9). Another centurion makes the final statement concerning the Lord at the cross (Luke 23:47). A third centurion becomes the impetus for the mission to the Gentiles in the book of Acts (Acts 10).

Two other Gentile military leaders merit special attention. They are the first and last such men that Luke mentions. In his first sermon, Jesus refers to the Syrian general Naaman (Luke 4:27). At the end of Acts, the centurion Julius escorts Paul to Rome, even saving the life of the apostle in the process (Acts 27-28). In other words, these men are found at the beginning of the ministry of the Lord as well as at the end of Paul’s ministry in Acts.

This two-article series will argue that Naaman and Julius form an inclusio in Luke’s writings. As Gentiles, they show that it was always God’s plan that the gospel would go to the whole world. To emphasize this point, Luke also alludes to Jonah in the accounts of both men. If these men serve this purpose, such allusions are not surprising, since in the book of Jonah God also makes it clear that he reaches out to Gentiles. In addition, these military leaders demonstrate that God reaches out to Gentiles in the spiritual condition in which they find themselves. There is no need for them to come to Judaism first. To Gentile readers of Luke and Acts, such as Theophilus (Luke 1:3) and readers today, this message would be a source of great comfort. God can reach unbelievers wherever they are, and unbelievers can respond to what God reveals about himself. This should encourage believers to reach out to them as well.

Part one of this series will address the pagan Naaman; part two will look at Julius.

Naaman And Jesus’s Sermon At Nazareth

All three Synoptic Gospels include a sermon by the Lord at Nazareth (Matt. 13:55-58; Mark 6:1-6; Luke 4:16-30). However, the sermon in Luke is the most extensive and the only one that refers to two Gentiles—Naaman and the widow in Zarephath (Luke 4:25-27). In Luke, the mention of these two Gentiles in Jesus’s first sermon suits Luke’s theology and purpose.

The Theology And Purpose Of Luke/Acts

While many suggestions have been made about Luke’s purpose, there is a general consensus that Luke intended to highlight the inclusion of Gentiles in God’s plan of salvation. Luke’s genealogy of Jesus Christ goes back to Adam, suggesting that Jesus’s coming impacts all people (Luke 3:38). This is in contrast to Matthew’s, which goes back to Abraham (Matt. 1:1). Even in the genealogy Luke validates the mission to those outside Judaism.[1] This purpose is reflected in Jesus’s sermon at Nazareth with the mention of Naaman and the widow.[2]

Luke makes it clear in his Gospel that God accepts people who are outside mainstream religious Judaism. These include women, Samaritans, lepers, sinners, tax-gatherers, and Gentiles (7:1-10; 14:16-24; 17:12-19; 20:15-16). Gentiles are included in God’s salvation at the beginning and end of both Luke and Acts (Luke 2:30-32; 3:6; 24:47; Acts 1:8; 28:28).[3] These statements are inclusios that bracket Luke’s purpose. It will be argued that Naaman and Julius do the same thing.

Including allusions to the prophet Jonah in the sermon at Nazareth would support Luke’s purpose. These allusions need not be classified as the fulfillment of prophecy or even as having a type/antitype relationship with the Old Testament prophet. Instead, they point to Jonah as a pattern. Both Naaman and Jonah show that God reaches out to Gentiles.

The Sermon At Nazareth And Jonah

Luke explains that Jesus came to Nazareth in the power of the Spirit (Luke 4:14). Jesus began his sermon by saying that the Spirit of the Lord was upon him (v. 18). These references to the Spirit look back to his baptism, when the Spirit came upon him and then led him into the wilderness (Luke 3:22; 4:1).[4] Luke’s placement of the sermon makes this connection much clearer than in Matthew’s account since the sermon in Luke occurs immediately after the account of Jesus’s temptations.

Glickman suggests that the baptism of Jesus and the coming of the Spirit upon him allude to the prophet Jonah. There are a number of reasons for accepting this suggestion. First, the name Jonah means “dove,” which may suggest an answer for why the Spirit took this particular form when the Spirit is not described this way anywhere else in the Scriptures.[5]

Second, Luke later recounts how Jesus referred to the prophet Jonah as an aid for understanding his life and death (Luke 11:29-30). He referred to how Jonah was “buried” in the sea in a type of death but arose three days later in a type of resurrection. It would not be surprising, if Jonah provides such a symbol, that an implicit reference to this Old Testament prophet would appear in Jesus’s first sermon. Third, in Luke 12:50 Jesus used the image of baptism to refer to his coming death on the cross.[6] This reference connects Jesus’s baptism with his death, and his death with Jonah. Marshall notes that the sermon at Nazareth foreshadows the rejection of Jesus and his ministry.[7] This points to his death as well. In the beginning of his ministry, at Nazareth, unbelieving Jews desired to kill him (Luke 4:29).

The declaration of the Father in 3:22, which comes immediately after the baptism, comes from Isaiah 42:1. The Isaiah passage speaks of the coming suffering servant of God. The Spirit comes upon this servant as he does upon Jesus at the baptism. The suffering servant will die (Isa. 53:5, 6, 12).[8] The dove can also represent a sacrifice in the New Testament (Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:15; Luke 2:24). The references to the dove, baptism, and Jonah all point to the death of Jesus.

Without making the connection with Jonah, Gundry points out that Luke’s redactional activity in the coming of the dove also points to Christ’s death as it relates to Isaiah 42. Mark says that the dove came εἰς αὐτον (1:10); Luke says ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν (3:22). This change by Luke points to the Septuagint of Isaiah 42:1.[9]

Keil and Knight both say the dove represents Israel. In a long section in the midrash of Song of Songs, Israel is equated with a dove. The experience of Israel is also seen in Jonah’s experience: Jonah initially disobeyed his call to witness to Gentiles; Israel was slow to do the same. If the dove represents Israel and Jonah is a type of Israel, then at Jesus’s baptism, the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus like a Jonah, and Jesus now has the mission of Israel to be a messenger of the forgiveness of God. Gentiles are also included in this forgiveness.[10] The sermon at Nazareth, including the mention of Naaman, carries these themes. The Jews at Nazareth, like both Jonah and Israel in his day, were reluctant to include Gentiles in God’s plan.

As mentioned above, the equation of Jesus with Jonah is a pattern. Jonah was a reluctant messenger to the Gentiles. Jesus’s ministry will be characterized by willingness to reach out to those outside official Judaism. God made it clear in the book of Jonah that this was his desire. From the beginning of his ministry, Jesus likewise made it clear that his message would go to Gentiles.

Schöpflin indicates that the miracle performed on Naaman also points to Jonah because it is rare in the Hebrew Scriptures that the power and holiness of God are conveyed to a non-Jew. The theme, however, appears in Jonah 1:9, 14-16.[11]

Finkel makes a similar connection between the dove at Christ’s baptism and Jonah. The “sign of Jonah” in Luke 11:29 implies the initial testimony of the dove at the baptism of Jesus.[12] The dove is the sign of Jonah.

Falcetta also seems to connect the sermon at Nazareth and Jonah. He notes the parallels with the sermon at Nazareth with Luke 11:29-32. In the latter verses Jesus mentions Gentile Nin-evites receiving the preaching of Jonah. At Nazareth and in Luke 11 the Jews ask Jesus for miraculous signs (Luke 4:23).[13] In both the account of Jonah as well as at Nazareth God is said to reach out to Gentiles; in Jonah’s case, it was to the Ninevites, at Nazareth, to a widow and Naaman.

The reference to Nineveh in Luke 11 reminds readers that with both Jonah at Nineveh and Jesus at Nazareth, Jews do not respond properly toward God reaching out to Gentiles and thus receive a rebuke. Jonah, as a representative of Israel, is rebuked by God for his unwillingness to preach to Gentiles (Jonah 4:8-11). At Nazareth, the Jews in the synagogue are angry with Jesus’s reference to God’s dealings with Gentiles. Jesus therefore rebukes them as well (Luke 4:25-29).

With his reference to Naaman and the widow at Nazareth, Jesus is a prophet who goes to the Gentiles. Upon reflection, this by itself would remind one of Jonah.[14] The allusions to his death in the immediate context, both at the baptism and in the desire of the Jews at Nazareth to kill him, also connect this sermon with Jonah’s “death” mentioned later.

In sum, Jesus’s baptism as told in the Gospel of Luke reminds readers of the prophet Jonah. An allusion to the prophet occurs with the coming of the Spirit in the form of a dove. As Jonah “died” and arose from the dead in water, so the baptism of Jesus in water foreshadows his death and resurrection. Immediately afterwards, Jesus preaches his first sermon. In this sermon he says that God reaches out to Gentiles, which indicates that he will too. This results in the anger of the Jews and Jesus’s rebuke of them. The same themes occur in the book of Jonah.

In this first sermon by the Lord, he says that an example of how God has reached out to Gentiles in the past is Naaman, a pagan military leader. In the person of Naaman, one also finds a pagan who responds to God from that pagan background. In the area of morality, one could even say he was pious.

The Character Of Naaman

In the account of Naaman found in 2 Kings 5:1-27, a Gentile military leader from Syria is afflicted with leprosy. He has an Israelite slave who tells him about the prophet Elisha who can heal him. Naaman takes riches and a letter from the king of Syria to aid in possibly obtaining such a healing.

The prophet does not come out to meet Naaman. Instead, a message from Elisha tells Naaman to wash in the Jordan River in order to be healed. Naaman becomes angry, states that the waters of the Jordan are inferior to the waters of his home country, and is unwilling to obey the prophet. This initial reaction by Naaman suggests he was an arrogant man who was unwilling to listen to what the God of Israel said through his designated spokesman.

The mention of Naaman in the sermon at Nazareth, however, does not require that all his characteristics from the Old Testament account carry over. One can think of, for example, the prostitute Rahab in the book of Judges. The author of Hebrews mentions her as an example of faith (Hebrews 11) without reference to any moral failings.

In addition, the arrogance of Naaman may be overstated. His anger perhaps arises because Elisha does not act according to normal convention. In Naaman’s mind, the prophet is failing to do his prophetic duty of gesturing over the affected areas of skin or performing a ritual. Societal norms would cause Naaman to be treated in a certain way because he has a letter from his king.[15] Naaman simply reacts to these norms according to his understanding. In addition, his background in Syria causes him to judge the waters of the Jordan as inferior to the waters of Syria.

By his unexpected response, Elisha tests Naaman. Would Naaman be willing to respond to this prophet of the God of Israel in spite of his background?

The true character of Naaman is revealed by his response to this supposed breach of decorum by Elisha. He overlooked what he perceived as disrespect toward him and did what the prophet told him to do. In the account, the reader also sees that Naaman is sufficiently humble to take the advice of both his Israelite slave girl and the servants present with him in Israel (2 Kgs. 5:3, 13).

Naaman’s character is also seen in his humility toward Elisha after the healing as well as his dealings with Elisha’s servant Gehazi (2 Kgs. 5:21-23). Jesus certainly does not hint at any moral failing of Naaman, but instead emphasizes that even though he was a Gentile he was open to what God was doing.

It may be that the text provides a metaphorical expression of Naaman’s humility. It is seen in his washing in the Jordan. He “went down” (ירד; v. 14) into the Jordan to wash after initially being angry. This could be a picturesque expression of the humble spirit of this military leader before the prophet of God.[16] Before, he saw the water of Israel as inferior. After the healing, he even asks for the dirt of Israel.[17]

In gratitude, Naaman offers a gift to Elisha. When Gehazi tricks him, he gives Gehazi more than he asks for (vv. 21-22). The greed and trickery of the Israelite Gehazi provide a stark contrast to the humble and generous Naaman.[18]

The descriptions of Naaman in 2 Kings 5 also suggest he was a man of upright character. Luke appears to have the Septuagint in mind in the sermon, and the Septuagint says Naaman was a man who was great before his lord, the king of Aram (ἦν ἀνήρ μέγας ἐνώπιον τοῦ κυρίου αὐτοῦ; v. 1). A similar phrase is used to describe John the Baptist in Luke 1:15 (ἔσται γὰρ μέγας ἐνώπιον [τοῦ] κυρίου).[19]

Second Kings 5:1-3 states that Naaman was held in high regard by his superior.[20] The request of Naaman to Elisha in verse 18 also reflects the high opinion of the king toward Naaman. Naaman is the “right hand man” of the king, the one on whom the king leans (וְהוּא נִשְׁעָן עַליַדִי). This probably suggests more than that the king was elderly and needed physical assistance.[21] This is indicated by the large amount of money the king gives for Naaman’s healing. It shows the high opinion he had of Naaman (v. 5).[22]

Of course, the high opinion of the king toward Naaman may simply have resulted from the abilities of Naaman on the battlefield. However, even here the author of 2 Kings implies that Naaman was more than a great military strategist. The victories that Naaman experienced on the battlefield were because the Lord had worked through Naaman (v. 1).

In some way, then, God was at work in Naaman’s life prior to his encounter with Elisha. In the view of some, Naaman was used by the Lord to kill the apostate King Ahab. Ahab’s death is recorded in 2 Chronicles 18. The biblical text does not identify the Syrian who killed Ahab by chance. Josephus says it was a young noble named Naaman (Ant. 8.15.5). The Targum of 2 Chronicles says that Naaman was used to fulfill the prophecies of Elijah (1 Kgs. 21:19) and Micaiah (2 Chron. 18:4-27) in randomly killing Ahab.[23]

Naaman also exercises faith in Elisha from the beginning. He goes to the prophet for healing. This is in contrast to the Israelite king, who does not think Naaman can be healed (2 Kgs. 5:6-7). This example also fits the pattern in Luke–Acts that Gentiles are often open to the leading of God whereas Jews sometimes are not. This certainly fits the context of Elisha’s ministry. During that ministry, many Israelites rejected God in favor of Baal worship. Naaman accepted the revelation of God. The God-fearers in the book of Acts are a recurring illustration of this theme.

Jesus also associates Naaman with the widow of 1 Kings 17:2-16. She was a virtuous woman, generous with Elijah, even though she was economically impoverished. Gray suggests that a widow with a young child was even worse off than a widow without a child. Not only did she have another mouth to feed, but a childless widow might have had relief through a Levirate marriage.[24] Even in this dire situation, the widow was generous with the prophet of God, and Naaman is associated with these actions.

One may object that the reader of Luke would not know the intricacies of 2 Kings or that Luke did not have all these details in mind when he included Jesus’s mention of Naaman in the sermon at Nazareth. However, even a cursory understanding of the story of Naaman shows a man who humbled himself before the Israelite prophet. He appears in a much better light than the Israelite Gehazi. In the sermon at Nazareth he is associated with a pious widow. She is one of the “poor” that Jesus came to deliver. So is Naaman. All of these things fit Luke’s theology concerning certain Gentiles.

In the sermon at Nazareth, Jesus says he came to deliver the “poor” (Luke 4:18). The widow and Naaman are two examples of this group. The “poor” are disadvantaged in different ways. Naaman needed physical deliverance because he was a leper. He was spiritually oppressed because he was a Gentile. Since Naaman is included, this designation clearly means more than the economically disadvantaged. Jesus quotes from Isaiah 61 and the Hebrew word עֲנָוִים includes the idea of those who were oppressed spiritually. The Isaiah passage refers to pious and faithful Israelites who were waiting for salvation.[25]

Guelich agrees that “poor” in both the Old and New Testaments is much broader than the economically poor. It includes the idea of being dependent upon another to whom one must answer. This dependent relationship causes one to be humble. In a religious sense, the humble person is dependent upon God. The economically poor often felt this need acutely, so there can be a combination of the economic and religious in the designation. Guelich suggests that for Luke the poor include those who are attracted to Jesus because they are religious outcasts from a Jewish perspective, especially official religious Judaism.[26] They were dependent upon God in this area. That would certainly include Gentiles.

Danker takes a similar, but slightly different approach. Not only are the poor those who are dependent upon God, but they also look to God for the help they need.[27] In Jesus’s sermon at Nazareth, Naaman is a great Old Testament illustration of the humble and pious “poor” who look to God for deliverance.

Naaman’s “Conversion” And His Character

Stenschke maintains that Naaman’s recognition of God did not come from within, but from his exposure to an Israelite prophet. Apart from this exposure, Naaman was hopeless and helpless. Even after his healing he shows an ignorance of God by evidently believing he can only be worshiped in the confines of his own territory. In 2 Kings 5:17, Naaman calls God the God of the whole earth but he then expresses a need to take dirt from Israel back to Syria in order to worship this God.[28]

In addition, Stenschke points out that Naaman also asks for permission to continue to take a passive role in the worship of the gods of his country upon his return (2 Kgs. 5:18). This request, along with the desire to take dirt from Israel back to Syria, reflects Naaman’s mixture of monotheism and universalism.[29] In Naaman’s way of thinking, Yahweh is localized in Israel, but Naaman wants to establish his own shrine in Syria.[30]

However, in Naaman’s request, as well as in Elisha’s response, God deals with Naaman based on his pagan background. Elisha does not rebuke Naaman for desiring the dirt or for bowing to Rimmon with his king, and he tells Naaman to go in peace (2 Kgs. 5:19). Naaman’s initial anger also reflects this background, and his responses are completely understandable in light of it. One should also understand his humility as a reflection of his character and not as the result of his contact with an Israelite prophet. Elisha certainly does not teach Naaman how he should act in the presence of God’s prophet or after seeing God’s power at work.

Related to this is the issue of Naaman’s conversion. Perhaps one could conclude that Naaman’s humility is the result of his conversion to Judaism.[31] However, neither Jesus nor the author of 2 Kings makes it clear that Naaman was converted in the sense that he became a devoted follower of only Israel’s God. There is no mention, for example, of Namaan being circumcised. In addition, Elisha does not speak of faith in Yahweh, the coming Messiah, or even the Law of Moses. Both Stenschke and Gray question the “conversion” of Naaman and indicate that his request for dirt to worship God in Syria indicates he is guilty of monolatry, which is the exclusive worship of one god without excluding the existence of others. This also reflects his background, since there was a tendency towards monotheism in the cult of Baal-shamaim in Syria. What one sees in Naaman is simply his humility after experiencing contact with the Divine.[32]

The text indicates that Naaman is open to what God is doing and saying through the prophet Elisha. This is the case even though he is a pagan and has serious shortcomings in his theological understanding. When God reveals his power to him, Naaman is able to understand the one responsible for what happens. He is able to believe in what he sees, even if he is not converted. In the account in 2 Kings he is presented as being more pious and faithful to God than either the Israelite king or the Israelite Gehazi.

Conclusion

The sermon by the Lord at Nazareth, in Luke’s Gospel, contains the first public teaching by the Lord and a programmatic statement of what his ministry will involve.[33] This statement is that Gentiles will be part of God’s plan of salvation. Naaman, a Gentile military leader, provides an Old Testament example and justification for the mission to the Gentiles, a theme to which Luke will devote a great deal of attention.

In Luke’s Gospel the sermon occurs immediately after the Lord’s baptism and temptations in the wilderness. A common theme in all three is the Holy Spirit. The Spirit comes upon Jesus at the baptism, leads him into the wilderness, leads him to Nazareth, and empowers him as he preaches and begins his ministry (4:22).

The Spirit came upon him in the form of a dove. This form reminds the reader of Jonah, the Old Testament prophet who went to the Gentiles. Jonah provides an illustration of Jesus’s ministry, one destined for death and resurrection, yet a ministry that, like Jonah, will go to the Gentiles. And when it does, in some instances Gentiles will receive the message when Jews do not. The Jews at the synagogue in Nazareth do not accept Jesus’s message that God’s plan of salvation will go to the Gentiles. In the case of Jonah himself, and Jonah as a representative of Israel, the same theme appears.

Naaman responds to the revelation of God. He is an example of the pious poor, the kind of Gentile the good news will go to. He is a Gentile who is open to what God does before his eyes. It is highly likely that Luke had a Gentile readership in mind. For such a reader, the message is that he or she is not at a disadvantage when it comes to the program of God. God reaches people where they are, and they can respond to him regardless of their backgrounds.

If Luke is the only Gentile writer of the New Testament, none of this is surprising. Of the three Synoptic Gospels, his is the only one that includes in the sermon at Nazareth examples of pious Gentiles who respond favorably to God. In this sermon, Luke makes use of Jesus’s example of a Gentile military leader to support Luke’s purpose for writing Luke and Acts. This begins the ministry of the Lord. In the book of Acts, when the Lord’s apostle Paul is completing his ministry, another pagan military leader reminds the reader of the same themes. These two military leaders form an inclusio in Luke’s writings. Julius will be the subject of the second part of this series.

Notes

1. Darrell L. Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), 14; Darrell L. Bock, “Scripture and the Realisation of God’s Promises,” in Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts, ed. I. Howard Marshall and David Peterson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 57; Joel B. Green, The Theology of the Gospel of Luke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 47-48; Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 435-37.
2. Robert B. Sloan, The Favorable Year of the Lord: A Study of Jubilary Theology in the Gospel of Luke (Austin, TX: Schola, 1977), 161.
3. Robert F. O’Toole, The Unity of Luke’s Theology: An Analysis of Luke–Acts (Wilmington, DE: M. Glazier, 1984), 100.
4. Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Luke, 5th ed., International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1902), 97; David Lenz Tiede, Luke, Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988), 106.
5. Steven Craig Glickman, “The Temptation Account in Matthew and Luke” (D. Theol. diss., University of Basel, 1983), 54-55.
6. Ibid., 54-56.
7. I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 190.
8. Glickman, “The Temptation Account in Matthew and Luke,” 35-36, 86.
9. Robert H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel, Supplements to Novum Testamentum (Leiden: Brill, 1967), 31.
10. Glickman, “The Temptation Account in Matthew and Luke,” 56-58; C. F. Keil, Minor Prophets, trans. James Martin, Commentary on the Old Testament (reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 383-85; G. A. F. Knight, A Biblical Approach to the Doctrine of the Trinity (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1953), 73; Maurice Simon, Midrash Rabbah: Esther and Song of Songs (London: Soncino, 1939), 86.
11. Karin Schöpflin, “Naaman: Seine Heilung und Bekehrung im Alten und im Neuen Testament,” Biblische Notizen 141 (2009): 40. “Dass ein wunderhaftes Eingreifen von Israels Gott Nicht-Israeliten zur Erkenntnis der Macht und des Gott-Seins JHWHS bewegt.”
12. Asher Finkel, “Jesus’ Preaching in the Synagogue on the Sabbath,” in The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel, ed. Craig A. Evans (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994), 336.
13. Alessandro Falcetta, The Call of Nazareth: Form and Exegesis of Luke 4:16-30 (Paris: Gabalda, 2003), 73.
14. Glickman, “The Temptation Account in Matthew and Luke,” 56.
15. T. Raymond Hobbs, 2 Kings, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1985), 65.
16. Walter Bruggemann, 1 & 2 Kings, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2000), 336; Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings: A New Translation (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1988), 67; Marvin A. Sweeney, I & II Kings: A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007), 301.
17. Robert L. Cohn, “Form and Perspective in 2 Kings V,” Vetus Testamentum 33 (1983): 178. Cohn says this is more than a picture of Naaman’s humility. It is a picture of conversion.
18. Charles Lee Brenton, The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament and Apocrypha: With an English Translation and with Various Readings and Critical Notes (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 493; John Nolland, Luke 1-9:20, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1989), 193.
19. John Gray, I & II Kings: Commentary, 2nd ed., Old Testament Library (London: S.C.M. Press, 1970), 504. Nolland points out that Luke clearly has the Septuagint in mind since he uses it in his quote of Isaiah 61:1-2 (Nolland, Luke 1-9:20, 188-89).
20. Cohn, “Form and Perspective in 2 Kings V,” 181; Donald J. Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Leicester, UK: InterVarsity, 1993), 208.
21. Gwilym H. Jones, 1 and 2 Kings: Based on the Revised Standard Version, New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 415; Sweeney, I & II Kings: A Commentary, 299.
22. Cohn, “Form and Perspective in 2 Kings V,” 173.
23. Hobbs, 2 Kings, 60; J. Stanley McIvor, The Targum of Chronicles, Aramaic Bible (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1994), 187.
24. Gray, I & II Kings: Commentary, 15.
25. Raymond J. Irudhayasamy, A Prophet in the Making: A Christological Study on Lk 4, 16-30: In the Background of the Isaianic Mixed Citation and the Elijah-Elisha References (New York: Peter Lang, 2002), 150-51.
26. Robert A. Guelich, The Sermon on the Mount: A Foundation for Understanding (Waco, TX: Word, 1982), 68-72; and Ernst Bammel, “πτωχός,” in Theological Dict-ionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 6 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 889-903.
27. Frederick W. Danker, Jesus and the New Age: A Commentary on St. Luke’s Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 59.
28. Nwaoru, “The Story of Naaman,” 36; Christoph W. Stenschke, Luke’s Portrait of Gentiles Prior to Their Coming to Faith, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 56, 320.
29. Stenschke, Luke’s Portrait of Gentiles Prior to Their Coming to Faith, 320.
30. Bruggemann, 1 & 2 Kings, 335; Hobbs, 2 Kings, 66; Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings, 208.
31. Cohn, “Form and Perspective in 2 Kings V,” 179; Paul R. House, 1, 2 Kings, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 273-74; Peter J. Leithart, 1 & 2 Kings, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2006), 195; James A. Montgomery and Henry Snyder Gehman, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1951), 375.
32. Gray, I & II Kings: Commentary, 507-09; Stenschke, Luke’s Portrait of Gentiles Prior to Their Coming to Faith, 320.
33. François Bovon, Luke: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1-9:50, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 152.