Naaman, the commander of the Syrian army, was a great man who was respected by his king. Through Naaman, God had given Syria victory over its enemies. However, Naaman had contracted leprosy. A young Israelite servant girl who worked for Naaman's wife told her that if Naaman went to see the prophet Elisha in Samaria, he could cure Naaman's leprosy. Naaman told his king what the servant girl had said.

1. 2 KI GS 5 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
aaman Healed of Leprosy
1 ow aaman was commander of the army of the
king of Aram. He was a great man in the sight of
his master and highly regarded, because through
him the Lord had given victory to Aram. He was a
valiant soldier, but he had leprosy.[a]
BAR ES, "By him the Lord had given deliverance unto Syria - An Assyrian
monarch had pushed his conquests as far as Syria exactly at this period, bringing into
subjection all the kings of these parts. But Syria revolted after a few years and once more
made herself independent. It was probably in this war of independence that Naaman had
distinguished himself.
But he was a leper - leprosy admitted of various kinds and degrees Lev. 13; 14 Some
of the lighter forms would not incapacitate a man from discharging the duties of a
courtier and warrior.
CLARKE, "Naaman, captain of the host - Of Naaman we know nothing more
than is related here. Jarchi and some others say that he was the man who drew the bow
at a venture, as we term it, and slew Ahab: see 1Ki_22:34 (note), and the notes there. He
is not mentioned by Josephus, nor has he any reference to this history; which is very
strange, as it exists in the Chaldee, Septuagint, and Syriac.
King of Syria - The Hebrew is ‫ארם‬ ‫מלך‬ melech Aram, king of Aram; which is followed
by the Chaldee and Arabic. The Syriac has Adom; but as the Syriac dolath is the same
element as the Syriac rish, differing only in the position of the diacritic point, it may have
been originally Aram. The Septuagint and Vulgate have Syria, and this is a common
meaning of the term in Scripture. If the king of Syria be meant, it must be Ben-hadad;
and the contemporary king of Israel was Jehoram.
A great man - He was held in the highest esteem.
And honorable - Had the peculiar favor and confidence of his master; and was
promoted to the highest trusts.

2. Had given deliverance unto Syria - That is, as the rabbins state, by his slaying
Ahab, king of Israel; in consequence of which the Syrians got the victory.
A mighty man in valor - He was a giant, and very strong, according to the Arabic.
He had, in a word, all the qualifications of an able general.
But he was a leper - Here was a heavy tax upon his grandeur; he was afflicted with a
disorder the most loathsome and the most humiliating that could possibly disgrace a
human being. God often, in the course of his providence, permits great defects to be
associated with great eminence, that he may hide pride from man; and cause him to
think soberly of himself and his acquirements.
GILL, "Now Naaman, captain of the host of the king of Syria,.... The general of
Benhadad's army; for he was now king of Syria, though some think Hazael his successor
was:
was a great man with his master; high in his favour and esteem:
and honourable; not only acceptable to the king, and loaded with honours by him, but
greatly respected by all ranks and degrees among the people:
because by him the Lord had given deliverance unto Syria; out of the hands of
their enemies, and victory over them, and particularly in the last battle with Israel, in
which Ahab was slain, and, as the Jews suppose, by the hands of Naaman; see Gill on
1Ki_22:34 however, when any salvation was wrought, or victory obtained, even by
Heathens, and by them over Israel, the people of God, it was of the Lord:
he was also a mighty man in valour; a very courageous valiant man:
but he was a leper; was stricken with the leprosy, which had deformed and disgraced
his person, and weakened his strength, and dispirited him; all his grandeur and honour
could not protect him from this loathsome disease.
HE RY, "Our saviour's miracles were intended for the lost sheep of the house of
Israel, yet one, like a crumb, fell from the table to a woman of Canaan; so this one
miracle Elisha wrought for Naaman, a Syrian; for God does good to all, and will have all
men to be saved. Here is,
I. The great affliction Naaman was under, in the midst of all his honours, 2Ki_5:1. He
was a great man, in a great place; not only rich and raised, but particularly happy for two
things: - 1. That he had been very serviceable to his country. God made him so: By him
the Lord had often given deliverance to Syria, success in their wars even with Israel.
The preservation and prosperity even of those that do not know God and serve him must
be ascribed to him, for he is the Saviour of all men, but especially of those that believe.
Let Israel know that when the Syrians prevailed it was from the Lord. 2. That he was
very acceptable to his prince, was his favourite, and prime-minister of state; so great was
he, so high, so honourable, and a mighty man of valour; but he was a leper, was under
that loathsome disease, which made him a burden to himself. Note, (1.) No man's
greatness, or honour, or interest, or valour, or victory, can set him out of the reach of the
sorest calamities of human life; there is many a sickly crazy body under rich and gay
clothing. (2.) Every man has some but or other in his character, something that
blemishes and diminishes him, some allay to his grandeur, some damp to his joy; he
may be very happy, very good, yet, in something or other, not so good as he should be

3. nor so happy as he would be. Naaman was a great as the world could make him, and yet
(as bishop Hall expresses it) the basest slave in Syria would not change skins with him.
JAMISO , "2Ki_5:1-7. Naaman’s leprosy.
Naaman, captain of the host of the king of Syria, was a great man with his
master — highly esteemed for his military character and success.
and honourable — rather, “very rich.”
but he was a leper — This leprosy, which, in Israel, would have excluded him from
society, did not affect his free intercourse in the court of Syria.
K&D, "Curing of Naaman from Leprosy. - 2Ki_5:1. Naaman, the commander-in-
chief of the Syrian king, who was a very great man before his lord, i.e., who held a high
place in the service of his king and was greatly distinguished (‫ים‬ִ‫נ‬ ָ ‫א‬ ֻ‫שׂ‬ְ‫,נ‬ cf. Isa_3:3; Isa_
9:14), because God had given the Syrians salvation (victory) through him, was as a
warrior afflicted with leprosy. The ‫ו‬ has not dropped out before ‫ע‬ ָ‫ּר‬‫צ‬ ְ‫,מ‬ nor has the copula
been omitted for the purpose of sharpening the antithesis (Thenius), for the appeal to
Ewald, §354, a., proves nothing, since the passages quoted there are of a totally different
kind; but ‫ל‬ִ‫י‬ ַ‫ח‬ ‫ּור‬ ִ is a second predicate: the man was as a brave warrior leprous. There is
an allusion here to the difference between the Syrians and the Israelites in their views of
leprosy. Whereas in Israel lepers were excluded from human society (see at Lev 13 and
14), in Syria a man afflicted with leprosy could hold a very high state-office in the closest
association with the king.
BE SO , "2 Kings 5:1. aaman — was a great man with his master — In great
power and favour with the king of Syria; and honourable — Highly esteemed, both
for his quality and success; because the Lord by him had given deliverance unto
Syria — He had been victorious in such battles as he had fought, which coming to
pass through the permission or appointment of the Divine Providence, the sacred
writer would have the Israelites to look upon it as the Lord’s doing. Let Israel know,
that, when the Syrians prevailed, it was from the Lord. He gave them success in
their wars, even with Israel, and for Israel’s chastisement. But he was a leper —
This did not exclude him from the society of men in that country, where the Jewish
law was not in force. But it was a great blemish upon him, and also likely to prove
deadly; there being no cure for this disease, a disease very common in Syria.
COFFMA , "ELISHA HEALED THE LEPROSY OF AAMA ; THE GREAT
GE ERAL
This is one of the most popular stories of the O.T., and it has the distinction of being
specifically mentioned by our Lord Jesus Christ (Luke 4:27). It is difficult to find
fault with Matthew Henry's observation that Jesus Christ by that reference made
the episode, "Typical of the calling of the Gentiles; and therefore Gehazi's stroke
may be looked upon as typical of the blinding and rejecting of the Jews, who envied

4. God's grace to the Gentiles, as Gehazi envied Elisha's favor to aaman."[1]
A CAPTIVE MAIDE SPOKE OF GOD'S PROPHET
" ow aaman, captain of the host of the king of Syria, was a great man with his
master, and honorable, because by him Jehovah had given victory unto Syria: he
was also a mighty man of valor, but he was a leper. And the Syrians had gone out in
bands, and had brought away captive out of the land of Israel a little maiden; and
she waited on aaman's wife. And she said unto her mistress, Would that my lord
were with the prophet that is in Samaria! then would he recover him of his leprosy.
And he went in and told his lord, saying, Thus and thus said the maiden that is of
the land of Israel."
The unsung heroine of this whole narrative is this precious little girl who had been
captured by the Syrians and made a slave to the house of aaman. Instead of
becoming bitter against her exploiters and harboring an undying hatred of them,
she accepted her fate with meekness and exhibited deep friendship and sympathy
with her mistress and her husband, aaman.
It was this captive maiden who enlightened the great lord of the Syrian armies of the
existence of a true prophet of God in Samaria and of his ability to cure leprosy.
What an exhortation is this for everyone to seize all opportunities to speak of God
and His great power to benefit sinful and suffering humanity! Through the word of
this servant girl, the king of Syria received the knowledge of a true prophet of God
in Samaria, information which was not even known (because of his own fault) by the
king of Israel (Joram).
"By him Jehovah had given the victory unto Syria" (2 Kings 5:1). Some scholars
have marveled that Jehovah in this expression is accredited with the victory of
Syria, but this is in full keeping with Daniel 4:25c. As for which victory is spoken of
here, Hammond thought it was probably a victory over an army of Shalmanezer II
that had threatened the independence of Syria.[2]
"But he was a leper" (2 Kings 5:1). It is rather annoying that a number of
commentators go out of the way to tell us that the word "leper" in this passage came
from a Hebrew term, "covering a large variety of scabious diseases, being used even
of mould in houses."[3] Such a comment has no utility except that of
DOW GRADI G this miracle. One writer even mentioned that Hansen's disease
(the modern name of true leprosy) was rare in those times. However, the king of
Israel rated the king of Syria's request for the healing of aaman's disease as the
equivalent of God's ability to "kill and to make alive" (2 Kings 5:7); and that states
in tones of thunder that aaman was truly a leper in the current sense of the word.
The absence of any statement indicating that aaman had become a social outcast
because of his leprosy (as would certainly have been the case in Israel) does not
mean that his disease was anything different from leprosy, but that the pagan

5. reaction to it was different from that in Israel.
"Would that my lord were with the prophet that is in Samaria" (2 Kings 5:3). It is
sometimes insinuated that this contradicts other Biblical passages. Montgomery
wrote that, "The prophet is presented as having a house in Samaria, and yet he was
last seen in Shunem."[4] So what! Elisha never lived in Shunem, but only stopped
overnight there on his occasional passing through the place. Besides that, 2 Kings
6:32 indicates clearly that Elisha had a house in Samaria, a fact strongly supported
by the offer of the prophet to speak to the king on behalf of the Shunammite
woman. Elisha doubtless had access to the presence of the kings both of Israel and
of Judah.
ELLICOTT, "(1) ow.—The construction implies a break between this narrative
and the preceding. Whether the events related belong to the time of Jehoram or of
the dynasty of Jehu is not clear. Evidently it was a time of peace between Israel and
Syria.
aaman (beauty).—A title of the sun-god. (See ote on Isaiah 17:10.)
A great man with his master.—Literally, before his lord. (Comp. Genesis 10:9.)
Honourable.—In special favour. Literally, lifted up of face. (Comp. 2 Kings 3:14,
ote; Isaiah 3:3.)
By him the Lord had given deliverance unto Syria.— otice the high prophetic view
that it is Jehovah, not Hadad or Rimmon, who gives victory to Syria as well as
Israel. (Comp. Amos 9:7.) It is natural to think of the battle in which Ahab received
his mortal wound (1 Kings 22:30, seq.). The Midrash makes aaman the man who
“drew the bow at a venture” on that occasion. The “deliverance” was victory over
Israel.
He was also a mighty man in valour, but he was a leper.—Literally, and the man
was a brave warrior, stricken with leprosy. His leprosy need not have been so severe
as to incapacitate him for military duties. The victor over Israel is represented as a
leper who has to seek, and finds, his only help in Israel (Thenius).
GUZIK, "A. aaman comes to Elisha.
1. (2 Kings 5:1) aaman’s problem.
ow aaman, commander of the army of the king of Syria, was a great and
honorable man in the eyes of his master, because by him the LORD had given
victory to Syria. He was also a mighty man of valor, but a leper.
a. amaan, commander of the army of the king of Syria, was a great and honorable

6. man: aaman was the chief military commander of a persistent enemy to both
Israel and Judah. As recently as the days of Ahab and Jehoshaphat, Syria had
fought and won against Israel (1 Kings 22:35-36). His position and success made
him a great and honorable man, and personally he was a mighty man of valor.
i. This same title was applied to Gideon (Judges 6:12), Jephthah (Judges 11:1),
David (1 Samuel 16:18), Jeroboam (1 Kings 11:28), and Eliada (2 Chronicles 17:17).
It seems that this is the only specific Gentile mentioned as a mighty man of valor.
ii. According to Jewish legends, “The Rabbins tell us that it was he [ aaman] who
shot the arrow wherewith Ahab was slain.” (Trapp)
b. But a leper: aaman had a lot going for him, but what he had against him was
devastating. He was a leper, which meant that he had a horrible, incurable disease
that would slowly result in his death. o matter how good and successful everything
else was in aaman’s life, he was a leper.
i. “Here was a heavy tax upon his grandeur; he was afflicted with a disorder the
most loathsome and the most humiliating that could possibly disgrace a human
being.” (Clarke)
ii. Ancient leprosy began as small, red spots on the skin. Before too long the spots
get bigger, and start to turn white, with sort of a shiny, or scaly appearance. Pretty
soon the spots spread over the whole body and hair begins to fall out - first from the
head, then even from the eyebrows. As things get worse, finger nails and toenails
become loose; they start to rot and eventually fall off. Then the joints of fingers and
toes begin to rot and fall off piece by piece. Gums begin to shrink and they can’t
hold the teeth anymore, so each of them is lost. Leprosy keeps eating away at your
face until literally the nose, the palate, and even the eyes rot - and the victim wastes
away until death.
ISBET, "THE O E DRAWBACK
‘But he was a leper.’
2 Kings 5:1
I. How often is it seen, in human experience, that a condition, otherwise of perfect
prosperity, has one alloy, one drawback, which damages or spoils it for its
possessor.—We need not confine our observation to lives of great men—written in
history or written in Scripture—who have made peace or war, and left their names
as the heirloom of one country, or the common property of all—and who yet,
scrutinised keenly, have been objects rather of pity than of envy, by reason of some
one blessing denied, or by reason of some one ‘sorrow added.’ ‘A great man and
honourable with his master … a mighty man of valour … yet a leper’—might be the
inscription, if we knew all, upon many of those celebrities of which (to quote the
grand old saying) ‘every land is the tomb.’
But is it not so quite in common lives, quite in humble homes? Where is the house in

7. which there is no one element of dissatisfaction—some uncongenial disposition,
some unreasonable temper to be borne with—a particular thing that cannot be had
or that cannot be done—a difficult task always recurring, a disagreeable future
always menacing—a taste that cannot be indulged, or a whim that must be complied
with—a dead weight of encumbrance always pressing, and a promised relief always
‘a little beyond’?
II. I propose the example of aaman as a wonderful lesson in the treatment of
drawbacks.—What an excuse had aaman for a life of idle regret, absolute
uselessness, and sinful repining! With what discomfort, with what distress, with
what shame and mortification, must each act of his life, social, political, military,
have been accomplished! How must he have felt himself the topic of remark or the
object of ridicule, amongst all whom he addressed and all whom he commanded!
Yet none the less did he do his duty, command his energies, and rule his spirit. Thou
who hast in thy health, or in thy work, or in thy home, some like drawback—little it
must be in comparison with his—go, and do thou likewise.
III. We take an onward step in our subject when we treat ‘the one drawback’ as ‘the
one fault.’—Of how many persons within our own circle must we say, he is all this
and that—he is industrious, useful, honourable, he is a great man with his master,
he is serviceable to his generation—but he has one fault. Perhaps, he is just and
upright, but he is unamiable. Perhaps he is kind and affectionate, but he is
untruthful. Perhaps he is excellent in every relation except one. Perhaps he is strict
with himself, inflexible to evil—but he is also ungenerous, censorious, suspicious, or
even cruel. Perhaps he is charitable, indulgent, good to all—but he takes the license
which he gives, and his character (in one respect) will not bear investigation. He is
like the ‘cake not turned’ that Hosea speaks of—one side dough, the other side
cinder: he was a great man, valorous and chivalrous—but he was a leper.
Yes, the one fault is in all of us—and we mean by it, the particular direction in
which the taint and bias of evil in the fallen creature works its course and finds its
outlet. It is idle, it is ridiculous, to profess ignorance that there is no such thing as
perfection in the creature that has once let the devil in and tried to shut out God—
and this is the true diagnosis of man, such as we see and show him—a broken
vessel—a temple in ruins—in one word (for none can be more expressive) a fallen
being. The one fault is in theological language, the besetting sin. Who has not one
such?
IV. So, brethren, try this day the healing stream.—The disease which is upon us
goes very deep and spreads very widely—it is past human cure, our own or our
brother’s—there is but One Who has the secret of it, but One Who has the virtue.
Forgiveness He offers, ere He offers the cleansing—forgiveness of the worst possible,
ere He so much as inspects the malady. The double cure—first of the guilt, then of
the power—this is the charm of the water which is blood, of the blood which is
water.
Dean Vaughan.

8. Illustrations
(1) ‘Herein is the difference between the natural man and aaman. aaman knew
himself to be a leper; he loathed his leprosy, and desired to be healed. Alas! how
difficult it is to persuade the natural man, first to see, and then to bewail his leprosy;
to understand that a creature can only be created to obey his Creator; and that
when a creature’s nature is so corrupted as to render him unwilling and unable so
to obey, then the creature is condemned, and in his unwillingness and inability bears
the death-mark upon him.’
(2) ‘The frightful disease from which aaman suffered must have been a terrible
drawback to his happiness and prosperity. It was the occasion, however, of his
greatest blessing. The special mercy of God flowed to him from that which probably
he was accustomed to consider his special curse. And it often happens with
ourselves, that the one thing which at one time seemed to mar our happiness is that
to which we afterwards have occasion to look back as opening out for us the way of
peace.’
PETT, "The Healing Of aaman, The General Of Aram (Syria) And The Smiting
Of Gehazi, The Servant Of Elisha (2 Kings 5:1-27).
This is not only a remarkable story in that it recounts the healing by YHWH of an
Aramaean general, but also because it indicates the acceptance by YHWH of a
foreigner who truly believed, without circumcision. It is a reminder of the unlimited
nature of God’s mercy towards all who truly respond to Him. It is also a story of
contrasts which demonstrates that God treats all alike, for in contrast to the
reception and healing of this foreigner the servant of Elisha was smitten for his
great sin of deceit and avarice, in spite of who he was. The greatness of his sin must
not be underestimated, for it misrepresented YHWH to one who would have little
further contact with the truth, and it was committed by a man of unusual privilege.
Furthermore when faced with it he failed to repent, which exacerbated his sin.
Repentance and open confession might well have saved him from his fate.
The illness in question was probably not leprosy. Had aaman had leprosy he
would probably not have been able to have such close contact with people, nor enter
the king’s presence (compare Leviticus 13:42-46). It was rather some skin disease
that was disfiguring, while still allowing close communication. For Gehazi it would
mean being disfigured, and being excluded from close contact with the sanctuary.
He obtained his wealth at a cost. It is not certain whether he continued in his
favoured position. His presence with the king in 2 Kings 8:4-5 may suggest so, but
he may have been at court precisely because he was the ex-servant of Elisha.
In the whole account only three people are mentioned by name, aaman, Elisha and
Gehazi. Even the kings are not named. This was in order to put the limelight on the
three main characters, without politicising the incident. It was the story of three
people.

9. Overall it is a picture of salvation, for it is a reminder that however spiritually
disfigured we may be, God is able and willing to make us wholly clean.
Analysis.
a ow aaman, captain of the host of the king of Syria, was a great man with
his master, and honourable, because by him YHWH had given victory to Syria. He
was also a mighty warrior, but he was skin diseased (2 Kings 5:1).
b And the Aramaeans (Syrians) had gone out in raiding bands, and had
brought away captive out of the land of Israel a little maiden, and she waited on
aaman’s wife (2 Kings 5:2).
c And she said to her mistress, “Would that my lord were with the prophet
who is in Samaria! Then would he recover him of his skin disease.” And someone
went in, and told his lord, saying, “Thus and thus said the maiden who is of the land
of Israel” (2 Kings 5:3-4).
d And the king of Aram (Syria) said, “Go now, and I will send a letter to the
king of Israel.” And he departed, and took with him ten talents of silver, and six
thousand pieces of gold, and ten changes of raiment (2 Kings 5:5).
e And he brought the letter to the king of Israel, saying, “And now when this
letter is come to you, behold, I have sent aaman my servant to you, that you may
recover him of his skin disease.” And it came about, when the king of Israel had
read the letter, that he tore his clothes, and said, “Am I God, to kill and to make
alive, that this man sends to me to recover a man of his skin disease? But consider, I
pray you, and see how he seeks a quarrel against me” (2 Kings 5:6-7).
f And it was so, when Elisha the man of God heard that the king of Israel had
torn his clothes, that he sent to the king, saying, “Why have you torn your clothes?
Let him come now to me, and he will know that there is a prophet in Israel” (2
Kings 5:8).
g So aaman came with his horses and with his chariots, and stood at the door
of the house of Elisha (2 Kings 5:9).
h And Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, “Go and wash in the Jordan
seven times, and your flesh will come again to you, and you will be clean” (2 Kings
5:10).
i But aaman was angry, and went away, and said, “See, I thought, he will
surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of YHWH his God, and
wave his hand over the place, and recover the skin disease (2 Kings 5:11).
j “Are not Abanah and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the
waters of Israel? May I not wash in them, and be clean?” So he turned and went
away in a rage (2 Kings 5:12).
i And his servants came near, and spoke to him, and said, “My father, if the
prophet had bid you do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much
rather then, when he says to you, Wash, and be clean?” (2 Kings 5:13).
h Then he went down, and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, in
accordance with the saying of the man of God, and his flesh came again like the
flesh of a little child, and he was clean (2 Kings 5:14).
g And he returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and came, and

10. stood before him, and he said, “Look, now I know that there is no God in all the
earth, but in Israel. ow therefore, I pray you, take a present from your servant” (2
Kings 5:15)
f But he said, “As YHWH lives, before whom I stand, I will receive none.” And
he urged him to take it, but he refused. And aaman said, “If not, yet, I pray you,
let there be given to your servant two mules’ burden of earth, for your servant will
henceforth offer neither burnt-offering nor sacrifice to other gods, but to YHWH”
(2 Kings 5:16-17).
e “In this thing YHWH pardon your servant, when my master goes into the
house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leans on my hand, and I bow myself in
the house of Rimmon, when I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, YHWH pardon
your servant in this thing.” And he said to him, “Go in peace.” So he departed from
him a little way (2 Kings 5:18-19).
d But Gehazi the servant of Elisha the man of God, said, “Behold, my master
has spared this aaman the Syrian, in not receiving at his hands what he brought.
As YHWH lives, I will run after him, and take somewhat of him. So Gehazi followed
after aaman. And when aaman saw one running after him, he alighted from the
chariot to meet him, and said, “Is all well?” And he said, “All is well. My master has
sent me, saying, ‘Behold, even now there are come to me from the hill-country of
Ephraim two young men of the sons of the prophets. Give them, I pray you, a talent
of silver, and two changes of clothing.” And aaman said, “Be pleased to take two
talents.” And he urged him, and bound two talents of silver in two bags, with two
changes of clothing, and laid them on two of his servants, and they bore them before
him (2 Kings 5:20-23).
c And when he came to the hill, he took them from their hand, and placed
them in the house, and he let the men go, and they departed. But he went in, and
stood before his master. And Elisha said to him, “From where have you come,
Gehazi?” And he said, Your servant went nowhere” (2 Kings 5:24-25).’
b And he said to him, “Did not my heart go with you, when the man turned
from his chariot to meet you? Is it a time to receive money, and to receive clothing,
and oliveyards and vineyards, and sheep and oxen, and men-servants and maid-
servants?” ’(2 Kings 5:26).
a “The skin disease therefore of aaman will cleave to you, and to your seed
for ever.” And he went out from his presence skin diseased, as white as snow (2
Kings 5:27).
ote that in ‘a’ aaman was skin diseased, and in the parallel the skin disease was
affected Gehazi. In ‘b’ the Aramaeans had obtained a maid-servant of Israel, and in
the parallel it was not a time for seeking maid-servants (among others). In ‘c’ the
maid went to her mistress with a message of truth, and in the parallel Gehazi went
to his master with a lie. In ‘d’ aaman took with him a large gift, and in the parallel
a handsome gift was given to Gehazi. In ‘e’ the king of Israel considered the
approach in order to cure aaman to be an attempt to make war, and in the parallel
aaman was sent away cured in peace. In ‘f’ aaman was to know that there was a
genuine prophet in Israel, and in the parallel he demonstrated that he had learned it
by his request for the means of worshipping YHWH. In ‘g’ aaman and his
entourage stood at Elisha’s door, and in the parallel he and his entourage again
stood at the prophet’s door. In ‘h’ Elisha commanded aaman to wash seven times

11. in the Jordan, and in the parallel he did so. In ‘i’ aaman was angry and rode off
with no intention of doing what Elisha had said, and in the parallel his servants
persuaded him to do it. Centrally in ‘j’ he considered that his country’s own rivers
were superior to the Jordan, indicating his view that the gods of Aram were
superior.
2 Kings 5:1
‘ ow aaman, captain of the host of the king of Aram (Syria), was a great man with
his master, and honourable, because by him YHWH had given victory to Aram
(Syria). He was also a mighty warrior, but he was a leper.’
As we have already seen the kingdom of Aram had grown strong and powerful and
a constant threat to its neighbours. The kingdom consisted of a small number of
petty kings over cities under the control of the king in Damascus, plus a good
number of tribal chieftains over tribes which had their own semi-independent way
of life, but were responsive to the call of the king of Aram whenever he needed men
for his warfare.
aaman was commander over all the hosts of Aram. He was thus a great man, and
highly respected because of his continual victories over other nations. To be
‘honourable’ meant literally ‘to have his face lifted up’, something permitted by the
king only to those whom he honoured. And he was a great warrior. But he had one
problem. He had a disfiguring skin disease. His name was a common local name as
testified to at Ugarit.
It is noteworthy that the prophetic author, or his source, imputes his victories to
YHWH, just as Isaiah would impute Assyria’s victories to YHWH (e.g. Isaiah 10:5;
Isaiah 10:15), while Jeremiah would see ebuchadnezzar as His servant (Jeremiah
27:6). All saw YHWH as God over all the earth.
EBC, "THE STORY OF AAMA
2 Kings 5:1-27
And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And
immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
Matthew 8:3
AFTER these shorter anecdotes we have the longer episode of aaman.
A part of the misery inflicted by the Syrians on Israel was caused by the forays in
which their light-armed bands, very much like the borderers on the marshes of
Wales or Scotland, descended upon the country and carried off plunder and
captives before they could be pursued.

12. In one of these raids they had seized a little Israelitish girl and sold her to be a slave.
She had been purchased for the household of aaman, the captain of the Syrian
host, who had helped his king and nation to win important victories either against
Israel or against Assyria. Ancient Jewish tradition identified him with the man who
had "drawn his bow at a venture" and slain King Ahab. But all aaman’s valor
and rank and fame, and the honor felt for him by his king, were valueless to him,
for he was suffering from the horrible affliction of leprosy. Lepers do not seem to
have been segregated in other countries so strictly as they were in Israel, or at any
rate aaman’s leprosy was not of so severe a form as to incapacitate him from his
public functions.
But it was evident that he was a man who had won the affection of all who knew
him; and the little slave girl who waited on his wife breathed to her a passionate
wish that aaman could visit the Man of God in Samaria, for he would recover him
from his leprosy. The saying was repeated, and one of aaman’s friends mentioned
it to the King of Syria. Benhadad was so much struck by it that he instantly
determined to send a letter, with a truly royal gift to the king of Israel, who could,
he supposed, as a matter of course, command the services of the prophet. The letter
came to Jehoram with a stupendous present of ingots of silver to the value of ten
talents, and six thousand pieces of gold, and ten changes of raiment. After the
ordinary salutations, and a mention of the gifts, the letter continued "And now,
when this letter is come to thee, behold I have sent aaman my servant, that thou
mayest recover him of his leprosy."
Jehoram lived in perpetual terror of his powerful and encroaching neighbor.
othing was said in the letter about the Man of God; and the king rent his clothes,
exclaiming that he was not God to kill and to make alive, and that this must be a
base pretext for a quarrel. It never so much as occurred to him, as it certainly would
have done to Jehoshaphat, that the prophet, who was so widely known and honored,
and whose mission had been so clearly attested in the invasion of Moab, might at
least help him to face this problem. Otherwise the difficulty might indeed seem
insuperable, for leprosy was universally regarded as an incurable disease.
But Elisha was not afraid: "he boldly told Jehoram to send the Syrian captain to
him. aaman, with his horses and his chariots, in all the splendor of a royal
ambassador, drove up to the humble house of the prophet. Being so great a man, he
expected a deferential reception, and looked for the performance of his cure in some
striking and dramatic manner. "The prophet," so he said to himself, will come out,
and solemnly invoke the name of his God Jehovah, and wave his hand over the
leprous limbs, and so work the miracle."
But the servant of the King of kings was not exultantly impressed, as false prophets
so often are, by earthly greatness. Elisha did not even pay him the compliment of
coming out of the house to meet him. He wished to efface himself completely, and to
fix the leper’s thoughts on the one truth that if healing was granted to him, it was
due to the gift of God, not to the thaumaturgy or arts of man. He simply sent out his

13. servant to the Syrian commander-in-chief with the brief message, "Go and wash in
Jordan seven times, and be thou clean."
aaman accustomed to the extreme deference of many dependants, was not only
offended, but enraged, by what he regarded as the scant courtesy and
procrastinated boon of the prophet. Why was he not received as a man of the
highest distinction? What necessity could there be for sending him all the way to the
Jordan? And why was he bidden to wash in that wretched, useless, tortuous stream,
rather than in the pure and flowing waters of his own native Abanah and Pharpar?
How was he to tell that this "Man of God" did not design to mock him by sending
him on a fool’s errand, so that he would come back as a laughing-stock both to the
Israelites and to his own people? Perhaps he had not felt any great faith in the
prophet, to begin with; but whatever he once felt had now vanished. He turned and
went away in a rage.
But in this crisis the affection of his friends and servants stood him in good stead.
Addressing him, in their love and pity, by the unusual term of honor "my father,"
they urged upon him that, as he certainly would not have refused some great test,
there was no reason why he should refuse this simple and humble one.
He was won over by their reasonings, and descending the hot steep valley of the
Jordan, bathed himself in the river seven times. God healed him, and, as Elisha had
promised, "his flesh," corroded by leprosy, "came again like the flesh of a little
child, and he was clean."
This healing of aaman is alluded to by our Lord to illustrate the truth that the love
of God extended farther than the limits of the chosen race; that His Fatherhood is
co-extensive with the whole family of man.
It is difficult to conceive the transport of a man cured of this most loathsome and
humiliating of all earthly afflictions. aaman, who seems to have possessed "a mind
naturally Christian," was filled with gratitude. Unlike the thankless Jewish lepers
whom Christ cured as He left Engannim, this alien returned to give glory to God.
Once more the whole imposing cavalcade rode through the streets of Samaria, and
stopped at Elisha’s door. This time aaman was admitted into his presence. He saw,
and no doubt Elisha had strongly impressed on him the truth, that his healing was
the work not of man but of God; and as he had found no help in the deities of Syria,
he confessed that the God of Israel was the only true God among those of the
nations. In token of his thankfulness he presses Elisha, as God’s instrument in the
unspeakable mercy which has been granted to him, to accept "a blessing" (i.e., a
present) from him" from thy servant," as he humbly styled himself.
Elisha was no greedy Balaam. It was essential that aaman and the Syrians should
not look on him as on some vulgar sorcerer who wrought wonders for "the rewards
of divination." His wants were so simple that he stood above temptation. His desires
and treasures were not on earth. To put an end to all importunity, he appealed to
Jehovah with his usual solemn formula-"As the Lord liveth before whom I stand, I

14. will receive no present."
Still more deeply impressed by the prophet’s incorruptible superiority to so much as
a suspicion of low motives, aaman asked that he might receive two mules’ burden
of earth wherewith to build an altar to the God of Israel of His own sacred soil. The
very soil ruled by such a God must, he thought, be holier than other soil; and he
wished to take it back to Syria, just as the people of Pisa rejoiced to fill their Campo
Santo with mould from the Holy Land, and just as mothers like to baptize their
children in water brought home from the Jordan. Henceforth, said aaman, I will
offer burnt-offering and sacrifice to no God but unto Jehovah. Yet there was one
difficulty in the way. When the King of Syria went to worship in the temple of his
god Rimmon it was the duty of aaman to accompany him. The king leaned on his
hand, and when he bowed before the idol it was aaman’s duty to bow also. He
begged that for this concession God would pardon him.
Elisha’s answer was perhaps different from what Elijah might have given. He
practically allowed aaman to give this sign of outward compliance with idolatry,
by saying to him, "Go in peace." It is from this circumstance that the phrase "to
bow in the house of Rimmon" has become proverbial to indicate a dangerous and
dishonest compromise But Elisha’s permission must not be misunderstood. He did
but hand over this semi-heathen convert to the grace of God. It must be
remembered that he lived in days long preceding the conviction that proselytism is a
part of true religion; in days when the thought of missions to heathen lands was
utterly unknown. The position of aaman was wholly different from that of any
Israelite. He was only the convert, or the half-convert of a day, and though he
acknowledged the supremacy of Jehovah as alone worthy of his worship, he
probably shared in the belief-common even in Israel-that there were other gods,
local gods, gods of the nations, to whom Jehovah might have divided the limits of
their power. To demand of one who, like aaman, had been an idolater all his days,
the sudden abandonment of every custom and tradition of his life, would have been
to demand from him an unreasonable, and, in his circumstances, useless and all but
impossible self-sacrifice. The best way was to let him feel and see for himself the
futility of Rimmon-worship. If he were not frightened back from his sudden faith in
Jehovah, the scruple of conscience which he already felt in making his request might
naturally grow within him and lead him to all that was best and highest. The
temporary condonation of an imperfection might be a wise step towards the
ultimate realization of a truth We cannot at all blame Elisha, if, with such
knowledge as he then possessed, he took a mercifully tolerant view of the exigencies
of aaman’s position. The bowing in the house of Rimmon under such conditions
probably seemed to him no more than an act of outward respect to the king and to
the national religion in a case where no evil results could follow from aaman’s
example.
But the general principle that we must not bow in the house of Rimmon remains
unchanged. The light and knowledge vouchsafed to us far transcend those which
existed in times when men had not seen the days of the Son of Man. The only rule
which sincere Christians can follow is to have no truce with Canaan, no halting

15. between two opinions, no tampering, no compliance, no connivance, no complicity
with evil, even no tolerance of evil as far as their own conduct is concerned. o good
man, in the light of the Gospel dispensation, could condone himself in seeming to
sanction-still less in doing-anything which in his opinion ought not to be done, or in
saying anything which implied his own acquiescence in things which he knows to be
evil. "Sir," said a parishioner to one of the non-juring clergy: "there is many a man
who has made a great gash in his conscience; cannot you make a little nick in
yours?" o! a little nick is, in one sense, as fatal as a great gash. It is an
abandonment of the principle; it is a violation of the Law. The wrong of it consists
in this-that all evil begins, not in the commission of great crimes, but in the slight
divergence from right rules. The angle made by two lines may be infinitesimally
small, but produce the lines and it may require infinitude to span the separation
between the lines which enclose so tiny an angle. The wise man gave the only true
rule about wrong-doing, when he said, "Enter not into the path of the wicked and
go not in the way of evil men. Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it and pass away."
{Proverbs 4:14-15} And the reason for his rule is that the beginning of sin-like the
beginning of strife-"is as when one letteth out water." {Proverbs 17:14}
The proper answer to all abuses of any supposed concession to the lawfulness of
bowing in the house of Rimmon-if that be interpreted to mean the doing of anything
which our consciences cannot wholly approve-is obsta principiis- avoid the
beginnings of evil.
"We are not worst at once; the course of evil
Begins so slowly, and from such slight source,
An infant’s hand might stem the breach with clay;
But let the stream grow wider, and philosophy,
Age, and religion too, may strive in vain
To stem the headstrong current."
The mean cupidity of Gehazi, the servant of Elisha, gives a deplorable sequel to the
story of the prophet’s magnanimity. This man’s wretched greed did its utmost to
nullify the good influence of his master’s example. There may be more wicked acts
recorded in Scripture than that of Gehazi, but there is scarcely one which shows so
paltry a disposition.
He had heard the conversation between his master and the Syrian marshal, and his
cunning heart despised as a futile sentimentality the magnanimity which had
refused an eagerly proffered reward. aaman was rich: he had received a priceless
boon; it would be rather a pleasure to him than otherwise to return for it some
acknowledgment which he would not miss. Had he not even seemed a little hurt by
Elisha’s refusal to receive it? What possible harm could there be in taking what he

16. was anxious to give? And how useful those magnificent presents would be, and to
what excellent uses could they be put! He could not approve of the fantastic and
unpractical scrupulosity which had led Elisha to refuse the "blessing" which he had
so richly earned. Such attitudes of unworldliness seemed entirely foolish to Gehazi.
So pleaded the Judas-spirit within the man. By such specious delusions he inflamed
his own covetousness, and fostered the evil temptation which had taken sudden and
powerful hold upon his heart, until it took shape in a wicked resolve.
The mischief of Elisha’s quixotic refusal was done, but it could be speedily undone,
and no one would be the worse. The evil spirit was whispering to Gehazi:
"Be mine and Sin’s for one short hour; and then Be all thy life the happiest man of
men."
"Behold," he said, with some contempt both for Elisha and for aaman, "my
master hath let off this aaman the Syrian; but as the Lord liveth I will run after
him, and take somewhat of him."
"As the Lord liveth!" It had been a favorite appeal of Elijah and Elisha, and the use
of it by Gehazi shows how utterly meaningless and how very dangerous such solemn
words become when they are degraded into formulae. It is thus that the habit of
swearing begins. The light use of holy words very soon leads to their utter
degradation. How keen is the satire in Cowper’s little story:-
"A Persian, humble servant of the sun,
Who, though devout, yet bigotry had none,
Hearing a lawyer, grave in his address,
With adjurations every word impress.
Supposed the man a bishop, or, at least,
God’s ame so often on his lips-a priest.
Bowed at the close with all his gracious airs,
And begged an interest in his frequent prayers!"
Had Gehazi felt their true meaning-had he realized that on Elisha’s lips they meant
something infinitely more real than on his own, he would not have forgotten that in
Elisha’s answer to aaman they had all the validity of an oath, and that he was
inflicting on his master a shameful wrong, when he led aaman to believe that, after
so sacred an adjuration, the prophet had frivolously changed his mind.

17. Gehazi-had not very far to run, for in a country full of hills, and of which the roads
are rough, horses and chariots advance but slowly. aaman, chancing to glance
backwards, saw the prophet’s attendant running after him. Anticipating that he
must be the bearer of some message from Elisha, he not only halted the cavalcade,
but sprang down from his chariot, and went to meet him with the anxious question,
"Is all well?"
"Well," answered Gehazi; and then had ready his cunning lie. "Two youths," he
said, "of the prophetic schools had just unexpectedly come to his master from the
hill country of Ephraim; and though he would accept nothing for himself, Elisha
would be glad if aaman would spare him two changes of garments, and one talent
of silver for these poor members of a sacred calling."
aaman must have been a little more or a little less than human if he did not feel a
touch of disappointment on hearing this message. The gift was nothing to him. It
was a delight to him to give it, if only to lighten a little the burden of gratitude which
he felt towards his benefactor. But if he had felt elevated by the magnanimous
example of Elisha’s disinterestedness, he must have thought that this hasty request
pointed to a little regret on the prophet’s part for his noble self-denial. After all,
then, even prophets were but men, and gold after all was gold! The change of mind
about the gift brought Elisha a little nearer the ordinary level of humanity, and, so
far, it acted as a sort of disenchantment from the high ideal exhibited by his former
refusal. And so aaman said, with alacrity, "Be content: take two talents."
The fact that Gehazi’s conduct thus inevitably compromised his master, and undid
the effects of his example, is part of the measure of the man’s apostasy. It showed
how false and hypocritical was his position, how unworthy he was to be the
ministering servant of a prophet. Elisha was evidently deceived in the man
altogether. The heinousness of his guilt lies in the words corruptio optimi pessima.
When religion is used for a cloak of covetousness, of usurping ambition, of secret
immorality, it becomes deadlier than infidelity. Men raze the sanctuary, and build
their idol temples, on the hallowed ground. They cover their base encroachments
and impure designs with the "cloke of profession, doubly lined with the fox-fur of
hypocrisy," and hide the leprosy which is breaking out upon their foreheads with
the golden petalon on which is inscribed the title of "holiness to the Lord."
At first Gehazi did not like to take so large a sum as two talents; but the crime was
already committed, and there was not much more harm done in taking two talents
than in taking one. aaman urged him, and it is very improbable that, unless the
chances of detection weighed with him, he needed much urging. So the Syrian
weighed out silver ingots to the amount of two talents, and putting them in two
satchels laid them on two of his servants and told them to carry the money before
Gehazi to Elisha’s house. But Gehazi had to keep a look-out lest his nefarious
dealings should be observed, and when they came to Ophel-the word means the foot
of the hill of Samaria, or some part of the fortifications-he took the bags from the
two Syrians, dismissed them, and carried the money to some place where he could
conceal it in the house. Then as though nothing had happened, with his usual

18. smooth face of sanctimonious integrity, the pious Jesuit went and stood before his
master.
He had not been unnoticed! His heart must have sunk within him when there smote
upon his ear Elisha’s question, -
"Whence comest thou, Gehazi?"
But one lie is as easy as another, and Gehazi was doubtless an adept at lying.
"Thy servant were no whither," he replied, with an air of innocent surprise.
"Went not my beloved one?" said Elisha-and he must have said it with a groan, as
he thought how utterly unworthy the youth, whom he thus called "my loving heart"
or "my dear friend,"-"when the man turned from his chariot to meet thee?" It may
be that from the hill of Samaria Elisha had seen it all, or that he had been told by
one who had seen it. If not, he had been rightly led to read the secret of his servant’s
guilt. "Is it a time," he asked, "to act thus?" Did not my example show thee that
there was a high object in refusing this Syrian’s gifts, and in leading him to feel that
the servants of Jehovah do His bidding with no afterthought of sordid
considerations? Are there not enough troubles about us actual and impending to
show that this is no time for the accumulation of earthly treasures? Is it a time to
receive money-and all that money will procure? To receive garments, and olive-
yards and vineyards, and oxen, and menservants and maid-servants? Has a prophet
no higher aim than the accumulation of earthly goods, and are his needs such as
earthly goods can supply? And hast thou, the daily friend and attendant of a
prophet, learnt so little from his precepts and his example?
Then followed the tremendous penalty for so grievous a transgression-a
transgression made up of meanness, irreverence, greed, cheating, treachery, and
lies.
"The leprosy therefore of aaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto thy seed forever!
Oh heavy talents of Gehazi!" exclaims Bishop Hall: "Oh the horror of the one
unchangeable suit! How much better had been a light purse anal a homely coat,
with a sound body and a clean soul!"
"And he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow." {Exodus 4:6
umbers 12:10}
It is the characteristic of the leprous taint in the system to be thus suddenly
developed, and apparently in crises of sudden and overpowering emotion it might
affect the whole blood. And one of the many morals which lie in Gehazi’s story is
again that moral to which the world’s whole experience sets its seal-that though the
guilty soul may sell itself for a desired price, the sum-total of that price is naught. It
is Achan’s ingots buried under the sod on which stood his tent. It is aboth’s
vineyard made abhorrent to Ahab on the day he entered it. It is the thirty pieces of

19. silver which Judas dashed with a shriek upon the Temple floor. It is Gehazi’s
leprosy for which no silver talents or changes of raiment could atone.
The story of Gehazi-of the son of the prophets who would naturally have succeeded
Elisha as Elisha had succeeded Elijah-must have had a tremendous significance to
warn the members of the prophetic schools from the peril of covetousness. That
peril, as all history proves to us, is one from which popes and priests, monks, and
even nominally ascetic and nominally pauper communities, have never been exempt;
-to which, it may even be said that they have been peculiarly liable. Mercenariness
and falsity, displayed under the pretence of religion, were never more
overwhelmingly rebuked. Yet as the Rabbis said, it would have been better if Elisha,
in repelling with the left hand, had also drawn with the right.
The fine story of Elisha and aaman, and the fall and punishment of Gehazi, is
followed by one of the anecdotes of the prophet’s life which appears to our
unsophisticated, perhaps to our imperfectly enlightened judgment, to rise but little
above the ecclesiastical portents related in mediaeval hagiologies.
At some unnamed place-perhaps Jericho-the house of the Sons of the Prophets had
become too small for their numbers and requirements, and they asked Elisha’s leave
to go down to the Jordan and cut beams to make a new residence. Elisha gave them
leave, and at their request consented to go with them. While they were hewing, the
axe-head of one of them fell into the water, and he cried out, "Alas! master, it was
borrowed!" Elisha ascertained where it had fallen. He then cut down a stick, and
cast it on the spot, and the iron swam and the man recovered it.
The story is perhaps an imaginative reproduction of some unwonted incident. At
any rate, we have no sufficient evidence to prove that it may not be so. It is wholly
unlike the economy invariably shown in the Scripture narratives which tell us of the
exercise of supernatural power. All the eternal laws of nature are here superseded at
a word, as though it were an everyday matter, without even any recorded invocation
of Jehovah, to restore an axe-head, which could obviously have been recovered or
resupplied in some much less stupendous way than by making, iron swim on the
surface of a swift-flowing river. It is easy to invent conventional and a priori
apologies to show that religion demands the unquestioning acceptance of this
prodigy, and that a man must be shockingly wicked who does not feel certain that it
happened exactly in the literal sense; but whether the doubt or the defense be
morally worthier, is a thing which God alone can judge.
PULPIT, "THE CURE OF AAMA 'S LEPROSY. HIS GRATITUDE; A D THE
SI OF GEHAZI, The historian continues his narrative of Elisha's miracles,
commenced in 2 Kings 2:1-25; and gives in the present chapter a very graphic and
complete account of two which were especially remarkable, and which stood in a
peculiar relation the one towards the other. One was the removal of leprosy; the
other, its infliction. One was wrought on a foreigner and a man of eminence; the
other, on a Hebrew and a servant. The second was altogether consequential upon

20. the first, without which the occasion for it would not have arisen. The two together
must have greatly raised the reputation of the prophet, and have given him an
influence beyond the borders of the laud of Israel; at the same time extending the
reputation of Jehovah as a great God through many of the surrounding nations.
2 Kings 5:1
ow aaman, captain of the host of the King of Syria. The name " aaman" is here
found for the first time. It is thought to be derived from that of an Aramaean god
(Ewald), and appears in the later Arabic under the form of oman, in which shape
it is familiar to the students of Arabian history. Benhadad, who had been wont in
his youth and middle age to lead his armies into the field in person, seems now in his
old age to have found it necessary to entrust the command to a general, and to have
made aaman captain of his host. Compare the similar practice of the Assyrian
monarchs. Was a great man with his master, and honorable—rather, honored, or
held in esteem ( τεθαυµασµένος, LXX.)—because by him the Lord had given
deliverance—literally, salvation, or safety ( σωτηρίαν, LXX.)—unto Syria. Probably
he had commanded the Syrian army in some of its encounters with the Assyrians,
who at this time, under Shalmaneser II; were threatening the independence of Syria,
but did not succeed in subjecting it. He was also a mighty man in valor—gibbor hail,
commonly translated in our version by "mighty man of valor," does not mean much
more than "a good soldier"—but he was a leper. Leprosy had many degrees. Some
of the lighter kinds did not incapacitate a man for military service, or unfit him for
the discharge of court duties (2 Kings 5:18). But there was always a danger that the
lighter forms might develop into the severer ones.
BI 1-19, "Now Naaman, captain of the host of the King of Syria.
The History of Naaman’s disease and cure; illustrative of certain forces in
the life of man
I. The force of worldly position. Why all the interest displayed in his own country, and in
Israel, concerning Naaman’s disease? The first verse of this chapter explains it. “Now
Naaman, captain of the host of Syria, was a great man,” etc. Perhaps there were many
men in his own district who were suffering from leprosy, yet little interest was felt in
them. They would groan under their sufferings, and die unsympathised with and
unhelped. But because this man’s worldly position was high, kings worked, prophets
were engaged, nations were excited for his cure. It has ever been a sad fact in our history
that we magnify both the trims and the virtues of the grandees, and think but little of the
griefs and graces of the lowly.
1. This fact indicates the lack of intelligence in popular sympathy. Reason teaches
that the calamities of the wealthy have many mitigating circumstances, and therefore
the greater sympathy should be towards the poor.
2. It indicates the lack of manliness in popular sympathy.
II. The force of individual influence. The influence of this little slave girl should teach us
three things.

21. 1. The magnanimity of young natures.
2. The power of the humblest individual.
3. The dependence of the great upon the small.
III. The force of self-preservation. The instinct of self-preservation is one of the
strongest in human nature. “Skin for skin; all that a man hath will he give in exchange
for his life.” Men will spend fortunes and traverse continents in order to rid themselves
of disease and prolong life. This strenuous effort for recovery from disease reminds us
oral. The value of physical health. This man had lost it, and what was the world to him
without it? Bishop Hall truly says of him, “The basest slave in Syria would not change
skins with him.”
2. The neglect of spiritual health.
IV. The force of caste-feeling. “And the King of Syria said, Go to; go, and I will send a
letter to the King of Israel.” He, forsooth, was too great to know a prophet—too great to
correspond with any one but a king.
1. Caste-feeling sinks the real in the adventitious. The man who is ruled by it so
exaggerates externalisms as to lose sight of those elements of moral character which
constitute the dignity and determine the destiny of man. He lives in bubbles.
2. Caste-feeling curtails the region of human sympathies. He who is controlled by
this feeling, has the circle of his sympathies limited not only to the outward of man,
but to the outward of those only in his own sphere. All outlying his grade and class
are nothing to him.
3. It antagonises the Gospel. Christ came to destroy that middle wall of partition that
divides men into classes. The Gospel overtops all adventitious distinctions, and
directs its doctrines, and offers its provisions to man as man.
V. The force of guilty suspicion. “And it came to pass when the King of Israel had read
the letter, that he rent his clothes, and said, Am I God, to kill and to make alive, that this
man doth send unto me to recover a man of his leprosy? Wherefore, consider, I pray you,
and see how he seeketh a quarrel against me?” The construction that the monarch put
upon the message of his royal brother was, instead of being true and liberal, the most
false and ungenerous. Where this suspicion exists, one of the two, if not the two
following things, are always found.
1. A knowledge of the depravity of society. The suspicious man has frequently learnt,
either from observation, testimony, or experience, or all these, that there is such an
amount of falsehood, and dishonesty in society, as will lead one man to take an
undue advantage of another.
2. The existence of evil in himself. The suspicious man knows that he is selfish, false,
dishonest, unchaste, and he believes that all men are the same.
VI. The force of remedial goodness. Though the king could not cure, there was a
remedial power m Israel equal to this emergency. That power, infinite goodness
delegated to Elisha. The passage suggests several points concerning this remedial power.
1. It transcends natural power. “When Elisha, the man of God, had heard that the
King of Israel had rent his clothes, . . . he sent to the king, saying, Wherefore hast
thou rent thy clothes? let him come now to me, and he shall know that there is a
prophet in Israel.” The monarch felt his utter insufficiency to effect the cure. Natural

22. science knew nothing of means to heal the leper.
2. It offends human pride.
3. It clashes with popular prejudice. “Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of
Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? May I not wash in them and be
clean?”
4. It works by simple means.
5. It demands individual effort. “Then went he down, and dipped himself seven
times in the Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God.” Naaman had to go
down himself to the river, and to dip himself seven times in its waters.
6. It is completely efficacious. “His flesh came again like the flesh of a little child, and
he was clean.”
VII. The force of a new conviction. Observe—
1. The subject of the new conviction. What was the subject? That the God of Israel
was the only God. He felt that it was God’s hand that healed him.
2. The developments of this new conviction. A conviction like this must prove
influential in some way or other. Abstract ideas may lie dormant in the mind, but
convictions are ever operative. What did it do in Naaman?
(1) It evoked gratitude. Standing with all his company before the prophet, he
avowed his gratitude “Now therefore, I pray thee, take a blessing of thy servant.
(2) It annihilated an old prejudice. Just before his cure he despised Judaea.
Jordan was contemptible as compared with the rivers of Damascus. But now the
very ground seems holy. He asks of the prophet liberty to take away a portion of
the earth.
(3) It inspired worship. Thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt-offering
nor sacrifice, but unto the Lord.”
VIII. The force of associates.
IX. The force of sordid avarice. Gehazi is the illustration of this in his conduct as
described in 2Ki_5:20-22. In his case we have avarice—
1. Eager in its pursuits.
2. This avarice is in one associated with the most generous of men. He was the
servant of Elisha.
3. This avarice sought its end by means of falsehood.
X. The force of retributive justice. There is justice on this earth as well as remedial
goodness, and Heaven often makes man the organ as well as the subject of both. Elisha,
who had the remedial power, had also the retributive. Here we see retributive justice
in—
1. Detecting the wrongdoer.
2. Reproving the wrongdoer.
3. It punishes the wrongdoer. (Homilist.)

23. Naaman the Syrian
1. There is not a man or woman living, however happy or prosperous, in whose
description sooner or later we do not come to a “but.” There is always some
drawback here, some drop in every cup that needs extraction, some thorn in every
path to be removed. And even though this “but” were not in our health and
circumstances, it is always in our nature. Leprosy is God’s one great disease in the
Bible to represent sin. It meant exclusion from the camp and distance from our
fellowmen. Hideous and revolting in itself, it poisoned the springs of man’s
existence. Hence it strikingly represents that sin which is in man, and, in the absence
of everything else, is the terrible “but” which mars and spoils the fairest earthly
picture. Like man by nature, Naaman carried within him that disease which none but
God could heal.
2. Contrast with this great man and honourable, the little maid. Torn away from her
home and friends by rude hands, and probably amid the bitter tears of parental
affection, she had been taken captive and sold as a slave. But amid all these
discouraging circumstances she possessed a secret to which Naaman, with all his
greatness, was a stranger. She knew of God and God’s healing grace. Naaman felt the
disease, she knew the healing. This made all the difference between her and Naaman.
This makes all the difference between a Christian and one who is not. This makes the
mighty difference between one man and another.
3. God disposes each lot in life. Naaman has his own peculiar sorrow, and so has the
little maid hers. They are widely different. Yet God measures out to each one their
position and circumstances, their blessings and afflictions, as will best show forth
His glory. God had been leading her, through that strange way, to do for this great
man and honourable what he could not do for himself, nor any one in the royal court
of Benhadad. “The Lord had need of her” for this His great work. Before passing on,
notice another truth. Nanman’s heavy trial had no power to subdue his haughty
spirit. Sorrow of itself can never sanctify. Men may pass through God’s hottest
furnaces and only come out harder than ever. It is only when the Holy Spirit uses our
sorrows—when we put them into His hands to use—that they will ever be made a
blessing to us. Let us learn again, from the difference between Naaman and this little
maid, that inequalities of social position are divine, and are means of blessing. We
have seen two characters here, both of them representative—Naaman and the little
maid. Let us now look at a third—Benhadad, King of Syria. In him we have man in
his loftiness and arrogance. Nothing can be done, he feels, but through him. He
prepares his litter, his gold and silver and raiment. All this is worldly religion—man’s
proud thoughts about God’s ways. And yet all he does is but “labour lost.” There is
yet another character—Joram, King of Israel. Here is a man who knows about the
true God, knows the revelation of His will, knows of the true Elisha at his very door,
and yet, with all this knowledge, unable to take his true place and act God’s part in
directing the poor leper to the healer in Israel. Here is the man of religion, of true
religion, of many privileges above others around him, yet all lost, and he utterly
unable to direct the diseased one to the saviour prophet!
4. Let us now turn to the saviour prophet, Elisha, and his dealing with the poor
leper. The King of Syria prepares a great price—£7500 value of our money. Naaman
sets out with it on his journey, and King Jehoram acquiesces m it. Thus the idea of
each is that the healing is to be obtained by a price. It is the latent thought of every
man by nature. “Without money and without price” is God’s Word, and this narrative
of the healing of Naaman, and Elisha’s dealings with him, are an illustration of this.

24. And what is Elisha’s message? “Go and wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh
shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean.” How simple, how plain! Then
what am I to do with the £7500 and the raiment? Has it no value? None whatever in
the eyes of Elisha. None whatever before God. Take it back with thee as the dregs of
the sinner’s righteousness, and learn that all thou art to receive, all that is to set thee
free from sin and death and make thee a new creature in Christ Jesus, is of the free
sovereign grace of God. Thus we see the pride of the natural heart. “Are not Abana
and Pharpar better?” Here is the leper taking his own way of healing, and regarding
it as better than God’s. “He turned and went away in a rage.” Here is the despising of
God s remedy and the enmity of the natural heart showing itself. And Naaman was
right. Abana’s waters were clear and beautiful. Jordan’s were clayey and muddy.
There was nothing for Sight in all this. It was only for faith. It was God choosing the
base things of this world to bring to nought the mighty. Is it not so still? “What is this
blood of Christ?” the sinner says. “What! are all my prayers, my good deeds, my
sacraments, all my honest efforts to do my best and to please God to go for nothing?
But the grace that can provide for a leprous soul can plead with a reluctant heart. It
can use a ministry as well as open a fountain; and this ministry is, like the remedy,
simple and artless, and exactly suited to its end, for one is divine as the other. Like
the “little maid” before, it is the “servants” now, for such are God’s means at all
times. Human righteousness and greatness, and all nature’s fond conceits are set
aside completely.
5. Observe the effects of the healing the form in which it was manifested: “his flesh
came again like unto the flesh of a little child.” This is the new birth. It is put before
us m this form in other parts of Scripture: “if there be a Mediator with him, the One
above the thousands of angels to show man (God’s) righteousness, then He is
gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit; I have found
the ransom. His flesh shall be fresher than a child’s: he shall return to the days of his
youth” (Job_33:23-24). Here the same truth is brought before us. Again we have it
in the New Testament: “Except a man be born from above he cannot enter the
kingdom of God.” “If any man be in Christ he is a new creature; old things are passed
away: behold, all things are become new.”
6. Observe, in the next place, the manifestation of this new nature in the conduct of
Naaman. From this point it is seen there is a great change in him. His spirit, his tone,
his language, his whole bearing seems from this moment to form a striking contrast
to all that has gone before, so much so that, had his name not been mentioned, we
should have said it could not possibly be the same man. “And he returned to the man
of God, he and all his company, and came, and stood before him, and he said:
Behold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel: now therefore,
I pray thee, take a blessing of thy servant.” Observe the fruits of the new nature here,
in their order. Naaman stands with all his company before Elisha. It is not now the
proud and haughty Naaman, but the subdued and humbled one. Here is the first-
fruit of the Holy Spirit in his character. He was humble because he was washed.
Secondly, he makes a goodly confession of the one and only God. He had learnt the
true God through the virtue of His grace exerted on himself—through the health and
salvation he had received from Him. This is the only way the soul can ever learn
Him. Thirdly, he presses his gifts upon Elisha, not now to purchase the healing, but
because he has been healed. He has been forgiven much, therefore he loves much.
Fourthly, he “will henceforth know no other God.” To this end he seeks materials to
raise an altar to the true God. And fifthly, he has now a renewed conscience, quick
and sensitive about any, even apparent, departure from the God who had so blessed

25. him. (F. Whitfield, M. A.)
Namman the Syrian
There is scarcely a story in all Scripture of deeper interest than this of Naaman, the
Syrian.
I. The character and condition of Naaman. There is no mention of Naaman in the Bible,
save in this connection. There is, however, a Jewish tradition as old as the time of
Josephus, which identifies him as the archer whose arrow struck Ahab with his mortal
wound, and thus gave deliverance to Syria. Whether this be true or not, some brave deed
of Naaman had lifted him into special prominence, and crowned him with exceptional
honour. But he was a leper! This made him loathsome and a burden to himself. Here we
learn that no honour, no valour, no victory, can place men beyond the reach of the sorest
calamities of life. These are as likely to visit the rich as the poor; are as likely to fall on
princes as on peasants. No king is always happy; no prime minister of state but has his
fears and sorrows, Naaman stood next the king, but he was a leper, afflicted more than
many a slave in Syria. There is no possession so vast, no position so high, no attainment
so conspicuous, no employment so congenial, no association so sweet, as not to have its
“but,” revealing sorrow, or some great unmet want. There is, however, “a skeleton in
every home.” Each heart has, and knows, its own bitterness. One reaps advantage of one
kind here, another of another kind there, but every man reaps disadvantage of one kind
or another. The good and ill of life are far more evenly distributed than most imagine.
II. The character and service of the little maid. She was by birth an Israelite, carried
captive into Syria. There she became a servant in Naaman’s household. In her early
home, and among her own people, she had become familiar with the worship and
history of Israel. It is possible that she had met the prophet Elisha. Those homes of
Israel were schools for the household. The children there were trained to believe in, and
worship, the God of their fathers. History with them was sacred. With scepticism and
atheism those Israelitish homes were not darkened and afflicted as our homes are.
Egypt, Sinai, Samaria were all alive with Divine deliverances, which old and young alike
appreciated. God was among the people, and this the children understood. The
confidence of children is remarkable in the beneficence of God and in the influence of
the good with Him. Children may be, not only our greatest comforters, but our wisest
teachers and our divinest helpers. In their simple, childish faith they often put us to
shame, and in their generous desire to serve others, often rebuke our indifference.
III. The miraculous cure. It appears that Naaman somehow heard of the desire and faith
of this little maid in his home, and was encouraged to make trial of the prophet. It
appears further, that, aside from the maid, none was more anxious for the cure than the
king. Through the instrumentality,—possibly of some one overhearing the conversation
of this maid with her mistress, or possibly of some one informed by this woman, and
sent by her, or, it may be of Naaman himself, the king learned of the wish and the faith.
It is more than probable that both Naaman and the king had heard of Elisha as a worker
of wondrous miracles; for his fame must have reached to the farthest bounds of the
kingdom. But be this as it may, the leper sighs for help, and is ready for the experiment
of seeking Elisha. Poor man! There he stood at the prophet’s door, a leper, full of large
expectations; yet dictating as to the manner of the cure, and falling into a frenzy because
it was not to be effected with pomp and parade such as he thought became his rank and
station. Why the prophet bade him go to Jordan instead of the waters of Damascus, he
could not understand. He seems to have forgotten that Jordan belonged to the God of

26. Israel, and that, in a miraculous cure, relation to God was of far more importance than
the depth or beauty of the stream. Besides, Jordan was the river appointed; and if
Naaman is to be cured by Divine power he must obey the Divine will. He was, however,
proud and haughty—style and rank were offended. What now? Jordan has become a
healing stream for this afflicted man. No longer shall he compare that river with the
waters of Damascus. No longer shall Elisha be regarded as an enemy, or as indifferent to
his welfare. To be cured of such a disease in such a manner was enough to convince
Naaman of the power of God, and of Elisha as a true prophet of God. Experience is a
wonderful teacher. This cure had been effected by consciously supernatural means. This
he was ready to confess. (Monday Club Sermons.)
Naaman, the Syrian
I. In turning to the story of this Naaman, the first thing that I would notice is a contrast
in service. We set him before us dwelling in the stately palace of the king, the
commander of the king’s armies; with authority to speak to the whole nation, and all
men are ready to obey him: with troops of horses and hosts of chariots, and servants that
wait upon him and minister to him. Altogether, in council and in camp, the foremost
man in Syria. And as brave as he was wise, of whose valour many a stirring tale was told.
Here is greatness: great in himself, great in his position, great in his possessions, great in
his achievements, great in his authority: no element of greatness is lacking. Then do you
notice how beside this word great there is set the word little; and alongside of this
mighty man of valour is put the record of this captive maid? Poor little thing, her story is
a very sad one. A troop of Syrians marching one day into Israel—fierce fellows, burning
the homesteads of the villagers, before whom the frightened people fled to the
mountains or caves—had come to some cottage, and there, it may be, tending a sick
mother, too feeble to escape, or guarding some little one of the family whom she would
not forsake, this girl is taken captive and carried away by the soldiers. They sell her as a
slave to Naaman’s wife. A stranger in a strange land, with the memory of her bitter
griefs—in thought and feeling, and hope and religion, severed from those about her, so
she must wait upon her mistress and do her bidding, with none to befriend her. We can
think of her sighing in her loneliness. “Ah, me; if I were only King of Syria, or even this
great lord, I would set right the wrongs of the poor folks, and bid the cruel soldiers stay
at home. I would have no burning cottages, no ruined homes, and no poor captive men
or maidens if I were king. How good it must be to be so great! But I am only a little
maiden; what can I do? here there are so many troubles? It is dreadful to be so weak and
little.” And yet this little maid it is who brings deliverance to the great man of Syria, for
in her are two things that are never little—a kind heart and faith in God. So, in the great
world, with its sorrows, there is always room for loving-kindness and for faith in God. It
is not greatness that the poor world wants mostly, not chief captains or men of valour;
but love. The little, and the least, with love and faith, can always find a place for service;
a service that is always blessed, and shall have its golden wages. Our measure for service
is not in position, nor in gifts, nor in greatness, but in love. Her tender love and simple
faith do set this little maid alongside of this great captain. Take it, I pray you, for whom
it is meant, and give thanks to God. Say it and sing it within yourself: “If in this great
world I can do nothing else, I can do this—and since I can do this I will envy none.
Wherever I am I can keep a simple faith in God and a kind heart.” Thank God, little one,
that He has a place for thee.
II. Notice the wisdom of Naaman. He no sooner hears that there is a chance of his being
cured than he sets off for the prophet. He does not despise the suggestion because it is a

27. prophet of Israel who has the power. If this is a chance of his being cured he will go forth
and seek it. He might very naturally have said, “I will get my master, the King of Syria, to
write a letter to the King of Israel, and he can send the prophet to see me. The prophet is
much better able to travel than I am; and it is altogether more fitting that he should
come here. It is an enemy’s country, and the people may oppose my coming, and I am ill
fit to journey. I will send my horses and chariots, and a company of soldiers for his
escort, and I will pay him well for his coming.” So he might have said, but that will not
do. He will go himself. There must be no delay. If there is a chance of being cured he will
do his best to avail himself of that chance. At once everybody in the place is set to work
to hasten his going. Now do not let this Naaman the Syrian rise up in judgment against
us. We have heard that in Jesus Christ is our salvation; that there is One who is able to
break the power of our sin, to rid us from its loathsomeness, and to make us whole. To
us the testimony concerning the salvation which is in Christ Jesus comes from ten
thousand who have found in Him their deliverance from the curse and power of sin, the
cleansing from its foul leprosy. Think if he should bid his musicians sing of this: Elisha,
and chant his greatness, and week after week should sit and listen to the story of the
captive maiden. “I like to hear her,” says he, “she is so much in earnest, and her gestures
are so graceful, and her words so well chosen.” O fool! and all the time the leprosy is
eating into him with horrid cruelty, deeper and deeper, and every day he is growing
more hideous and scarred, and his case becomes more desperate. And the longer he
delays the more he questions about going at all. And now the King of Syria comes to see
him. “Well, have you been?” he asks. “Been where?” saith Naaman. “Why, to the great
prophet that can heal thee of thy leprosy,” cries the king, wondering. “No,” saith
Naaman, “I have not exactly been to him, you know. But I have heard all about him, and
have got quite familiar with his name and history, and what he has said and done.” “But
surely,” cries the astonished king, “it were as well never to have heard of him if you do
not go.” Then one day the tidings spread, “Naaman is dead”; died of his leprosy. Dead!
and he knew so much about the prophet. And in the palace is heard the wail of the little
maiden, “Would God my lord had gone to the prophet that is in Samaria.” Alas! it is only
in religion that men play the fool like this: only in the deeper and more dreadful leprosy
of the soul! Can you imagine any greater folly, hearing of Christ as the Saviour, year in
and year out, and yet never coming to Him?
III. Notice the needless preparation. (M. G. Pearse.)
Naaman, the leper
Men who are called to like positions in our own day are generally the objects of envy.
Doubtless, Naaman was such an object in the eyes of many. But how greatly were they
mistaken in the estimate they formed. Naaman knew, before others knew, that the
leprosy had marked him as its victim. The small spot, herald of the approaching disease,
was upon him; the worm was at the root of the gourd; the cancer was beginning to prey
upon his very vitals; the heart was already feeding upon its own bitterness. Naaman, the
illustrious,—Naaman, the captain of the king’s hosts,—Naaman, with all his greatness,
must henceforth carry about with him a monitor of his own weakness, yea, his own
sinfulness. And, upon the face of the record, do we not read this lesson,—
I. The sinfulness of pride in the sight of God? All pride will be humbled in like manner.
“God resisteth the proud” (Jas_4:6) always, at all times, and in all eases. “He that
exalteth himself shall be abased” (Luk_14:11). Pride is the idolatry of self. Where pride
reigns, God cannot reign, but God will judge. Let each beware of pride. Pride does not

28. help a man to fill his station; it leads him to overstep his station. Humility ennobles, for
it is a Divine grace; but pride degrades, for it is earth-born, a satanic spirit. If the proud
man does not seek the throne of grace, and humble himself there, pride will prove his
ruin.
II. Another truth, of which the experience of Naaman may remind us, is this,—our entire
and absolute dependence upon God. We are not the arbiters of our own destiny. We
cannot determine our own future. Even to-day’s bread is dependent on God’s bounty.
“As He will,” is the law of our condition, absolutely and without qualification. Naaman,
the captain of the host of Syria, the mighty man of valour, was no exception to this law.
In his leprosy he carried about with him a silent but a faithful monitor of the supremacy
of God. There was manifestly a will above his will,—a will that had determined his
affliction, irrespective of himself.
III. But there is yet another, and a principal lesson, which the experience of Naaman
enforces,—the insufficiency of earthly good to confer happiness upon the possessor.
Naaman possessed fame, and honour, and friends, and wealth; but he was a leper. I ask,
Is there not always some “but,” or some “if,” to act as a drawback on the earthly portion?
Has the man ever lived who, being “of the earth, earthy,” living for this world only, could
say he was so happy as not to need something to be added or to be taken away? It has
even become a proverb, “Man never is, but always to be, blest.” “Is the child happy?”
asks one of our Puritan Fathers. “He will be, when he is a man. Is the peasant satisfied?
He will be, when he is rich. Is the rich man satisfied? He will be, when he is ennobled. Is
the nobleman satisfied? He will be, when he is a king. Is the king satisfied? Listen! for
one is speaking, ‘Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.’” Each is devising a portion for himself,
in which he thinks happiness will be found; but none attain happiness. Riches may be
pursued and acquired; but riches cannot confer happiness. It is a true testimony, which
all experience confirms: “They that increase riches, increase sorrow with them.” There is
always some “but” attached to the best estate. The knowledge that God is our God for
ever and ever—that we are reconcried to Him by faith in Christ Jesus—that He will be
our guide, the director of our steps, even until death,—this is the knowledge which alone
discovers to us the secret of happiness—this is the knowledge which places in our
possession the key which may be said to open to man a Paradise regained. (C. Bullock.)
Some modern lessons from an ancient story
This whole story of Naaman, ancient as it is, is not one out of relation with our present
lives. It is a story which can easily teach us some most valuable modern lessons.
I. The universal subtraction from our addition. Consider them in Naaman’s case.
1. Consider the addition.
(1) Captain of the host of the King of Syria.
(2) A great man with his master.
(3) And honourable.
(4) Because by him the Lord had given deliverance unto Syria.
(5) He was also a mighty man in valour.
How many items in this addition, and how large the sum of their values—high military
command, great favour at court, splendid reputation, success, great personal bravery.

29. 2. Consider the subtraction—one vast damaging item, but he was a leper. Take a
New-Testament instance, that of Paul (2Co_12:1-21).
(1) Addition. Rapture (2Ki_5:2). Presence in Paradise (2Ki_5:4). Vision of the
unspeakable glories (2Ki_5:4). Abundant revelations (2Ki_5:7).
(2) Subtraction—thorn in the flesh (2Ki_5:7). Are not those instances more or
less exactly parallel in our own lives? You can add together many a favouring
circumstance and possession: then here is sure to come the subtracting—but.
Why is this? Why, in our common lot, must there be this universal subtraction
from our addition? If this life were all, and were intended to be all, it would be
cruel. But there is another life. These subtractions from our additions are
allowed, lest we should somnolently settle into the feeling that this life is all.
II. That of faithfulness to one’s religion in strange place and circumstance. The little
Hebrew maid (2Ki_5:2-4) how unlike her are those professing Christians who, moving
to a new place or city, will not use their church letters but drop into the sad throng of
non-churchgoers!
III. The unwisdom of making beforehand plans for god.
1. Behold the ancient picture—the letter; the presents worth $50,000; the
ostentatious arrival before the prophet’s door; the message; the reply and rage (2Ki_
5:11-12).
2. Behold the modern counterpart. Simple was the remedy the prophet ordered—the
washing in the Jordan. So simple is the Gospel—personal acceptance of Jesus Christ
as Saviour and Lord. But men, thinking their thoughts, making beforehand plans for
God, say, “Are not the Abana and Pharpar of my moralities better?” or, “Are not the
Abana and Pharpar of my penances better?” or “Are not the Abana and Pharpar of
some shining experience I have imagined better?”
IV. The wisdom of doing first what God says (2Ki_5:14). Have you not been delaying,
and thinking, and imagining, and holding to your way long enough? Now, in the
beginning of this New Year, will you not wisely submit to God, as Naaman did? Will you
not accept Jesus Christ and so, in the only possible way, find forgiveness for your sin?
(Homiletic Review.)
The method of grace
There is much modern application in these Old Testament circumstances. There is so
much humaneness in the Bible which makes it always a new book. Principles know
nothing of years. Truth is not hampered by time. The Scriptures are as old as eternity,
and yet as new as every morning. The Gospel in the narrative may thus be developed.
I. The gospel appeals to the man, not his accidents. The prophet’s message was to the
leper, not to the courtier. Naaman came with his horses and with his pageantry. He came
in a lordly air, but the prophet did not even meet him. The true man is never moved by
glitter. Some of us would have bowed as sycophants; it would have been the reddest-
letter day of our lives, if the premier of Syria had stood at our door. Even if a trinket, or a
book, be given to us by a royal hand, we transmit it as an heirloom. There is a nobility of
office, but there is a higher nobility of character. There is a kingliness of name, but there
is also a kingliness of nature. We should not judge by appearance, but judge by righteous
judgment. The prophet saw through all the haughtiness of Naaman, leprous man. God

30. sees through all life’s accidents—all our intelligence, parade, wealth, and respectability—
a heart of corruption and sorrow. He sees that the “imagination of the thoughts of man
are evil continually.” The message is to man, not to his circumstances. It speaks to us as
sinners. It speaks, not to contingencies, but to the human nature that is in us all. It was
man that fell, and to man the message is sent. “He came to seek and to save that which
was lost.”
II. The gospel message and conditions are always simple. It speaks in a language all can
understand. It speaks to the heart, and the heart has but one language, the wide world
over. The tongue speaks many a vernacular, and the lips chatter many dialects, but the
heart’s voice never varies. The great universal heart beats in us all. The Gospel sees us
fallen, and it sends forth the common message and a universal welcome. “Come unto Me
all ye that labour and are heavy laden.” The message is one, but its emphasis is varied
according to our deafness, and its strokes to our hardness. The stone is hard, and the
sculptor’s mallet must be heavy, and his chisels sharp. The wound is deep, and the
corrosive must burn, and the instrument probe deeply. The jewel is encased in adamant,
and the lapidary must select his instruments accordingly. Our prejudices are great, our
hearts are haughty, and the conditions are adapted. Christianity is to us what we are.
Loving in disposition, it “speaks in a still small voice.” Impenitent in heart, it speaks in
thunder-tones. Some are so deaf that they can only hear thunder; others are so divinely
sensitive, they can hear angels’ whispers, and God’s steps on the wind. According to our
heart-life, God is either a Father, or a consuming fire. A revengeful God is the creation of
a wicked life. The Gospel speaks to the heart, and of necessity must temper its voice to
its disposition and difficulties. It is a message so simple that a child can understand it,
and yet its inexhaustibleness challenges the highest mind. So plain, that the “wayfaring
man” need not Stumble; and yet its sublimity creates a sensation new in angel bosom. Its
simplicity reveals its wonders, as its stoop manifests its height.
III. The gospel conditions are repulsive to human prejudices. We might swear that it is
night when the sun shines, but the light would only prove our insanity. We may curse the
Book, but its truth is inviolable. We may blaspheme the Gospel, but the loudness of our
voice may only reveal the perfectness of our idiocy. How presumptuous is man?
1. How we presume on God’s ways? “I thought he would surely come out to me,” etc.
2. How we presume on God’s means? “Are not Abana and Pharpar . . . better than all
the waters of Israel?”
3. How we presume on God’s patience? “And he turned away in a rage.”
4. How we presume on self-sufficiency? “Some great thing, wouldst thou not have
done it?” The conditions of the Gospel may arouse our resentment, but to resist is to
be blind to our best interests. The prophet said: “Wash and be clean”; and Naaman
turned away in a rage. Christ says: “Sell all thou hast and give to the poor”; and the
young man went away sorrowing. The Gospel says: “Believe on the Lord Jesus
Christ, and thou shalt be saved”; and we are disgusted with the conditions. The Cross
to the “Jew may be a stumbling-block,” and to the “Greek, foolishness,” but to as
many as believe, it is the “power of God unto salvation.” The answer to all our
prejudices is, that it is God’s appointed way. There is no royal road. The conditions
are, believe and live, and the authority is, “he that believeth shall be saved, and he
that believeth not shall be damned.” Our prejudices may recoil, and we may turn
away in wrath. But we turn our face from the sun only to see our shadow. (W.
Mincher.)

31. Naaman
Let us cast our eyes upon Naaman himself; and then upon the method of his restoration.
I. Naaman’s condition.
1. Official.
2. Personal
3. Bodily. “But he was a leper”—the one drawback, and that a terrible one.
II. Naaman’s restoration.
1. First notice the providence of God. It was by means of a little captive maid.
2. Thus, what must have seemed a great calamity to the little maid’s friends and to
herself—to be captured and carried away into an idolatrous country—became a
blessing.
3. Then we have the picture of Naaman, with his equipage and servants, in state at
the door of Elisha, and the prophet sending a message to him with the command in
the text.
4. Let us see the moral and spiritual purposes of Elisha’s treatment. The spirit of
pride had to be subdued. The prophet’s method is unexpected, but not without
design. There is no prayer or personal contact, only a message by a servant.
5. But for the kindly expostulation of the servants, Naaman would have returned into
his own country a leper, as he set out from it.
III. Lessons.
1. From instances of natural virtue in the heathen world, we learn that nature,
though fallen, is not totally corrupt. We must keep a middle course between Pelagius
and Calvin.
2. What weak and often unworthy means God uses for making known His truth!—
the enslaved Israelite maid!
3. How children should strive to remember what they were taught in youth about
God and His ministers, that it may be a blessing to themselves and to others! (Canon
Hutchings.)
Greatness secondary to goodness
The great Augustine discovered this when a young man. His father, a heathen, had said
to the lad, “Be great.” His mother, Monica, a devoted Christian, had whispered, “Be
good.” “I will be both,” he answered, “but great first.” And when, after years of folly and
then of philosophy, he resolved to “be good,” he found himself a slave to sin. Not till he
cast himself wholly on Divine power and grace did he gain the “new heart.” Then, the
things he had once been afraid to lose he cast from him with joy. “Thou expellest them,”
he cried, in an ecstasy of joy, “and comest in Thyself instead of them.” Thus Augustine
the sinner became Augustine the saint.
But he was a leper.

32. The fruits of adversity
How many might be tempted to envy him, how many of his fellow-men might be
tempted to say, within themselves, “Would that I were in his place, would that I could
have done with all these anxious cares, and weary disappointments which I meet with
every day! Would that I could be free from all this drudgery, and see, at any rate, some
result of all my toil! Here am I fighting every day against difficulty and hardship, yet
gaining never a victory; here am I passing the best part of my days in obscurity, with
never a prospect of rising in the world; there seems to be nothing for me but toils and
cares from morning till night, from year’s end to year’s end. Would that I could be
successful in life as Naaman was, could reach a high and honoured position as he did!
Yet stay, Naaman has his drawback, he is not by any means the happy man you take him
to be. “But he was a leper.” Do not these words—five in English, but only two in the
original Hebrew—seem to throw a deep, dark shadow over the whole life of Naaman? We
cannot possibly know, as well as Naaman did, all that those words meant. None but a
leper can truly know the meaning of leprosy. Yet we do know that it was something
terrible; that it was a serious affliction; that it made life dark, gloomy, unbearable. There
is, in fact, something in the life-history of every man which gives, or should give to him,
lowly views of himself, which is intended to keep down his pride, and to remind him that
this world is a pathway leading to a country where alone there is nothing to mar our
pleasure, no interruption to our happiness, where alone there is no drawback. There is a
“but” in the history of every soul on this side of the grave. That rich man you see, and
upon whose wealth you may often have looked with envious eye, is the victim of some
serious disorder; death is, as it were, staring him in the face. That strong and healthy
man, who seems able and willing to do battle in the great world, who possesses an
energy equalled by few, and surpassed by none, is yet a poor man; there is a large family
depending upon him; many mouths to be filled, many backs to be clothed; and that
strong, willing worker, heaves a sigh as he thinks that his earnings will prove miserably
inadequate to the needs of his household. And, if you trace the matter right through, you
will find that this drawback is a very common experience, known and felt not only by the
poor, but also by the well-to-do; not only by those low down in the world, but also by
those occupying high positions. And yet there is a value in these drawbacks; they are not
so utterly hopeless as many would feign imagine; we are apt to look upon them as a great
evil, with not a single redeeming feature. Not a few might feel disposed to ask, “Why
should these things exist at all? Why cannot I be allowed to pass through life without
having to encounter all these difficulties—these things which interfere so greatly with my
happiness? Life is short, why should it be made miserable? Why should I not be able to
enjoy, to my heart’s content, these days and weeks, these months and years, which are
passing all too quickly away?” These are the questions which probably are going forth
from thousands of hearts to-day; they seem practical questions; let us deal with them in
a practical way. Let us bear in mind that these things come to us not by chance, they are
sent. That difficulty of yours, that matter which is costing you so many weary days, and
sleepless nights, that great heart-sorrow, that heavy burden has not visited you at
random as it were, but has been sent to you; that is the first thought, the first fact to be
carefully remembered. And the Sender; Who is the Sender? God, the God who loves you
with an amazing love, pities you with wondrous pity, sends you that very thing which is
the cause of much vexation, and which you could heartily wish had never been sent.
Brethren, it seems strange, almost like a contradiction, but it is neither. “Beloved, think
it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing
happened unto you: but rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings; that,
when His glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy” (1Pe_4:19;

33. 1Pe_4:13). This is the kind action of a loving Father; He is training us and educating us
for heaven. Never let us forget that, and honestly let us ask ourselves what would be the
result if we had everything just as we wished. If, in this life, there were no difficulties, or
trials, or sorrows to meet, what feelings and thoughts would take possession of us?
Should we be filled with earnest longing to reach the heavenly city? Much of the
choicest, holiest portions of a man’s character is formed in those seasons of his life
which call forth the pity of those about him. When they are pitying, heaven is rejoicing;
rejoicing that the feet are turned Zionwards, that the wanderer is returning home.
Brethren, let it be so with us. Remember “they who suffer with Christ shall also reign
with Him,” and that, “All things work together for good to those who love God.” (E. F.
Chapman, M. A.)
The conquest of disadvantages
1. Among the figures of the Old Testament there is hardly any more interesting or
more attractive than that of Naaman the Syrian. He belongs, indeed, to a class of
persons which never fails to arrest notice and evoke admiration, the class of those
who, afflicted by physical disadvantages which are commonly incapacitating, have
such constancy of purpose, such strength of will, such nobility of character, that they
triumph over their infirmities, and take rank among the leaders of mankind.
Habitual suffering does incapacitate for exertion; physical infirmity disables the will
and abashes the courage. Marked out from the rest by defects, repulsive or ludicrous,
or practically disadvantageous, men are humbled and cowed by a consciousness of
inferiority, which not rarely becomes a vague sense of wrong, a dreary feeling of
unmerited exile from the common society, and along with these, an embitterment of
character, which, in its turn, adds yet further obstacles to frank fellowship with
ordinary folk. The annals of the English monarchy, for instance, contain no worthier
names than those of Alfred, the traditional founder of our constitution, and of
William III., its champion and restorer, and both those admirable sovereigns were
chronic invalids. Our literature has no greater name than that of Milton, who was a
blind man when he wrote his principal poem; no name more venerable than that of
Johnson, who from childhood was afflicted with a repulsive malady. It would be hard
to find among modern politicians a name more justly honoured than that of Henry
Fawcett, whose sight was destroyed by a lamentable accident when he was twenty-
five years old, but who “bore the calamity with a superlative courage,” and won for
himself a niche in the Temple of Fame. These show the class to which Naaman
belonged, the class of the intrinsically heroic, to whom, whatever their creed or
career, the description of Scripture seems properly to belong, “who through faith
subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths
of lions, quenched the power Of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness
were made strong, waxed mighty in war, turned to flight armies of aliens.”
2. It is matter of common experience that the class of heroes which Naaman
represents, is a very large class; we all have known and could name from among our
acquaintance persons who belong to it. Nay, in some sense, we all ought ourselves to
come within it, for there is none of us, however fortunately placed, who is altogether
without some disadvantage, which is capable of daunting and” disabling us. Of
course—if you will—this is the tritest of moralisations. But he knows little of human
life as it proceeds in its cycles of customary work and common association, who has
not discovered that immense injury to character, and waste of energy, and loss of
happiness arise from the single cause of that sustained resentment of disadvantage

34. which is one of the commonest of human faults. Perhaps there are reasons why,
under the circumstances of modern life, such resentment should tend to increase
among us. It is matter of common observation that among all classes there is a
passion for enjoyment, which easily induces disgust of work and discontent with all
limitations of liberty. Religion, we shall all agree, is the source of fortitude and the
spur of moral effort. When religion loses authority over the will, and fails to move
the heart, men fall inevitably under the empire of circumstance, having nothing
outside themselves to sustain them under misfortune, nothing beyond the native
resources of character.
3. The disadvantage in Naaman’s case was one for which we may believe that he was
not personally responsible; the hideous disease by which he was stricken may have
been inherited, or contracted by accidental contact with persons similarly afflicted,
or the result of privations endured in his campaigns. He could not, in any case,
blame himself as the cause of his calamity. In this respect the valorous Syrian
represents a great multitude of afflicted persons. I notice that Mr. Samuel Laing
ascribes the prevalence of pessimistic theories among us to this very circumstance.
“In ruder states of society,” he says, “such weaklings were got rid of by the summary
process of being killed off, while with the more humane and refined arrangements of
modern times they live on and “weary deaf heaven with their fruitless cries.” It must
be allowed that weak health and chronic pain ordinarily tend to induce such gloomy
and morbid mental dispositions, and it is impossible not to feel compassion for those
who, however deluded, are still the victims of their own undeserved misfortunes; but
here, as in all other human affairs, there is an extraordinary latent power in man
himself, which, if brought into action, can turn back the natural tendency of his
circumstances, and bend those very circumstances to new and higher interests. The
magnanimity of the ancient Stoics rises in the case of the sickly and crippled
Epictetus to a genuine piety. “Dare to look up to God,” he says,” and say, Deal with
me for the future as Thou wilt: I am of the same mind as Thou art; I am Thine; I
refuse nothing that pleaseth Thee; lead me where Thou wilt; clothe me in any dress
Thou choosest; is it Thy will that I should hold the office of a magistrate, that I
should be in the condition of a private man, stay here or be in exile, be poor, be rich?
I will make Thy defence to men in behalf of all these conditions.” There is a ring of
personal affection in such words which argues that the Stole philosopher was
(though he knew it not) a Christian in spirit. St. Paul s curiously similar language
includes the confession of a discipleship which Epictetus could not own. “I know how
to be abased.”
4. But, though physical afflictions that are undeserved may bring a sore strain to
bear on the character, and can hardly fail, save in the case of a few extraordinary
persons, to cast a gloom over the mind, and give a melancholy tinge to the whole life,
still it is not in such calamities that the most disabling and daunting influences are
found. There are men among us, richly endowed with gifts of intellect, of character,
of fortune, who are held in a state of degrading idleness by the disabling memory of
some moral treason in the past. Men wonder at them, knowing nothing and
suspecting nothing—but to their own consciousness the sinister fact stands out with
threatening prominence. They have lost faith in themselves; self-respect, the
backbone of character, is broken. I might borrow the words of the text to describe
such a man—“a mighty man of valour, but a leper.” (H. H. Henson, B. D.)

35. The “buts” of life
There you have a romance and a tragedy summed up in a single verse. You only need a
little imagination to fill in the details, and lo! you have a book of human life, with its
prides and humblings, its grandeurs, and its shames. The writer tells you in the same
breath of this man’s glory and of his awful cross. “But!” Ah, if we could only get rid of
that little word, how happy we should be! Alas! it is always popping in to disturb our
self-congratulating reflections, It drops into human speech at every turn. It is found at
every stage of human experience. I hear it every day in the common talk of the people
about me. I catch my own lips dropping it unawares times without number. There is
always something to qualify our congratulations, praises, and thanksgivings. Fortune
has dealt well with you, but! You have had a smooth and prosperous career, but! Your
husband is almost perfection, but! Your children are doing well, but! That friend of yours
has many admirable qualities, but! Your employer is generous and considerate, but!
Your partner is honest and capable, but! Your church is orthodox and peaceable, and
pre-eminently respectable, but! Your minister is a wonderful preacher, but! There is
always that little or big cloud athwart your sunlight, always the wasp in the honey-cup,
always the seamy side to your bliss, always the dull leaden background to the shield
whose face is all gold. Mercy and judgment meet, and the darkness and the light make
up one picture in every human lot. Naaman was a great man, and honourable, but he
was a leper. Now sometimes we forget this other side in our thoughts of others, and
frequently we make too much of it in thoughts of ourselves. And if the other side relates
to character, we reverse the process, making too much of it in others and overlooking it
in ourselves.
I. Remember that every Naaman has his cross. The side of the shield which he shows to
the world is perhaps polished gold, but he who walks behind it sees the heavy iron
casing. How foolish we are to envy the great their greatness, the rich their riches, the
honourable their honours, and the wise their wisdom, and to fancy that because they
have more of these things than we they are necessarily happier and more contented. And
how blind we are to overlook our own blessings and joys, and repine because others
seem more fortunate than we. Uneasy is the head that wears any sort of crown. Where
Fortune drops its choicest honours, it imposes its heaviest burdens, and the path which
is lined with roses has most of the prickly thorns of care. The more brilliant the sunlight,
the darker the shadows. The more a man gets his own way, the more he frets when he
cannot get his own way. You cannot climb high to pluck the choicest fruit and flowers
without getting many a prick and bruise. The man who wears purple and fine linen
before the world has often underneath, if you could see it, rough sackcloth and chafing
cords; and there is a cloud of cares weighing like midnight on many a heart in which
outward fortune seems constantly to smile. In the old ballad the queen tides by on her
gallant palfrey, with cloth of gold and glittering jewels, and splendid array of attendants,
and the village maiden, looking out of her lattice window, sighs, “Oh! to be a queen!”
while the queen, looking up, sighs far more deeply, and whispers to her heart, “Oh! to be
free from all this burden, and like that happy careless maiden!” Yes; there are cold blasts
on the heights which those below never feel. And many a time, when all the things of the
world go well with a man, his inner life is anything but right with God. The leprosy of
doubt, or the leprosy of sin has crept over all his thoughts, and corrupted his human
affections, and put a withering blight upon his world, and he knows nothing of the peace
and gladness in which your simple faith walks continually.
II. You are not likely to forget your own cross. No; but do not make too much of it. No
doubt there is a seamy side to your life. It is not all sunlight. But it is not well to keep the
seamy side always uppermost and talk as if tears and cares and worries were your meat

36. and drink continually. Why cannot we let our cheerful thoughts have free course
sometimes without stopping them with that everlasting “but”? “Yes; I have many things
to be grateful for, but I” That word often expresses the concentrated essence of
ingratitude. It is a volume of murmurings and fretfulness bound up in three letters. Do
not make too much, I repeat, of that other side. Your house is not so large as you desire.
No; but maybe there is far more love and happiness in it than in many a bigger house.
Your children are not all shaping as you would wish. No; but some of them, let us hope,
bring brightness to your homes and put music into your hearts continually. Your
business prospects are not brilliant maybe. No; but you have never lacked a sufficiency
of comforts, and your way has always so far been made clear. We should be far happier
and far more generous-hearted men if we did not make so much of that “but” in thinking
of and discussing those who love us and whom we love. They please us in many things,
but! Ah, well, magnify the many things, and let that other side go by. (J. Greenhough, M.
A.)
Alloy in grandeur
Naaman was a mighty man, but he was a leper. Every man has some “but” or other in his
character—something that blemishes and diminishes him—some alloy in his grandeur—
some damp to his joy: he may be very happy—very good; yet, in something or other, not
so good as he should be, nor so happy as he would be. (Matthew Henry.)
2 ow bands of raiders from Aram had gone out
and had taken captive a young girl from Israel,
and she served aaman’s wife.
BAR ES, "No peace had been made on the failure of Ahab’s expedition 1 Kings 22:1-
36. The relations of the two countries therefore continued to be hostile, and plundering
inroads naturally took place on the one side and on the other.
CLARKE, "The Syrians had gone out by companies - ‫גדודים‬ gedudim, troops.
When one hundred or two hundred men go out by themselves to make prey of whatever
they can get, that is called, says Jarchi, ‫גדוד‬ gedud, a troop. They had gone out in
marauding parties; and on such occasions they bring away grain, cattle, and such of the
inhabitants as are proper to make slaves.
A little maid - Who, it appears, had pious parents, who brought her up in the
knowledge of the true God. Behold the goodness and the severity of the Divine
providence! affectionate parents are deprived of their promising daughter by a set of

37. lawless freebooters, without the smallest prospect that she should have any lot in life but
that of misery, infamy, and wo.
Waited on Naaman’s wife - Her decent orderly behavior, the consequence of her
sober and pious education, entitled her to this place of distinction; in which her
servitude was at least easy, and her person safe.
If God permitted the parents to be deprived of their pious child by the hands of
ruffians, he did not permit the child to be without a guardian. In such a case, were even
the father and mother to forsake her, God would take her up.
GILL, "And the Syrians had gone out by companies,.... Not regular troops, but a
sort of banditti of robbers, which made excursions into the land of Israel, to plunder and
carry off what booty they could:
and had brought away captive out of the land of Israel a little maid; for boys
and girls were a part of the booty of such robbers, whom they could sell for money, see
Joe_3:1. Jarchi and Kimchi say she was a girl of Naaron, a city so called:
and she waited on Naaman's wife; being either made a present of to the general by
those plunderers, or was bought by him of them for his wife's service.
HE RY 2-3, "II. The notice that was given him of Elisha's power, by a little maid that
waited on his lady, 2Ki_5:2, 2Ki_5:3. This maid was, by birth, an Israelite, providentially
carried captive into Syria, and there preferred into Naaman's family, where she
published Elisha's fame to the honour of Israel and Israel's God. The unhappy dispersing
of the people of God has sometimes proved the happy occasion of the diffusion of the
knowledge of God, Act_8:4. This little maid, 1. As became a true-born Israelite,
consulted the honour of her country, and could give an account, though but a girl, of the
famous prophet they had among them. Children should betimes acquaint themselves
with the wondrous works of God, that, wherever they go, they may have them to talk of.
See Psa_8:2. 2. As became a good servant, she desired the health and welfare of her
master, though she was a captive, a servant by force; much more should servants of
choice seek their masters' good. The Jews in Babylon were to seek the peace of the land
of their captivity. Jer_29:7. Elisha had not cleansed any leper in Israel (Luk_4:27), yet
this little maid, from the other miracles he had wrought, inferred that he could cure her
master, and from his common beneficence inferred that he would do it, though he was a
Syrian. Servants may be blessings to the families where they are, by telling what they
know of the glory of God and the honour of his prophets.
JAMISO 2-5, "a little maid — who had been captured in one of the many
predatory incursions which were then made by the Syrians on the northern border of
Israel (see 1Sa_30:8; 2Ki_13:21; 2Ki_24:2). By this young Hebrew slave of his wife,
Naaman’s attention was directed to the prophet of Israel, as the person who would
remove his leprosy. Naaman, on communicating the matter to his royal master, was
immediately furnished with a letter to the king of Israel, and set out for Samaria,
carrying with him, as an indispensable preliminary in the East, very costly presents.
BE SO , "2 Kings 5:2. The Syrians had gone out by companies — Making inroads
into the land of Israel, to rob and plunder, after the manner of those times. And had

38. brought away captive a little maid — The providence of God so ordering it for very
important reasons. And she waited on aaman’s wife — Was preferred into
aaman’s family, where she published Elisha’s fame, to the honour of Israel and
Israel’s God.
ELLICOTT, "(2) The Syrians.—Heb., Aram, the word rendered “Syria” in 2 Kings
5:1.
By companies.—Or, in troops, referring to a marauding incursion made at some
time prior to the events here recorded.
Brought away captive . . . a little maid.—Comp. the reference in Joel 3:6 to the
Phœnician traffic in Jewish slaves.
GUZIK, "2. (2 Kings 5:2-3) The testimony from the servant girl.
And the Syrians had gone out on raids, and had brought back captive a young girl
from the land of Israel. She waited on aaman’s wife. Then she said to her mistress,
“If only my master were with the prophet who is in Samaria! For he would heal him
of his leprosy.”
a. Had brought back captive a young girl from the land of Israel: This girl was an
unwilling missionary, taken captive from Israel and now in Syria. Yet God allowed
the tragedy of her captivity to accomplish a greater good.
i. The young girl illustrates the mysterious ways God works. She was probably
raised in a godly home, yet taken from her family at a young age. It was an
irreplaceable loss for her parents, and one they no doubt grieved over every day.
Yet, she was greatly used in a simple way.
b. If only my master were with the prophet who is in Samaria! This young girl was
an outstanding example of a faithful witness in her current circumstance. She cared
enough to speak up, and she had faith enough to believe that Elisha would heal him
of his leprosy.
i. “And see the benefits of a religious education! Had not this little maid been
brought up in the knowledge of the true God, she had not been the instrument of so
great a salvation.” (Clarke)
PETT, "2 Kings 5:2
‘And the Aramaeans had gone out in raiding bands, and had brought away captive
out of the land of Israel a little maiden, and she waited on aaman’s wife.’
These raiding bands would be operating even while there was a period of peace

39. between Israel and Aram, probably being bands from the semi-independent tribes
referred to above, who would raid over the border, taking spoils and captives whom
they would then sell in the street markets of Damascus. One such captive was a little
Israelite maiden who had become servant to aaman’s wife.
We are left to imagine the sufferings of this young girl. Snatched away from her
family, finding herself bundled among strangers, in fear of her life, and sold as a
slave in the Damascus street markets. She might well have asked, ‘Why God?’ But
God had had a purpose in it which was about to unveil. It was through her witness
that the second greatest man in Aram would come to know YHWH, while
throughout history her willing helpfulness and love has been an inspiration for
millions.
PULPIT, "And the Syrians had gone out by companies; or, in marauding bands. o
peace had been made after Ahab's expedition against Ramoth-Gilead. Hostilities,
therefore, still continued upon the borders, where raids were frequent, as upon our
own northern border in mediaeval times. And had brought away captive out of the
land of Israel a little maid. The marauding expeditions of ancient times had for one
of their main objects the capture of slaves. In Africa wars are still carried on chiefly
for this purpose. And she waited on aaman's wife. Either aaman had led the
expedition, and this particular captive had been assigned to him in the division of
the booty, or she had merely passed into his possession by purchase, and thus
become one of his wife's attendants.
3 She said to her mistress, “If only my master
would see the prophet who is in Samaria! He
would cure him of his leprosy.”
CLARKE, "Would God my lord - ‫אחלי‬ achaley, I wish; or, as the Chaldee, Syrian,
and Arabic have, “Happy would it be for my master if he were with the prophet,” etc.
Here the mystery of the Divine providence begins to develop itself. By the captivity of
this little maid, one Syrian family at least, and that one of the most considerable in the
Syrian empire, is brought to the knowledge of the true God.
GILL, "And she said unto her mistress,.... As she was waiting upon her at a certain

40. time, and perhaps her mistress was lamenting the case of her husband as desperate and
incurable:
would God my lord were with the prophet that is in Samaria; meaning Elisha,
who, though sometimes in one place, and sometimes in another, yet often at Samaria,
and it seems was there when this girl was taken captive:
for he would recover him of his leprosy; the maid had heard of the miracles
wrought by Elisha, and doubted not that at the request of her lord he would be willing,
as she believed he was able, to cure him of this disease.
BE SO , "2 Kings 5:3. Would God my Lord were with the prophet that is in
Samaria — In the kingdom of Samaria; or, rather, in the city of Samaria; where
Elisha was when she was taken, and where he commonly resided, though he went to
other places as need required. For he would recover him of his leprosy — She had
heard of the wonderful things which he had done, and therefore was confident he
could work this cure. Children should betimes acquaint themselves with the
wondrous works of God, that wherever they go they may speak of them, to the
profit of others. Yea, and servants, like this little maid, may be blessings to the
families in which Providence casts their lot, by telling what they know of the glory of
God, and the honour of his ministers.
ELLICOTT, "(3) Would God.—O that! ’Ahalê here; in Psalms 119:5, ’Ahalay. The
word seems to follow the analogy of ’ashrê, “O the bliss of!” (Psalms 1:1). It perhaps
means “O the delight of!” the root ’ahal being assumed equivalent to the Arabic
halâ, Syriac halî, “dulcis fuit.”
For he would recover him.—Then he would receive him back. (Comp. umbers
12:14-15.) In Israel lepers were excluded from society. Restoration to society implied
restoration to health. Hence the same verb came to be used in the sense of healing as
well as of receiving back the leper. Thenius, however, argues that as the phrase
“from leprosy” is wanting in umbers 12, the real meaning is, “to take a person
away from leprosy,” to which he had been, as it were, delivered up.
PETT, "2 Kings 5:3
‘And she said to her mistress, “Would that my lord were with the prophet who is in
Samaria! Then would he recover him of his leprosy.” ’
One day, the maiden, who was clearly on conversational terms with her mistress,
told her how much she wished that ‘her lord’ could be with the prophet in Samaria,
who would recover him of his distressing skin disease. It was clearly a great cause of
distress, and it was a testimony to aaman that even his slaves wished him well.
The maiden was clearly familiar with the stories of Elisha’s different miracles and
healings, for she was assuming no light thing. It is remarkable evidence of the fame

41. that Elisha had even during his lifetime. Her term for him as a ‘prophet’ (nabi), and
she was aware that he was often to be found in Samaria. He appears to have had a
house there, from which he would travel to perform his duties to YHWH. This had
probably been provided by the king, but he was clearly not a member of the royal
court, nor sought to be so. He was YHWH’s man. Indeed the king was seemingly
less aware of Elisha’s powers than the common people (2 Kings 5:3; 2 Kings 8:4),
which was to be expected, because it was mainly among the ‘common people’ that he
operated.
PULPIT, "And she said unto her mistress, Would God my lord were with the
prophet that is in Samaria! literally, Oh that my lord were before the prophet who is
in Samaria! Elisha had a house in Samaria (2 Kings 6:1-33 :82), where he resided
occasionally. For he would recover him of his leprosy. The "little maid" concludes
from her small experience that, if her master and the great miracle-working prophet
of her own land could be brought together, the result would be his cure. She has, in
her servile condition, contracted an affection both for her master and her mistress,
and her sympathies are strongly with them. Perhaps she had no serious purpose in
speaking as she did. The words burst from her as a mere expression of goodwill. She
did not contemplate any action resulting from them. "Oh that things could be
otherwise than as they are! Had I my dear master in my own country, it would be
easy to accomplish his cure. The prophet is so powerful and so kind. He both could
and would recover him." Any notion of her vague wish being carried out, being
made the ground of a serious embassy, was probably far from the girl's thought.
But the "bread cast upon the waters returns after many days." There is no kind
wish or kind utterance that may not have a result far beyond anything that the
wisher or utterer contemplated. Good wishes are seeds that ofttimes take root, and
grow, and blossom, and bear fruit beyond the uttermost conception of those who
sow them.
4 aaman went to his master and told him what
the girl from Israel had said.
BAR ES, "One went in - Rather, “he went in,” i. e. Naaman went and told his lord,
the king of Syria.
CLARKE, "Thus and thus said the maid - So well had this little pious maid
conducted herself, that her words are credited; and credited so fully, that an embassy

42. from the king of Syria to the king of Israel is founded upon them!
GILL, "And one went in and told his lord,.... What the girl had said to her
mistress; one of the servants of the house that overheard it; or rather, Naaman went and
told his lord the king of Syria; for as this was said to his wife, no doubt she told it to her
husband, and not a servant; and the following words require this sense, and is the sense
of most Jewish commentators:
saying, thus and thus said the maid that is of the land of Israel; who for her wit
and beauty might be well known at court by the name of the Israelitish girl.
HE RY 4-6, "III. The application which the king of Syria hereupon made to the king
of Israel on Naaman's behalf. Naaman took notice of the intelligence, though given by a
simple maid, and did not despise it for the sake of her meanness, when it tended to his
bodily health. he did not say, “The girl talks like a fool; how can any prophet of Israel do
that for me which all the physicians of Syria have attempted in vain?” Though he neither
loved nor honoured the Jewish nation, yet, if one of that nation can but cure him of his
leprosy, he will thankfully acknowledge the obligation. O that those who are spiritually
diseased would hearken thus readily to the tidings brought them of the great Physician!
See what Naaman did upon this little hint. 1. He would not send for the prophet to come
to him, but such honour would he pay to one that had so much of a divine power with
him as to be able to cure diseases that he would go to him himself, though he himself
was sickly, unfit for society, the journey long, and the country an enemy's; princes, he
thinks, must stoop to prophets when they need them. 2. He would not go incognito - in
disguise, though his errand proclaimed his loathsome disease, but went in state, and
with a great retinue, to do the more honour to the prophet. 3. He would not go empty-
handed, but took with him gold, silver, and raiment, to present to his physician. Those
that have wealth, and want health show which they reckon the more valuable blessing;
what will they not give for ease, and strength, and soundness of body? 4. He would not
go without a letter to the king of Israel from the king his master, who did himself
earnestly desire his recovery. He knows not where in Samaria to find this wonder-
working prophet, but takes it for granted the king knows where to find him; and, to
engage the prophet to do his utmost for Naaman, he will go to him supported with the
interest of two kings. If the king of Syria must entreat his help, he hopes the king of
Israel, being his liege-lord, may command it. The gifts of the subject must all be (he
thinks) for the service and honour of the prince, and therefore he desires the king that he
would recover the leper (2Ki_5:6), taking it for granted that there was a greater intimacy
between the king and the prophet than really there was.
K&D, "2Ki_5:4-5
When Naaman related this to his lord (the king), he told him to go to Samaria
furnished with a letter to the king of Israel; and he took with him rich presents as
compensation for the cure he was to receive, viz., ten talents of silver, about 25,000
thalers (£3750 - Tr.); 600 shekels (= two talents) of gold, about 50,000 thalers (£7500);
and ten changes of clothes, a present still highly valued in the East (see the Comm. on
Gen_45:22). This very large present was quite in keeping with Naaman's position, and
was not too great for the object in view, namely, his deliverance from a malady which
would be certainly, even if slowly, fatal.

43. BE SO , "2 Kings 5:4. And one went in and told his lord — One of aaman’s
servants, hearing this, told it to aaman, and he to the king of Syria, begging his
leave to go to the prophet in Israel. For though he neither loved nor honoured the
Jewish nation, yet if one of that nation can but heal him of his leprosy, he will gladly
and thankfully accept the cure. And he hopes that one can, from the intelligence he
has received, which he does not despise because of the meanness of her that gave it.
O that they who are spiritually diseased would hearken thus readily to the tidings
brought them of the great Physician!
GUZIK, "3. (2 Kings 5:4-7) aaman comes to the king of Israel looking for healing.
And aaman went in and told his master, saying, “Thus and thus said the girl who
is from the land of Israel.” Then the king of Syria said, “Go now, and I will send a
letter to the king of Israel.” So he departed and took with him ten talents of silver,
six thousand shekels of gold, and ten changes of clothing. Then he brought the letter
to the king of Israel, which said, ow be advised, when this letter comes to you, that
I have sent aaman my servant to you, that you may heal him of his leprosy. And it
happened, when the king of Israel read the letter, that he tore his clothes and said,
“Am I God, to kill and make alive, that this man sends a man to me to heal him of
his leprosy? Therefore please consider, and see how he seeks a quarrel with me.”
a. Go now, and I will send a letter to the king of Israel: Considering the record of
wars between Israel and Syria described in the previous chapters, it seems strange
that the king of Syria would send a letter of recommendation with his General
aaman. It seems that 2 Kings is not necessarily arranged chronologically, so this
probably occurred during a time of lowered tension between Israel and Syria.
i. And took with him ten talents of silver . . .: Dilday estimates that aaman took
more than $1.2 million with him to Israel. All this together shows how desperate
aaman’s condition was, and how badly the King of Syria wanted to help him.
b. I have sent aaman my servant to you, that you may heal him of his leprosy:
When the king of Israel (Jehoram) read the letter, he was understandably upset.
First, it was obviously out of his power to heal aaman’s leprosy. Second, he had no
relationship with the prophet of the God who did have the power to heal. He
thought the king of Syria sought a quarrel.
i. The king of Syria assumed that the king of Israel was on a much better
relationship with Elisha than he really was. It is easy for others to assume that we
have a better relationship with God than we really do.
PETT, "2 Kings 5:4
‘And someone went in, and told his lord, saying, “Thus and thus said the maiden

44. who is of the land of Israel.” ’
The remark was overheard by another well-wisher of aaman, and that wellwisher
went to aaman and told him what had been said.
PULPIT, "And one went in, and told his lord, saying. "One went in" is a possible
translation; but it is simpler and more natural to translate "he went in," i.e.
aaman went in, and told his lord, Ben-hadad, the King of Syria. Thus and thus
said the maid that is of the land of Israel. Being "of the land of Israel," her words
had a certain weight—she had means of knowing—she ought to know whether such
a thing as the cure of leprosy by the intervention of a prophet was a possible
occurrence in her country.
5 “By all means, go,” the king of Aram replied. “I
will send a letter to the king of Israel.” So
aaman left, taking with him ten talents[b] of
silver, six thousand shekels[c] of gold and ten sets
of clothing.
BAR ES, "Six thousand pieces of gold - Rather, “six thousand shekels of gold.”
Coined money did not exist as yet, and was not introduced into Judea until the time of
Cyrus. Gold was carried in bars, from which portions were cut when need arose, and the
value was ascertained by weighing. If the gold shekel of the Jews corresponded, as some
think, to the doric of the Persians, the value of the 6,000 shekels would be about 6,837
British pounds If the weight was the same as that of the silver shekel (see Exo_38:24
note), the value would exceed 12,000 British pounds.
The ancient practice of including clothes among gifts of honor in the East Gen_41:42;
Est_6:8; Dan_5:7 continues to the present day.
CLARKE, "The king of Syria said - He judged it the best mode of proceeding to
send immediately to the king, under whose control he supposed the prophet must be,
that he would order the prophet to cure his general.
Ten talents of silver - This, at £353 11s. 10 1/2d. the talent, would amount to £3,535
18s. 9d.
Six thousand pieces of gold - If shekels are here meant, as the Arabic has it, then
the six thousand shekels, at £1 16s. 5d. will amount to £10,925; and the whole, to

45. £14,460 18s. 9d. sterling: besides the value of the ten caftans, or changes of raiment.
This was a princely present, and shows us at once how high Naaman stood in the esteem
of his master.
GILL, "And the king of Syria said, go to, go,.... On what Naaman related to him
from what the maid had said, he urged him by all means to go directly to Samaria:
and I will send a letter unto the king of Israel; recommending him to use his
interest in his behalf; this was Jehoram the son of Ahab:
and he departed; set out on his journey immediately, as soon as he could
conveniently:
and took with him ten talents of silver, and six thousand pieces of gold; partly
for the expenses of his journey, and partly to make presents to the king of Israel's
servants, and especially to the prophet; a talent of silver, according to Brerewood (d),
was three hundred and seventy five pounds of our money; but, according to Bishop
Cumberland's (e) exact calculation, it was three hundred and fifty and three pounds
eleven shillings and ten and an half pence the pieces of gold are, by the Targum, called
golden pence, and a golden penny, according to the first of the above writers (f), was of
the value of our money fifteen shillings; so that these amounted to 4500 pounds sterling:
and ten changes of raiment; both for his own use, and presents.
JAMISO , "ten talents of silver — about $20,000 in silver, $60,000 in gold.
ten changes of raiment — splendid dresses, for festive occasions - the honor being
thought to consist not only in the beauty and fineness of the material, but on having a
variety to put on one after another, in the same night.
BE SO , "2 Kings 5:5. The king said, I will send a letter to the king of Israel — It
was very natural for a king to suppose that the king of Israel could do more than
any of his subjects. He took with him ten talents of silver, &c. — That he might
honourably reward the prophet, in case he should be cured by him. But it was a vast
sum that he took for this purpose; for if they were Hebrew talents, the silver only
amounted to four thousand five hundred pounds sterling.
COFFMA , "THE KI G OF ISRAEL WAS UPSET BY THE SYRIA 'S
REQUEST
"And the king of Syria said, Go now, and I will send a letter unto the king of Israel.
And he departed, and took with him ten talents of silver, and six thousand pieces of
gold, and ten changes of raiment. And he brought the letter to the king of Israel,
saying, And now when this letter is come unto thee, behold, I have sent aaman my
servant to thee, that thou mayest recover him of his leprosy. And it came to pass,
when the king of Israel had read the letter, that he rent his clothes, and said, Am I

46. God, to kill and to make alive, that this man doth send unto me to recover a man of
his leprosy? but consider, I pray you, and see how he seeketh a quarrel against me."
"He took with him ten talents of silver, ..." (2 Kings 5:5). It does not appear that this
was intended as a present for the king of Israel, because he is addressed here by the
king of Syria as a vassal.
"He seeketh a quarrel against me" (2 Kings 5:7). The time of this miracle seems to
have been rather late in the career of Elisha, because Gehazi's leprosy would have
terminated that servant's association with the prophet. We cannot agree with the
suggestion of Montgomery that, "The afflicted Gehazi was still a member of society
in a later story (2 Kings 8:4ff)."[5] We have already determined that the stories of
this section of 2Kings are not recorded in any chronological sequence.
On this account, we cannot plead any ignorance on the part of Joram regarding the
great miracles wrought by Elisha. Joram's failure to think of Elisha in this situation
was not due to his ignorance but to his unbelief and his unwillingness to accept the
authenticity of Elisha's prophetic ministry.
Joram's mistaken notion that Benhadad (the probable king of Syria) who sent
aaman to Samaria sought a quarrel with him, was not altogether unreasonable. "It
will be remembered that Benhadad, seeking the subjugation of Ahab, had made
unreasonable demands of Joram's father (1 Kings 20:3-6)."[6]
COKE, "2 Kings 5:5. He—took with him ten talents of silver, &c.— See on 1 Kings
14:3 concerning the presents of eatables; besides which, in other cases the presents
that anciently were, and of late have been, wont to be made to personages eminent
for study and piety, consisted of large sums of money or vestments. Thus we find
here, that the present which a Syrian nobleman would have made to an Israelitish
prophet, with whom he did not expect to stay any time, or indeed to enter his house,
(see 2 Kings 5:11.) consisted of ten talents of silver, six thousand pieces of gold, and
ten changes of raiment. It is needless to mention the pecuniary gratifications which
have been given to men of learning in the east in later times; but as to vestments,
D'Herbelot tells us, that Bokhteri, an illustrious poet of Cufah in the ninth century,
had so many presents made him in the course of his life, that at his death he was
found possessed of a hundred complete suits of clothes, two hundred shirts, and five
hundred turbans. An indisputable proof of the frequency with which presents of
this kind are made in the Levant to men of study; and at the same time a fine
illustration of Job's description of the treasures of the east in his days, as consisting
of raiment as well as silver. Job 27:16-17. Observations, p. 238.
ELLICOTT, "(5) Go to, go.—Depart thou (thither), enter (the land of Israel).
A letter.—Written, probably, in that old Aramean script of which we have examples
on Assyrian seals of the eighth century B.C. , and which closely resembled the old

47. Phœnician and Hebrew characters, as well as that of the Moabite stone (2 Kings 1:1,
ote).
With him.—In his hand. (Comp. the expression “to fill the hand for Jehovah”—i.e.,
with presents; 1 Chronicles 29:5.)
Changes of raiment.—Or, holiday suits. Reuss, habits de fête. (See the same word,
halîphôth, in Genesis 45:22.) Curiously enough, similar expressions (nahlaptum,
hitlupatum) were used in the like sense by the Assyrians (Schrader).
Ten talents of silver.—About £3,750 in our money. The money talent was equivalent
to sixty minas, the mina to fifty shekels. The shekel came to about 2 Samuel 6 d. of
our money.
Six thousand pieces of gold.—Heb., six thousand (in) gold: i.e., six thousand gold
shekels=two talents of gold, about £13,500. The gold shekel was worth about 45s. of
our currency. The total sum appears much too large, and the numbers are probably
corrupt, as is so often the case.
PETT, "2 Kings 5:5
‘And the king of Aram said, “Go now, and I will send a letter to the king of Israel.”
And he departed, and took with him ten talents of silver, and six thousand pieces of
gold, and ten changes of raiment.’
aaman then clearly went to the king (possibly Benhadad III) who on hearing what
he had to say informed him that he should go to Israel with a letter from him to the
king of Israel (possibly Jehoram). His assumption was that, as in Aram, prophets
would be at the court of the king, and that the king of Israel would know
immediately who could do this thing. But he recognised that such prophets did not
come cheap (compare Balaam in umbers 22:16-17). The deliberate non-mention of
the names of the kings confirms that the account comes from prophetic sources, and
that the aim was to stress the personal aspect of the incident. The kings are being
side-lined.
The gift he took was huge, as befitted a king seeking a huge favour from another
king with whom he was at peace (compare the gifts of the Queen of Sheba to
Solomon). Omri had bought the hill of Samaria for two talents of silver (1 Kings
16:24), thus the silver alone was five times that paid for the hill. (On the other hand
it had only seemingly been grazing land). And there was also a lesser amount of
gold, presumably coming to less than a talent, and ten changes of expensive clothing
(or rolls of cloth for making such clothing). The king recognised that he was asking
for ‘supernatural powers’ to be exercised, and knew that they did not come cheap.
But the amount was not too exorbitant considering what was being asked for.
Correspondence like this between kings has been well evidenced by the Amarna
letters, while inter-state letters on medical matters, often connected with the giving

48. of gifts, have been discovered at Mari, and in Hittite and Assyrian archives.
PULPIT, "And the King of Syria said, Go to, go; rather, Go, depart; i.e. lose no
time; go at once, if there is any such possibility as the maiden has indicated. "We
see," Bahr says, "from the king's readiness, how anxious he was for the restoration
of aaman." And I will send a letter unto the King of Israel. Letters had been
interchanged between Solomon and Hiram, King of Tyro (2 Chronicles 2:3-11), a
century earlier; and the communications of king with king in the East, though
sometimes carried on orally by ambassadors, probably took place to a large extent
by means of letters from a very early date. Written communications seem to have
led to the outbreak of the war by which the foreign dynasty of the Hyksos was
driven out of Egypt, and the native supremacy reestablished. Written engagements
were certainly entered into between the Egyptian kings and the Hittites at a date
earlier than the Exodus. Benhadad evidently regards the sending of a letter to a
neighboring monarch as a natural and ordinary occurrence. And he—i.e.
aaman—departed, and took with him ten talents of silver—reckoned by Keil as
equal to 25,000 thalers, or £3750; by Thenius as equal to 20,000 thalers, or £3000—
and six thousand pieces of gold. "Pieces of gold" did not yet exist, since coin had not
been invented. Six thousand shekels' weight of gold is probably intended. This
would equal, according to Keil, 50,000 thalers; according to Thenius, 60,000 thalers.
Such sums are quite within the probable means of a rich Syrian nobleman of the
time, a favorite at court, and the generalissimo of the Syrian army. aaman
evidently supposed that he would have, directly or indirectly, to purchase his cure.
And ten changes of raiment (comp. Genesis 45:22; Hom; 'Od.,' 13:67; Xen; 'Cyrop.,'
Genesis 8:2. § 8; ' Anab.,' 1.2. § 29; etc.). The practice of giving dresses of honor as
presents continues in the East to this day.
6 The letter that he took to the king of Israel read:
“With this letter I am sending my servant
aaman to you so that you may cure him of his
leprosy.”
BAR ES, "That thou mayest recover him - literally, “And thou shalt recover
him.” The Syrian king presumes that, if there is a cure for leprosy to be had in Israel, the
mode of obtaining it will be well known to his royal brother.
GILL, "And he brought the letter to the king of Israel, saying,.... The contents

49. of which were, so far as it concerned Naaman and his case, which are only observed,
these:
now when this letter is come unto thee; was received by him:
behold, I have therewith sent Naaman my servant unto thee; the bearer of it:
that thou mayest recover him of his leprosy; meaning not he himself, but that he
would recommend him to the care of a proper person, his prophet, and enjoin him to do
the best he could for him; but the king of Israel mistook his meaning, as appears by what
follows.
K&D, "2Ki_5:6-7
When the king of Israel (Joram) received the letter of the Syrian king on Naaman's
arrival, and read therein that he was to cure Naaman of his leprosy (‫ה‬ ָ ַ‫ע‬ְ‫,ו‬ and now, -
showing in the letter the transition to the main point, which is the only thing
communicated here; cf. Ewald, §353, b.), he rent his clothes in alarm, and exclaimed,
“Am I God, to be able to kill and make alive?” i.e., am I omnipotent like God? (cf. Deu_
32:39; 1Sa_2:6); “for he sends to me to cure a man of his leprosy.” The words of the
letter ‫ּו‬ ְ‫פ‬ ַ‫ס‬ ֲ‫א‬ַ‫,ו‬ “so cure him,” were certainly not so insolent in their meaning as Joram
supposed, but simply meant: have him cured, as thou hast a wonder-working prophet;
the Syrian king imagining, according to his heathen notions of priests and goëtes, that
Joram could do what he liked with his prophets and their miraculous powers. There was
no ground, therefore, for the suspicion which Joram expressed: “for only observe and
see, that he seeks occasion against me.” ‫ה‬ֶፍ ְ‫ת‬ ִ‫ה‬ to seek occasion, sc. for a quarrel (cf. Jdg_
14:4).
BE SO , "2 Kings 5:6. ow when this letter is come unto thee, &c. — The
beginning of the letter, which, it is likely, contained the usual compliments, is
omitted, as not pertinent to the matter in hand. That thou mayest recover him of his
leprosy — Or, That, by thy command, the prophet that is with thee may cleanse
him; for kings are often said to do those things which they command to be done: in
which view, there is no ambiguity in this letter of the king of Syria. But this not
being plainly expressed, the king of Israel apprehended that the intention of this
demand was only to pick a quarrel with him, and seek an occasion, or rather a
pretence, for a war with him.
COKE, "2 Kings 5:6. That thou mayest recover him of his leprosy— Or, "That by
thy command the prophet who is with thee may cleanse him." See 2 Kings 5:3.
Kings are often said to do those things which they command to be done; in which
view, there is no ambiguity in the letter of the king of Syria. But the king of Israel
thought himself mocked by it. The king's expression in the next verse, Am I a God,
&c.? refers to what we have had occasion to remark in the notes upon Leviticus,
that the leprosy was always esteemed a disease immediately inflicted by God, and
only to be cured by him.

50. REFLECTIO S.—Elisha's greatness continues still the subject of the history. It is a
pleasing episode, and a relief from the uniform tenor of evil which was in Israel and
her kings.
1. aaman, by means of a captive girl, hears of the prophet's miracles. He was a
great general, successful in war, a high favourite with his master, but a leper. The
captive girl, though a child when taken, remembered the great prophet in Samaria,
and, as a good servant, tells her mistress of him, and wishes her master could see
him: he could do more for him than all the physicians of Damascus. ote; (1.) A
little child, if taught the knowledge of Jesus, the great prophet, may be a successful
preacher; and by the mouths of babes and sucklings God can perfect his praise. (2.)
Every good servant must seek the welfare of the family he is in. (3.) Greatness is no
protection from the sorest calamities incident to human life. Disease and death find
as easy access to the palace as the cottage. (4.) Say all you can of a man's worldly
felicity, success, or honour, one but spoils the whole. If he have the uncured leprosy
of sin upon him, all besides is but splendid misery.
2. aaman is eager to improve the hint, though given by so mean a person, and
instantly prepares to wait on this great prophet, having mentioned the matter to the
king of Syria, and received a strong recommendation to Jehoram, presuming that
his authority with the prophet would facilitate the application and cure. With a
great retinue, and loaded with suitable presents for the occasion, he hastens on his
journey, and, being arrived at Samaria, delivers the letter to the king of Israel. ote;
How willing are men to try every expedient, and grudge no expence or trouble, to
obtain a cure of their bodily diseases! Who shews such eagerness to bring their
diseased souls to the great physician, though the cure there is infallible, and also
without money, and without price?
3. Jehoram no sooner read the letter, than he rent his clothes, whether shocked at
the blasphemy that he supposed it contained, enjoining him the cure of a leper,
which was God's work alone, or terrified with the apprehension that this was done
with a design to quarrel with him, in order to invade his country. He had so little
concern with God's prophets himself, that he had no idea of a Syrian's coming so far
to court their assistance. ote; They who are conscious of their own ill deserts, are
ready to terrify themselves at every shadow, and put the worst constructions on
what has not the least ill design.
4. Elisha heard the king's distress, and the cause of it; and, though he had just
reason to complain of being neglected, yet when the glory of Israel's God is
concerned, unsought he proffers his service, and will do for this Syrian what Israel's
king cannot, that he may know there is a prophet in Israel. ote; Though wicked
men have forfeited every mercy, yet God for his own glory will sometimes help them
beyond all that they have reason to expect.
ELLICOTT, "(6) ow.—Heb., And now, continuing an omitted passage. Only the

51. principal sentence of the letter is given. The message pre-supposes a not altogether
hostile relation between the two kings; and the words of the next verse, “He seeketh
a quarrel against me,” point to the time of comparative lull which ensued after the
luckless expedition to Ramoth-gilead (1. Kings 22), and the short reign of the invalid
Ahaziah; i.e., to the reign of Jehoram, not to that of Jehoahaz, in which Israel was
wholly crushed by Syria (2 Kings 13:3-7). Schenkel thinks the Syrian inroads (2
Kings 5:2) indicate the reign of Jehu, and that Hazael was the king who wrote the
letter, as he was personally acquainted with Elisha (2 Kings 5:5, seq.). But, as
Thenius remarks, he forgets that the relations between Jehu and Syria were
throughout strained to the last degree, so that such a friendly passage between the
two kings as is here described is not to be thought of.
PETT, "2 Kings 5:6
‘And he brought the letter to the king of Israel, saying, “And now when this letter is
come to you, behold, I have sent aaman my servant to you, that you may recover
him of his skin disease.” ’
The ‘he’ was presumably aaman, while the ‘saying’ refers to the contents of the
letter. The king of Aram was assuming that a prophet who could do such wonders
would be a leading figure at court, and fully known to the king of Israel. He thus
requested that the should arrange (with the prophet) to ‘recover’ aaman of his
leprosy. In his experience, given sufficient payments, such prophets would be quite
happy to oblige in whatever was asked of them, assuming that they could.
‘My servant.’ In other words a high official at court.
The word for ‘recover’ (’asaph) was an unusual one to use of healing (compare 2
Kings 5:3) and in the letter of a foreign king probably had in mind the asipu, the
Mesopotamian ritual physicians.
PULPIT, "And he brought the letter to the King of Israel, saying. The hostile
relations between Syria and Israel would not interfere with the coming and going of
a messenger from either king to the other, who would be invested with an
ambassadorial character. ow when this letter is come unto thee. We must not
suppose that we have here the whole letter, which, no doubt, began with the
customary Eastern formalities and elaborate compliments. The historian omits
these, and hastens to, communicate to us the main point of the epistle, or rather,
perhaps, its main drift, which he states somewhat baldly and bluntly. Behold, I have
therewith sent aaman my servant to thee, that thou mayest recover him—literally,
and thou shalt recover him—of his leprosy. The letter made no mention of Elisha.
Ben-hadad assumed that, if the King of Israel had in his dominions a person able to
cure leprosy, he would be fully cognizant of the fact, and would at once send for
him, and call upon him for an exertion of his gift or art. He is not likely to have
comprehended the relations in which Kings of Israel stood towards the Jehovistic
prophets, but may probably have thought of Elisha "as a sort of chief magus, or as

52. the Israelitish high priest" (Menken), whom the king would have at his beck and
call, and whose services would be completely at his disposal.
7 As soon as the king of Israel read the letter, he
tore his robes and said, “Am I God? Can I kill
and bring back to life? Why does this fellow send
someone to me to be cured of his leprosy? See how
he is trying to pick a quarrel with me!”
BAR ES, "He rent his clothes - The action indicated alarm and terror quite as
much as sorrow 2Sa_13:19; Ezr_9:3; 2Ch_34:27; Jer_36:22.
Consider, I pray you - Jehoram speaks to his chief officers, and bids them mark the
animus of the Syrian monarch. Compare the conduct of Ahab 1Ki_20:7.
CLARKE, "Am I God, to kill and to make alive - He spoke thus under the
conviction that God alone could cure the leprosy; which, indeed, was universally
acknowledged: and must have been as much a maxim among the Syrians as among the
Israelites, for the disorder was equally prevalent in both countries; and in both equally
incurable. See the notes on Leviticus 13 (note) and Leviticus 14 (note). And it was this
that led the king of Israel to infer that the Syrian king sought a quarrel with him, in
desiring him to do a work which God only could do; and then declaring war upon him
because he did not do it.
GILL, "And it came to pass, when the king of Israel had read the letter, that
he rent his clothes,.... As one in great distress, being thrown into perplexity of mind
by it, not knowing what to do; or, as some think, at the blasphemy he supposed to be in
it, requiring that of him which only God could do:
and said, am I God, to kill and to make alive; or have the power of life and death,
which only belongs to the Supreme Being:
that this man doth send unto me to recover a man of his leprosy; for a leper
was reckoned as one dead, his disease incurable, his flesh upon him being mortified by
it, see Num_12:12 and therefore not supposed to be in the power of man, only of God, to
cure; and therefore, in Israel, none had anything to do with the leper but the priest, in
the name of God:

53. wherefore consider, I pray you, and see how he seeketh a quarrel against
me; to pick a quarrel with him, in order to go to war with him as he supposed. This
seems to have been spoken to his lords and courtiers about him.
HE RY, "IV. The alarm this gave to the king of Israel, 2Ki_5:7. He apprehended
there was in this letter, 1. A great affront upon God, and therefore he rent his clothes,
according to the custom of the Jews when they heard or read that which they thought
blasphemous; and what less could it be than to attribute to him a divine power? “Am I a
God, to kill whom I will, and make alive whom I will? No, I pretend not to such an
authority.” Nebuchadnezzar did, as we find, Dan_5:19. “Am I a God, to kill with a word,
and make alive with a word? No, I pretend not to such a power;” thus this great man,
this bad man, is made to own that he is but a man. Why did he not, with this
consideration, correct himself for his idolatry, and reason thus: - Shall I worship those
as gods that can neither kill nor make alive, can do neither good nor evil? 2. A bad
design upon himself. He appeals to those about him for this: “See how he seeketh a
quarrel against me; he requires me to recover the leper, and if I do not, though I cannot,
he will make that a pretence to wage war with me,” which he suspects the rather because
Naaman is his general. had he rightly understood the meaning of the letter, that when
the king wrote to him to recover the leper he meant that he would take care he might be
recovered, he would not have been in this fright. Note, We often create a great deal of
uneasiness to ourselves by misinterpreting the words and actions of others that are well
intended: it is charity to ourselves to think no evil. If he had bethought himself of Elisha,
and his power, he would easily have understood the letter, and have known what he had
to do; but he is put into this confusion by making himself a stranger to the prophet: the
captive maid had him more in her thoughts than the king had.
JAMISO , "when the king of Israel had read the letter, that he rent his
clothes — According to an ancient practice among the Eastern people, the main object
only was stated in the letter that was carried by the party concerned, while other
circumstances were left to be explained at the interview. This explains Jehoram’s burst
of emotion - not horror at supposed blasphemy, but alarm and suspicion that this was
merely made an occasion for a quarrel. Such a prince as he was would not readily think
of Elisha, or, perhaps, have heard of his miraculous deeds.
BE SO , "2 Kings 5:7. The king of Israel rent his clothes — Either as one in great
affliction and trouble, or because he looked upon it as blasphemy, to ascribe that
power to him which belonged to God alone. Am I God, to kill and make alive? — He
expresses himself thus, because the leprosy is a kind or degree of death, umbers
12:12; and he thought it as impossible to cure it as to raise the dead. Every body can
kill; but when a person is killed, to make him alive again is the work only of the
Almighty. See how he seeketh a quarrel against me — For not doing what he
requires, which he knows to be impossible for me to do. Though he had seen what
miracles Elisha had done, yet he either had forgot them, or thought this to be
beyond his power. Or, it may be, he was loath to see still further demonstration of
his power with God, and therefore did not send to him on this occasion.

54. ELLICOTT, "(7) He rent his clothes.—As if he had heard blasphemy. (Comp.
Matthew 26:65.)
Am I God, to kill and to make alive?—Deuteronomy 32:39, “I kill, and I make
alive;” 1 Samuel 2:6, “The Lord killeth, and maketh alive.” Leprosy was a kind of
living death. (Comp. umbers 12:12, Heb., “Let her not become as the dead, who,
when he cometh forth of his mother’s womb, hath half his flesh consumed.”)
Wherefore.—Heb., For only know (i.e., notice), and see. Plural verbs are used,
because the king is addressing his grandees, in whose presence the letter would be
delivered and read.
He seeketh a quarrel.—This form of the verb (hithpael) occurs here only. (Comp.
the noun, Judges 14:4.) Jehoram was hardly in a position to renew the war, after the
severe defeat of his father (1 Kings 22:30, seq.).
PETT, "2 Kings 5:7
‘And it came about, when the king of Israel had read the letter, that he tore his
clothes, and said, “Am I God, to kill and to make alive, that this man sends to me to
recover a man of his skin disease? But consider, I pray you, and see how he seeks a
quarrel against me.” ’
But the king of Israel, on receiving aaman and on receiving the letter, was
distraught, and ripped his clothes symbolically indicating intense feeling. He did not
even think of Elisha, (demonstrating how little the Yahwistically unorthodox court
knew about him), and therefore could not see how he could possibly oblige his
fellow-king. But he knew that he was not God, ‘to kill and to make alive’ (the reader
remembers what Elijah and Elisha had done), how then could he cure a man of
severe skin disease? He could only see it as an attempt to pick a quarrel with him in
order to justify an invasion.
Royalty had in fact a reputation for having healing powers, and no doubt some were
psychologically healed by their touch. But it was a gift rarely seen in action, and
certainly not one that could be called on at will. He thus felt that the king of Aram
was taking things too far.
PULPIT, "And it came to pass, when the King of Israel had read the letter, that he
rent his clothes. In horror and alarm. He concluded that once more (see 1 Kings
20:7) the Syrian monarch was determined to find a ground of quarrel, and had
therefore sent to him an impossible request. And said, Am I God, to kill and to make
alive? To "kill" and to "make alive" were familiar expressions in the mouth of the
Israelites to designate omnipotence (see Deuteronomy 32:39; 1 Samuel 2:6).
Recovering from leprosy was equivalent to making alive, for a leprous person was
"as one dead" ( umbers 12:12) according to Hebrew notions. That this man doth
send unto me to recover a man of his leprosy. The king evidently does not bethink

55. himself of Elisha, of whose great miracle of raising the dead to life (2 Kings 4:35-36)
he may not up to this time have heard. Elisha's early miracles were mostly wrought
with a certain amount of secrecy. Wherefore consider, I pray you, and see how he
seeketh a quarrel against me. The king misjudged Benhadad, but not without some
grounds of reason, if he was ignorant of Elisha's miraculous gifts. Benhadad, when
seeking a ground of quarrel with Ahab, had made extravagant requests (see 1 Kings
20:3-6).
8 When Elisha the man of God heard that the
king of Israel had torn his robes, he sent him this
message: “Why have you torn your robes? Have
the man come to me and he will know that there is
a prophet in Israel.”
BAR ES, "He shall know ... Israel - namely, “That which thou (the king of Israel)
appearest to have forgotten, that there is a prophet - a real Yahweh prophet - in Israel.”
CLARKE, "Let him come now to me - Do not be afflicted; the matter belongs to
me, as the prophet of the Most High; send him to me, and he shall know that I am such.
GILL, "And it was so, when Elisha the man of God had heard that the king of
Israel had rent his clothes,.... And upon what account:
that he sent to the king, saying, wherefore hast thou rent thy clothes? and
thereby expressed so much concern and distress:
let him come now to me: meaning Naaman the Syrian leper:
and he shall know that there is a prophet in Israel; able in the name of the Lord
to work miracles, which he should be sensible of and acknowledge, to the glory of the
God of Israel, by the cure that should be wrought upon him; and hereby he taxed the
king of Israel with ignorance or neglect of him as a prophet.
HE RY, "V. The proffer which Elisha made of his services. He was willing to do any
thing to make his prince easy, though he was neglected and his former good services
were forgotten by him. Hearing on which occasion the king had rent his clothes, he sent

56. to him to let him know that if his patient would come to him he should not lose his
labour (2Ki_5:8): He shall know that there is a prophet in Israel (and it were sad with
Israel if there were not), that there is a prophet in Israel who can do that which the king
of Israel dares not attempt, which the prophets of Syria cannot pretend to. It was not for
his own honour, but for the honour of God, that he coveted to make them all know that
there was a prophet in Israel, though obscure and overlooked.
JAMISO , "2Ki_5:8-15. Elisha sends him to Jordan, and he is healed.
when Elisha the man of God had heard that the king of Israel had rent his
clothes, that he sent to the king, saying, ... let him come now to me — This was
the grand and ultimate object to which, in the providence of God, the journey of Naaman
was subservient. When the Syrian general, with his imposing retinue, arrived at the
prophet’s house, Elisha sent him a message to “go and wash in Jordan seven times.” This
apparently rude reception to a foreigner of so high dignity incensed Naaman to such a
degree that he resolved to depart, scornfully boasting that the rivers of Damascus were
better than all the waters of Israel.
K&D, "2Ki_5:8
When Elisha heard of this, he reproved the king for his unbelieving alarm, and told
him to send the man to him, “that he may learn that there is a prophet in Israel.”
BE SO , "2 Kings 5:8. Elisha sent to the king, saying, Wherefore hast thou rent
thy clothes? — There is no just occasion for thee to do so. Let him come now to me
— It was not for his own honour, but for the honour of God and his people, that he
desires the leprous Syrian to be sent to him. And he shall know there is a prophet in
Israel — One who can do that which the king of Israel dares not attempt, and which
the prophets of Syria cannot pretend to: and it were sad with Israel if there were
not. As the word prophet commonly signifies a man who declares things which none
could know but God, and those to whom he revealed them, so here it signifies a man
endued with a divine power, and who thereby could do what no man could effect,
unless God were with him.
COFFMA , ""When the man of God heard that the king of Israel had rent his
clothes" (2 Kings 5:8). Such an action on the part of the king would have at once
enlisted the attention and concern of the whole city. The widespread gossip about
the event reached the ears of Elisha, who at once sent an offer to the king proposing
that aaman be sent to him. Joram at once complied with Elisha's request.
"So aaman came ... and stood at the door of the house of Elisha" (2 Kings 5:9). At
first glance, this seems to say that aaman was standing at Elisha's door, intending
to be admitted to his house, but aaman's own words (2 Kings 5:11) indicate that
aaman had merely driven up to the front of Elisha's house, expecting the prophet
to come out of his house and serve aaman in his chariot. Thus it was aaman and
his impressive party, chariots, horses and all, that "stood at the door of the house."

57. ELLICOTT, "(8) There is a prophet.—With stress on there is (yçsh): scil., as his
message pre-supposes.
When Elisha . . . had heard.—He was in Samaria at the time (2 Kings 5:3), and
would hear of the coming of the great Syrian captain and of the king’s alarm. Why
did not Jehoram think at once of Elisha? King and prophet were not on good terms
with each other. (Comp. 2 Kings 3:14.) Besides, Elisha had not as yet done any
miracle of this sort; and his apprehensions may have made the king unable, for the
moment, to think at all.
GUZIK, "4. (2 Kings 5:8-9) aaman comes to Elisha’s house.
So it was, when Elisha the man of God heard that the king of Israel had torn his
clothes, that he sent to the king, saying, “Why have you torn your clothes? Please let
him come to me, and he shall know that there is a prophet in Israel.” Then aaman
went with his horses and chariot, and he stood at the door of Elisha’s house.
a. Why have you torn your clothes? Elisha gave a gentle rebuke to the king of Israel.
“This is a crisis to you, because you have no relationship with the God who can heal
lepers. But it is a needless crisis, because you could have relationship with this God.”
b. Please let him come to me, and he shall know that there is a prophet in Israel:
aaman would never know there was a prophet is Israel by hanging around the
royal palace. The true prophet in Israel wasn’t welcome at the palace.
PETT, "2 Kings 5:8
‘And it was so, when Elisha the man of God heard that the king of Israel had torn
his clothes, that he sent to the king, saying, “Why have you torn your clothes? Let
him come now to me, and he will know that there is a prophet in Israel.” ’
The news of what had happened reached Elisha in his house in Samaria, probably
through an orthodox Yahwist at court (compare 1 Kings 18:3). And when he
learned that he had torn his royal robes he sent him a message asking him why he
had done so, pointing out that if only aaman would come to him he would soon
know that there was a genuine prophet in Israel.
PULPIT, "And it was so—or, it came to pass—when Elisha the man of God (see 2
Kings 4:7, 2 Kings 4:16, etc.) had heard that the King of Israel had rent his clothes,
that he sent to the king, saying, Wherefore hast thou rent thy clothes? The king's act
was public; his complaint was public; he wished his subjects to know the outrageous
conduct, as he viewed it, of the Syrian king. Thus the rumor went through the town,
and reached the ears of the prophet, who therefore sent a message to the king. Let
him come now to me; i.e. let aaman, instead of applying to thee, the earthly head of

58. the state, the source of all human power, which is utterly unavailing in such a case,
apply to me, the source of spiritual power, the commissioned minister of Jeho-yah,
who alone can help him under the circumstances. And [then] he shall know that
there is a prophet in Israel; i.e. he shall have swift and sure demonstration, that God
"has not left himself without witness," that, "in spite of the apostasy of king and
people, the God who can kill and make alive yet makes himself known in Israel in
his saving might through his servants the prophets" (Bahr), of whom I am one.
9 So aaman went with his horses and chariots
and stopped at the door of Elisha’s house.
CLARKE, "Came with his horses and with his chariot - In very great pomp
and state. Closely inspected, this was preposterous enough; a leper sitting in state, and
affecting it!
GILL, "So Naaman came with his horses, and with his chariot,.... In his chariot
drawn by horses; or "with horsemen and chariots", a great retinue, both for his own
grandeur, and for the honour of the prophet, and to make him the more respectable by
him:
and stood at the door of the house of Elisha; who now dwelt at Gilgal, as is
probable, see 2Ki_4:38, hither Naaman was directed, and here he stopped; and having
sent a messenger to Elisha to acquaint him who he was, and what was his business, he
stayed waiting for an answer.
HE RY, "We have here the cure of Naaman's leprosy.
I. The short and plain direction which the prophet gave him, with assurance of
success. Naaman designed to do honour to Elisha when he came in his chariot, and with
all his retinue, to Elisha's door, 2Ki_5:9. Those that showed little respect to prophets at
other times were very complaisant to them when they needed them. He attended at
Elisha's door as a beggar for an alms. Those that would be cleansed from the spiritual
leprosy must wait at Wisdom's gate, and watch at the posts of her doors. Naaman
expected to have his compliment returned, but Elisha gave him his answer without any
formality, would not go to the door to him, lest he should seem too much pleased with
the honour done him, but sent a messenger to him, saying, Go wash in Jordan seven
times, and promising him that if he did so his disease should be cured. The promise was
express: Thou shalt be clean. The method prescribed was plain: Go wash in Jordan.
This was not intended as any means of the cure; for, though cold bathing is
recommended by many as a very wholesome thing, yet some think that in the case of a

59. leprosy it was rather hurtful. But it was intended as a sign of the cure, and a trial of his
obedience. Those that will be helped of God must do as they are bidden. But why did
Elisha send a messenger to him with these directions? 1. Because he had retired, at this
time, for devotion, was intent upon his prayers for the cure, and would not be diverted;
or, 2. Because he knew Naaman to be a proud man, and he would let him know that
before the great God all men stand upon the same level.
K&D, "2Ki_5:9-12
When Naaman stopped with his horses and chariot before the house of Elisha, the
prophet sent a messenger out to him to say, “Go and wash thyself seven times in the
Jordan, and thy flesh will return to thee, i.e., become sound, and thou wilt be clean.” ‫ּב‬‫שׁ‬ָ‫,י‬
return, inasmuch as the flesh had been changed through the leprosy into festering
matter and putrefaction. The reason why Elisha did not go out to Naaman himself, is not
to be sought for in the legal prohibition of intercourse with lepers, as Ephraem Syrus
and many others suppose, nor in his fear of the leper, as Thenius thinks, nor even in the
wish to magnify the miracle in the eyes of Naaman, as C. a Lapide imagines, but simply
in Naaman's state of mind. This is evident from his exclamation concerning the way in
which he was treated. Enraged at his treatment, he said to his servant (2Ki_5:11, 2Ki_
5:12): “I thought, he will come out to me and stand and call upon the name of Jehovah
his God, and go with his hand over the place (i.e., move his hand to and fro over the
diseased places), and take away the leprosy.” ‫ע‬ ָ‫ּור‬‫צ‬ ְ ַ‫,ה‬ the leprous = the disease of leprosy,
the scabs and ulcers of leprosy. “Are not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus,
better than all the waters of Israel? (for the combination of ‫ּוב‬ with ‫ּות‬‫ר‬ ֲ‫ה‬ַ‫,נ‬ see Ewald, §
174f.) Should I not bathe in them, and become clean?” With these words he turned back,
going away in a rage. Naaman had been greatly strengthened in the pride, which is
innate in every natural man, by the exalted position which he held in the state, and in
which every one bowed before him, and served him in the most reverential manner, with
the exception of his lord the king; and he was therefore to receive a salutary lesson of
humiliation, and at the same time was also to learn that he owed his cure not to any
magic touch from the prophet, but solely to the power of God working through him. - Of
the two rivers of Damascus, Abana or Amana (the reading of the Keri with the
interchange of the labials ‫ב‬ and ‫,מ‬ see Son_4:8) is no doubt the present Barada or
Barady (Arab. brdâ, i.e., the cold river), the Chrysorrhoas (Strabo, xvi. p. 755; Plin. h. n.
18 or 16), which rises in the table-land to the south of Zebedany, and flows through this
city itself, and then dividing into two arms, enters two small lakes about 4 3/4 hours to
the east of the city. The Pharpar is probably the only other independent river of any
importance in the district of Damascus, namely, the Avaj, which arises from the union of
several brooks around Sa'sa', and flows through the plain to the south of Damascus into
the lake Heijâny (see Rob. Bibl. Researches, p. 444). The water of the Barada is
beautiful, clear and transparent (Rob.), whereas the water of the Jordan is turbid, “of a
clayey colour” (Rob. Pal. ii. p. 256); and therefore Naaman might very naturally think
that his own native rivers were better than the Jordan.
BE SO , "Verse 9-10
2 Kings 5:9-10. aaman stood at the door of the house of Elisha — Waiting for
Elisha’s coming to him. And Elisha sent a messenger, &c. — Which he did partly to

60. try and exercise aaman’s faith and obedience; partly for the honour of his religion
and ministry, that it might appear he sought not his own glory and profit, but only
God’s honour and the good of men; and partly for the manifestation of the almighty
power of God, which could cure such a desperate disease by such slight means.
COKE, "2 Kings 5:9. And stood at the door of the house of Elisha— Elisha's not
appearing to receive the Syrian general, is ascribed by some to the retired course of
life which the prophets led; but then, why did he see him and enter into
conversation with him, when he returned from his cure? We should rather think
that it was not unbecoming the prophet upon this occasion to take some state upon
him, and to support the character and dignity of a prophet of the most high God;
especially since this might be a means to raise the honour of his religion and
ministry, and to give aaman a more just idea of his miraculous cure, when he
found that it was neither by the prayer nor presence of the prophet, but by the
divine power and goodness, that it was effected. In conformity to the law, which
requires that lepers, in order to their cleansing, should be sprinkled seven times,
Leviticus 14:7; Leviticus 14:57 the prophet ordered aaman to dip himself as often
in Jordan, 2 Kings 5:10. But Jordan, as the Syrian rightly argued, had no more
virtue in it than other rivers; nor could cold water of any kind be a proper means of
curing this distemper; nay, rather it was contrary to the disease. But the prophet's
design in it was, doubtless, to render the miracle more conspicuous, and fully to
convince aaman of the divinity of the God of Israel.
REFLECTIO S.—We have here,
1. aaman, in all his pomp and splendor, an humble suitor at the prophet's door:
and he receives an answer plain and satisfactory, which required only his obedience,
and ensured his cure. ote; They who are found waiting upon God, may expect
from him an answer of peace.
2. aaman's pride could not bear either the reception that he met with, or the
prescription ordered him; and in a rage he departs. He had promised himself deep
respect, some immediate application to his disease, and prayer over him for his
cure; and was indignant when, instead of seeing the prophet himself, he only
received a message by a servant; and such a message, so foolish in his eyes, so
useless! were not the waters of Syria as good as Jordan; and need he have come so
far to wash, when he might have the nobler rivers of Abana and Pharphar at home?
ote; (1.) A proud spirit interprets the least suspected slight into a heinous affront.
(2.) The self-righteous heart, like aaman, wise in its own conceits, with pride
refuses to apply the simple balm of a Saviour's blood, and fancies that something
beside is necessary to its cure. (3.) They who turn away from God's methods of grace
reject their own mercies.
3. His servants, when his first rage was subsided, presume, with submission, to
reason with him on the case. If he would have submitted to the most expensive or
most painful methods that might have been prescribed, how much more ought he to

61. yield to one so cheap and so easy? ote; (1.) Men in a passion are deaf to the
plainest arguments: when they cool, reason will be heard. (2.) A good servant will
rather hazard the displeasure of his master, than see him wound himself by his
folly; but if he would succeed, he must wait the proper time, and add the respect
and deference which may engage attention. (3.) one ought to be above being told of
their faults. (4.) The plainness and freedom of the way of salvation, will render those
who reject it the more inexcusable.
4. aaman heard the wise advice, and, convinced of the reasonableness of the trial,
descends to the river, where the experiment exceeds his expectation. His leprosy
departed, and his flesh became soft, fair, and plump as the flesh of a little child. Can
the waters of Jordan thus cleanse the leprous Syrian, and shall not the fountain of a
Saviour's blood much more certainly cleanse the leprous sinner, who in faith
descends to wash his spotted soul in this all-purifying stream?
ELLICOTT, "(9) With his horses and with his chariot.—Chariots. (See on 2 Kings
2:11-12; and comp. 2 Kings 5:15, infra.) The proper term for a single chariot is used
in 2 Kings 5:21. The magnificence of his retinue is suggested.
Stood.—Stopped. The text hardly conveys, as Bähr thinks, the idea that Elisha’s
house in Samaria was “a poor hovel,” which the great man would not deign to enter,
but waited for the prophet to come forth to him. The prophet had “a messenger” (2
Kings 5:10) at his command.
PETT, "2 Kings 5:9
‘So aaman came with his horses and with his chariots, and stood at the door of the
house of Elisha.’
Accordingly aaman arrived at Elisha’s house with his horses and chariots. He
wanted to overawe with his splendour. There was nothing about him that remotely
approached a humble seeker after God. The fact that he could do so indicated that
Samaria was unusually well laid out, and that Elisha lived near the king’s palace in
an ‘expensive’ area where there were wide roads. In most cities of the day chariots
and horses would have been unable to move among the houses, which would be
straggled together haphazardly. But Samaria had been built by a king who had had
horses and chariots in mind, at least with regard to the approach to his own palace.
Thus aaman’s whole entourage found itself at Elisha’s door.
We can see from what follows what Elisha’s thinking was. This great man was
arriving in royal authority, he would high-handedly pay a large sum of money, the
healing would take place, and he would leave as arrogantly as he came, feeling that
he had given YHWH all that He required so that that was the end of the matter (this
was why Gehazi’s sin was so serious). Everyone was satisfied.
But Elisha was determined that he should humble himself before YHWH, and that

62. he should go away aware of the gratitude and worship that he owed to Him.
PULPIT, "So aaman came with his horses and with his chariot. The Syrians had
had chariots, and used horses to draw them, from a remote date. The Hyksos, who
introduced horses and chariots into Egypt, though not exactly a Syrian people,
entered Egypt from Syria; and in all the Syrian wars of the Egyptians, which began
about B.C. 1600, we find their adversaries employing a chariot force. In one
representation of a fight between the Egyptians and a people invading Egypt from'
Syria, the war-chariots of the latter are drawn by four oxen; but generally the horse
was used on both sides. Syria imported her horses and chariots from Egypt (1 Kings
10:29), and, as appears from this passage, employed them for peaceful as well as for
warlike purposes. There was a similar employment of them from a very early time
in Egypt (see Genesis 41:43; Genesis 50:9). And stood at the door of the house of
Elisha. Elisha was at this time residing in Samaria, whether in his own house or not
we cannot say. His abode was probably a humble one; and when the great general,
accompanied by his cavalcade of followers, drew up before it, he had, we may be
sure, no intention of dismounting and entering. What he expected he tells us himself
in 2 Kings 5:11. The prophet regarded his pride and self-conceit as deserving of a
rebuke.
10 Elisha sent a messenger to say to him, “Go,
wash yourself seven times in the Jordan, and your
flesh will be restored and you will be cleansed.”
BAR ES, "Elisha was not deterred from personally meeting Naaman because he was
a leper. He sent a messenger because Naaman had over-estimated his own importance
2Ki_5:11), and needed rebuke.
And wash in Jordan - Compare the marginal references. A command is given which
tests the faith of the recipient, and the miracle is not performed until such faith is openly
evidenced.
CLARKE, "Sent a messenger - Did not come out to speak with him: he had got his
orders from God, and he transmitted them to Naaman by his servant.
Wash in Jordan seven times - The waters of Jordan had no tendency to remove
this disorder but God chose to make them the means by which he would convey his

63. healing power. He who is the author of life, health, and salvation, has a right to dispense,
convey, and maintain them, by whatsoever means he pleases.
GILL, "And Elisha sent a messenger unto him,.... Or returned an answer by
Naaman's messenger; he did not go out to him, choosing to be retired, as he commonly
did; and being perhaps employed in prayer for the cure; and it may be also to show his
contempt of or little regard he had to worldly grandeur and honour, as well as to mortify
the pride of Naaman:
saying, go and wash in Jordan seven times; so, according to the law of the
cleansing the leper, he was to be sprinkled seven times, and on the seventh day his flesh
was to be bathed or dipped all over in water, which is meant by washing here, Lev_14:7.
and thy flesh shall come again to thee; which was eaten and consumed by the
disease on him:
and thou shalt be clean; freed from this pollution, or filthy disease, with which he
was defiled; for a leper was reckoned unclean, Lev_13:3.
COFFMA , ""Go and wash in the Jordan seven times" (2 Kings 5:10). "The word
for `wash' here is `dip'; and it is identified with `baptism' in the .T."[7] (See the
Septuagint, the Greek translation of the O.T.) Thus, what was commanded was that
aaman should be IMMERSED seven times in Jordan. Jesus gave a similar
command to the man born blind, "Go wash in the pool of Siloam" (John 9:7); and it
should be remembered that all mankind are commanded to "Repent and be
baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your
sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38).
Significantly, the reaction of countless sons of Adam to that Divine injunction is
very similar to that of aaman's initial reaction here, with exactly the same result.
He remained a leper; they remain in their sins.
This leads us to inquire as to why aaman was angry. There were several reasons:
(1) The implication that he needed a bath was offensive. (2) The waters of Jordan
were usually muddy as compared with the crystal streams of Damascus. (3) His
pride had been wounded. He was a great man and expected to be honored and
respected by the prophet, but Elisha's merely SE DI G him a message appeared to
him as an insult.
However, his salvation from leprosy, designed to serve as a type of the whole Gentile
world receiving salvation, required that he obey God's Word as conveyed to him by
a messenger. All people are to be saved "through their word" (John 17:20), that is,
the word of the apostles, the messengers and preachers of the truth, through whom
they shall hear the words of eternal life.
"Behold, I thought, He will come out to me ... and call on the name of Jehovah his

64. God" (2 Kings 5:11). It is significant that aaman knew the name of the God of
Israel, a name also mentioned on the Moabite Stone. In fact, one of the important
revelations of this episode is that the Gentiles indeed "knew God," as Paul declared
that, "Knowing God, they glorified him not as God" (Romans 1:21).
"Are not Abanah and Pharpar better than all the waters of Israel" (2 Kings 5:12).
There is a sense, of course, in which it was true that the Jordan did not compare
favorably with the crystal rivers of Damascus. "Abanah is identified with the
Barada, and the Pharpar was either a tributary to Abanah called Fidjeh, or another
independent river, the Awaaj, running several miles south of Damascus. The
Romans called the Abanah the Chrysorrhoas."[8]
ELLICOTT, "(10) Elisha sent a messenger.—Avoiding personal contact with a
leper. (Comp. 2 Kings 5:15, where aaman, when restored, goes in and stands
before the prophet.) Perhaps reverence held back those who consulted a great
prophet from entering his presence (comp. 2 Kings 4:12); and therefore, aaman
stopped with his followers outside the house. Keil suggests that Elisha did not come
out to aaman, because he wished to humble his pride, and to show that his worldly
magnificence did not impress the prophet. But, as Thenius says, there is no trace of
pride about aaman.
Go.—Infinitive, equivalent to the imperative. (Comp. 2 Kings 3:16; and perhaps 2
Kings 4:43.)
Wash in (the) Jordan.—This command would make it clear that aaman was not
cured by any external means applied by the prophet. “The Syrians knew as well as
the Israelites that the Jordan could not heal leprosy” (Bähr). aaman was to
understand that he was healed by the God of Israel, at His prophet’s prayer. (Comp.
2 Kings 5:15.)
Thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean.—Literally, and let thy
flesh come back to thee, and be thou clean. Leprosy is characterised by raw flesh
and running sores, which end in entire wasting away of the tissues.
GUZIK, "B. aaman is healed.
1. (2 Kings 5:10-12) aaman’s anger at Elisha’s instructions.
And Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, “Go and wash in the Jordan seven
times, and your flesh shall be restored to you, and you shall be clean.” But aaman
became furious, and went away and said, “Indeed, I said to myself, ‘He will surely
come out to me, and stand and call on the name of the LORD his God, and wave his
hand over the place, and heal the leprosy.’ “Are not the Abanah and the Pharpar,
the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in
them and be clean?” So he turned and went away in a rage.

65. a. Elisha sent a messenger to him: aaman took the trouble to come to the home of
Elisha, but Elisha refused to give him a personal audience. He simply sent a
messenger. This was humbling to aaman, who was accustomed to being honored.
b. Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored to you,
and you shall be clean: These were simple, uncomplicated instructions. Yet as
aaman’s reaction demonstrates, these were humbling instructions.
c. He will surely come out to me and stand and call on the name of the LORD his
God, and wave his hand over the place, and heal the leprosy: aaman had it all
figured out. In his great need, he anticipated a way God would work, and he was
offended when God didn’t work the way he expected.
d. He turned and went away in a range: Because his expectation of how God should
work was crushed, aaman wanted nothing to do with Elisha. If the answer was in
washing in a river, aaman knew there were better rivers in his own land.
PETT, "2 Kings 5:10
‘And Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, “Go and wash in the Jordan seven
times, and your flesh will come again to you, and you will be clean.” ’
So Elisha did not come out himself but sent word through a messenger. Elisha was
no man-pleaser. And he was concerned that all the glory for what was about to
happen should go to YHWH. And that aaman should recognise that while he,
aaman, was a servant of the king of Aram, he, Elisha was a servant of the Supreme
King, YHWH of Hosts, and was therefore no whit inferior to aaman. So instead of
coming out and bowing obsequiously, or even as an equal, he sent a note telling
aaman to go to the River Jordan and wash in it seven times. Then his flesh would
be restored, and he would be ritually clean. .It was deliberately given as a command
from a superior, YHWH of Hosts, with Elisha simply as His messenger. And it was
an indication that aaman must not look to him, but to the God of Israel whose
river (in aaman’s terms) was the Jordan, which lay within His inheritance. The
fact that he was called on to do it seven times gave the dipping a deliberately
supernatural connection, and was an important part of the message. It would make
aaman recognise that he was dealing with the divine.
PULPIT, "And Elisha sent a messenger unto him. Elisha asserted the dignity of his
office. aaman was "a great man" (2 Kings 5:1), with a high sense of his own
importance, and regarded the prophet as very much inferior to himself. He expected
to be waited on, courted, to receive every possible attention. Elisha no doubt
intended very pointedly to rebuke him by remaining in his house, and
communicating with the great man by a messenger. But there is no ground for
taxing him with "priestly pride," or even with "impoliteness" on this account. He
had to impress upon the Syrian noble the nothingness of wealth and earthly

66. grandeur, and the dignity of the prophetic office. He did not do more than was
requisite for these purposes. Saying, Go and wash in Jordan seven times. Elisha
speaks no doubt, "by the word of the Lord." He is directed to require of aaman a
compliance with a somewhat burdensome order. The nearest point on the course of
Jordan was above twenty miles distant from Samaria. aaman is to go thither, to
strip himself, and to plunge into the stream seven times. The directions seem given
to test his faith. They may be compared with that of our Lord to the blind man,
"Go, wash in the pool of Siloam," and, in another point of view, with that given to
Joshua (Joshua 6:3-5), and that of Elijah to his servant (1 Kings 18:43). To repeat a
formal act six times with- out perceiving any result, and yet to persevere and repeat
it a seventh time, requires a degree of faith and trust that men do not often possess.
And thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean. The scaly leprous
scurf shall fall off and reveal clean flesh underneath. Thy body shall be manifestly
freed from all defilement.
MACLARE , "NAAMAN'S WRATH
These two figures are significant of much beyond themselves. Elisha the prophet is the
bearer of a divine cure. Naaman, the great Syrian noble, is stricken with the disease that
throughout the Old Testament is treated as a parable of sin and death. He was the
commander-in-chief of the army of Damascus, high in favour at Ben-hadad’s court; his
reputation and renown were on every tongue, but he was a leper. There is a ‘but’ in every
fortune, as there is a ‘but’ in every character.
So he comes to the prophet’s humble home in Samaria, and we find him waiting, a
suppliant at the gate, with his cavalcade of attendants, and a present worth many
thousands of pounds in our English money.
How does the prophet receive his distinguished visitor? In all the rest of his actions we
find Elisha gentle, accessible, forgetful of his dignity. Here his conduct would be
discourteous if there were not a reason for it. He is reserved, unsympathetic, keeps the
great man at the staff-end, will not even come out to receive him as common courtesy
might have suggested; sends him a curt message of direction, with not a word more than
was necessary.
And then, naturally enough, the hot soldier begins to explode. His pride is touched; he
has not been received with due deference. If the prophet would have come out and
chanted incantations over him, and made mystical motions of his hands above the
shining patches of his leprous skin, he could have believed in the cure. But there was
nothing in the injunction given for his superstition to lay hold of. His patriotic
susceptibilities are roused. If he is to be cleansed by bathing, are not the crystal streams
of his own city, the glory of Damascus, better than the turbid and muddy Jordan that
belongs to Israel? So he flounced away, and would have sacrificed his hope of cure to his
passion if his servants had not brought him to common-sense by their cool
remonstrance. He would have done any great thing which he had been set to do; he had
already done a great thing in taking the long journey, and being ready to expend all that
vast amount of treasure, and so surely there need be no difficulty in his complying, were
it only as an experiment, with the very simple and easy terms which the prophet had
enjoined.
Now, all these points may be so put as to suggest for us characteristics of that gospel

67. which is God’s cure for our leprosy. And the whole story shows us as in a glass what
human nature would like the gospel to be, and how we sick men quarrel with our physic,
and stumble at those very characteristics of the gospel which are its main glory and the
secret of its power. My only purpose in this sermon is to bring out two or three of these
as lying on the surface of the story before us.
I. First, then, God’s cure puts us all on one level.
Naaman wished to be treated like a great man that happened to be a leper; Elisha treated
him like a leper that happened to be a great man. ‘I thought, he will surely come out to
me, and stand, and call on the name of the Lord his God.’ The whole question about his
treatment turns on this, Whether is the important thing his disease or his dignity? He
thought it was his dignity, the prophet thought it was his disease. And so he served him
as he would have served any one else that in similar circumstances, and for a like
necessity, had come to him.
And now, if you will generalise that, it just comes to this-that Christianity brushes aside
all the surface differences of men, and goes in its treatment of them straight to the
central likenesses, the things which, in all mankind, are identical. There are the same
wants, the same sorrows, the same necessity for the same cleansing beneath the queen’s
robes and the peer’s ermine, the workman’s jacket and the beggar’s rags.
Whatever differences of culture, of station, of idiosyncrasy there may be, these are but
surface and accidental. We are all alike in this, that we ‘have sinned, and come short of
the glory of God’; and our Great Physician, in His great remedy, insists upon treating us
all as patients, and not as this, that, or the other, kind of patients. The cholera, when it
lays hold of ladies and gentlemen, deals with them in precisely the same fashion that it
does when it lays hold of waifs on the dunghill; and a wise doctor will treat the Prince of
Wales just as he will treat the Prince of Wales’s stable-boy. Christianity has nothing to
say, in the first place, to the accidents that separate us one from the other, but insists on
looking at us all as standing on the one level and partaking of the one characteristic. We
may be wise or foolish, we may be learned or ignorant, we may be rich or poor, we may
be high or low, we may be barbarian or civilised, but we are all sinners. The leprosy runs
through us all, according to the diagnosis of Christianity, and our Elisha deals with
Naaman as he deals with the poorest footboy in Naaman’s cavalcade who is afflicted with
the same disease.
Now that rubs against our self-importance; a great many of us would be quite willing to
go to heaven, but we do not like to go in a common caravan. We want to have a
compartment to ourselves, and to travel in a manner becoming our position. We are
quite willing to be healed, but we would like to be healed with due deference. You are an
educated man, a student; you do not like to take the same place as the most unlettered,
and to feel that the common fact of sin puts you, in a very solemn respect, upon the level
of these narrow foreheads and unlettered people. And so some of you turn away because
Christianity, with such impartiality and persistency, insists upon the identity of the fact
of sin in us all, and passes by the little diversities on which we plume ourselves, and
which part us the one from the other. Dear brethren, I am sure that some of my audience
have been kept away from the gospel by this humbling characteristic of it, that at the
very beginning it insists on bringing us all into the one category; and I venture to ask you
to ponder with yourselves this question, Is it not wise, is it not necessary that the
physician should look only at the disease and think nothing of all the other facts of the
patient’s character or life? Surely, surely, it is a fact that we are transgressors, and surely
it is a fact that if we be transgressors that is the most important thing about us-far more
important than all these diversities of which I have been speaking. They are skin-deep,

68. this is the central truth, that we have souls which ought to stand in a living relation of
glad obedience to our Father in heaven; and which, alas! do stand in an attitude often of
sulky alienation, often of indifference, and not seldom of rebellion. If so, then it is both
wise and kind to deal with that solemn fact first. In wisdom and in mercy Christianity
deals with all men as sinners, needing chiefly to be healed of that disease. ‘The Scripture
hath concluded all under sin’-shut up the whole race as in a great chamber, that so
cleansing and forgiveness might reach them all. They are gathered together as patients in
a hospital are gathered, that their sickness may be medicined and their wounds dressed.
For this impartiality of the gospel, putting us all on one level, and its determination to
deal with us all as sinners, is but the other side of, and the preparation for, that blessed
universality of a sacrifice for all, and a gospel for the whole world. Do not quarrel with
your physic because the Physician insists upon dealing with you as sick men.
II. Then take another of the thoughts that come out of the incident before
us. God’s cure puts the messengers of the cure well away in the background.
Naaman, heathen-like, wanted something sensuous for his confidence in the prophet’s
cure to lay hold upon. If the prophet would only have come out, and done like the
sorcerers and magic-workers of whom he had had experience; if he would have come
weaving mystical incantations, and calling upon the God whom he worshipped, but
whom Naaman did not, and making passes with his hands over the leprous places-then
there would have been something for his sense to build upon, and he would have been
ready to believe in the prophet’s power to cure. But that was the very thing which the
prophet did not want him to believe in. Elisha desired to conceal himself, and to make
God’s power prominent. He wished to cure Naaman’s soul of the leprosy of idolatry as
well as to cure his body; and we see, in the sequel of the story, that the very simplicity of
the means enjoined and the absence of any human agency, which at first staggered the
sensuous nature and offended the pride of Naaman, at last led him to see and confess
that there was no God in all the earth but in Israel. Therefore the prophet keeps in the
background. His part is not to cure, but to bring God’s cure. He is only a voice. He brings
the sick man and God’s prescription face to face, and there leaves him. Naaman would
have liked to force him into the place of a magician, in whom miracle-working power
resided. Elisha will only take the place of a herald who proclaims how God’s power may
be brought to heal. So men have always sought to turn the messengers of God’s cure into
miracle-workers. Making the ministers of God’s word into priests who by external acts
convey grace and forgiveness, is a superstition that has its roots deep in human nature.
It is not that the priests have made themselves so much as that the people have made the
priests. Here is an instance in a rude form of the tendency which has been at work in all
generations, and has been the corruption of Christianity from the beginning, and is
doing mischief every day-the tendency to place one’s confidence in a man who is
supposed to be, in some mysterious manner, the bearer of a grace that will cure and
cleanse. And the prophet’s position in our story brings out very clearly the position
which all Christian ministers hold. They are nothing but heralds, their personality
disappears, they are merely a voice. All that they have to do is to bring men into contact
with God’s own word of command and promise, and then to vanish.
Christianity has no ‘priests,’ Christianity has no ‘sacraments.’ Christianity has no
external rites which bring grace or help except in so far as by their aid the soul is brought
into contact with the truth, and by meditation and faith is thus made capable of
receiving more of Christ’s Spirit. Our only commission is to bring to you God’s message
of how you may be healed. When we have said, ‘Wash, and be clean,’ as plainly,
earnestly, and lovingly as we can, we have done all our appointed office. We are heralds,

69. and nothing more. Our business is to preach, not to do rites, or minister sacraments.
Our business is to preach, not to argue. We are neither priests nor professors, but
preachers. We have to deliver the message given to us faithfully. We have to ring out the
proclamation loudly. The virtue of a town crier is that he make people hear and
understand. The virtue of a messenger is that he repeats precisely what he was told. And
a Christian minister has to lift up his voice and not be afraid, to see to it that his speech
be plain, and that it do not overlay the message with fripperies of ornament, or
affectations, or personalities, and to plead earnestly and lovingly with men to come to
the divine Healer. John Baptist’s description of himself is true of them. With rare self-
abnegation, he would only reply to the question, ‘Who art thou?’ with ‘I am a voice.’ His
personality was nothing. His message was all. A musical string cannot be seen as it
vibrates. So the man should be lost in his proclamation. We are heralds and nothing
more, and the more we keep in the background and the less our hearers depend on us,
the better. If you want priests who will ‘call on the name of their God, and wave their
hands over the place,’ and convey grace and healing to you by anything that they do for
or to you, you will have to go beyond the limits of New Testament Christianity to find
them. So men quarrel with their medicine because their cure is purely a spiritual
process, depending on spiritual forces, and sense cries out for sacred rites and persons
to be the channels of God’s healing.
III. And now, lastly, God’s cure wants nothing from you but to take it.
Naaman’s servants were quite right: ‘My father! If the prophet had bid thee do some
great thing, wouldst thou not have done it?’ Yes! Of course he would, and the greater the
better. Men will stand, as Indian fakirs do, with their arms above their heads until they
stiffen there. They will perch themselves upon pillars, like Simeon Stylites, for years, till
the birds build their nests in their hair: they will measure all the distance from Cape
Comorin to Juggernaut’s temple with their bodies along the dusty road. They will give
the fruit of their body for the sin of their soul. They will wear hair shirts and scourge
themselves. They will fast and deny themselves. They will build cathedrals and endow
churches. They will do as many of you do, labour by fits and starts all through your lives
at the endless task of making yourselves ready for heaven, and winning it by obedience
and by righteousness. They will do all these things and do them gladly, rather than listen
to the humbling message that says, ‘You do not need to do anything-wash!’ Is it your
washing, or the water, that will clean you? Wash and be clean! Ah, my brother!
Naaman’s cleansing was only a test of his obedience, and a token that it was God who
cleansed him. There was no power in Jordan’s waters to take away the taint of leprosy.
Our cleansing is in that blood of Jesus Christ that has the power to take away all sin, and
to make the foulest amongst us pure and clean.
But the two commandments-that of the symbol in my text, that of the reality in the
Christian gospel-are alike in this respect, that both the one and the other are a
confession that the man himself has no part in his own cleansing. And so Naamans, in all
generations, who were eager to do some great thing, have stumbled, and turned away
from that gospel which says, ‘It is finished!’ ‘Not by works of righteousness which we
have done, but by His mercy He saved us.’ Dear brother, you can do nothing. You do not
need to do anything. It is a hard pill for my pride to swallow, to be indebted to absolute
mercy, which I have done nothing to bring, for all my hope, but it is a position that we
have to take. Hard to take for all of us, very hard for you who have never looked in the
face the solemn fact of your own sinfulness, and pondered upon the consequences of
that; but most blessed if only you will open your eyes to see that the stern refusal to
accept anything from us as working out our salvation is but the other side of the great

70. truth that Christ’s death is all-sufficient, and that in Him the foulest may be clean.
‘Nothing in my hand I bring.’
If you bring anything you cannot grasp the Cross. Do not try to eke out Christ’s work
with yours; do not build upon penitence, or feelings, or faith, or anything, but build only
upon this: ‘When I had nothing to pay He frankly forgave me all.’ And build upon this:
‘Christ alone has died for me’; and Christ alone is all-sufficient. ‘Wash and be clean’;
accept and possess; believe and live!
11 But aaman went away angry and said, “I
thought that he would surely come out to me and
stand and call on the name of the Lord his God,
wave his hand over the spot and cure me of my
leprosy.
BAR ES, "He will surely come out to me - In the East a code of unwritten laws
prescribes exactly how visits are to be paid, and how visitors are to be received,
according to the worldly rank of the parties (compare 2Ki_5:21). No doubt, according to
such a code, Elisha should have gone out to meet Naaman at the door of his house.
And call on the name of the Lord his God - literally, “of Yahweh his God.”
Naaman is aware that Yahweh is the God of Elisha. Compare the occurrence of the name
of Yahweh on the “Moabite Stone” (2Ki_3:4 note).
Strike - Better, as in the margin, “pass the fingers up and down the place” at a short
distance. It seems implied that the leprosy was partial.
CLARKE, "Naaman was wroth - And why? Because the prophet treated him
without ceremony; and because he appointed him an expenseless and simple mode of
cure.
Behold, I thought - God’s ways are not as our ways; he appoints that mode of cure
which he knows to be best. Naaman expected to be treated with great ceremony; and
instead of humbling himself before the Lord’s prophet, he expected the prophet of the
Lord to humble himself before him! Behold I thought; - and what did he think? Hear his
words, for they are all very emphatic: -
1. “I thought, He will surely come Out to Me. He will never make his servant the
medium of communication between Me and himself.
2. And stand - present himself before me, and stand as a servant to hear the orders of

71. his God.
3. And call on the name of Jehovah his God; so that both his God and himself shall
appear to do me service and honor.
4. And strike his hand over the place; for can it be supposed that any healing virtue
can be conveyed without contact? Had he done these things, then the leper might
have been recovered.”
GILL, "But Naaman was wroth with him,.... On more accounts than one:
and went away; not to Jordan, but from the prophet's house, with an intention to
return to his own country:
behold, I thought, he will surely come out to me this he said within himself,
making no doubt of it but that he would show him so much respect and civility as to
come out of his house to him, and converse with him, or invite him into it and not doing
this was one thing made him wroth: and stand; he supposed that he would not only
come out, but stand before him, as inferiors before their superiors in reverence, but
instead of that he remained sitting within doors:
and call on the name of the Lord his God: he expected, that as he was a prophet of
the Lord, that he would have prayed to him for the cure of him:
and strike his hand over the place; wave his hand to and fro, as the word signifies,
over the place of the leprosy, as the Targum, over the place affected with it; or towards
the place where he worshipped the Lord, as Ben Gersom, toward the temple at
Jerusalem; or towards Jordan, the place where he bid him go and wash, as Abarbinel;
but the first sense seems best: "and recover the leper"; meaning himself, heal him by the
use of such means and rites.
HE RY, "II. Naaman's disgust at the method prescribed, because it was not what he
expected. Two things disgusted him: -
1. That Elisha, as he thought, put a slight upon his person, in sending him orders by a
servant, and not coming to him himself, 2Ki_5:11. Being big with the expectation of a
cure, he had been fancying how this cure would be wrought, and the scheme he had laid
was this: “He will surely come out to me, that is the least he can do to me, a peer of
Syria, to me that have come to him in all this state, to me that have so often been
victorious over Israel. He will stand, and call on the name of his God, and name me in
his prayer, and then he will wave his hand over the place, and so effect the cure.” And,
because the thing was not done just thus, he fell into a passion, forgetting, (1.) That he
was a leper, and the law of Moses, which Elisha would religiously observe, shut lepers
out from society - a leper, and therefore he ought not to insist upon the punctilios of
honor. Note, Many have hearts unhumbled under humbling providences; see Num_
12:14. (2.) That he was a petitioner, suing for a favour which he could not demand; and
beggars must not be choosers, patients must not prescribe to their physicians. See in
Naaman the folly of pride. A cure will not content him unless he be cured with ceremony,
with a great deal of pomp and parade; he scorns to be healed, unless he be humoured.

72. JAMISO , "strike his hand over the place — that is, wave it over the diseased
parts of his body. It was anciently, and still continues to be, a very prevalent superstition
in the East that the hand of a king, or person of great reputed sanctity, touching, or
waved over a sore, will heal it.
BE SO , "2 Kings 5:11. aaman was wroth — Supposing himself to be despised
and insulted by the prophet. And said, Behold I thought, &c. — Herein he gives us
an example of the perverseness of mankind, who are prone to prefer their own
fancies to God’s appointments. Big with the expectations of a cure, he had been
imagining how this cure would be wrought: and the scheme he had devised was this:
He will surely come out to me — That is the least he can do to me, a peer of Syria; to
me, who am come to him in all this state, with my horses, chariot, and retinue; to
me, who have so often been victorious over the armies of Israel. And stand and call
on the name of his God — On my behalf. And strike his hand over the place —
Wave it over the afflicted part, where the leprosy is: without which it seemed
ridiculous to him to expect a cure.
ELLICOTT, "(11) But (and) aaman was wroth.—Because, as his words show, he
thought he was mocked by the prophet.
I thought.—I said to myself.
Strike his hand.—Rather, wave his hand towards the place. (Comp. Isaiah 10:15;
Isaiah 11:15.) He would not touch the unclean place.
Recover the leper.—Or, take away the leprous (part). So Thenius; but everywhere
else měçôrâ‘ means “leprous man,” “leper” (Leviticus 14:2).
ISBET, "‘O, HOW U LIKE THE COMPLEX WORKS OF MA , HEAVE ’S
SIMPLE, EASY, U E CUMBERED PLA !’
‘But aaman was wroth, and went away, and said, Behold, I thought, He will surely
come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the Lord his God, and strike his
hand over the place, and recover the leper.’
2 Kings 5:11
aaman represents human nature, anxious to be blessed by God’s revelation of
Himself, yet unwilling to take the blessing except on its own terms: for aaman saw
in Elisha the exponent and prophet of a religion which was, he dimly felt, higher
and Diviner than any he had encountered before. He was acquainted with the name
of Israel’s God, and he expected that Elisha would cure him by invoking that name.
In his language we see:—
I. A sense of humiliation and wrong.—He feels himself slighted. He had been
accustomed to receive deference and consideration. Elisha treats him as if he were in
a position of marked inferiority. Elisha acted as the minister of Him Who resisteth

73. the proud and giveth grace to the humble. The Gospel must first convince a man
that he has sinned and come short of the glory of God.
II. We see in aaman’s language the demand which human nature often makes for
the sensational element in religion.—He expected an interview with the prophet that
should be full of dramatic and striking incident. Instead of this, he is put off with a
curt message—told to bathe in the Jordan, a proceeding which was open to all the
world besides. The proposal was too commonplace; it was simply intolerable.
III. aaman represents prejudiced attachment to early associations, coupled, as it
often is, with a jealous impatience of anything like exclusive claims put forward on
behalf of the truths or ordinances of a religion which we are for the first time
attentively considering.—He wished, if he must bathe, to bathe in the rivers of his
native Syria instead of in the turbid and muddy brook he had passed on the road to
Samaria.
IV. aaman’s fundamental mistake consisted in his attempt to decide at all how the
prophet should work the miracle of his cure.—Do not let us dream of the folly of
improving upon God’s work in detail. The true scope of our activity is to make the
most of His bounty and His love, that by His healing and strengthening grace we too
may be cured of our leprosy.
—Canon Liddon.
Illustrations
(1) ‘There are two ways of salvation: God’s way and man’s way. Man’s way is
unavailing, yet much frequented, because it flatters the pride of man. Man’s way of
salvation deals with what it takes to be great things: great works which man himself
is to do, great organisations, great gifts, which flatter human vanity and will-
worship, but have this trifling defect, that they are of no avail. God’s plan knows
nothing of earthly grandeurs, burdensome minutiæ, external observances. God’s
messages are very short and very few and simple. He says only, “Wash, and be
clean”; “Believe and obey”; “Believe and live.”’
(2) ‘Proud men do not like God’s way of helping and saving them. aaman felt
insulted when told to go and wash in the Jordan. He wanted to be healed in a
dignified way. Many persons reject salvation by Christ for the same reason. It does
not make enough of human wisdom and ability. They want to do something
themselves, and they like pomp and show, rather than the quiet way in which the
Gospel directs them to be saved.’
PARKER, "The Danger of Preconceptions
Behold, I thought, he will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of
the Lord his God, and strike his hand over the place, and recover the leper" ( 2

74. Kings 5:11.) aaman had heard of a man who could cure his leprosy,—so he
thought out how this would be accomplished. He made a plan in his own mind, as
we see in the eleventh verse. ow that thought before the thing happened was what
is termed a preconception, and suggests our subject, namely, the mischievousness
and absurdity of preconception in religious thinking. Religion must not be a
discovery, but a Revelation , if it is to have any depth of Wisdom of Solomon , any
force of pathos, any riches of comfort—if it is to have the infiniteness of redemption
which our sin and our necessity require. The great mistake that we have made
Isaiah , that we thought we could find out a religion—we could make one. So we
have set our inventiveness to work, and we have said, God must be thus and so. Man
must have begun then and there. The connection between God and man must be of
this and that nature and limitation. Thus, without the slightest authority beyond
what may be involved in our own consciousness, we have constructed a plan of the
universe, a method of government, a system of providence, and therefore anything
that opposes our preconceptions encounters in all its fulness the action of a personal
prejudice. Religion must surprise by showing the unexpected way of doing things.
Religion is not a condition of our a priori thinking. The religion of the Bible never
professes to meet us half-way, to do half the work if we will do the other half. It
comes upon us like a light we never kindled, like a glory which extinguishes all the
mean flames of our own lighting. Herein is its power, and herein is the disadvantage
to which it exposes itself in the estimation of men who begin their intellectual life by
inventing a religion which is not confirmed by the revelation contained in the Bible.
What then are we to do? Were we wise men, and burningly in earnest about this
matter, we should come with a mind totally unoccupied, without prejudice, without
bias, without colour, and should humbly, reverently, and lovingly say, "What wilt
thou have me to be and to do?" Instead of that we come with a prejudice seven-fold
in thickness, and the first thing the Bible does is to rebuke our pride, and dash our
religious imagination to the ground. Man does not like that. He would rather be
flattered and commended, and it would be pleasant to him to hear the old prophets
say: "Thou art a clever Prayer of Manasseh , and thy astuteness must be most
pleasing to God and his angels; thou hast found out the secret of the Almighty; by
thine own right hand hast thou captured the prizes of heaven." Who would not be
pleased by such commendation? But it is never given. The Bible pours contempt
upon the thought which preoccupies the mind, and has no blessing but for those
who are poor in heart, meek, lowly, contrite, broken in spirit, childlike, who say
with a tender loving reverence, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to be and to do?"
"To this man will I look." How expectation is excited by that introduction. It is as if
God"s finger were stretched out, and pointing to a certain individual, and the eyes
of the universe followed the pointing of the finger, and the ears of the universe
listened while God gave this testimony concerning the specified man. Who is the
man? "To this man will I look, who is of a broken and contrite spirit, and who
trembleth at my word."
Let us apply this suggestion to two or three of the most vital religious inquiries.
Apply it to the subject of Inspiration. Instead of coming to the Book without bias
and prejudice, simply to hear what the Book has to say for itself, we come with what
is termed a theory of inspiration. As if there could be any balance between the

75. terms, as if in any degree or sense they could be equivalent to one another. Theory
equal to inspiration—inspiration equal to theory. The word theory must be an
offence to the word inspiration! Inspiration is madness, ecstasy, enthusiasm, the
coronation of the soul, the mind in its widest, grandest illumination. How have the
aamans of the world treated the Bible? Thus: "Behold, I thought the Bible will be
artistically arranged; it will move in such and such grooves and currents; the men
will be so distinguished from all other men that there will be no mistaking them.
They will never fall from their inspiration; they will not live on earth, they will not
live in heaven, they will live somewhere midway between these places; they will not
speak our language, or, if they do, it will be with a different accent. All the Book
contains will have about it the fragrance of an upper and undiscovered paradise."
ow open the Book. The Book is as nearly not that as it is possible for a book to be.
What is the consequence? The Book is not inspired, because, forsooth, it does not
answer our preconception of inspiration! Where does the Book say that it is
inspired? Where does the Book lift itself up and say, "I am not written with the
same ink as other books, beware how you touch me; I am inspired; my punctuation
was settled by a special angel from heaven, and all my words I have directly from
the lips of the Eternal"? The Book comes with an abruptness that startles us, and
with a simplicity so simple that it actually bewilders us. The Book is so broadly
human, and so graphically historical, taking note of great things and little things;
revealing much that we had no expectation of having revealed, and keeping back
much that we expected would be revealed; putting in its very centre some three
thousand Proverbs , terse sentences, utterances that might be graven upon rings,
and might form signet mottoes by which to regulate our daily conduct. And the
Book which has in its centre proverbs which a mere moralist might have written,
has at its end an apocalypse which might dazzle the angels. What does aaman say
about the Book? "Behold, I thought it would be all written in polysyllables; I
expected it would be all sublime, with an unprecedented sublimity too grand for our
language, and would need a language of its own too superior for our atmosphere,
and would need an air created for itself." And, behold, it is so simple, so graphic, so
abrupt, so social. Fascinating as a romance, solemn as a day of judgment, rich in
moral maxims, filled with dazzling and bewildering prophecy, and such an appeal to
the religious imagination as never was addressed to it before. How is it that you
have got so little out of the Bible? Simply because you had a preconception about it
which the Bible itself does not confirm, and therefore you have elected to follow
your own prejudices, rather than to accept a possible revelation. What you have to
do with the Bible is to read it straight through, without saying anything to anybody.
You have not to dip into it just as you please, you have to begin at the beginning and
read through to the final Amen. In doing so you have to be as fair to the Book as you
would be to the meanest criminal that ever stood at the bar of justice. The counsel
asks you in considering the evidence to banish all preconceptions, all prejudices, all
theories, and to listen to the case without any bias or mental colour of your own.
That plea we allow to be just. We ask for nothing more than that in considering the
Bible. Do not come with your notions of inspiration, your "Behold, I thought," but
come with a white mind, an unprejudiced understanding, and read the Book, not
here and there, but steadily on and on, page by page, historian, prophet, psalmist,
evangelist, apostle, and that wondrous Speaker whose words were as the dew of the

76. morning. When you have read the Book thus straight through, there is no reason
why you should not form a distinct opinion about it. owhere will the Book take
away your power of thought, reason, and judgment. It will rather challenge you at
the last to say, "Who or what say ye that I am?"
The same suggestion has its application to the great question of Providence. Here,
again, we lose much by the indulgence of preconception. Given God and man. God,
almighty, all-wise, and man as we know him to be, to find out the course of human
history. "Behold, I thought it would be thus. The good man will have a bountiful
harvest every year. The praying man will see every day close upon a great victory of
life. Honesty will be rewarded, vice will be put down, crushed, condemned by the
universal voice. The true man will be king, and the untrue man will be hated and
despised. Virtue will lift up her head, and vice will pray some seven-fold night to
hide its intolerable ghastliness." That was your preconception, what is the reality?
Sometimes the atheist has a better harvest than the man who prayed in the seedtime,
and prayed every day until the autumn came. Sometimes the righteous man has not
where to lay his head. Sometimes the true man is put down, and the false man is
highly exalted. Sometimes the honest and honourable trader can hardly make both
ends meet, and the man given to sharp practice and immoral speculation is a man
who retires to affluence and dies in castle or in palace. Sometimes the good are
condemned to pain, and sorrow, and loss, and sometimes the wicked have eyes that
stand out with fatness, they are compassed about with chains of gold; they are not in
trouble as other men. Our preconception is so different from this that we feel the
violence of a tremendous shock, and possibly may turn and go away in a rage. Let
us consider and be wise. What business have we to invent a theory of Providence?
We cannot tell what a day may bring forth. We have already forgotten all the
incidents of yesterday, tomorrow we are never sure of: we are of yesterday and
know nothing. We cannot tell what is written upon the next page of the book until
we turn it over. Who are we that we should invent a theory of the Divine
administration of the universe? What ought to be our mental attitude and moral
mood? The Christian ought to stand still and say, "Lord, not my will, but thine, be
done. What I know not now I shall know hereafter. I am but of yesterday and know
nothing. Thou art from everlasting to everlasting, and thou knowest all the system
of compensation which thou thyself hast established. In the long run thou wilt
justify thy providence to man. I will, therefore, not preconceive or pre- Judges , or
invent, or suppose, or have any theory that will set itself between me and God. My
theories have become idols which hide from me the true divinity. God give me
strength to cast these idols to the moles and to the bats."
What applies to Inspiration and to Providence applies of course to the greater
question of Redemption. We had thought that the plan of redemption would be this
or that, and all our preconceptions fail to reach the agony of the cross, and the
mystery of a sacrificial death. The sublimity of a battle won by weakness. We are
lost in wonder. May we also be lost in love and praise! Many persons address
themselves to a theory of redemption, in their anti-Christian arguments, who never
approach the inner and vital question of redemption itself. We care nothing for any
theory of redemption, as such, that was ever heard of. We believe all reasoning

77. about redemption, with a view to find out the secret of the divine meaning, and to
trace the mystery of moral law and claim, to be vain and worthless. You see the
redemption once and the vision passes, you feel the mystery, and after that the life is
transfigured and becomes itself a sacrifice. If the cross has got no further than your
invention, your intellect, your range of scheming, and theorising, it is not a cross, it
is but a Roman gallows. There is no theory of the heart. There is no theory of love.
There is no theory of a mother"s sacrifice for her ailing and dying child. You must
feel it, know it by the heart, see it by some swift glance of a similar spirit, and after
that you will have an understanding that cannot be put into words and phrases.
What, then, is the sum of the argument thus roughly outlined? It is this. Rid the
mind of preconceptions. Do not go to church with some theory which the preacher
has to destroy before he can begin his work of construction. When we enter the
sanctuary, we ought to enter it without prejudice against the place, against the book,
or against the man who, for the time being, officiates in the name of Christ. We
should be fair, and honest, and just, we should not be more righteous to a criminal
than we are to an equal. We should enter God"s house in this spirit: "Lord, show
me thyself as thou wilt. Lord, teach me thy truth. Lord, show me what I ought to be
and to do. My selfishness takes the form of religious inventiveness, this is the most
subtle temptation of my life. Lord, help me to answer this temptation. I am not
tempted to commit murder, or to tell great blasphemous lies to men, but I am
tempted to form notions about thyself, and thy book, and thy providence; and my
mind is like a chamber full of pegs upon which I have hung a hundred
preconceptions, and there I am the victim of my own fancies. Thou hast to crush thy
way through a crowd of idols to get at me. Lord, cleanse the chamber of my mind,
banish all these idols and come in thyself, and by the shining of thy face I shall be
able to identify thy deity." That is the prayer which ought to rise from every heart
when we approach the worship of God and the consideration of his mysteries. As in
the case of aaman, so now. The surprise of Christian revelation is always in the
direction of simplicity. aaman had a programme, Elisha a command. aaman had
a ceremony, Elisha a revelation. aaman required a whole sheet of paper on which
to write out his elaborate scheme, Elisha rolled up his address into a military
sentence, and delivered his order as a mightier soldier than aaman.
Let us burn our theories, inventions, preconceptions, prejudices, and our forecasts
about God, Providence, Inspiration, Redemption, and human destiny, and throw
ourselves into the great arms, asking only to be and to do what God would have us
be and do. Let us live the true, sweet child"s life, and not be the victim of our own
prejudices, nor the dupe of our own cleverness. May our prayer be, "Lord, what
wilt thou have me to do? I am ready, by thy Spirit, to go, and stand, and fight, and
wait, to suffer, to enjoy, to be rich, to be poor, to be known, to be unknown; not my
will, but thine, be done." And at the last we shall say, "Thou hast done all things
well."
PETT, "2 Kings 5:11

78. ‘But aaman was angry, and went away, and said, “Look, I thought, he will surely
come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of YHWH his God, and wave his
hand over the place, and recover the skin disease.” ’
aaman was livid. He felt that he was not being treated properly at all. He had
assumed that like all good soothsayers and magicians Elisha would come out, stand
in front of him, mutter incantations, wave his hands over him, and heal him of his
skin disease. And instead he had dismissed him with a message to go and wash in
Israel’s dirty, sluggish river. He did not as yet make the connection between YHWH
and the river as His inheritance, and he did not yet realise that Elisha served the
living God and had no part in such rituals.
PULPIT, "But aaman was wroth … and said. ot unnaturally. As a "great man,"
the lord on whose arm the king leant, and the captain of the host of Syria, aaman
was accustomed to extreme deference, and all the outward tokens of respect and
reverence. He had, moreover, come with a goodly train, carrying gold and silver and
rich stuffs, manifestly prepared to pay largely for whatever benefit he might receive.
To be curtly told, "Go, wash in Jordan," by the prophet's servant, without the
prophet himself condescending to make himself visible, would have been trying to
any Oriental's temper, and to one of aaman's rank and position might well seem
an insult. The Syrian general had pictured to himself a very different scene. Behold,
I thought, He will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the ame of the
Lord his God, and strike his hand over the place, and recover the leper; rather, take
away the leprosy ( ἀποσυνάξει τὸ λεπρόν, LXX.). aaman had imagined a striking
scene, whereof he was to be the central figure, the prophet descending, with perhaps
a wand of office, the attendants drawn up on either side, the passers-by standing to
gaze—a solemn invocation of the Deity, a waving to and fro of the wand in the
prophet's hand, and a sudden manifest cure, wrought in the open street of the city,
before the eyes of men, and at once noised abroad through the capital, so as to make
him "the observed of all observers, the cynosure of all neighboring eyes." Instead of
this, he is bidden to go as he came, to ride twenty miles to the stream of the Jordan,
generally muddy, or at least discolored, and there to wash himself, with none to look
on but his own attendants, with no eclat, no pomp or circumstance, no glory of
surroundings. It is not surprising that he was disappointed and vexed.
12 Are not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of
Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel?
Couldn’t I wash in them and be cleansed?” So he
turned and went off in a rage.

79. BAR ES, "The Abana is the Barada, or true river of Damascus, which, rising in the
anti-Libanus, flows westward from its foot and forms the oasis within which Damascus
is placed. The Pharpar is usually identified with the Awaaj.
Naaman thinks that, if washing is to cure him, his own rivers may serve the purpose.
Their water was brighter, clearer, and colder than that of Jordan.
CLARKE, "Are not Abana and Pharpar - At present these rivers do not exist by
these names; and where they are we know not; nor whether they were the Orontes and
Chrysorroes. Mr. Maundrell, who traveled over all this ground, could find no vestige of
the names Abana and Pharpar. The river Barrady he accurately describes: it has its
source in Antilibanus; and, after having plentifully watered the city of Damascus and the
gardens, dividing into three branches, (one of which goes through the city, and the two
others are distributed among the gardens), it is lost in the marshy country about five or
six leagues from Damascus. Two of these branches were doubtless called in the time of
Elisha Abana, or Amana, as many copies have it; and Pharpar. And in the time in which
the Arabic version was made, one of these branches were called Barda and Toura, for
these are the names by which this version translates those of the text.
May I not wash in them, and be clean? - No, for God has directed thee to Jordan!
and by its waters, or none, shalt thou be cleansed. Abana and Pharpar may be as good as
Jordan; and in respect to thy cleansing, the simple difference is, God will convey his
influence by the latter, and not by the former.
There is often contention among the people of Bengal and other places, concerning the
superior efficacy of rivers; though the Ganges bears the bell in Bengal, as the Thames
does in England, and the Nile in Egypt.
GILL, "Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the
waters of Israel?.... Abana is, in the marginal reading, called Amana, and so the
Targum; perhaps from the Mount Amana, from whence it sprung, a mountain in Syria
(g), mentioned with Lebanon, Son_4:8. This river is thought to be the Chrysorrhoas of
Pliny (h), and other writers; there are no traces of its name, or of the following, to be met
with now; the only river by Damascus is called Barrady, which supplies Damascus and
its gardens, and makes them so fruitful and pleasant as they be; it pours down from the
mountains, as Mr. Maundrell (i) describes it, and is divided into three streams, of which
the middlemost and biggest runs directly to Damascus, through a large field, called the
field of Damascus; and the other two are drawn round, the one to the right hand, and the
other to the left, on the borders of the gardens. Pharpar is thought (k) to be the river
Orontes, which runs close to the walls of Antioch, and courses through its large and
spacious plain, being numbered among the rivers of Syria; it takes its rise from Lebanon,
and, sliding through the said plain, falls into the Syrian sea. Benjamin of Tudela (l)
speaks of these rivers under their Scripture names; Abana or Amana as he says, passes
through the city and supplies the houses of great men with water through wooden pipes;
and Pharpar is without the city and runs among the gardens and orchards, and waters
them. Farfar is also the name of a river in Italy (m):
may I not wash in them, and be clean? as well as in Jordan; or rather, since they
are better waters, and so not have been at this trouble and expense to come hither; or

80. have I not washed in them every day? I have, and am I clean? I am not; which is the
sense the several Jewish writers give (n):
so he turned, and went away in a rage; in a great passion, swearing and cursing
perhaps, ordering his chariot driver to turn and be gone at once.
HE RY, "2. That Elisha, as he thought, put a slight upon his country. He took it hard
that he must be sent to wash in Jordan, a river of Israel, when he thought Abana and
Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel. How magnificently
does he speak of these two rivers that watered Damascus, which soon after fell into one,
called by geographers Chrysoroas - the golden stream! How scornfully does he speak of
all the waters of Israel, though God had called the land of Israel the glory of all lands,
and particularly for its brooks of water! Deu_8:7. So common it is for God and man to
differ in their judgments. How slightly does he speak of the prophet's directions! May I
not wash in them and be clean? He might wash in them and be clean from dirt, but not
wash in them and be clean from leprosy. He was angry that the prophet bade him wash
and be clean; he thought that the prophet must do all and was not pleased that he was
bidden to do any thing, - or he thought this too cheap, too plain, too common a thing for
so great a man to be cured by, - or he did not believe it would at all effect the cure, or, if it
would, what medicinal virtue was there in Jordan more than in the rivers of Damascus?
But he did not consider, (1.) That Jordan belonged to Israel's God, from whom he was to
expect the cure, and not from the gods of Damascus; it watered the Lord's land, the holy
land, and, in a miraculous cure, relation to God was much more considerable than the
depth of the channel or the beauty of the stream. (2.) That Jordan had more than once
before this obeyed the commands of omnipotence. It had of old yielded a passage to
Israel, and of late to Elijah and Elisha, and therefore was fitter for such a purpose than
those rivers which had only observed the common law of their creation, and had never
been thus distinguished; but, above all, (3.) Jordan was the river appointed, and, if he
expected a cure from the divine power, he ought to acquiesce in the divine will, without
asking why or wherefore. Note, It is common for those that are wise in their own conceit
to look with contempt on the dictates and prescriptions of divine wisdom and to prefer
their own fancies before them; those that are for establishing their own righteousness
will not submit to the righteousness of God, Rom_10:3. Naaman talked himself into
such a heat (as passionate men usually do) that he turned away from the prophet's door
in a rage, ready to swear he would never have any thing more to say to Elisha; and who
then would be the loser? Note, Those that observe lying vanities forsake their own
mercies. Jon_2:8. Proud men are the worst enemies to themselves and forego their own
redemption.
JAMISO , "Abana and Pharpar — the Barrady and one of its five tributaries -
uncertain which. The waters of Damascus are still highly extolled by their inhabitants for
their purity and coldness.
BE SO , "2 Kings 5:12. Are not Abana and Pharpar — better than all the waters
of Israel — How magnificently doth he speak of these two rivers, which watered
Damascus, and how scornfully of all the waters of Israel! May I not wash in them
and be clean? — Is there not as great virtue in them to this purpose? But he should

81. have considered that the cure was not to be wrought by the water, but by the power
of God, who might use what means and method of cure he pleased.
ELLICOTT, "(12) Abana.—So Hebrew text; Hebrew margin, Amana; and so many
MSS., Complut., LXX., Targum, Syriac. (Comp. Amana, Song of Solomon 4:8, as
name of a peak of the Lebanon, which is common in the Assyrian inscriptions also.)
The river is identified with the present Burâda, or Barady (“the cold”), which
descends from the Anti-Lebanon, and flows through Damascus in seven streams.
(The Arabic version has Bardâ.)
Pharpar.—Parpar (“the swift”), the present ahr el-Awâj, which comes down from
the great Hermon, and flows by Damascus on the south. Both rivers have clear
water, as being mountain streams, whereas the Jordan is turbid and discoloured.
Rivers of Damascus.—Add the. Damascus is still famous for its wholesome water.
May I not wash in them, and be clean?—If mere washing in a river be enough, it
were easy to do that at home, and to much better advantage.
PETT, "2 Kings 5:12
“Are not Abanah and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of
Israel? May I not wash in them, and be clean?” So he turned and went away in a
rage.’
Indeed he was greatly insulted. Were not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of
Damascus, better far that all the waters in Israel? Why could he not wash in them?
(The answer unspoken was that then he would give the credit to the gods of
Damascus). How dared the prophet send him to wash in a measly Israelite river?
And he turned away from Elisha’s house in a rage.
These rivers flowed from the snow covered Amanus mountains (named in Assyrian
records) and/or from Mount Hermon. There are still today two ‘rivers of
Damascus’. It is true that the particular names used here are unknown, having
clearly been altered at a later date, but there is no reason to doubt that they are
correct, although the alternative Amana for Abana is possible. The Abana is
probably modern Barada. The name of the river Pharpar (now el-‘Awaj) may well
have been carried on in a tributary river still called the Wadi Barbar.
PULPIT, "Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the
waters of Israel? may I not wash in them, and be clean? The "rivers of Damascus"
are streams of great freshness and beauty. The principal one is the Barada,
probably the Abaua of the present passage, which, rising in the Antilibanus range,
and flowing through a series of romantic glens, bursts finally from the mountains
through a deep gorge and scatters itself over the plain. One branch passes right

82. through the city of Damascus, cutting it in half. Others flow past the city both on the
north and on the south, irrigating the gardens and orchards, and spreading fertility
far and wide over the Merj. A small stream, the Fidjeh, flows into the Barada from
the north. Another quite independent river, the Awaaj. waters the southern portion
of the Damascene plain, but does not approach within several miles of the city. Most
geographers regard this as the "Pharpar;" but the identification is uncertain, since
the name may very possibly have attached to one of the branches of the Barada. The
Barada is limpid, cool, gushing, the perfection of a river: It was known to the
Greeks and Romans as the Chrysorrhoas, or "river of gold." We can well
understand that aaman would esteem the streams of his own city as infinitely
superior to the turbid, often sluggish, sometimes "clay-colored" Jordan. If leprosy
was to be trashed away, it might naturally have appeared to him that the pure
Barada would have more cleansing power than the muddy river recommended to
him by the prophet. So he turned and went away in a rage.
13 aaman’s servants went to him and said, “My
father, if the prophet had told you to do some
great thing, would you not have done it? How
much more, then, when he tells you, ‘Wash and be
cleansed’!”
CLARKE, "My father - A title of the highest respect and affection.
Had bid thee do some great thing - If the prophet had appointed thee to do
something very difficult in itself, and very expensive to thee, wouldst thou not have done
it? With much greater reason shouldst thou do what will occupy little time, be no
expense, and is easy to be performed.
GILL, "And his servant came near, and spake unto him, and said, my
father,.... Or my lord, as the Targum; this being not a familiar and affectionate
expression, but a term of honour, reverence, and submission:
if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not have
done it? something that was hard and difficult to done, or painful to bear, to go through
some severe operation, or disagreeable course of physic:

83. how much rather then when he saith to thee, wash, and be clean? which is so
easy to be done; though Abarbinel observes it may be interpreted, the prophet has bid
thee do a great thing, and which is wonderful; for though he has said, wash and be clean,
consider it a great thing, and which is a wonderful mystery, and therefore do not despise
his cure.
HE RY, "III. The modest advice which his servants gave him, to observe the
prophet's prescriptions, with a tacit reproof of his resentments, 2Ki_5:13. Though at
other times they kept their distance, and now saw him in a passion, yet, knowing him to
be a man that would hear reason at any time, and from any body (a good character of
great men, and a very rare one), they drew near, and made bold to argue the matter a
little with him. They had conceived a great opinion of the prophet (having, perhaps,
heard more of him from the common people, whom they had conversed with, than
Naaman had heard from the king and courtiers, whom he had conversed with), and
therefore begged of him to consider: “If the prophet had bidden thee to do some great
thing, had ordered thee into a tedious course of physic, or to submit to some painful
operation, blistering, or cupping, or salivating, Wouldst thou not have done it? No doubt
thou wouldst. And wilt thou not submit to so easy a method as this, Wash and be
clean?” Observe, 1. His own servants gave him this reproof and counsel, which was no
more disparagement to him than that he had intelligence of one that could cure him
from his wife's maid, 2Ki_5:3. Note, It is a great mercy to have those about us that will
be free with us, and faithfully tell us of our faults and follies, though they be our
inferiors. Masters must be willing to hear reason from their servants, Job_31:13, Job_
31:14. As we should be deaf to the counsel of the ungodly, though given by the greatest
and most venerable names, so we should have our ear open to good advice, though
brought us by those who are much below us: no matter who speaks, if the thing be well
said. 2. The reproof was very modest and respectful. They call him Father; for servants
must honour and obey their masters with a kind of filial affection. In giving reproof or
counsel we must make it appear that it comes from love and true honour, and that we
intend, not reproach, but reformation. 3. It was very rational and considerate. If the rude
and unthinking servants had stirred up their master's angry resentment, and offered to
avenge his quarrel upon the prophet, who (he thought) affronted him, how mischievous
would the consequences have been! Fire from heaven, probably, upon them all! But they,
to our great surprise, took the prophet's part. Elisha, though it is likely he perceived that
what he had said had put Naaman out of humour, did not care to pacify him: it was at
his peril if he persisted in his wrath. But his servants were made use of by Providence to
reduce him to temper. They reasoned with him, (1.) From his earnest desire of a cure:
Wouldst thou not do any thing? Note, When diseased sinners come to this, that they are
content to do any thing, to submit to any thing, to part with any thing, for a cure, then,
and not till then, there begin to be some hopes of them. Then they will take Christ on his
own terms when they are made willing to have Christ upon any terms. (2.) From the
easiness of the method prescribed: “It is but, Wash and be clean. It is but trying; the
experiment is cheap and easy, it can do no hurt, but may do good.” Note, the methods
prescribed for the healing of the leprosy of sin are so plain that we are utterly
inexcusable if we do not observe them. It is but, “Believe, and be saved” - “Repent, and
be pardoned” - “Wash, and be clean.”
K&D, "2Ki_5:13
His servants then addressed him in a friendly manner, and said, “My father, if the
prophet had said to thee a great thing (i.e., a thing difficult to carry out), shouldst thou

84. not have done it? how much more then, since he has said to thee, Wash, and thou wilt be
clean?” ‫י‬ ִ‫ב‬ፎ, my father, is a confidential expression arising from childlike piety, as in 2Ki_
6:21 and 1Sa_24:12; and the etymological jugglery which traces ‫י‬ ִ‫ב‬ፎ from ‫י‬ ִ‫ב‬ ָ‫ל‬ = ‫י‬ִ‫ו‬ ָ‫ל‬ = ‫לוּ‬
(Ewald, Gr. §358, Anm.), or from ‫ם‬ ִ‫א‬ (Thenius), is quite superfluous (see Delitzsch on
Job, vol. ii. p. 265, transl.). - ‫ר‬ ֶ ִ ...‫ּול‬‫ד‬ָ ‫ר‬ ָ‫ב‬ ָ is a conditional clause without ‫ם‬ ִ‫א‬ (see Ewald, §
357, b.), and the object is placed first for the sake of emphasis (according to Ewald, §
309, a.). ‫י‬ ִⅴ ‫ף‬ፍ, how much more (see Ewald, §354, c.), sc. shouldst thou do what is
required, since he has ordered thee so small and easy a thing.
BE SO , "2 Kings 5:13. His servants came near–Though at other times they kept
their distance, and now saw him in a passion, yet knowing him to be a man that
would hear reason at any time, and from any one, they drew near, and made bold to
argue the matter with him. Happy they who have such servants as these, who both
had the courage to speak the truth, and prudence to order their speech with skill,
submission, and reverence. My father — Or, our father; a title of honour in that
country, and a name by which they called their lords, as kings are called the fathers
of their people. They use it to show their reverence and affection for him. If the
prophet had bid thee do some great thing — Had ordered thee into a tedious course
of physic, or enjoined thee to submit to some painful operation, suppose blistering,
or cupping, or salivating, wouldst thou not have done it? o doubt thou wouldst.
And wilt thou not submit to so easy a method as this, Wash and be clean? It appears
they had conceived a great opinion of the prophet, having probably heard more of
him from the common people, whom they had conversed with, than aaman had
from the king and courtiers.
COFFMA , ""If the prophet had bid thee do some great thing" (2 Kings 5:13). The
very simplicity and insignificance of what the man of God commanded appears to
have been another one of the reasons why he, at first, refused to obey. Alas, this is
an attitude often found in mortal sinners on the brink of the grave. This writer
vividly remembers an incident in 1932 at the base hospital in Fort Sill, Oklahoma,
when the wife of a high-ranking military officer fell while visiting her son in that
area. She sent word to this young preacher to visit her, and she asked what to do to
be saved, since she realized that her death was near. The great passages pertaining
to the forgiveness of sins, as found in the holy .T., were read in her hearing,
prayers were offered, and she was invited and urged to obey the gospel. She thought
about it awhile; and then said, "Well, baptism has always seemed to me to be such
an insignificant thing that I just can't believe that it would do any good!"
"His flesh came again" (2 Kings 5:14). It appears from this that some of aaman's
flesh had been lost, as also indicated by the words of the prophet, "Thy flesh shall
come again to thee" (2 Kings 5:10). When this writer visited a leper compound in
Pusan, Korea in 1953, he observed sufferers from this disease who had lost their
nose, or eyelids, or ear, or portions of their lips, and it is certain from the
terminology used here that aaman had suffered such loss of flesh. If there had

85. been any doubt of what his disease was, these words would have certified the
diagnosis as confirming a case of Hansen's disease, or leprosy.
ELLICOTT, "(13) Came near.—Comp. Genesis 18:23.
My father.—A title implying at once respect and affection. (Comp. 1 Samuel 24:11;
2 Kings 6:21.) Perhaps, however, the word is a corruption of ’im (“if”), which is
otherwise not expressed in the Hebrew.
Great thing.—Emphatic in the Hebrew.
Wouldest thou not have done?—Or,wouldest thou not do?
He saith.—He hath said.
Be clean?—i.e., thou shalt be clean: a common Hebrew idiom.
GUZIK, "2. (2 Kings 5:13) The good advice of aaman’s servants.
And his servants came near and spoke to him, and said, “My father, if the prophet
had told you to do something great, would you not have done it? How much more
then, when he says to you, ‘Wash, and be clean’?”
a. His servants came near and spoke to him: Thank God for faithful subordinates
who will speak to their superiors in such a way. aaman was obviously angry, yet
they were bold enough to give him the good advice he needed to hear.
b. If the prophet had told you to do something great, would you not have done it?
The servants of aaman used a brilliantly logical approach. If Elisha had asked
aaman to sacrifice 100 or 1,000 animals to the God of Israel, aaman would have
done it immediately. Yet because his request was easy to do and humbling, aaman
first refused.
ISBET, "GREAT THI GS A D SMALL
‘My father, if the prophet had did thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not have
done it? how much rather then, when he saith to thee, Wash, and be clean?’
2 Kings 5:13
I. How many persons are there sufficiently desirous of salvation to have been
tolerant of a very burdensome ritual, had the Gospel prescribed it, who yet find in
the fewness and simplicity of its authorised observances an excuse for disregarding
them altogether.—There is evidently something in human nature, not only which is
roused by difficulties, but which is flattered by demands. Let a man suppose that
heaven is to be won by punctuality of observance, and he will count every added
ceremony not only a fresh stimulus but a new honour. And yet the same person

86. cannot be brought to regard with proper respect the moderate and quiet services of
his own Church, the humble instrumentality of preaching, or the two sacraments
which Christ has ordained. If he brings his child to the font, it is in compliance with
the world’s custom rather than with the Saviour’s word. He cannot see that the very
simplicity of the sign is rather an argument for than against its Divine origin. If man
had had the ordaining of it, certainly it would have been something more difficult,
more cumbrous, and more costly. In the same way he refuses to believe that there
can be anything beneficial to the soul in eating a morsel of bread or drinking a few
drops of wine at the table of his Lord. He asks again, What can be the connection in
such matters between the body and the soul? He cannot believe—he will almost say
so in words—that it can be a matter of the slightest moment whether or no he
performs that outward act of communion which nevertheless he cannot deny to be
distinctly ordained and plainly commanded in the Gospel. If the prophet, if the
Saviour, had bidden him to do some great thing, he would certainly have done it;
but he cannot bring himself to believe and obey, when the charge is that simple one
to wash and be clean.
II. The same tendency is exemplified in reference to the doctrines of the Gospel.—
They who would have done some great thing will not do that which is less; they who
would be willing to toil on under hard conditions, to walk mournfully and fearfully
along the path of life before the Lord of Hosts, if haply they might at length attain,
by pains and cares and tears, to the resurrection of the just, will not accept the
tidings of an accomplished forgiveness, will not close with the offer of a positively
promised Spirit; and thus fulfil, again and again, the description of the text, ‘If the
prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldst thou not have done it? how much
rather then, when he saith to thee, Wash, and be clean?’
III. Yet another illustration, drawn from the requirements of the Gospel.—So long
as a person is walking altogether in darkness, the demands of the Gospel give him
little trouble. They may be light, or they may be grievous, the commands of God are
for him as if they were not. If he keeps any of them, it is by chance. But when, if
ever, he begins to feel that he has a soul to be saved, how often is it seen that, in the
pursuit of some great thing, in the search for something arduous and something
new, he loses altogether the duty and the blessing which lay at his very door, in his
very path, could he but have seen them, and shows, unknown to himself, a spirit of
self-will and self-pleasing at the very moment when he seems to be asking most
humbly, what is the will of God concerning him.
How have whole systems of religion been founded upon the forgetfulness of this
principle? Men have either gone out of the world, or sought to render themselves or
others miserable in it, just because they thought it necessary to do some great thing
in order to please God! What is asceticism in all its forms and degrees, the refusal to
one’s self of life’s simple comforts, the prohibition of marriage and the commanding
to abstain from meats, the substitution of a system of self-torture for a spirit of
temperance and of thankfulness, but a neglect of the same wise and wholesome
caution, that what God looks for in us is, not the doing of some great thing, but the
endeavour to be pure and holy in the performance of common duties and in the use

87. of lawful enjoyments? How true is it, in all these cases, that the easy thing is not
always the small thing! He who would have buried himself in a cloister, or forgone
every luxury, without murmuring or complaint, cannot bring himself to be an
exemplary man in life’s common relations, or set himself vigorously to that which
brings with it neither applause nor self-congratulation, the fulfilment, as in God’s
behalf, as in Christ’s service, of the little every-day duties of kindness, of self-denial,
and of charity, the careful walking in a trivial round, the punctual, loving
performance of a common task!
Dean Vaughan.
Illustration
‘May my pride of reason be humbled. “Behold, I thought,” said aaman, “he will
surely come out to me.” So I have my preconceived ideas of how my salvation is to
be achieved. But God’s thoughts are not my thoughts; and, if I am to be blessed at
all, my intellect must become more submissive and lowly. And may my pride of
heart be humbled. “Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus,” aaman
asked, “better than all the waters of Israel?” So I, too, imagine that I have at home
the means and instruments of redemption. I can carve out my own path to the City
of God. I can build up my own character. Must I avail myself of a method of
deliverance which has been provided for the chief of sinners? Must I abhor myself
and repent in dust and ashes? Yes, I must. It is only the contrite and broken heart
that sees God’s face in love. “Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in
Jordan, and he was clean.” Blessed be God, in the fountain filled with blood I “lose
all my guilty stains”!’
SIMEO , " AAMA HEALED OF HIS LEPROSY
2 Kings 5:13. And his servants came near, and spake unto him, and said, My father,
if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not have done it?
how much rather then, when he saith to thee, Wash, and be clean?
ME universally claim a right to “do what they will with their own;” but they are
extremely averse to concede that right to God. Indeed there is scarcely any doctrine
against which the carnal heart rises with such acrimony, as against the sovereignty
of God. evertheless we must maintain that the Governor of the universe ordereth
every thing after the counsel of his own will, and dispenseth his gifts “according to
his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself.” He once chose the Jews for
his peculiar people, not for the sake of any righteousness of theirs, but because he
had ordained that he would magnify his grace in them: and for the same reason has
he now transferred his favours to the Gentiles. Our Lord, in his first sermon at
azareth, warned his hearers, that, if they rejected his gracious overtures, the
blessings of his Gospel should be transferred to the Gentile world: and, to shew
them how futile all their objections were, and how delusive their hopes of impunity
in sin, he reminded them, that God had in many instances vouchsafed mercy to
Gentiles, not only in conjunction with his people, but even in opposition to them: for

88. that there were many lepers in Israel in the time of Elisha; but them had God
overlooked, whilst he shewed mercy to aaman the Syrian [ ote: Luke 4:27.].
The history to which our Lord referred, is that which is contained in the chapter
before us: which we propose to consider,
I. In a way of literal interpretation—
Under the pressure of a leprosy, which was an incurable disorder, aaman, the
Syrian, applied to Elisha for a cure. Doubtless every thing that the Syrian
physicians could devise had been tried, but to no purpose. It happened however that
an Israelitish maid, whom the Syrians had taken captive, was living in the service of
aaman; and that she, knowing what great miracles had been wrought by Elisha,
suggested, that by an application to him her master might be restored to health. The
idea being suggested to aaman, he determined without delay to apply for a cure.
This he did erroneously at first to the king of Israel; but afterwards to Elisha
himself: but through his own folly and wickedness he nearly lost the benefit which
he was so eager to obtain: for, instead of following the direction given him by the
prophet, “he turned, and went away in a rage [ ote: ver. 12.].” Here let us pause to
inquire, what it was that so nearly robbed him of the desired blessing? It was,
1. His offended pride—
[He had come in great state, and with rich rewards in his hand, to the house of a
poor prophet: and the prophet had not deigned to come out to him, but had only
sent him word what he must do in order to a cure. This was considered by aaman
as an insufferable insult. In his own country he was regarded with the utmost
deference; and was he now to be treated with such indignity by a contemptible
Israelite? o: he would not listen for a moment to a message sent him in so rude a
way.
Alas! what an enemy to human happiness is pride! How acute are its feelings! how
hasty its judgment! how impetuous its actings! But thus it is with all who have high
ideas of their own importance. They stop not to inquire whether any insult is
intended; but construing every thing according to their own conceptions, they are as
full of resentment on account of a fancied insult, as they would be if they had
sustained the greatest injury: and in many instances do they sacrifice their most
important interests to this self-applauding, but delusive, passion.]
2. His disappointed expectation—
[ aaman had formed an idea of the manner in which the prophet would effect the
cure: nor do we at all condemn the notions he had formed. But what right had he to
be offended because the cure was not wrought with all the formalities that he had
pictured to himself? If he received the benefit, did it signify to him in what way he
received it? or had he any right to dictate to the prophet and to God, in what way
the cure should be wrought? Yet behold, because his own expectations were not

89. realized, he breaks out into a passion, and will not accept the blessing in God’s
appointed way.
This throws a great light on innumerable occasions of offence which are taken even
among good people. We paint to ourselves the way in which we think others ought
to act; and then, because they do not answer our expectations, we are offended. We
forget that another person may not view every thing in precisely the same light that
we do, or have exactly the same judgment about the best mode of acting under any
given circumstances; and yet, as though we were infallible, and the other person
were in full possession of our ideas, we are offended at him for not acting as we
would have him; when most probably we ourselves, had we been in his situation,
should not have followed the line of conduct which we had marked out for him. It is
surprising how much disquietude this mistaken spirit occasions in men’s own
minds, and how many disagreements it produces in the world.]
3. His reigning unbelief—
[Though aaman came expecting that a miracle should be wrought by the prophet,
yet would he not use the means which the prophet prescribed. He did not expect the
effect to be produced by the power of God, but by the mere act of washing in a
river; and then he concluded, that the rivers of his own country were as competent
to the end desired, as any river in Israel. Thus, because he saw not the suitableness
of the means to the end, he would not use the means in order to the end,
notwithstanding they were so easy, and so safe.
It is thus that unbelief continually argues: ‘God, I am told, would do such and such
things for me, if I would apply to him in the use of such and such particular means:
but what can those means effect?’ This is an absurd mode of arguing: for, when
God commanded Moses to smite the rock with his rod, did the promised effect not
follow, because a stroke of his rod could not of itself produce it? God can work
equally by means or without means; and whatever he prescribes, that it is our
wisdom to do, in full expectation that what he promises shall surely be
accomplished.
When aaman was made sensible of his folly, and complied with the direction of the
prophet, then his disorder vanished; and “his flesh became like the flesh of a little
child.” And thus shall we find in relation to every thing which God has promised,
that “according to our faith it will be unto us.”]
We now proceed to consider this history,
II. In a way of spiritual accommodation—
We are not in general disposed to take Scripture in any other than its true and
primary sense: though, as the inspired writers occasionally take passages of Holy
Writ in an accommodated sense, we feel it to be a liberty which on some particular
occasions we are warranted to take. We think it would be too much to say that this

90. history was intended to shew how the Gentiles are to be washed from the guilt of
sin; but sure we are that it is well adapted for that end: and, as the leprosy was
certainly a type of sin, and the mode of purification from it was certainly typical of
our purification from sin by the Redeemer’s blood, we feel no impropriety in
accommodating this history to elucidate the Gospel of Christ.
We have here, then, a lively representation of,
1. The character of the Gospel—
[Sin is absolutely incurable by any human means: but God has “opened a fountain
for sin and for uncleanness;” and has bidden us to “wash in it and be clean:” he has
even reasoned with us, as aaman’s servants did with him, saying, “Come now, let
us reason together; though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be made white as snow;
though they be red as crimson, they shall be as wool.” In all the word of God there is
not a more beautiful illustration of the Gospel method of salvation than this. We are
simply required to wash in the blood of Christ by faith; and in so doing we shall
immediately be cleansed from all sin. And with this agrees the direction given to the
jailer, (the only one that can with propriety be given to one who inquires after the
way of salvation,) “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.”]
2. The treatment it meets with—
[Multitudes not only disregard it, but turn from it with disgust. In their eyes, the
direction, “Wash and be clean,” “Believe and be saved,” is too simple, too free, too
humiliating.
It is too simple. What! have I nothing to do, but to believe? Will this remove all my
guilt? it cannot be — — —
It is too free. Surely some good works are necessary to prepare me for the Saviour,
and to make me in some measure worthy of his favour. Must I receive every thing
without money and without price, and acknowledge to all eternity that it is
altogether the free gift of God in Christ Jesus, as free as the light I see, or the air I
breathe? I cannot but regard such a proposal as subversive of all morality.
Lastly, It is too humiliating. Must I no more bring my good deeds than my bad ones,
and no more hope for mercy on account of my past life than publicans and harlots
can for theirs? This is a mode of righteousness which I never can, nor will, submit to
[ ote: Romans 10:3.].
ow persons who argue thus against the Gospel, are not unfrequently full of
indignation against it, and against all who believe it. If called upon to do some great
thing for the Gospel, they would engage in it gladly, and do it with all their might:
but, if invited to accept its benefits by faith alone, they resent the offer as a wild
conceit and an Antinomian delusion.]

91. From the striking resemblance which there is between the conduct of aaman and
that of those who reject the Gospel, we shall take occasion to add a few words of
advice—
1. Bring not to the Gospel any pre-conceived notions of your own—
[Every man, of necessity, forms to himself some idea of the way in which he is to
obtain acceptance with God: but when we come to the Holy Scriptures, we must lay
aside all our own vain conceits, and sit at the feet of Jesus, to learn what he has
spoken, and to do what he has commanded. We must not dictate to God what he
shall say, but with the docility of little children receive instruction from him.]
2. Let not passion dictate in matters of religion—
[Many who hear perhaps a single sermon, or even a single expression, are offended,
and shut their ears against the truth from that time. But, if candid investigation be
ever called for, surely it is required in the concerns of religion; where the truths
proposed must of necessity be offensive to the carnal mind, and where the
consequences of admitting or rejecting them must so deeply affect our everlasting
welfare.]
3. Be willing to take advice even from your inferiors—
[ aaman, under the influence of pride and passion, thought himself right in
rejecting the proposals of the prophet: but his servants saw how erroneously he
judged, and how absurdly he acted. Thus many who are our inferiors in station or
learning may see how unreasonably we act in the concerns of our souls, and
especially in rejecting the Gospel of Christ. The Lord grant that we may be willing
to listen to those who see more clearly than ourselves, and be as ready to use God’s
method of cleansing for our souls, as aaman was for the healing of his body!]
4. Make trial of the method proposed for your salvation—
[ o sooner did aaman submit to use the means prescribed, than he derived from
them all the benefit that he could desire. And shall any one go to Christ in vain?
Shall any one wash in the fountain of his blood in vain? o: the most leprous of
mankind shall be healed of his disorders; and the wonders of Bethesda’s pool be
renewed in all that will descend into it. Only remember that you must wash there
seven times. You must not go to any other fountain to begin or perfect your cure: in
Christ, and in Christ alone, you must seek all that your souls can stand in need of.]
PETT, "2 Kings 5:13
‘And his servants came near, and spoke to him, and said, “My father, if the prophet
had bid you do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much rather
then, when he says to you, Wash, and be clean?” ’

92. Fortunately for aaman his followers were wiser than he (they of course did not feel
that they had been insulted). They pointed out to him that if Elisha had called on
him to perform some difficult feat in order to obtain healing he would have done it.
How much rather then should he follow the command to, ‘Wash and be clean.’
The address ‘my father’ is unusual for a man in such a position, but it may indicate
the unusual respect and loyalty he received from his followers. Or the speaker may
have been a close body servant.
PULPIT, "And his servants came near, and spake unto him, and said, My father.
aaman's attendants did not share his indignation, or, if they did, since servants in
the East are apt to be jealous of their masters' honor, had their feelings more under
control; and they therefore inter-feted with mild words, anxious to pacify him, and
persuade him to follow the prophet's advice. "My father" is a deferential and, at the
same time, an affectionate address, not unnatural in the mouth of a confidential
servant. There is thus no need of any alteration of the text, such as Ewald ( ‫לוֹ‬ for
‫ִי‬‫ב‬‫)אָ‬ or Thenius ( ‫ם‬ִ‫א‬ for ‫ִי‬‫ב‬‫)אָ‬ proposes. It must be admitted, however, that the LXX.
seem to have had ‫לוֹ‬ in their copies. If the prophet had bid thee do some great
thing—"had set thee," i.e; "some difficult task"—wouldest thou not have done it?
how much rather then, [shouldest thou perform his behest] when he saith to thee,
Wash, and be clean? The reasoning was unanswerable, and took effect. aaman
was persuaded.
14 So he went down and dipped himself in the
Jordan seven times, as the man of God had told
him, and his flesh was restored and became clean
like that of a young boy.
BAR ES, "Seven times - Compare 1Ki_18:43. In both cases a somewhat severe
trial was made of the individual’s faith. Compare the seven compassings of Jericho, and
the sudden fall of the walls Josh. 6:3-20.
CLARKE, "Then went he down - He felt the force of this reasoning, and made a
trial, probably expecting little success.
Like unto the flesh of a little child - The loathsome scurf was now entirely

93. removed; his flesh assumed the appearance and health of youth; and the whole mass of
his blood, and other juices, became purified, refined, and exalted! How mighty is God!
What great things can he do by the simplest and feeblest of means!
GILL, "Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan,
according to the saying of the man of God,.... He listened to the reasoning of his
servant, and his passion subsided, and did as the prophet ordered him:
and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child; clear and fresh, soft
and tender as an infant, quite new flesh:
and he was clean; from the leprosy, and all the filthy symptoms of it.
HE RY, "IV. The cure effected, in the use of the means prescribed, 2Ki_5:14.
Naaman, upon second thoughts, yielded to make the experiment, yet, it should seem,
with no great faith and resolution; for, whereas the prophet bade him wash in Jordan
seven times, he did but dip himself so many times, as lightly as he could. However God
was pleased so far to honour himself and his word as to make that effectual. His flesh
came again, like the flesh of a child. to his great surprise and joy. This men get by
yielding to the will of God, by attending to his institutions. His being cleansed by
washing put an honour on the law for cleansing lepers. God will magnify his word above
all his name.
JAMISO , "Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in
Jordan — Persuaded by his calmer and more reflecting attendants to try a method so
simple and easy, he followed their instructions, and was cured. The cure was performed
on the basis of God’s covenant with Israel, by which the land, and all pertaining to it, was
blessed. Seven was the symbol of the covenant [Keil].
K&D, "2Ki_5:14
Naaman then went down (from Samaria to the Jordan) and dipped in Jordan seven
times, and his flesh became sound (‫ּב‬‫שׁ‬ָ‫י‬ as in 2Ki_5:10) like the flesh of a little boy. Seven
times, to show that the healing was a work of God, for seven is the stamp of the works of
God.
BE SO , "2 Kings 5:14. Then went he down and dipped himself, &c. — Upon
second thoughts he yielded to make the experiment, yet probably with no great faith
or resolution. However, God was pleased to honour himself and the word of his
prophet, and to effect the cure, notwithstanding his evil reasoning and unbelief. His
flesh came again like the flesh of a little child — o doubt to his great surprise and
joy. And he was clean — Fresh and pure, free from every the least mixture or mark
of the disease. This he got by yielding to the will of God, and obeying the injunction
of his prophet, which he at first despised as unreasonable and foolish: and it is in the
way of observing, not in the way of contemning and neglecting divine institutions,

94. that we must expect the cure of our spiritual diseases.
ELLICOTT, "(14) Then went he down.—And he went down: scil., from Samaria to
the Jordan bed. The Syriac and Arabic, and some Hebrew MSS., read “and he
departed;” probably an error of transcription.
Seven times.—“Because seven was significant of the Divine covenant with Israel,
and the cure depended on that covenant; or to stamp the cure as a Divine work, for
seven is the signature of the works of God” (Keil). In the Assyrian monuments there
is an almost exact parallel to the above method of seeking a cure. It occurs among
the so-called exorcisms, and belongs to the age of Sargon of Agadê (Accad), before
2200 B.C. Merodach is represented as asking his father Hea how to cure a sick man.
Hea replies that the sick man must go and bathe in the sacred waters at the mouth
of the Euphrates. It thus appears that in bidding aaman bathe seven times in the
Jordan, Elisha acted in accordance with ancient Semitic belief as to the healing
virtue of running streams.
GUZIK, "3. (2 Kings 5:14) aaman is healed.
So he went down and dipped seven times in the Jordan, according to the saying of
the man of God; and his flesh was restored like the flesh of a little child, and he was
clean.
a. According to the saying of the man of God: aaman did exactly what Elisha told
him to do. Therefore we can say that each dunk in the Jordan was a step of faith,
trusting in the word of God through His prophet.
i. Wiseman on the ancient Hebrew word translated dipped: “ aaman ‘plunged’ in
the River Jordan. This signified total obedience to the divine word.”
ii. Spurgeon saw aaman attacked by two enemies: Proud Self, who internally
demanded that Elisha come out and see him, and Evil Questioning, who questioned
why he should wash in the Jordan when he had better rivers back in his homeland.
aaman overcame these two enemies and did what God told him to do.
b. And his flesh was restored like the flesh of a little child, and he was clean:
aaman’s response of faith was generously rewarded. God answered his faith with
complete and miraculous healing.
i. “The simple method of this miracle, performed without the prophet there, did give
God the credit. It was obvious that the healing came from Yahweh rather than from
the sort of magical incantation that aaman had anticipated.” (Dilday)
PETT, "2 Kings 5:14

95. ‘Then he went down, and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, in accordance
with the saying of the man of God, and his flesh came again like the flesh of a little
child, and he was clean.’
So reluctantly, and still seething, aaman humbled himself and did what Elisha,
‘the man of God’, had commanded. He dipped himself seven times in the Jordan.
And to his amazement, and the amazement of all his servants (even granted their
superstitious belief in prophets) his flesh became as smooth as a child’s and he was
made ritually clean. For years he had been the talking point of men and women, and
had been self-conscious about his appearance, and now it was all over. o one
would ever sneer at, or point at, his disfigurement again. It wrought within him a
complete transformation. Fury had changed into gratitude, arrogance into humility,
confidence in the gods and rivers of Damascus into faith in YHWH. He was a new
man.
PULPIT, "Then went he down; i.e. descended into the deep Jordan valley from the
highland of Samaria—a descent of above a thousand feet. The nearest route would
involve a journey of about twenty-five miles. And dipped himself seven times in
Jordan—i.e. followed exactly the prophet's directions in 2 Kings 5:10—according to
the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little
child—literally, of a little lad—and he was clean. ot only was the leprosy removed,
hut the flesh was more soft and tender than that of a grown man commonly is. It
was like the flesh of a boy.
15 Then aaman and all his attendants went back
to the man of God. He stood before him and said,
“ ow I know that there is no God in all the world
except in Israel. So please accept a gift from your
servant.”
BAR ES, "He returned - Naaman was grateful (compare Luk_17:15). From the
Jordan to Samaria was a distance of not less than 32 miles. Naaman further went to
Damascus, far out of his way, lengthening his necessary journey by at least three days.
His special object in returning seems to have been to relieve his feelings of obligation by
inducing the prophet to accept a “blessing,” i. e. a gift.
There is no God ... - Compare the marginal references; but in none of them are the
expressions quite so strong as here. Naaman seems absolutely to renounce all belief in

96. any other God but Yahweh.
CLARKE, "He returned to the man of God - He saw that the hand of the Lord
was upon him; he felt gratitude for his cleansing; and came back to acknowledge, in the
most public way, his obligation to God and his servant.
Stood before him - He was now truly humbled, and left all his state behind him. It is
often the case that those who have least to value themselves on are proud and haughty;
whereas the most excellent of the earth are the most humble, knowing that they have
nothing but what they have received. Naaman, the leper, was more proud and dictatorial
than he was when cleansed of his leprosy.
There is no God in all the earth - Those termed gods are no gods; the God of
Israel is sole God in all the earth. See my sermon on this subject.
Take a blessing - Accept a present. Take an expiatory gift. - Arabic. He desired to
offer something for his cleansing. He thought it right thus to acknowledge the hand from
which he had received his healing, and thus honor the Lord by giving something to his
servant.
GILL, "And he returned to the man of God, he and all his company,.... To give
him thanks for the advice he had given him, and by him to give thanks to God for the
cure he had received; for he was sensible it was from the Lord, his words show:
and came and stood before him; for being admitted into the prophet's house,
instead of the prophet standing before him, as he before expected, he now stood before
the prophet in veneration of him, and sensible of his obligation to him:
behold, now I know there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel; though he
did not before, but his cure fully convinced him of it:
I pray thee, take a blessing of thy servant; not a wish of health and happiness,
which the prophet would not have refused, but a present; the Targum calls it an offering.
HE RY, "Of the ten lepers that our Saviour cleansed, the only one that returned to
give thanks was a Samaritan, Luk_17:16. This Syrian did so, and here expresses himself.
I. Convinced of the power of the God of Israel, not only that he is God, but that he is
God alone, and that indeed there is no God in all the earth but in Israel (2Ki_5:15) - a
noble confession, but such as intimates the misery of the Gentile world; for the nations
that had many gods really had no God, but were without God in the world. He had
formerly thought the gods of Syria gods indeed, but now experience had rectified his
mistake, and he knew Israel's God was God alone, the sovereign Lord of all. Had he seen
other lepers cleansed, perhaps the sight would not have convinced him, but the mercy of
the cure affected him more than the miracle of it. Those are best able to speak of the
power of divine grace who have themselves experienced it.
JAMISO , "2Ki_5:15-19. Elisha refuses Naaman’s gifts.
he returned to the man of God — After the miraculous cure, Naaman returned to
Elisha, to whom he acknowledged his full belief in the sole supremacy of the God of

97. Israel and offered him a liberal reward. But to show that he was not actuated by the
mercenary motives of the heathen priests and prophets, Elisha, though he accepted
presents on other occasions (2Ki_4:42), respectfully but firmly declined them on this,
being desirous that the Syrians should see the piety of God’s servants, and their
superiority to all worldly and selfish motives in promoting the honor of God and the
interests of true religion.
K&D, "2Ki_5:15-16
After the cure had been effected, he returned with all his train to the man of God with
this acknowledgment: “Behold, I have found that there is no God in all the earth except
in Israel,” and with the request that he would accept a blessing (a present, ‫ה‬ ָ‫כ‬ ָ‫ר‬ ְ , as in
Gen_33:11; 1Sa_25:27, etc.) from him, which the prophet, however, stedfastly refused,
notwithstanding all his urging, that he might avoid all appearance of selfishness, by
which the false prophets were actuated.
BE SO , "2 Kings 5:15. He returned to the man of God — To give him thanks and
a recompense for the great benefit which he had received. I know there is no God in
all the earth but in Israel — By this wonderful work I am fully convinced that the
God of Israel is the only true God, and that other gods are impotent idols. A noble
confession! but such as speaks the misery of the Gentile world; for the nations that
had many gods, really had no God, but were without God in the world. He had
formerly thought the gods of Syria gods indeed, but now experience had rectified his
mistake, and he knew Israel’s God was God alone, the sovereign Lord of all. Had he
merely seen other lepers cleansed, perhaps it would not have convinced him; but the
mercy of the cure affected him more than the miracle of it. Those are best able to
speak of the power of divine grace, who have themselves experienced it. I pray thee
take a blessing of thy servant — A thankful acknowledgment, or token of gratitude.
The Hebrews called every gift a blessing.
COFFMA , ""And he returned to the man of God" (2 Kings 5:15). It was no easy
thing that aaman did here. His dipping seven times in Jordan had been
accomplished on his way back to Syria, at least some twenty miles from Samaria,
and some scholars say thirty miles. Making the whole round trip with the animal-
drawn conveyances of that era was a matter of several days additional travel. It is
therefore a mark of aaman's character and of his high appreciation for the miracle
God had been performed on his behalf that he would undertake this additional
travel to return to Samaria.
"Let there be given to thy servant two mules' burden of earth" (2 Kings 5:17). In
this request of aaman, there is evident the ancient conception of God's being
identified with a certain land. Much as he honored God, he did not at that time
understand that God is God of ALL lands. Jonah learned that he could not get away
from God's presence merely by going to a different country, but the common
superstition of that period of history is evident in this request.

98. Montgomery tells us that when the Jews built a synagogue in Persia, "It was
composed entirely of earth and stone brought from Jerusalem." and that, "The
empress Helena imported holy soil to Rome."[9]
"When I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, Jehovah pardon thy servant" (2
Kings 5:18). Rimmon, of course was a pagan deity worshipped in Damascus; and
Martin wrote that, "Rimmon is only the Syrian title for Baal."[10] Keil wrote that,
"Rimmon is probably a short form for Hadad-rimmon, because Hadad was the
supreme deity of the Damascene Syrians, the sun god."[11]
Scholars of all generations have had trouble with this passage. Did Elisha actually
give his consent to what aaman suggested here? Did he not say, "Go in peace"?
Stigers interpreted this as meaning that, " aaman received assurance that God
understood his heart." However, such a conclusion appears to be very questionable.
"Elisha answered, `Go in peace,' without thereby either approving or disapproving
the religious intentions just expressed by aaman."[12] "The clause, `go in peace,'
merely means farewell."[13] "Elisha's words here, `Go in peace,' should be taken
simply as Elisha's parting wish that the peace of God would accompany aaman on
his way back to Damascus."[14]
"So he departed from him a little way" (2 Kings 5:19). The terminology used here
seems to be for the purpose of indicating that "some distance" (as in the margin)
from the house of Elisha, aaman paused long enough to load up that two mutes'
burden of earth which he had requested. That would also have facilitated the
performance of Gehazi's wicked deception.
ELLICOTT, "(15) Company.—Heb., camp, host. aaman’s following consisted of
“horses and chariots” (2 Kings 5:9).
Came.—Went in: into Elisha’s house. Gratitude overcame awe and dread.
Behold, now.—Behold, I pray thee. The “now” belongs to “behold,” not to “I
know.”
I know that . . . in Israel.— aaman, like most of his contemporaries, Jewish as well
as Syriau, believed in locally restricted deities. The powerlessness of the Syrian gods
and the potency of Jehovah having been brought home to his mind by his
marvellous recovery, he concludes that there is no god anywhere save in the land of
Israel. In other words, his local conception of deity still clings to him. What a mark
of historic truth appears in this representation!
ow therefore.—And now.
Take a blessing of.—Accept a present from (Genesis 33:11).

99. GUZIK, "4. (2 Kings 5:15-16) aaman offers to reward Elisha but the prophet
refuses.
And he returned to the man of God, he and all his aides, and came and stood before
him; and he said, “Indeed, now I know that there is no God in all the earth, except
in Israel; now therefore, please take a gift from your servant.” But he said, “As the
LORD lives, before whom I stand, I will receive nothing.” And he urged him to take
it, but he refused.
a. And he returned to the man of God: This was a fine display of gratitude. aaman
was like the one leper out of the ten Jesus healed who came back to thank Jesus
(Luke 17:12-19). He was also a foreigner, like the one thankful leper of Luke 17.
i. Before, aaman expected the prophet to come to him. ow he returned to the man
of God and stood before him.
ii. “It is often the case that those who have least to value themselves on are proud
and haughty; whereas the most excellent of the earth are the most humble, knowing
that they have nothing but what they have received. aaman, the leper, was more
proud and dictatorial that he was when cleansed of his leprosy.” (Clarke)
b. ow I know that there is no God in all the earth, except in Israel: It wasn’t just
the healing that persuaded aaman of this. It was the healing connected with the
word of the prophet. Together, this was convincing evidence to aaman that the
God Elisha represented was the true God in all the earth.
c. Please take a gift from you servant: We can say that aaman only meant well by
this gesture. He felt it was appropriate to support the ministry of this man of God
whom the LORD had used so greatly to bring healing. However, Elisha steadfastly
insisted that he would receive nothing from aaman.
ISBET, "BLESSED ASSURA CE
‘Behold, now I know.’
2 Kings 5:15
Yes, aaman saw things differently now. Religion had ceased to be a mere matter of
opinion, it had become a matter of personal experience and conviction. In place of
‘Behold, I thought’ (v. 11), words which we are all ready enough to use on religious
questions, he could say, ‘Behold, now I know.’ He was a changed man altogether.
o man’s religion is the reality it should be until he can say with aaman, ‘Behold,
now I know.’ This is the meaning of the Psalmist’s prayer, ‘Say unto my soul, I am
thy salvation.’ He wanted God so to speak the truth into his heart, that his heart
might witness to it with full assurance. Then the prophet’s testimony can be ours.
‘Thine anger is turned away, and Thou comfortedst me.’ For comfort is no comfort

100. unless you feel it.
Learn then to follow aaman step by step till you reach the same assurance.
I. Let there be an honest facing of your true condition.—You are a leper in spite of
all your good points. Our ‘redeeming features,’ as we call them, are powerless to
redeem us. We are sinners, lost, helpless, and unclean.
II. Let there be a direct personal application to the Lord Jesus Christ.— aaman
gained nothing by going to the King of Israel. The Lord Jesus does not cleanse at the
command of any one.
III. Abandon all desire to do ‘some great thing.’— aaman would gladly have done
‘some great thing,’ but if so, he would have returned to Damascus as proud in heart
as when he came. By receiving a free cleansing his heart became broken and
contrite, and he was able to offer to God the one sacrifice that God accepts.
IV. Let there be the persevering obedience of faith.— aaman dipped himself seven
times.
—Rev. F. S. Webster.
Illustration
‘There are different kinds of knowledge. There is the knowledge that rests upon
observation. Then there is a knowledge that admits of mathematical demonstration.
But there is a knowledge equally certain and definite, which rests upon intuition,
and comes wholly from within. In all personal religion this kind of knowledge is an
important element. We know when we have done wrong, we know when our motives
are insincere, when our hearts are rebellious and proud, when our heart is not right
with God. Yes, call it what you may, this language of the heart, the verdict of a
man’s own inner consciousness cannot be ignored. It cannot be shaken by
argument. It is the supreme court of judgment.’
PETT, "2 Kings 5:15
‘And he returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and came, and stood
before him, and he said, “Look, now I know that there is no God in all the earth, but
in Israel. ow therefore, I pray you, take a present from your servant.” ’
What a different man it was who returned to the house of ‘the man of God’. It was
the same entourage, but arriving in a totally different manner. It was now he who
stood before the man of God, recognising his superiority. Here was a man who was
in touch with God. And he cried, “Look, now I know that there is no God in all the
earth, but in Israel.” And he begged him to accept a present from one who was now
his ‘servant’, because he, Elisha, represented YHWH. He wanted to demonstrate his
wholehearted gratitude liberally.

101. His words indicate a recognition of at least the superiority of YHWH, as the one
who had done this might miracle, and as thus the only God Who counted in all the
earth. He had no doubt sought to many gods, but there had been no answer. Here,
however, was a God Who answered.
PULPIT, "And he returned to the man of God, he and all his company. It is not
always seen what this involved. It involved going out of his way at least fifty miles.
At the Jordan, aaman was on his way home, had accomplished a fourth part of his
return journey; in three more days he would be in Damascus, in his own palace. But
he feels that it would be an unworthy act to accept his cure and make no
acknowledgment of it, having turned away from the prophet "in a rage" (2 Kings
5:12), now, without apology, or retraction, or expression of regret or gratitude, to
return into his own country under the obligation of an inestimable benefit. His cure
has wrought in him, not merely a revulsion of feeling from rage and fury to
thankfulness, hut a change of belief. It has convinced him that the God of Elisha is
the God of the whole earth. It has turned him from a worshipper of Rimmon into a
worshipper of Jehovah. He must proclaim this. He must let the prophet know what
is in his heart. He must, if possible, induce him to accept a recompense. Therefore he
thinks nothing of an outlay of time and trouble, but retraces his steps to the Israelite
capital, taking with him all his company, his horses and his chariots, his gold and
silver and bales of clothing, and numerous train of attendants. And came, and stood
before him; i.e. descended from his chariot, and asked admittance into the prophet's
house, and was received and allowed an audience—a striking contrast with his
previous appearance before the house, in expectation that the prophet would come
down and wait upon him. And he said, Behold, now I know that there is no God in
all the earth, but in Israel. This is an acknowledgment of the sole supremacy of
Jehovah on the part of a heathen, such as we scarcely find elsewhere. The general
belief of the time, and indeed of antiquity, was that every land had its own god, who
was supreme in it—Baal in Phoenicia, Che-mesh in Moab, Moloch in Ammon,
Rimmon in Syria, Bel or Bel-Merodach in Babylon, Amun-Ra in Egypt, etc.; and
when there is an acknowledgment of Jehovah on the part of heathens in Scripture, it
is almost always the recognition of him as a god—the God of the Jews or of the
Israelites, one among many (see Exodus 10:16, Exodus 10:17; 2 Kings 17:26; 2 Kings
18:33-35; 2 Chronicles 2:11; Daniel 2:47; Daniel 3:29; Daniel 6:20, etc.). But here we
have a plain and distinct recognition of him as the one and only God that is in all the
earth. aaman thus shows a greater docility, a readier receptivity, than almost any
of the other pious heathens who are brought before us in Scripture. Balaam and
Cyrus alone equal him. ow therefore, I pray thee, take a blessing—i.e. "a
present"—of thy servant. Heathens were accustomed to carry presents to the oracles
which they consulted, and to reward those from which they received favorable
responses with gifts of enormous value (see Herod; 2 Kings 1:14, 50, etc.). The
Jewish prophets did net generally object to such free-will offerings. aaman
therefore quite naturally and reasonably made the offer. He would have
contravened usage had he not done so.

102. MACLARE 15-27, "NAAMAN'S IMPERFECT FAITH
Like the Samaritan leper healed by Jesus, Naaman came back to give glory to God.
Samaria was quite out of his road to Damascus, but benefit melted his heart, and the
pride, which had been indignant that the prophet did not come out to him, faded before
thankfulness, which impelled him to go to the prophet. God’s gifts should humble, and
gratitude is not afraid to stoop. Elisha would not see Naaman before, for he needed to be
taught; but he gladly welcomes him into his presence now, for he has learned his lesson.
Sometimes the best way to attract is to repel, and the true servant of God consults not
his own dignity, but others’ good, whichever he does.
I. The first point is the offer and refusal of the gift. The benefited is liberal and
the benefactor disinterested. Naaman was a convert to pure monotheism. His avowal is
clear and full. But what a miserable conclusion he draws with that ‘therefore’! He should
have said, ‘Therefore I come to trust under the shadow of His wings.’ But he is not ready
to give himself, and, like some of the rest of us, thinks to compound by giving money.
When the outward giving of goods is token of inward surrender of self, it is accepted.
When it is a substitute for that, it is rejected. No doubt, too, Naaman thought that Elisha
was, like the sorcerers of heathenism, very accessible to gifts; and if he had come to
believe in Elisha’s God, he had yet to learn the loving-kindness of the God in whom he
had come to believe. He had to learn next that ‘the gift of God’ was not ‘purchased with
money’ and the prophet’s acceptance of his present would have dimmed Elisha’s own
character, and that of his God, in the newly opened eyes of Naaman.
Elisha’s answer begins with the solemn adjuration which we first hear from Elijah. In its
use here, it not only declares the unalterable determination of Elisha, but reveals its
grounds. To a man who feels ever the burning consciousness that he is in the presence of
God, all earthly good dwindles into nothing. How should talents of silver and gold, and
changes of raiment, have worth in eyes before which that awful, blessed vision flames? A
candle shows black against the sun. If we walk all the day in the light of God’s
countenance, we shall not see much brightness to dazzle us in the pale and borrowed
lights of earth. The vivid realisation of God in our daily lives is the true shield against the
enticements of the world. Further, the consciousness of being God’s servant, which is
implied in the expression ‘before whom I stand,’ makes a man shrink from receiving
wages from men. ‘To his own Master he standeth or falleth,’ and will be scrupulously
careful that no taint of apparent self-seeking shall spoil his service, in the eyes of men or
in the judgment of the ‘great Taskmaster.’ Elisha felt that the honour of his order, and, in
some sense, of his God, in the eyes of this half-convert, depended on his own perfect and
transparent disinterestedness. Therefore, although he made no scruple of taking the
Shunemite’s gifts, and probably lived on similar offerings, he steadfastly refused the
enormous sum proffered by Naaman. ‘The labourer is worthy of his hire,’ but if
accepting it is likely to make people think that he did his work for the sake of it, he must
refuse it. A hireling is not a man who is paid for his work, but one who works for the sake
of the pay. If once a professed servant of God falls under reasonable suspicion of doing
that, his power for good is ended, as it should be.
II. The next point to notice is the alloy in the gold, or the imperfection of
Naaman’s new convictions. He had been cured of his leprosy at once, but the cure of his
soul had to be more gradual. It is unreasonable to expect clear sight, with the power of
rightly estimating magnitudes, from a man seeing for the first time. But though
Naaman’s shortcomings are very natural and excusable, they are plainly shortcomings.
Note the two forms which they take,-superstition and selfish compromise. What good

103. would a couple of loads of soil be, and could he not have taken that from the roadside
without leave? The connection between the two halves of 2Ki_5:17 makes his object
plain. He wished the earth ‘for’ he would not sacrifice but to Jehovah. That is, he meant
to use it as the foundation of an altar, as if only some of the very ground on which
Jehovah had manifested Himself was sacred enough for such a purpose. He did not,
indeed, think of ‘the Lord’ as a local deity of Israel, as his ample confession of faith in
2Ki_5:15 proves; but neither had he reached the point of feeling that the Being
worshipped makes the altar sacred. No wonder that he did not unlearn in an hour his
whole way of thinking of religion! The reliance on externals is too natural to us all, even
with all our training in a better faith, to allow of our wondering at or severely blaming
him. A sackful of earth from Palestine has been supposed to make a whole graveyard a
‘Campo Santo’; and, no doubt, there are many good people in England who have carried
home bottles of Jordan water for christenings. Does not the very name of ‘the Holy Land’
witness to the survival of Naaman’s sentimental error?
The other tarnish on the clear mirror was of a graver kind. Notice that he does not ask
Elisha’s sanction to his intended compromise, but simply announces his intention, and
hopes for forgiveness. It looks ill when a man, in the first fervour of adopting a new faith,
is casting about for ways to reconcile it with the public profession of his old abandoned
one. We should have thought better of Naaman’s monotheism, if he had not coupled his
avowal of it, where it was safe to be honest, with the announcement that he did not
intend to stand by his avowal when it was risky. It would have required huge courage to
have gone back to Damascus and denied Rimmon; and our censure must be lenient, but
decided.
Naaman was the first preacher of a doctrine of compromise, which has found eminent
defenders and practisers, in our own and other times. To separate the official from the
man, and to allow the one to profess in public a creed which the other disavows in
private, is rank immorality, whoever does or advocates it. The motive in this case was,
perhaps, not so much cowardice as selfish unwillingness to forfeit position and favour at
court. He wants to keep all the good things he has got; and he tries to blind his
conscience by representing the small compliance of bowing as almost forced on him by
the grasp of the bowing king, who leaned on his hand. But was it necessary that he
should be the king’s favourite? A deeper faith would have said, ‘Perish court favour and
everything that hinders me from making known whose I am.’ But Naaman is an early
example of the family of ‘Facing-both-ways,’ and of trying to ‘make the best of both
worlds.’ But his sophistication of conscience will not do, and his own dissatisfaction with
his excuse peeps out plainly in his petition that he may be forgiven. If his act needed
forgiveness, it should not have been done, nor thus calmly announced. It is vain to ask
forgiveness beforehand for known sin about to be committed.
Elisha is not asked for his sanction, and he neither gives nor refuses it. He dismissed
Naaman with cold dignity, in the ordinary conventional form of leave-taking. His silence
indicated at least the absence of hearty approval, and probably he was silent to Naaman
because, as he said about the Shunemite’s trouble, the Lord had been silent to him, and
he had no authoritative decision to give. Let us hope that Naaman’s faith grew and
stiffened before the time of trial came, and that he did not lie to God in the house of
Rimmon. Let us take the warning that we are to publish on the housetops what we hear
in the ear, and that, if in anything we should be punctiliously sincere, it is in the
profession of our faith.
III. The last point is Gehazi’s avarice, and what he got by it. How differently the
same sight affected the man who lived near God and the one who lived by sense! Elisha

104. had no desires stirred by the wealth in Naaman’s train. Gehazi’s mouth watered after it.
Regulate desires and you rule conduct. The true regulation of desires is found in
communion with God. Gehazi had a sordid soul, like Judas; and, like the traitor Apostle,
he was untouched by contact with goodness and unworldliness. Perhaps the parallel
might be carried farther, and both were moved with coarse contempt for their master’s
silly indifference to earthly good. That feeling speaks in Gehazi’s soliloquy. He evidently
thought the prophet a fool for having let ‘this Syrian’ off so easily. He was fair game, and
he had brought the wealth on purpose to leave it. Profanity speaks in uttering a solemn
oath on such an occasion. The putting side by side of ‘the Lord liveth’ and ‘I will run after
him’ would be ludicrous if it were not horrible. How much profanity may live close
beside a prophet, and learn nothing from him but a holy name to sully in an oath!
The after part of the story suggests that Naaman was out of sight of the city before he
saw Gehazi coming after him. The cunning liar timed his arrival well. The courtesy of
Naaman in lighting down from his chariot to receive the prophet’s servant shows how
real a change had been wrought upon him, even though there were imperfections in him.
Gehazi’s story is well hung together, and has plenty of ‘local colour’ to make it probable.
Such glib ingenuity in lying augurs long practice in the art. If he had been content with a
small fee, he needed only to have told the truth; but his story was required to put a fair
face on the amount of his request. And in what an amiable light it sets Elisha! He would
not take for himself, but he has nothing to give to the two imaginary scholars, who have
come from some of the schools of the prophets in the hill-country of Ephraim, thirsting
for instruction. How sweet the picture, and what a hard heart that could refuse the
request! Truly said Paul, ‘The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.’ Any sin may
come from it, and be done to gratify it. ‘Honestly if you can, but get it,’ was Gehazi’s
principle, as it is that of many a man in the Christian Churches of this day. Greed of gain
is a sin that seldom keeps house alone. Naaman no doubt was glad to give, both because
he was grateful, and because, like most people in high positions, he was galled by the
sense of obligation to a man beneath him in rank. So back went Gehazi, with the two
Syrian slaves carrying his baggage for him, and he chuckling at his lucky stroke, and
pleasantly imagining how to spend his wealth.
‘The tower’ in 2Ki_5:24 is more correctly ‘the hill,’ and it was probably there where the
little group would come in sight of Elisha’s house. So Gehazi gets rid of the porters
before they could be seen or speak to any one, and manages his load for a little way
himself, carefully hides it in the house, and, seeing the men safely off, appears
obsequious and innocent before Elisha. The prophet’s gift of supernatural knowledge
was intermittent, as witness his ignorance of the Shunemite’s sorrow; but Gehazi must
have known its occasional action, and we can fancy that his heart sank at the ominous
question, so curt in the original, and conveying so clearly the prophet’s knowledge that
he had been away from the house: ‘Whence, Gehazi?’ One lie needs another to cover it,
and every sin is likely to beget a successor. So, with some tremor, but without hesitation,
he tries to hide his tracks. Did not Elisha’s eye pierce the wretched hypocrite as with a
dart? and did not his voice ring like a judgment trumpet, as he confounded the silent
sinner with the conviction that the prophet himself had been at the spot, though his
body had remained in the house? So, at last, will men be reduced to stony dumbness,
when they discover that an Eye which can see deeper than Elisha’s has been gazing on all
their secret sins. The question, ‘Is this a time to receive?’ etc., suggests the special
reasons, in Naaman’s new faith, for conspicuous disregard of wealth, in order that he
might thereby learn the free love of Elisha’s God and of Jehovah’s servant, both of which
had been tarnished by Gehazi’s ill-omened greed. The long enumeration following on
‘garments’ includes, no doubt, the things that Gehazi had solaced his return with the

105. thought of buying, and so adds another proof that his heart was turned inside out before
the prophet.
His punishment is severe; but his sin was great. The leprosy was a fitting punishment,
both because it had been Naaman’s, from which obedient reliance on God had set him
free, and because of its symbolical meaning, as the type of sin. Gehazi got his coveted
money, but he got something else along with it, which he did not bargain for, and which
took all the sweetness out of it. That is always the case. ‘Ill-gotten gear never prospers’;
and, if a man has set his heart on worldly good, he may succeed in amassing a fortune,
but the leprosy will cleave to him, and his soul will be all crusted and foul with that living
death. How many successful men, perhaps high in reputation in the Church as in the
world, would stand ‘lepers as white as snow,’ if we had God’s eyes to see them with!
16 The prophet answered, “As surely as the Lord
lives, whom I serve, I will not accept a thing.” And
even though aaman urged him, he refused.
BAR ES, "I will receive none - The prophets were in the habit of receiving
presents from those who consulted them 1Sa_9:7-8; 1Ki_14:3, but Elisha refused. It was
important that Naaman should not suppose that the prophets of the true God acted from
motives of self-interest, much less imagine that “the gift of God might be purchased with
money” Act_8:20.
CLARKE, "I will receive none - It was very common to give presents to all great
and official men; and among these, prophets were always included: but as it might have
appeared to the Syrians that he had taken the offered presents as a remuneration for the
cure performed, he refused; for as God alone did the work, he alone should have all the
glory.
GILL, "But he said, as the Lord liveth, before whom I stand,.... Whose minister
and prophet he was, and by whom he swears:
I will receive none: to let him know that this cure was not to be attributed to him, but
the Lord only; and that what concern he had in it was not for the sake of money, but for
the glory of the God of Israel:

106. and he urged him to take it, but he refused it; Naaman was very pressing upon
him to receive a gift from him, but he could not be prevailed upon to accept it.
HE RY, "II. Grateful to Elisha the prophet: “Therefore, for his sake whose servant
thou art, I have a present for thee, silver, and gold, and raiment, whatever thou wilt
please to accept.” He valued the cure, not by the easiness of it to the prophet, but the
acceptableness of it to himself, and would gladly pay for it accordingly. But Elisha
generously refused the fee, though urged to accept it; and, to prevent further
importunity, backed his refusal with an oath: As the Lord liveth, I will receive none
(2Ki_5:16), not because he did not need it, for he was poor enough, and knew what to do
with it, and how to bestow it among the sons of the prophets, nor because he thought it
unlawful, for he received presents from others; but he would not be beholden to this
Syrian, nor should he say, I have made Elisha rich, Gen_14:23. It would be much for the
honour of God to show this new convert that the servants of the God of Israel were
taught to look upon the wealth of this world with a holy contempt, which would confirm
him in his belief that there was no God but in Israel. See 1Co_9:18; 2Co_11:9.
BE SO , "2 Kings 5:16. He said, As the Lord liveth, I will receive none — ot that
he thought it unlawful to receive presents, which he did receive from others; but
because of the special circumstances of the case, it being much for the honour of
God that the Syrians should see the generous piety and kindness of his ministers and
servants, and how much they despised all that worldly wealth and glory, which the
prophets of the Gentiles so greedily sought after.
ELLICOTT, "(16) But.—And (both times).
I will receive none.—Theodoret compares our Lord’s “Freely ye have received,
freely give” (Matthew 10:8). (Comp. Acts 8:20.) Such may have been Elisha’s
feeling. His refusal, strongly contrasting with the conduct of ordinary prophets,
Israelite and heathen (comp. 1 Samuel 9:6-9), would make a deep impression upon
aaman and his retinue.
PETT, "2 Kings 5:16
‘But he said, “As YHWH lives, before whom I stand, I will receive none.” And he
urged him to take it, but he refused.’
But in spite of aaman’s continuing urging Elisha refused to accept any gift. To
have done so would have served to destroy the new relationship between aaman
and YHWH. Elisha knew how quickly such a relationship might die once aaman
felt that he as YHWH’s prophet had been ‘paid off’. On the other hand while he
was the recipient of YHWH’s freely dispensed goodness his heart would remain
faithful to YHWH.
PULPIT, "But he said, As the Lord liveth, before whom I stand, I will receive none.

107. Elisha regards it as best, under the circumstances, to refuse the offered recompense.
It was not compulsory on him so to act; for the precept, "Freely ye have received,
freely give" (Matthew 10:8), had not been yet uttered. Pious Israelites commonly
brought gifts to the prophets whom they consulted (1 Samuel 9:7, 1 Samuel 9:8; 1
Kings 14:3). But, in the case of a foreigner, ignorant hitherto of true religion, whom
it was important to impress favorably, and, if possible, win over to the faith, Elisha
deemed it advisable to take no reward. aaman was thus taught that Jehovah was
his true Healer, the prophet the mere instrument, and that it was to Jehovah that his
gratitude, his thanks, and his offerings were due. And he urged him to take it; but
he refused. Contests of politeness are common in the East, where the one party
offers to give and even insists on giving, while the other makes a pretence of
declining; but here both parties were in earnest, and the gift was absolutely
declined.
17 “If you will not,” said aaman, “please let me,
your servant, be given as much earth as a pair of
mules can carry, for your servant will never again
make burnt offerings and sacrifices to any other
god but the Lord.
BAR ES, "Two mules’ burden of earth - This earth, Naaman thought, spread
over a portion of Syrian ground, would hallow and render it suitable for the worship of
Yahweh.
CLARKE, "Shall there not then, I pray thee - This verse is understood two
different ways. I will give them both in a paraphrase: -
1. Shall there not then be given unto thy servant [viz., Naaman] two
mules’ burden of this Israelitish earth, that I may build an altar with it, on which I
may offer sacrifices to the God of Israel? For thy servant, etc.
2. Shall there not be given to thy [Elisha’s] servant [Gehazi] two mules’
burden of this earth? i.e., the gold and silver which he brought with him; and
which he esteemed as earth, or dust, in comparison of the cure he received. For thy
servant [Naaman] will henceforth, etc.
Each of these interpretations has its difficulties. Why Naaman should ask for two
mules’ burden of earth, which he might have taken up any where on the confines of the

108. land, without any such liberty, is not easy to see. As to the prophet’s permission, though
the boon was ever so small, it was not his to give; only the king of Israel could give such a
permission: and what sort of an altar could he build with two mules’ burden of earth,
carried from Samaria to Damascus? If this be really the meaning of the place, the request
was exceedingly foolish, and never could have come from a person enjoying the right use
of his reason. The second opinion, not without its difficulties, seems less embarrassed
than the former. It was natural for Naaman to wish to give something to the prophet’s
servant, as the master had refused his present. Again, impressed with the vast
importance of the cure he had received, to take away all feeling of obligation, he might
call two or ten talents of silver by the name of earth, as well as Habakkuk, Hab_2:6, calls
silver and gold thick clay; and by terms of this kind it has been frequently denominated,
both by prophets and heathen writers: “Tyrus heaped up silver as the dust, and fine gold
as the mire of the streets;” Zec_9:3. And the king made silver and gold at Jerusalem as
stones; 2Ch_1:15. Which is agreeable to the sentiments of the heathen: Χρυσος τις κονις
εστι, και αργυρος, Gold and silver are only a certain kind of earth. - Arist. Eth. Nicomach.
Should it be said, The gold and silver could not be two mules’ burden; I answer, Let
the quantity that Naaman brought with him be only considered, and it will be found to
be as much, when put into two bags, as could be well lifted upon the backs of two mules,
or as those beasts could conveniently carry. The silver itself would weigh 233lbs. 9oz. 15
1/2dwts., and the gold 1,140lbs. 7oz. 10dwts.; in the whole 1,3741bs. 50Z. 5 1/2dwts.
Troy weight. Should it be objected that, taken in this sense, there is no visible connection
between the former and latter clauses of the verse, I answer that there is as much
connection between the words taken in this sense as in the other, for something must be
brought in to supply both; besides, this makes a more complete sense than the other:
“Shall there not, I pray thee, be given to thy servant two mules’ burden of this silver and
gold, [to apply it as he may think proper; I regard it not], for thy servant will henceforth
offer neither burnt-offering nor sacrifice unto other gods, [for the cure he has now
received; or by way of worship at any time]; but unto Jehovah.” The reader may choose
which of these interpretations he pleases.
GILL, "And Naaman said, shall there not then, I pray thee, be given to thy
servant two mules' burden of earth..... Not that he desired of Elisha that he would
suffer his servant Gehazi to receive a present as much as two mules could carry; but
inasmuch as the prophet refused a present from him, his servant, he asks a favour of
him, that he would permit him to take with him, out of the land of Israel, as much earth
two mules could carry, that is, to make an altar of earth, as the next words indicate: but
as he might have this any where without the prophet's leave, some Jewish writers (o)
think he requested it from his own house, and from the place his feet trod on, as
conceiving in a superstitious way that there was a sort of holiness in it; or however, that
wheresoever he had it, if with the prophet's leave, a blessing would go with it, or that
would be a sort of a consecration of it; and having an altar made of the earth of this land,
would show that he was in the faith of the same God, and performed the same worship
to him Israel did:
for thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice
unto other gods, but unto the Lord: hence the Jews say, he became a proselyte of
righteousness (p), embraced the true religion, and the worship of the true God,
according to the laws given to Israel; and the following words, rightly understood,

109. confirm the same.
HE RY 17-18, "III. Proselyted to the worship of the God of Israel. He will not only
offer a sacrifice to the Lord, in thanks for his present cure, but he resolves he will never
offer sacrifice to any other gods, 2Ki_5:17. It was a happy cure of his leprosy which cured
him of his idolatry, a more dangerous disease. But here are two instances of his
weakness and infirmity in his conversion: - 1. In one instance he over-did it, that he
would not only worship the God of Israel, but he would have clods of earth out of the
prophet's garden, or at least of the prophet's ordering, to make an altar of, 2Ki_5:17. He
that awhile ago had spoken very slightly of the waters of Israel (2Ki_5:12) now is in
another extreme, and over-values the earth of Israel, supposing (since God has
appointed altars of earth, Exo_20:24) that an altar of that earth would be most
acceptable to him, not considering that all the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof.
Or perhaps the transport of his affection and veneration for the prophet, not only upon
the account of his power, but of his virtue and generosity, made him, as we say, love the
very ground he went upon and desire to have some of it home with him. The modern
compliment equivalent to this would be, “Pray, sir, let me have your picture.” 2. In
another instance he under-did it, that he reserved to himself a liberty to bow in the
house of Rimmon, in complaisance to the king his master, and according to the duty of
his place at court (2Ki_5:18), in this thing he must be excused. He owns he ought not to
do it, but that he cannot otherwise not do it, but that he cannot otherwise keep his place,
- protests that his bowing is not, nor ever shall be, as it had been, in honour to the idol,
but only in honour to the king, - and therefore he hopes God will forgive him. Perhaps,
all things considered, this might admit of some apology, though it was not justifiable.
But, as to us, I am sure, (1.) If, in covenanting with God, we make a reservation for any
known sin, which we will continue to indulge ourselves in, that reservation is a
defeasance of his covenant. We must cast away all our transgressions and not except any
house of Rimmon. (2.) Though we are encouraged to pray for the remission of the sins
we have committed, yet, if we ask for a dispensation to go on in any sin for the future, we
mock God, and deceive ourselves. (3.) Those that know not how to quit a place at court
when they cannot keep it without sinning against God, and wronging their consciences,
do not rightly value the divine favour. (4.) Those that truly hate evil will make conscience
of abstaining from all appearances of evil. Though Naaman's dissembling his religion
cannot be approved, yet because his promise to offer no sacrifice to any god but the God
of Israel only was a great point gained with a Syrian, and because, by asking pardon in
this matter, he showed such a degree of conviction and ingenuousness as gave hopes of
improvement, the prophet took fair leave of him, and bade him Go in peace, 2Ki_5:19.
Young converts must be tenderly dealt with.
K&D, "2Ki_5:17-18
Then Naaman said: ‫ּא‬‫ל‬ָ‫,ו‬ “and not” = and if not, καᆳ ει ʆ µή (lxx; not “and O,” according
to Ewald, §358, b., Anm.), “let there be given to thy servant (= to me) two mules' burden
of earth (on the construction see Ewald, §287, h.), for thy servant will no more make
(offer) burnt-offerings and slain-offerings to any other gods than Jehovah. May Jehovah
forgive thy servant in this thing, when my lord (the king of Syria) goeth into the house of
Rimmon, to fall down (worship) there, and he supports himself upon my hand, that I fall
down (with him) in the house of Rimmon; if I (thus) fall down in the house of Rimmon,
may,” etc. It is very evident from Naaman's explanation, “for thy servant,” etc., that he

110. wanted to take a load of earth with him out of the land of Israel, that he might be able to
offer sacrifice upon it to the God of Israel, because he was still a slave to the polytheistic
superstition, that no god could be worshipped in a proper and acceptable manner except
in his own land, or upon an altar built of the earth of his own land. And because
Naaman's knowledge of God was still adulterated with superstition, he was not yet
prepared to make an unreserved confession before men of his faith in Jehovah as the
only true God, but hoped that Jehovah would forgive him if he still continued to join
outwardly in the worship of idols, so far as his official duty required. Rimmon (i.e., the
pomegranate) is here, and probably also in the local name Hadad-rimmon (Zec_12:11),
the name of the supreme deity of the Damascene Syrians, and probably only a contracted
form of Hadad-rimmon, since Hadad was the supreme deity or sun-god of the Syrians
(see at 2Sa_8:3), signifying the sun-god with the modification expressed by Rimmon,
which has been differently interpreted according to the supposed derivation of the word.
Some derive the name from ‫ם‬ ַ‫מ‬ ָ‫ר‬ = ‫,רוּם‬ as the supreme god of heaven, like the ᅠλιοሞν of
Sanchun. (Cler., Seld., Ges. thes. p. 1292); others from ‫ּון‬ ִ‫,ר‬ a pomegranate, as a
faecundantis, since the pomegranate with its abundance of seeds is used in the
symbolism of both Oriental and Greek mythology along with the Phallus as a symbol of
the generative power (vid., Bähr, Symbolik, ii. pp. 122,123), and is also found upon
Assyrian monuments (vid., Layard, Nineveh and its Remains, p. 343); others again, with
less probability, from ‫ה‬ ָ‫מ‬ ָ‫,ר‬ jaculari, as the sun-god who vivifies and fertilizes the earth
with his rays, like the ᅛκηβόλος ᅒπόλλων; and others from ‫ם‬ ַ‫מ‬ ָ‫ר‬ = Arab. rmm, computruit,
as the dying winter sun (according to Movers and Hitzig; see Leyrer in Herzog's
Cyclopaedia). - The words “and he supports himself upon my hand” are not to be
understood literally, but are a general expressly denoting the service which Naaman had
to render as the aide-de-camp to his king (cf. 2Ki_7:2, 2Ki_7:17). For the Chaldaic form
‫י‬ ִ‫ת‬ָ‫י‬ָ‫ו‬ ֲ‫ֽח‬ ַ ְ‫שׁ‬ ִ‫,ה‬ see Ewald, §156, a. - In the repetition of the words “if I fall down in the temple
of Rimmon,” etc., he expresses the urgency of his wish.
BE SO , "2 Kings 5:17. Two mules’ burden of earth — Wherewith I may make an
altar of earth, as was usual, Exodus 20:24. He desires the earth of this land, because
he thought it more holy and acceptable to God, and proper for his service; or
because he would, by this token, profess and declare his conjunction with the
Israelites in the worship of God, and constantly put himself in mind of his great
obligation to that God, from whose land this was taken: and though he might freely
have taken this earth without asking any leave, yet he rather desires it from the
prophet’s gift, as believing that he, who had put so great a virtue into the waters of
Israel, could put as much into the earth of Israel, and make it as useful and
beneficial to him in a better way. And these thoughts, though extravagant and
groundless, yet were excusable in a heathen and a novice, who was not yet
thoroughly instructed in true religion.
COKE, "2 Kings 5:17. Two mules burden of earth— He desired the earth of the
land, because he thought it more holy and acceptable to God, and proper for his
service; or that because by this token he would declare his conjunction with the
people of Israel in the true worship, and constantly put himself in mind of his great
obligation to that God from whose land this earth was given. He might, indeed, have

111. had enough of this earth without asking any one for it; but he desired the prophet to
give it him, as believing, perhaps, that he who put such virtue into the waters of
Israel, could put as much into the earth thereof, and make it as useful and beneficial
to him in another way. These thoughts indeed were groundless and extravagant, but
excusable in a heathen and a novice, not yet sufficiently instructed in the true
religion.
ELLICOTT, "(17) Shall there not then.—Rather, If not, let there be given, I pray
thee. LXX., καὶ εἰ µή.
Two mules’ burden of earth?—Literally, a load of a yoke of mules’ (in) earth. It was
natural for aaman, with his local idea of divinity, to make this request. He wished
to worship the God of Israel, so far as possible, on the soil of Israel, Jehovah’s own
land. He would therefore build his altar to Jehovah on a foundation of this earth, or
construct the altar itself therewith. (Comp. Exodus 20:24; 1 Kings 18:38.)
Burnt offering nor sacrifice.—Burnt offering nor peace offering.
Offer.—Literally, make.
GUZIK, "5. (2 Kings 5:17-19) aaman’s new faith.
So aaman 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. 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.” Then he said to
him, “Go in peace.” So he departed from him a short distance.
a. Let your servant be given two mule-loads of earth: Like many new believers,
aaman was superstitious in his faith. He held the common opinion of the ancient
world, that particular deities had power over particular places. He thought that if
he took a piece of Israel back with him to Syria, he could better worship the God of
Israel.
i. “The transporting of holy soil was a widespread custom. aaman’s faith was yet
untaught; and with his personal need to follow publicly the state cults, Elisha may
have felt that available Israelite soil may have afforded aaman with some tangible
reminder of his cleansing and new relationship to God.” (Patterson and Austel)
b. When I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the LORD please pardon your
servant in this thing: As an official in the government of Syria, aaman was
expected to participate in the worship of the Syrian gods. He asked Elisha for
allowance to direct his heart to Yahweh even when he was in the temple of Rimmon.

112. i. “The Hebrew ‘lean on the hand’ does not imply physical support but that he was
the king’s ‘right hand man’ (cf. 2 Kings 7:2; 2Ki_7:17).” (Wiseman)
c. Go in peace: By generally approving but not saying specifically “yes” or “no,” it
seems that Elisha left the matter up to aaman and God. Perhaps he trusted that
the LORD would personally convict aaman of this and give him the integrity and
strength to avoid idolatry.
i. Some commentators (Clarke and Trapp among them) believe that aaman asked
forgiveness for his previous idolatry in the temple of Rimmon, instead of asking
permission for future occasions. Apparently, the Hebrew will allow for this
translation, though it is not the most natural way to understand the text.
ii. evertheless, we can certainly agree with Trapp’s application: “Let none by
aaman’s example plead an upright soul in a prostrate body.”
PETT, "2 Kings 5:17
‘And aaman said, “If not, yet, I pray you, let there be given to your servant two
mules’ burden of earth, for your servant will henceforth offer neither burnt-offering
nor sacrifice to other gods, but to YHWH.” ’
aaman responded by indicating that he would continue to express his gratitude by
worshipping YHWH as the only true God. And in order that he might do this he
asked Elisha for two mules’ burden of earth. This request might not be as strange as
it first seems. It did not arise because he felt that YHWH the God of the whole
earth, could only be worshipped on the soil of Israel (a rather naive idea believed
nowhere in Israel. Israelites prayed to Him wherever they were). It was rather
because he was aware that the only altar that could be acceptable to YHWH
according to Israelite Law, was an altar of earth built where YHWH had recorded
His ame (Exodus 20:24). And while there was nowhere in Aram where YHWH
had recorded His ame, the next best thing would be to worship at an altar built of
the material from the earth of the place where YHWH had recorded His ame. This
idea no doubt came to him as a result of the teaching that Elisha had given him in
their conversation together. (And one of the reasons for Elisha’s later visits to Aram
may well have been in order to educate aaman more fully in the things of YHWH -
2 Kings 8:7).
Thus aaman had the idea of building an altar of Israelite earth which had been
taken from the land of YHWH’s inheritance, just as he had been healed by water in
the same land.
PULPIT, "And aaman said, Shall there not then, I pray thee, be given to thy
servant two mules' burden of earth? aaman does not state what he intends to do
with the earth; and the critics have consequently suggested two uses. Some suppose

113. that he intended to make the earth into an altar upon which he might offer his
sacrifices; comp. Exodus 20:24, where an altar of earth is spoken of (Bahr and
others). But the more general opinion (Thenius, Von Gerlach, etc.) is that he wished
to spread the earth over a piece of Syrian ground, and thereby to hallow the ground
for purposes of worship. The Jews themselves are known to have acted similarly,
transferring earth from Jerusalem to Babylonia, to build a temple on it; and the
idea is not an unnatural one, It does not necessarily imply the "polytheistic
superstition" that every god has his own laud, where alone he can be properly
worshipped. It rests simply on the notion of there being such a thing as "holy
ground" (Exodus 3:5)—ground more suited for the worship of God than ordinary
common soil, which therefore it is worth while to transfer from place to place for a
religious purpose. For thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor
sacrifice [as meat offerings or firstfruits] unto other gods, but unto the Lord. It is
implied that aaman had been hitherto a polytheist. ot much is known of the
Syrian religion, but, so far as can be gathered, it would seem to have been a
somewhat narrow polytheism. The sun was the supreme god, and was worshipped
ordinarily under the name of Hadad (Ma-crob, 'Sat.,' 1.23). There was also,
certainly, a great goddess, the "Dea Syra" of the Romans, whom they identified with
Cybele and with their own "Bona Dea," a divinity parallel with the Ashtoreth of the
Phoenicians, and the Ishtar of the Assyrians and Babylonians. Whether there were
any other distinct deities may be doubted, since Bitumen is possibly only another
name of Hadad (see the comment on verse 18). Adonis is simply "Adonai," i.e. "my
Lord," an epithet of the Supreme Being.
18 But may the Lord forgive your servant for this
one thing: When my master enters the temple of
Rimmon to bow down and he is leaning on my
arm and I have to bow there also—when I bow
down in the temple of Rimmon, may the Lord
forgive your servant for this.”
BAR ES, "Rimmon is known to us as a god only by this passage. The name is
connected with a root “to be high.” Hadad-rimmon Zec_12:11, the name of a place near
Megiddo, points to the identity of Rimmon with Hadad, who is known to have been the
Sun, the chief object of worship to the Syrians.
When he leaneth on mine hand - The practice of a monarch’s “leaning on the
hand” of an attendant was not common in the East (compare the marginal reference). It

114. probably implied age or infirmity.
The Lord pardon thy servant in this thing - Naaman was not prepared to offend
his master, either by refusing to enter with him into the temple of Rimmon, or by
remaining erect when the king bowed down and worshipped the god. His conscience
seems to have told him that such conduct was not right; but he trusted that it might be
pardoned, and he appealed to the prophet in the hope of obtaining from him an
assurance to this effect.
CLARKE, "In this thing the Lord pardon thy servant - It is useless to enter
into the controversy concerning this verse. By no rule of right reasoning, nor by any
legitimate mode of interpretation, can it be stated that Naaman is asking pardon for
offenses which he may commit, or that he could ask or the prophet grant indulgence to
bow himself in the temple of Rimmon, thus performing a decided act of homage, the
very essence of that worship which immediately before he solemnly assured the prophet
he would never practice. The original may legitimately be read, and ought to be read, in
the past, and not in the future tense. “For this thing the Lord pardon thy servant, for that
when my master Hath Gone into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he Hath
Leaned upon mine hand, that I also Have Bowed myself in the house of Rimmon; for my
worshipping in the house of Rimmon, the Lord pardon thy servant in this thing.” This is
the translation of Dr. Lightfoot, the most able Hebraist of his time in Christendom.
To admit the common interpretation is to admit, in effect, the doctrine of indulgences;
and that we may do evil that good may come of it; that the end sanctifies the means; and
that for political purposes we may do unlawful acts.
GILL, "In this thing the Lord pardon thy servant,.... Which he next mentions,
and on account of which he desires the prayers of Elisha for him, as the Vulgate Latin
version; or it may be, this is a prayer of his own, put up at this time to the true Jehovah,
in whom he believed:
that when my master: meaning the king of Syria:
goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my
hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon: when I bow down myself in
the house of Rimmon; the Lord pardon thy servant in this thing; the house of
Rimmon was a temple of an idol of that name; what idol it was is not easy to say; the
Septuagint version calls it Remman, thought by some to be the same with Remphan,
Act_7:43, a name of Saturn, said to be given him from a Greek word, which signifies to
"wander" (q), he being placed among the wandering stars in the supreme heavens; which
is not likely, for the word is certainly of a Syriac signification, and comes either from ‫,רום‬
which signifies "high", and so the same with Elioun, the Phoenician deity, called the
most high (r); or, as "Rimmon" is used for a pomegranate, this is thought to design the
Syrian goddess, to whom this sort of fruit was sacred; or Juno, whose statue, in her
temple at Mycenas (s), had a pomegranate in one hand; or rather this Rimmon was
Jupiter Cassius, so called from Mount Cassius, which divided Syria from Egypt, who is
painted with his hand stretched out, and a pomegranate in it (t); and may be the same
with Caphtor, the father of the Caphtorim, Gen_10:14 who might be deified after his
death, their names, Rimmon and Caphtor, being of the same signification (u). But be

115. this deity as it may, it was worshipped by the Syrians; and when the king of Syria went in
to worship, he used to lean upon the hand of one of his officers, either being lame, or for
state sake, in which office Naaman was; and his request to the prophet, or to the Lord, is,
not for pardon for a sin to be committed; nor to be indulged in his continuance of it; not
to worship the idol along with his master; nor to dissemble the worship of it, when he
really worshipped it not; nor to be excused any evil in the discharge of his post and
office; but for the pardon of the sin of idolatry he had been guilty of, of which he was
truly sensible, now sincerely acknowledges, and desires forgiveness of; and so Dr.
Lightfoot (w), and some others (x), interpret it; and to this sense the words may be
rendered:
when my master went in to the house of Rimmon to worship there; which was
his usual custom; and he leaned on my hand, which was the common form in which he
was introduced into it:
and I worshipped in the house of Rimmon, as his master did, for the same word is
used here as before:
in as much, or seeing I have worshipped in the house of Rimmon, have been
guilty of such gross idolatry:
the Lord, I pray, forgive thy servant in this thing; the language of a true penitent.
JAMISO , "goeth into the house of Rimmon — a Syrian deity; probably the
sun, or the planetary system, of which a pomegranate (Hebrew, Rimmon) was the
symbol.
leaneth on my hand — that is, meaning the service which Naaman rendered as the
attendant of his sovereign. Elisha’s prophetic commission not extending to any but the
conversion of Israel from idolatry, he makes no remark, either approving or
disapproving, on the declared course of Naaman, but simply gives the parting
benediction (2Ki_5:19).
BE SO , "2 Kings 5:18. When my master goeth into the house of Rimmon — Or
rather, went, or hath gone, namely, formerly; for the Hebrew text of the whole verse
may be properly rendered in the past time, thus: In this thing the Lord pardon thy
servant, that when my master went into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and
he leaned on my hand, and I bowed myself in the house of Rimmon; when I bowed
myself in the house of Rimmon, the Lord pardon thy servant in this thing. Rimmon,
it must be observed, was a Syrian idol, called here by the Seventy Remman, and
Acts 7:43, Remphan. And as aaman, in the preceding verses, had declared that he
would worship no other God but Jehovah, this translation seems evidently the true
one, and is approved by many learned men, as Mr. Locke, Dr. Lightfoot, Lord
Clarendon, and others. Certainly, as Dr. Dodd observes, “‘the incongruity would be
great, if aaman, who had just before declared his renunciation of idolatry, should
now confess his readiness to relapse into the same crime, and desire God’s pardon
for it beforehand; whereas to ask pardon for what he had done amiss, and to desire

116. the prophet’s intercession with God in that behalf, argued a mind truly sensible of
his former transgression, and very much resolved to avoid it for the future; and
accordingly it is supposed that upon his return home he refused to worship Rimmon
any more, and was thereupon dismissed from being general of the king’s forces.”
COKE, "2 Kings 5:18. In this thing the Lord pardon thy servant, &c.— Rimmon,
the great idol of the Phoenicians, is by many thought to have been the sun. There
seems to be no doubt that some of the planets at least were worshipped under this
name. As aaman in the preceding verses has declared that he will worship no other
god than Jehovah, there seems to be much plausibility in that translation of this
verse which has been given by some learned men, and approved by many: In this
thing the Lord pardon thy servant, that when my master went into the house of
Rimmon to worship there, and he leaned on my hand, and I bowed myself in the
house if Rimmon; when I bowed down myself the house of Rimmon, the Lord
pardon thy servant in this thing. This is reasonable; but certainly the incongruity
would be great, if aaman, who had just before declared his renunciation of
idolatry, should now confess his readiness to relapse into the same crime, and desire
God's pardon for it before-hand; whereas, to ask pardon for what he had done
amiss, and to desire the prophet's intercession with God in that behalf, argued a
mind truly sensible of his former transgression, and very much resolved to avoid it
for the future: and accordingly it is supposed, that upon his return home he refused
to worship Rimmon any more, and was thereupon dismissed from being general of
the king's forces. Houbigant, however, is strongly of opinion, that aaman pleads
for permission to attend his master the king of Syria, merely in a civil capacity, to
the temple of Rimmon; which he thinks might well be allowed, while he publicly
professed himself a worshipper of the God of Israel, and offered up sacrifices and
burnt-offerings only to him. The reader will find much in Calmet and Roque upon
the subject, as well as in Houbigant's note on the place. The first interpretation has
also the countenance of the learned Dr. Lightfoot.
REFLECTIO S.—He who turned away in a rage, now convinced by experience,
returns with humility and gratitude to acknowledge the mercy that he had received.
1. He solemnly confesses his faith in Israel's God, as the only Jehovah, and,
renouncing all his idols, resolves henceforth to offer sacrifice to no other God. ote;
We then only truly know God, when, not by mere reasoning, but by blessed
experience, we find his saving power exercised in our hearts.
2. He presses the prophet to accept a present from him, as the token of his gratitude;
but this, though indigent, and able well to employ it for his poor pupils, he solemnly
refuses; not as unlawful, but as inexpedient: it would be more for the honour of his
God to shew a contempt of this world's wealth. ote; (1.) othing so dishonourable
in a prophet as the appearance of a mercenary spirit. (2.) Where the heart is fixed
on a better portion, it can look on gold as dross.
3. He makes a two-fold request, with which the prophet complies. (1.) He begs two

117. mules' burden of earth, to build an altar to Israel's God, henceforth his own. He
looked on the land of Syria as polluted with idols; and now is as attached to the very
earth of Israel, as he seemed before to despise it. ote; When the heart is turned to
God, how differently do we regard every thing which relates to him! that which was
our contempt or aversion, has now our warmest affections. (2.) He begs Elisha's
prayers for him, that his past idolatry might be pardoned: not that he might be
permitted still, as our translation intimates, to bow in the house of Rimmon, in
complaisance to his master. To such a gracious appearance the prophet cannot but
give his approbation, and dismisses him in peace, as one accepted of God. ote; (1.)
Past transgressions should be ever remembered and lamented. (2.) They are to be
encouraged, who give gracious symptoms of real conversion to God.
ELLICOTT, "(18) In this thing.—Touching this thing (but in at the end of the
verse). The LXX. and Syriac read, “and touching this thing,” an improvement in the
connection.
To worship.—To bow down (the same verb occurs thrice in the verse).
The house of Rimmon.—The Assyrian Rammânu (from ramâmu, “to thunder”).
One of his epithets in the cuneiform is Râmimu, “the thunderer;” and another is
Barqu (=Bâriqu), “he who lightens.” Rimmon was the god of the atmosphere, called
in Accadian, A . IM (“god of the air or wind”), figured on bas-reliefs and cylinders
as armed with the thunderbolt. His name is prominent in the story of the Flood (e.g.,
it is said Rammânu irmum, “Rimmon thundered”); and one of his standing titles is
Râhiçu (“he who deluges”). The Assyrians identified Rammân with the Aramean
and Edomite Hadad. (Comp. the name Hadad-rimmon, Zechariah 12:11; and
Tabrimon, 1 Kings 15:18.) A list of no fewer than forty-one titles of Rimmon has
been found among the cuneiform tablets.
Leaneth on my hand.—A metaphor denoting the attendance on the king by his
favourite grandee or principal adjutant. (Comp. 2 Kings 7:2; 2 Kings 7:17.)
When I bow down myself.—An Aramaic form is used. The clause is omitted in some
Hebrew MSS.
The Lord pardon thy servant.— aaman had solemnly promised to serve no god but
Jehovah for the future. He now prays that an unavoidable exception—which will,
indeed, be such only in appearance—may be excused by Jehovah. His request is not,
of course, to be judged by a Christian standard. By the reply, “Go in peace,” the
prophet, as spokesman of Jehovah, acceded to aaman’s prayer. “ aaman durst
not profess conversion to the foreign cultus before the king, his master; so he asks
leave to go on assisting at the national rites” (Reuss).
The Lord pardon.—In the current Hebrew text it is the Lord pardon, I pray. The
LXX. appears to have had the same reading; but very many MSS. and all the other
versions omit the precative particle. It is, however, probably genuine.

118. ISBET, "THE COMPROMISES OF LIFE
‘When I bow myself in the house of Rimmon.’
2 Kings 5:18
Here we find aaman making an excuse, it is said, for dissembling his religious
convictions, and Elisha accepting the plea. He is convinced that Jehovah is the true
God, but is not prepared to make any sacrifice for his faith. What is this but to open
a wide door for every species of dissimulation, and to make expediency, not truth,
the rule of conduct?
To state the question thus is not to state it fairly.
I. Even if Elisha did accept aaman’s plea, it would not follow that he was right.—
An inspired prophet is not equally inspired at all times.
II. Did Elisha accept aaman’s plea?—The evidence turns entirely on Elisha’s
words, ‘Go in peace.’ These words are the common form of Oriental leave-taking.
They may have been little more than a courteous dismissal. Elisha may have felt that
the permission craved by aaman involved a question of conscience which he was
not called upon to resolve. Hence he would not sanction aaman’s want of
consistency on the one hand nor condemn it on the other. He declines the office of
judge. He leaves conscience to do her work.
III. Who shall say this was not the wisest course to adopt?—The prophet saw
aaman’s weakness, but he also saw aaman’s difficulty. Put the worst
construction on his words, and you will say he evades the question; put the best, and
you will say he exercises a wise forbearance.
IV. We may fairly ask how far aaman is to be excused in urging the plea of the
text.—Superstition mingled with his faith. He was a heathen, only just converted,
only newly enlightened. We may excuse aaman, but we cannot pretend as
Christians to make his plea ours, or to justify our conduct by his.
V. The Christian missionary preaches a religion whose very essence is the spirit of
self-sacrifice, the daily taking up of the Cross and following Christ.—It is plain,
therefore, that he could not answer the man who came in the spirit of aaman, ‘Go
in peace.’
VI. Two practical lessons follow from this subject.—(1) The first is not to judge
others by ourselves; (2) the second is not to excuse ourselves by others.
—Bishop Perowne.
Illustrations
(1) ‘A man’s worship was not in these days merely a matter of his own faith and
religious life; it was a national affair, and as such was to be understood, not as

119. expressing a man’s personal conviction, but his loyalty to the customs and the life of
his people. Thus aaman’s proposal was quite intelligible, and the prophet allowed
him to carry it out. It was that as an official he might bow in the house of Rimmon,
the national god whom the King of Syria worshipped. This would not be
misunderstood, for he also asked for two mules’ burden of earth that he might
worship Jehovah.’
(2) ‘Have you and I, who are living in the full glory of the sunshine of the Gospel,
always the courage to aver our convictions if the avowal will cost us anything? Are
we never ashamed of Christ, never ready to climb a step higher by not being
righteous overmuch?’
(3) ‘The fact of aaman’s worshipping Jehovah upon earth actually brought all the
way from Samaria to Damascus could not be hid. o one would be left in doubt as
to his own religious convictions, or would think that in his heart he was a
worshipper of Rimmon. There was no lie, though there was a compromise.’
SIMEO , "Verse 18-19
DISCOURSE: 366
AAMA BOWI G I THE HOUSE OF RIMMO
2 Kings 5:18-19. In this thing the Lord pardon thy servant, that when my master
goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I
bow myself in the house of Rimmon: when I bow down myself in the house of
Rimmon, the Lord pardon thy servant in this thing. And he said unto him, Go in
peace.
THE operation of divine grace is uniform in every age and place: it makes a total
revolution in the views and habits of the person in whom it dwells. See how it
wrought on aaman! Before he felt its influence he was full of pride and unbelief;
and notwithstanding his request for the healing of his leprosy was granted, yet
because it was not granted in the precise way that he expected, he would not comply
with the directions of the prophet, but “turned, and went away in a rage.” But,
when his leprosy was healed, and in conjunction with that mercy the grace of God
wrought powerfully upon his soul, he returned with most heartfelt gratitude to the
prophet, renounced his idol-worship, and devoted himself altogether to the God of
Israel. At the same time however that he embraced the true religion, he made a
request, which has been differently interpreted by different commentators; some
vindicating it as illustrative of a tender conscience, and others condemning it as an
indication of an unsound mind.
We think that great and learned men are apt to judge of particular passages,
according as their own general views and habits of life incline them: those who are
lax in their own conduct, leaning too much to a laxity of interpretation; and those
who are strict in their principles, not daring, as it were, to concede to men the

120. liberty which God has given them [ ote: We conceive that few Christians in the
world would have approved of the statement in Romans 14 if it had not been
contained in the inspired volume.]. But we should neither abridge the Christian’s
liberty, nor extend it beyond its just bounds: and we apprehend that the passage
before us will assist us materially in assigning to it its proper limits, and will itself
receive the most satisfactory interpretation when viewed according to its plain and
obvious import.
We propose then to consider,
I. The concession here made—
We do not hesitate to call Elisha’s answer a concession. To regard it as an evasion of
the question is to dishonour the prophet exceedingly, and to contradict the plainest
import of his words. His answer is precisely the same as that of Jethro to Moses
[ ote: Exodus 4:18.]; and must be interpreted as an approbation of the plan
proposed to him. Let us consider then the true import of aaman’s question—
[ aaman proposed to continue in the king of Syria’s service, and to attend him as
usual to the house of Rimmon, the god whom his master worshipped: and as his
master always leaned upon his arm on those occasions, (a practice common with
kings at that time, even with the kings of Israel, as well as others [ ote: 2 Kings 7:2;
2 Kings 7:17.],) he must of necessity accommodate himself to his master’s motion,
and bow forward when he did, in order not to obstruct him in his worship. This he
proposed to do; and his communication of his intentions to the prophet must be
understood in a two-fold view; namely, As an inquiry for the regulation of his
judgment, and as a guard against a misconstruction of his conduct.
The case was certainly one of great difficulty, and especially to a young convert, to
whom such considerations were altogether new. On the one hand, he felt in his own
mind that he should not participate in the worship of his master; and yet he felt that
his conduct would be open to such a construction. Having therefore access to an
inspired prophet, he was glad to have his difficulty solved, that so he might act as
became a servant of Jehovah, and enjoy the testimony of a good conscience.
Being determined, if the prophet should approve of it, so to act, he desired to cut off
all occasion for blame from others. He knew how ready people are to view things in
an unfavourable light; and that, if he should do this thing of himself, he might
appear to be unfaithful to his convictions, and to have relapsed into idolatry: he
therefore entered, as it were, a protest against any such surmises, and gave a public
pledge that he would do nothing that should be inconsistent with his professed
attachment to Jehovah.
In this view of the subject, his question was every way right and proper. The honour
of God and the salvation of his own soul depended on his not doing any thing that
should be inconsistent with his profession; and therefore he did right to ask advice:
and lest he should by any means cast a stumbling-block before others, he did well in

121. explaining his views and intentions beforehand. What terrible evils had well nigh
arisen from the neglect of such a precaution, when the tribes of Reuben and of Gad
erected an altar on the banks of Jordan [ ote: Joshua 22:9-34.]! — — — On the
other hand, what evils were avoided, when Paul explained his sentiments in the first
instance privately to the elders of Jerusalem, instead of exciting prejudice and
clamour by a hasty and indiscriminate avowal of them in public [ ote: Galatians
2:2.]! It is thus that we should act with all possible circumspection, not only avoiding
evil, but “abstaining as much as possible from the very appearance of it [ ote: 1
Thessalonians 5:22.];” and not only doing good, but endeavouring to prevent “our
good from being evil spoken of [ ote: Romans 14:16.].”]
The import of the answer given to it—
[This answer is not to be understood as a connivance at what was evil, but as an
acknowledgment that aaman might expect the divine blessing whilst pursuing the
conduct he had proposed. Can we imagine that aaman at that moment saw the
thing to be evil, and yet desired a dispensation to commit it? Did he, at the very
moment that he was rejecting all false gods, and acknowledging Jehovah as the only
true God, and determining to build an altar to Jehovah in his own country, and
desiring earth from Jehovah’s land to build it upon, did he then, I say, at that
moment ask for a licence to play the hypocrite? and can we suppose that he would
confess such an intention to Elisha, and ask his sanction to it? or can we imagine
that Elisha, knowing this, would approve of it, or give an evasive answer, instead of
reprobating such impiety? Assuredly not: the request itself, as made on that
occasion, must of necessity have proceeded from an upright mind; and the prophet’s
concession is an indisputable proof, that the request, made under those particular
circumstances, was approved by him. Elisha saw that aaman was upright: he
knew that the bowing or not bowing was a matter of indifference in itself; and that,
where it was not done as an act of dissimulation, nor was likely to be mistaken by
others as an act of worship, it might be done with a good conscience; more especially
as it was accompanied with a public disavowal of all regard for idols; and arose only
out of the accidental circumstance of the king leaning on his hand at those seasons.
In this view of the subject, the prophet did not hesitate to say to him, “Go in peace.”]
Such, we are persuaded, was the concession made. Let us now proceed to consider,
II. The instruction to be gathered from it—
The more carefully we examine this concession, the more instructive will it be found.
We may learn from it,
1. How to determine the quality of doubtful actions—
[Many actions, such as observing of holy days, or eating meats offered to idols, are
indifferent in themselves, and may be good or evil, according to circumstances. Two
things, then, are to be inquired into, namely, The circumstances under which they
are done; and, the principles from which they flow.

122. Had aaman acted from a love to the world, or from a fear of man, his conduct
would have been highly criminal: or, if by accommodating himself to the notions of
the king he would have cast a stumbling-block before others, he would have sinned
in doing it: but with his views, and under his circumstances, his conduct was wholly
unexceptionable.
In this sentiment we are confirmed by the conduct of St. Paul. St. Paul, when taking
Timothy with him as a fellow-labourer, circumcised him in order to remove the
prejudices of the Jews, who would not otherwise have received him on account of his
father being a Greek: but, when required to circumcise Titus, he refused, and would
on no account give way; because a compliance in that case was demanded as a
necessary conformity with the Mosaic law, which was now abolished. In both these
cases he acted right, because of the difference of the circumstances under which he
acted. So, when he “became all things to all men,” he acted right, as well in
conforming to legal observances as in abstaining from them, because his principle
was right [ ote: Acts 21:22-26 and 1 Corinthians 9:19-22.]: whilst Peter, on the
contrary, sinned in a very grievous manner by conforming to the Jewish prejudices,
because he acted from fear, and not from love. We do not mean to say, that every
action which proceeds from a good principle, is therefore right; for, no principle,
however good, can sanctify a bad action, though a bad principle will vitiate the best
of actions [ ote: See Haggai 2:12-13.]: but an investigation of the principle from
which an action flows, accompanied with an attention to the circumstances under
which it is done, will serve as the best clew whereby to find what is really good, and
to distinguish it from all specious and delusive appearances.]
2. How to act in doubtful cases—
[Circumstances must sometimes arise, wherein it is difficult to draw the precise line
between good and evil: and in all such cases we shall do well to consult those, whose
deeper knowledge, and exalted piety, and more enlarged experience qualify them
for the office of guiding others. We are ourselves liable to be biased by passion or
interest; and are therefore oftentimes too partial judges in our own cause. Another
person, divested of all such feelings, can generally see more clearly where the path of
duty lies. We shall always therefore do well to distrust ourselves, and to take advice
of others [ ote: See how the Church of old acted, Acts 15:1-2.]: but, above all, we
should take counsel of the Lord. He has promised, that “the meek he will guide in
judgment, the meek he will teach his way:” and, though we are not to expect a voice
from heaven to instruct us, or a pillar of fire to go before us, yet may we hope for
such an influence of his Spirit as shall rectify our views, and be, in effect, an
accomplishment of that promise, “Thou shalt hear a voice behind thee, saying, This
is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left
[ ote: Isaiah 30:21.].”
If, after much deliberation we cannot make up our minds, it is best to pause, till we
see our way more clear. The commandments given us by God himself on this point,
are very express: “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind:” “Happy is

123. the man who condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth; for he that
doubteth is damned (condemned) if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for
whatsoever is not of faith, is sin [ ote: Romans 14:5; Romans 14:22-23.].” But, if we
are upright in our minds, and inquire of others, not to get a sanction to our own
wishes, but to obtain direction from the Lord, we shall certainly not be left
materially to err; and for the most part, we shall at all events enjoy the “testimony
of our own consciences, that with simplicity and godly sincerity we have had our
conversation in the world [ ote: 2 Corinthians 1:12.].”]
3. How to deal with tender consciences—
[The prophet did not begin to perplex the mind of aaman with nice distinctions;
but, seeing the integrity of his heart, encouraged him to proceed; not doubting but
that, as occasions arose, God himself would “guide him into all truth.” Thus should
we also deal with young converts [ ote: Romans 14:1.]: we should feed them with
milk, and not with meat, which, on account of their unskilfulness in the word of
righteousness, they would not be able to digest [ ote: John 16:12; 1 Corinthians 3:2;
Hebrews 5:11-14.]. There may be many things proper for them both to know and do
at a future period, which, under their present circumstances, need not be imparted,
and are not required. We should therefore deal tenderly towards them, being
careful not to lay upon them any unnecessary burthen, or exact of them any
unnecessary labours; lest we “break the bruised reed, and quench the smoking
flax:” our endeavour rather must be to “lift up the hands that hang down, and to
strengthen the feeble knees, and to make straight paths for their feet, that the lame
may not be turned out of the way, but may rather be healed [ ote: Hebrews 12:12-
13.].” This was our Lord’s method [ ote: Matthew 9:14-17.] — — — and an
attention to it is of infinite importance in all who would be truly serviceable in the
Church of Christ.]
Lest this subject be misunderstood, we shall conclude with answering the following
questions:
1. May we ever do evil that good may come?
[ o: to entertain such a thought were horrible impiety: and if any man impute it to
us, we say with St. Paul, that “his damnation is just [ ote: Romans 3:8.].” But still
we must repeat what we said before, that things which would be evil under some
circumstances, may not be so under others; and that whilst the question itself can
admit of no doubt, the application of it may: and we ought not either to judge our
stronger, or despise our weaker, brethren, because they do not see every thing with
our eyes [ ote: Romans 14:3-6.]; for both the one and the other may be accepted
before God, whilst we for our uncharitableness are hateful in his sight [ ote:
Romans 14:10; Romans 14:18.].]
2. May we from regard to any considerations of ease or interest act contrary to
our conscience?

124. [ o: conscience is God’s vicegerent in the soul, and we must at all events obey its
voice. We must rather die than violate its dictates. Like Daniel and the Hebrew
youths, we must be firm and immovable. If a man err, it will never be imputed to
him as evil that he followed his conscience, but that he did not take care to have his
conscience better informed. We must use all possible means to get clear views of
God’s mind and will; and, having done that, must then act according to our
convictions, omitting nothing that conscience requires, and allowing nothing that
conscience condemns. The one endeavour of our lives must be to “walk in all good
conscience before God,” and to “keep a conscience void of offence towards God and
man.”]
3. May we on any account forbear to confess Christ?
[ o: we must shew, before all, our love to the God of Israel, and our communion
with his people. In every place where we go, we must erect an altar to our God and
Saviour. “If on any account we are ashamed of him, he will be ashamed of us;” and,
“if we deny him, he will deny us.” evertheless we are not called to throw up our
situations in life, because there is some difficulty in filling them aright: we are
rather called to approve ourselves to God in those situations, and to fill them to the
glory of his name. We must indeed take care that we are not led into any sinful
compliances in order to retain our honours or emoluments; but we must avail
ourselves of our situations to honour God, and to benefit mankind.]
PETT, "2 Kings 5:18
“In this thing YHWH pardon your servant, when my master goes into the house of
Rimmon to worship there, and he leans on my hand, and I bow myself in the house
of Rimmon, when I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, YHWH pardon your
servant in this thing.”
The depths of aaman’s ‘conversion’ comes out in this request. He was aware that
he must worship only YHWH. But his duties demanded that he stand next to the
king of Aram as his supporter when he was worshipping in the Temple of Rimmon
(compare how to some extent Obadiah might have had a similar problem - 1 Kings
18). He asked therefore that he might be forgiven if at such a time he bowed his
head so as to show respect to his earthly master. It was not to be seen as really
bowing to Rimmon, something which he could now never do, but to YHWH, and he
requested that YHWH might pardon him for even appearing to bow to Rimmon. It
is clear that aaman had been thinking things through as he travelled.
Rimmon is probably a variation of Ramman (from Assyrian ‘Ramanu’ - the
thunderer), which was a title of the Damascene god Hadad. ote how Ben-hadad I’s
father was called Tab-rimmon (1 Kings 15:18).
PULPIT, "In this thing the Lord pardon thy servant. aaman is not prepared to be

125. a martyr for his religion. On returning to Damascus, it will be among his civil duties
to accompany his master to the national temples, and to prostrate himself before the
images of the national deities. If he declines, if (like an early Christian) he will not
enter "the house of devils," much less bow down before the graven image of a false
god, it may cost him his life; it will certainly cost him his court favor. For such a
sacrifice he is not prepared. Yet his conscience tells him that he will be acting
wrongly. He therefore expresses a hope, or a prayer, that his fault, for a fault he
feels that it will be, may be forgiven him—that Jehovah will not be "extreme to
mark what is done amiss," but will excuse his outward conformity to his inward
faith and zeal. That when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon. Riminon is
probably derived from rum ( ‫רוּם‬ ), "to be high," and means "the exalted god,"
according to the gloss of Hesychins— ‫́ע‬‫ן‬‫טו‬ ‫́ריףפןע‬ʇ‫ץ‬ ‫́לבע‬‫ב‬‫ס‬‫́ע‬‫ן‬‫טו‬ ‫́ריףפןע‬ʇ‫ץ‬ ‫́לבע‬‫ב‬‫ס‬‫́ע‬‫ן‬‫טו‬ ‫́ריףפןע‬ʇ‫ץ‬ ‫́לבע‬‫ב‬‫ס‬‫́ע‬‫ן‬‫טו‬ ‫́ריףפןע‬ʇ‫ץ‬ ‫́לבע‬‫ב‬‫.ס‬ It is wrongly connected with. It is wrongly connected with. It is wrongly connected with. It is wrongly connected with
ֹ ‫טּון‬ ִ‫,ר‬ "a pomegranate," and should rather be compared with the Arabic Er Rhaman,
"the Most High." The royal name, "Tab-Bitumen" (1 Kings 15:18 ), contains the
root, as does also the local name (Zechariah 12:11), "Hadad-Rimmon." This last
word gives rise to the suspicion that Hadad and Rimmon are merely two names of
the same deity, who was called "Hadad" or "Hadar" as bright and glorious, "Rim-
men" as lofty and exalted. To worship there, and he leaneth on my hand. Either
aaman's leprosy must have been recent, and he refers to the king's practice in
former times, or there must have been far less horror of leprosy among the Syrians
than there was among the Hebrews. And I bow myself in the house of Rimmon—
before the image, or at any rate before the supposed presence of the god—when I
bow down myself in the house of Rimmon, the Lord pardon thy servant in this
thing. The repetition of the clause indicates aaman's anxiety on the subject.
19 “Go in peace,” Elisha said.
After aaman had traveled some distance,
BAR ES, "So he departed ... - This clause should not be separated from the
succeeding verse. The meaning is, “So he departed from him, and had gone a little way,
when Gehazi bethought himself of what he would do, and followed after him.”
CLARKE, "And he said unto him - There is a most singular and important
reading in one of De Rossi’s MSS., which he numbers 191. It has in the margin ´‫ק‬ ‫לא‬ that
is, “read ‫לא‬ lo, not, instead of ‫לו‬ lo, to him.” Now this reading supposes that Naaman did
ask permission from the prophet to worship in Rimmon’s temple; to which the prophet
answers, No; go in peace: that is, maintain thy holy resolutions, be a consistent

126. worshipper of the true God, and avoid all idolatrous practices. Another MS., No. 383,
appears first to have written ‫לו‬ to him, but to have corrected it immediately by inserting
an ‫א‬ aleph after the ‫ו‬ vau; and thus, instead of making it ‫לא‬ no, it has made it ‫לוא‬ lu,
which is no word.
GILL, "And he said unto him,.... That is, the prophet said to Naaman:
go in peace: in peace of mind; be assured that God has pardoned this and all other
transgressions:
so he departed from him a little way; about a mile, as the Targum, and so other
Jewish writers; of this phrase; see Gill on Gen_35:16, some say a land's length, that is,
about one hundred and twenty feet; rather it was a thousand cubits, or half a mile.
K&D, "2Ki_5:19
Elisha answered, “Go in peace,” wishing the departing Syrian the peace of God upon
the road, without thereby either approving or disapproving the religious conviction
which he had expressed. For as Naaman had not asked permission to go with his king
into the temple of Rimmon, but had simply said, might Jehovah forgive him or be
indulgent with him in this matter, Elisha could do nothing more, without a special
command from God, than commend the heathen, who had been brought to belief in the
God of Israel as the true God by the miraculous cure of his leprosy, to the further
guidance of the Lord and of His grace.
(Note: Most of the earlier theologians found in Elisha's words a direct approval of
the religious conviction expressed by Naaman and his attitude towards idolatry; and
since they could not admit that a prophet would have permitted a heathen alone to
participate in idolatrous ceremonies, endeavoured to get rid of the consequence
resulting from it, viz., licitam ergo esse Christianis συµφώνησιν πιστοሞ µετᆭ ᅊπιστοሞ,
seu symbolizationem et communicationem cum ceremonia idololatrica, either by
appealing to the use of ‫וֹת‬ ֲ‫ֽח‬ ַ ְ‫שׁ‬ ִ‫ה‬ and to the distinction between incurvatio regis
voluntaria et religiosa (real worship) and incurvatio servilis et coacta Naemani,
quae erat politica et civilis (mere prostration from civil connivance), or by the
ungrammatical explanation that Naaman merely spoke of what he had already done,
not of what he would do in future (vid., Pfeiffer, Dub. vex. p. 445ff., and J. Meyer, ad
Seder Olam, p. 904ff., Budd., and others). - Both are unsatisfactory. The dreaded
consequence falls of itself if we only distinguish between the times of the old
covenant and those of the new. Under the old covenant the time had not yet come in
which the heathen, who came to the knowledge of the true deity of the God of Israel,
could be required to break off from all their heathen ways, unless they would
formally enter into fellowship with the covenant nation.)
ELLICOTT, "(19) A little way.—Heb., a kibrâh of ground (Genesis 35:16). It seems
to mean “a length of ground,” “a certain distance,” without defining exactly how
far. Had it been a parasang, as the Syriac renders, Gehazi could not have overtaken
the company so easily.

127. PETT, "2 Kings 5:19
‘And he said to him, “Go in peace.” So he departed from him a little way (literally ‘a
region of land’).’
We may presumably assume from the reply given (‘go in well-being’) that YHWH
recognised the genuine dilemma and indicated that He would see such an attitude
for what it really was, an act of etiquette, and would thus pardon it. The idea behind
‘go in peace’ is that it represents the confirmation of a covenant. All was well
between them. And the result was that aaman went on his way with his heart full
of praise to YHWH.
But he had not gone far when he was to witness the duplicity of someone who
claimed to be a servant of YHWH.
PULPIT, "And he said unto him; Go in peace. Elisha declared neither that God
would nor that he would net forgive aaman his departure from the path of strict
right. He was not called upon to give an answer, since aaman had not put a
question, but had only expressed a wish. His Go in peace is to be taken simply as
"wishing the departing Syrian the peace of God upon the road." So Keil, rightly. So
he departed from him a little way. aaman left the presence of Elisha, quitted
Samaria, and had gone a short way on his homeward journey when Gehazi
overtook him. 2 Kings 5:19 is closely connected with 2 Kings 5:20.
20 Gehazi, the servant of Elisha the man of God,
said to himself, “My master was too easy on
aaman, this Aramean, by not accepting from
him what he brought. As surely as the Lord lives,
I will run after him and get something from him.”
BAR ES, "This Syrian - The words are emphatic. Gehazi persuades himself that it
is right to spoil a Syrian - that is, a Gentile, and an enemy of Israel.
As the Lord liveth - These words are here a profane oath. Gehazi, anxious to make
himself believe that he is acting in a proper, and, even, in a religions spirit, does not
scruple to introduce one of the most solemn of religious phrases.

128. CLARKE, "My master hath spared - this Syrian - He has neither taken any
thing from him for himself, nor permitted him to give any thing to me.
GILL, "But Gehazi the servant of Elisha the man of God said,.... Within
himself, observing what had passed:
behold, my master hath spared Naaman this Syrian, in not receiving at his
hands that which he brought: he speaks contemptibly of Naaman, as an alien from
the commonwealth of Israel, and reproaches his master for letting him go free, without
paying for his cure; when he thought he should have taken what he brought and offered,
and given it to needy Israelites, and especially to the sons of the prophets, that wanted it;
and perhaps it mostly disturbed him, that he had no share of it himself:
but, as the Lord liveth, I will run after him, and take somewhat of him; the
word for "somewhat", wanting a letter usually in it, is what is sometimes used for a blot;
and Jarchi observes, that Gehazi taking something from Naaman, was a blot unto him,
and indeed such an one that he could not wipe off.
HE RY 20-24, "Naaman, a Syrian, a courtier, a soldier, had many servants, and we
read how wise and good they were, 2Ki_5:13. Elisha, a holy prophet, a man of God, has
but one servant, and he proves a base, lying, naughty fellow. Those that heard of Elisha
at a distance honoured him, and got good by what they heard; but he that stood
continually before him, to hear his wisdom, had no good impressions made upon him
either by his doctrine or miracles. One would have expected that Elisha's servant should
be a saint (even Ahab's servant, Obadiah, was), but even Christ himself had a Judas
among his followers. The means of grace cannot give grace. The best men, the best
ministers have often had those about them that have been their grief and shame. The
nearer the church the further from God. Many come from the east and west to sit down
with Abraham when the children of the kingdom shall be cast out. Here is,
I. Gehazi's sin. It was a complicated sin. 1. The love of money, that root of all evil, was
at the bottom of it. His master contemned Naaman's treasures, but he coveted them,
2Ki_5:20. His heart (says bishop Hall) was packed up in Naaman's chests, and he must
run after him to fetch it. Multitudes, by coveting worldly wealth, have erred from the
faith and pierced themselves with many sorrows. 2. He blamed his master for refusing
Naaman's present, condemned him as foolish in not taking gold when he might have it,
envied and grudged his kindness and generosity to this stranger, though it was for the
good of his soul. In short, he thought himself wiser than his master. 3. When Naaman,
like a person of accomplished manners, alighted from his chariot to meet him (2Ki_
5:21), he told him a deliberate lie, that his master sent him to him, and so he received
that courtesy to himself that Naaman intended to his master. 4. He abused his master,
and basely misrepresented him to Naaman as one that had soon repented of his
generosity, that was fickle, and did not know his own mind, that would say and unsay,
swear and unswear, that would not do an honourable thing but he must presently undo
it again. his story of the two sons of the prophets was as silly as it was false; if he would
have begged a token for two young scholars, surely less than a talent of silver might serve
them. 5. There was danger of his alienating Naaman from that holy religion which he

129. had espoused, and lessening his good opinion of it. he would be ready to say, as Paul's
enemies suggested concerning him (2Co_12:16, 2Co_12:17), that, though Elisha himself
did not burden him, yet being crafty he caught him with guile, sending those that made a
gain of him. We hope that he understood afterwards that Elisha's hand was not in it, and
that Gehazi was forced to restore what he had unjustly got, else it might have driven him
to his idols again. 6. His seeking to conceal what he had unjustly got added much to his
sin. (1.) He hid it, as Achan did his gain, by sacrilege, in the tower, a secret place, a
strong place, till he should have an opportunity of laying it out, 2Ki_5:24. Now he
thought himself sure of it, and applauded his own management of a fraud by which he
had imposed, not only upon the prudence of Naaman, but upon Elisha's spirit of
discerning, as Ananias and Sapphira upon the apostles. (2.) He denied it: He went in,
and stood before his master, ready to receive his orders. None looked more observant of
his master, though really none more injurious to him; he thought, as Ephraim, I have
become rich, but they shall find no iniquity in me, Hos_12:8. His master asked him
where he had been, “Nowhere, sir” (said he), “out of the house.” Note, One lie commonly
begets another: the way of that sin is down-hill; therefore dare to be true.
JAMISO , "2Ki_5:20-27. Gehazi, by a lie, obtains a present, but is smitten with
leprosy.
I will run after him, and take somewhat of him — The respectful courtesy to
Elisha, shown in the person of his servant, and the open-handed liberality of his gifts,
attest the fullness of Naaman’s gratitude; while the lie - the artful management is
dismissing the bearers of the treasure, and the deceitful appearance before his master, as
if he had not left the house - give a most unfavorable impression of Gehazi’s character.
K&D, "Punishment of Gehazi. - 2Ki_5:20-22. When Naaman had gone a stretch of
the way (‫ץ‬ ֶ‫ר‬ ֶ‫א‬ ‫ת‬ ַ‫ר‬ ְ‫ב‬ ִⅴ, 2Ki_5:19; see at Gen_35:16), there arose in Gehazi, the servant of
Elisha, the desire for a portion of the presents of the Syrian which his master had
refused (‫ם‬ ִ‫א‬ ‫י‬ ִⅴ ‫יי‬ ‫י‬ ַ‫,ח‬ as truly as Jehovah liveth, assuredly I run after him; ‫ם‬ ִ‫א‬ ‫י‬ ִⅴ as in 1Sa_
25:34). He therefore hastened after him; and as Naaman no sooner saw Gehazi running
after him than he sprang quickly down from his chariot in reverential gratitude to the
prophet (‫ּל‬ ִ‫י‬ as in Gen_24:64), he asked in the name of Elisha for a talent of silver and
two changes of raiment, professedly for two poor pupils of the prophets, who had come
to the prophet from Mount Ephraim.
BE SO , "2 Kings 5:20. Gehazi, the servant of Elisha — One would have expected
that Elisha’s servant should have been a saint; but we find him far otherwise. The
best men, the best ministers, have often had those about them that were their grief
and shame. My master hath spared this Syrian — A stranger, and one of that nation
who are the implacable enemies of God’s people. As the Lord liveth — He swears,
that he might have some pretence for the action to which he had bound himself by
his oath; not considering, that to swear to do any wicked action, is so far from
excusing it, that it makes it much worse.

130. COFFMA , "This unhappy episode so closely allied with the healing of aaman, as
pointed out by Henry, strongly suggests the envy of racial Israel who rejected the
Christ because of his receiving the Gentiles. Gehazi dearly despised and hated "this
Syrian" and determined to take from him whatever he could get. There are spiritual
overtones here of the very grandest dimensions.
ote this early example of crooked "fund raisers" who base their appeals upon
helping others. Gehazi pretended to be seeking help for impoverished sons of the
prophets, but he was merely a lying scoundrel seeking to enrich himself. Many
"charities" of our own times are of that same character. "To the shame of all, a few
continue to exploit unsuspecting persons on the pretext of giving aid to needy
religious causes. Religious charlatans of the twentieth century are little different
from Gehazi."[15]
Gehazi was indeed a skillful liar. His trumped up story about those two
impoverished sons of the prophets who arrived just after aaman left must have
sounded like the gospel truth to aaman.
"Is it a time to receive money ... garments ... oliveyards ... vineyards ... sheep and
oxen ... men-servants and maid-servants?" (2 Kings 5:26). In these words, the
prophet merely pointed out all of those material benefits which would in Gehazi's
mind have resulted from that great gift he had extorted from aaman.
"This is a constant warning to all who would magnify the externals of life at the
expense of spiritual realities."[16] Did not our Savior ask, "What shall it profit a
man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul"?
"Gehazi was like Judas; his concern for money and material things blinded him to
the great realities of Elisha's prophetic mission."[17]
"It was not merely for his avarice that God punished Gehazi, but for his abuse of
the prophet's name.[18]
Hammond pointed out not merely the severity of God's punishment of Gehazi, but
its immediacy also. "It fell upon him suddenly, as Miriam's leprosy had fallen upon
her ( umbers 12:10)."[19]
ELLICOTT, "(20) Said—i.e., thought.
This Syrian.—He justifies his purpose on the principle of “spoiling the Egyptians.”
But, as the Lord liveth, I will run.—Rather, by the life of Jehovah, but I will run.
(Comp. ote on 2 Kings 4:30.)
GUZIK, "C. The greed of Gehazi.

131. 1. (2 Kings 5:20-24) Gehazi follows after aaman.
But Gehazi, the servant of Elisha the man of God, said, “Look, my master has
spared aaman this Syrian, while not receiving from his hands what he brought;
but as the LORD lives, I will run after him and take something from him.” So
Gehazi pursued aaman. When aaman saw him running after him, he got down
from the chariot to meet him, and said, “Is all well?” And he said, “All is well. My
master has sent me, saying, ‘Indeed, just now two young men of the sons of the
prophets have come to me from the mountains of Ephraim. Please give them a talent
of silver and two changes of garments.’” So aaman said, “Please, take two talents.”
And he urged him, and bound two talents of silver in two bags, with two changes of
garments, and handed them to two of his servants; and they carried them on ahead
of him. When he came to the citadel, he took them from their hand, and stored them
away in the house; then he let the men go, and they departed.
a. I will run after him and take something from him: As Gehazi heard aaman and
Elisha speak, he was shocked that his master refused to take anything from such a
wealthy, influential, and grateful man. He figured that someone should benefit from
such an opportunity, and he took the initiative to run after aaman and take
something from him.
i. Gehazi thought that Elisha deserved a reward (my master has spared aaman).
He also became exactly what Elisha avoided: becoming a taker (take something
from him).
b. Please, take two talents: Gehazi probably thought that God was blessing his
venture. After all, he asked for a talent of silver and aaman was happy to give him
two talents.
i. The fact that he handed them to two of his servants shows that this was a lot of
silver. “It required two servants to carry these two talents, for, according to the
computation above, each talent was about 120lbs. weight.” (Clarke)
c. Stored them away in the house: He deliberately hid them from Elisha. Gehazi
knew that he did wrong.
PARKER, "The name Gehazi means "valley of vision," and is appropriate enough
if we think of what Gehazi saw as to the nature of wickedness when the prophet
opened his eyes. Let us note what points there are in this case which illustrate
human life as we now know it. In this way we shall test the moral accuracy of the
story,—and that is all we are now principally concerned about.
Gehazi was "the servant of Elisha the man of God." Surely then he would be a good
man? Can a good man have a bad servant? Can the man of prayer, whose life is a
continual breathing unto God of supreme desires after holiness, have a man in his

132. company, looking on and watching him, and studying his character, who denies his
very altar, and blasphemes against his God? Is it possible to live in a Christian
house and yet not to be a Christian? Can we come so near as that, and yet be at an
infinite distance from all that is pure and beautiful and true? If Song of Solomon ,
then we must look at appearances more carefully than we have been wont to do, for
they may have been deceiving us all the time. Surely every good man"s children
must be good; for they have had great spiritual advantages; they have indeed had
some hereditary benefits denied to many others; their house has been a home, their
home has been a church, and surely they must show by their whole spirit and tone
of life that they are as their father as to alb spiritual aspiration and positive
excellence. Is it not so? If facts contradict that theory, then we must look at the
theory again more carefully, or we must examine the facts more closely, because the
whole science of Cause and Effect would seem to be upset by such contradictions.
There is a metaphysical question here, as well as a question of fact. A good tree must
bring forth good fruit; good men must have good children; good masters must have
good servants; association in life must go for something. So we would say—
emphatically, because we think reasonably. But facts are against such a fancy. What
is possible in this human life? It is possible that a man may spend his days in
building a church, and yet denying God. Does not the very touch of the stones help
him to pray? o. He touches them roughly, he lays them mechanically, and he
desecrates each of them with an oath. Is it possible that a man can be a builder of
churches, and yet a destroyer of Christian doctrine and teaching generally? Yes. Let
us come closer still, for the question is intensely interesting and may touch many: it
is possible for a man to print the Bible and yet not believe a word of it! On first
hearing this shocking statement we revolt from it. We say it is possible for a man to
handle type that is meant to represent the greatest revelation ever made to the
human mind, without feeling that the very handling of the type is itself a kind of
religious exercise. Yet men can debauch themselves in the act of printing the Bible;
can use profane language whilst putting the Lord"s Prayer in type; can set up the
whole Gospel of John , without knowing that they are putting into visible
representation the highest metaphysics, the finest spiritual thinking, the tenderest
religious instruction. Let us come even closer: a man can preach the gospel and be a
servant of the devil! Who, then, can be saved? It is well to ask the question. It is a
burning inquiry; it is a spear-like interrogation. We would put it away from us if we
dare. ow let this stand as our first lesson in the study of this remarkable incident,
that Gehazi was the servant of Elisha the man of God, and was at the same time the
servant of the devil. He was receiving wages from both masters. He was a living
contradiction; and in being such he was most broadly human. He was not a
monster; he was not a natural curiosity; he is not to be accounted for by quietly
saying that he was an eccentric person: he represents the human heart, and by so
much he brings against ourselves an infinite impeachment. It is in vain that we
shake our skirts as if throwing off this man and all association with him and
responsibility for him; this cannot be done: he anticipated ourselves; we repeat his
wickedness. The iniquity is not in the accident, in the mere circumstances, or in the
particular form; the iniquity is in the heart,—yea, is the very heart itself. Marvel not
that Christ said, "Ye must be born again."

133. Gehazi did not understand the spirit of his master. He did not know what his master
was doing. How is it that men can be so far separated from one another? How is it
that a man cannot be understood in his own house, but be thought fanciful,
fanatical, eccentric, phenomenally peculiar? How is it that a man may be living
amongst men, and yet not be of them; may be in the world and yet above the world;
may be speaking the very language of the time, and yet charging it with the meaning
of eternity? See here the differences that still exist and must ever exist as between
one man and another: Elisha living the great spiritual life—the grand prayer-life
and faith-life; and Gehazi grubbing in the earth, seeking his contentment in the
dust. These contrasts exist through all time, and are full of instruction. Blessed is he
who observes the wise man and copies him; looks upon the fool and turns away
from him, if not with hatred yet with desire not to know his spirit, Gehazi had a
method in his reasoning. Said he in effect: To spare a stranger, a man who may
never be seen again; to spare a beneficiary, a man who has taken away benefits in
the right hand and in the left; to spare a wealthy visitor, a man who could have
given much without feeling he had given anything; to spare a willing giver, a man
who actually offered to give something, and who was surprised, if not offended,
because his gift was declined! there is no reason in my master"s policy. It never
occurred to Gehazi that a man could have bread to eat that the world knew not of. It
never occurs to some men that others can live by faith, and work miracles of faith by
the grace of God. Are there not minds that never had a noble thought? It is almost
impossible to conceive of the existence of such minds, but there they are; they never
went beyond their own limited location; they never knew what suffering was on the
other side of the wall of their own dwelling-place; they were never eyes to the blind,
or ears to the deaf, or feet to the lame; they never surprised themselves by some
noble thought of generosity;—how, then, can they understand the prophets of the
times? Yet how noble a thing it is to have amongst us men who love the upper life,
and who look upon the whole world from the very sanctuary of God, and who say,
"A man"s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth, but
a man"s life consists of his faith, and love and charity." We cannot tell how much
the prophets are doing to refine their age, to give a new view to all human duty, to
inspire those who otherwise would fail for lack of courage. We cannot tell where the
answers to prayer fall, or how those answers are given, but we feel that there is at
work in society a mystic influence, a strange, ghostly, spectral action, which keeps
things together, and now and again puts Sabbath day right in the midst of the
vulgar time. Think of these things: There are facts of a high and special kind, as well
as what we commonly call facts, which are often but appearances and dramatic
illusions. What about the secret ministry, the unnameable spiritual action, the holy,
elevating, restraining influence? What is that hand which will write upon palace
walls words of judgment and keep the world from plunging into darkness infinite?
Surely God is in this place, and I knew it not: this—wherever it be, garden or
wilderness—is none other than the house of God and the gate of heaven.
Gehazi prostituted an inventive and energetic mind. He had his plan:—"My master
hath sent me, saying, Behold, even now there be come to me from mount Ephraim
two young men of the sons of the prophets; give them, I pray thee, a talent of silver,
and two changes of garments" ( 2 Kings 5:22). The case was admirably stated. It

134. was stated too with just that urgency which increases the likelihood of that which is
declared. Elisha spent his time amongst the sons of the prophets; they all looked to
him as a father, as he himself had looked to Elijah; he was the young man"s friend,
the young minister"s asylum; they all knew gracious, gentle, Christ-like Elisha—the
anti-type of the Messiah; and what more likely than that two of them in the course
of their journeying should have called upon Elisha unexpectedly? It was a free,
gracious life the old ministers lived. They seemed to have rights in one another. If
any one of them had a loaf, that loaf belonged to the whole fraternity. If one of
them, better off than another, had a house or part of a house, any of the sons of the
prophets passing by could go and lodge there. It was a gracious masonry; it was a
true brotherhood. Then the moderateness of the statement also added to its
probability: "Give them, I pray thee, a talent of silver, and two changes of
garments:" they are on the road, they cannot tell what is going to happen; how long
the next stage may be they do not yet calculate, and if they could have this
contribution all would be well. Do not suppose that wicked men are intellectually
fools. They can state a case with great clearness and much graphic force. "The
children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light."
Would God they were children of light! How acute they are! How rapid in thinking
power! How inventive and fertile in mind! They would make the Church a success;
they would turn it to broader uses; they would rebuke the narrowness of our
thinking, yea, they would put us into inferior positions, and taking the natural lead
they would conduct the Church to fuller realisations of the Lord"s purpose
concerning his dominion over all men. We have no hesitation in saying that the men
of the world in most cases overmatch the men of the Church in matters of strong
thinking regarding practical subjects and practical ministries and uses. We who are
in the Church are afraid: we want to be let alone; not for the world would we be
suspected of even dreaming of anything unusual; we would have our very dreams
patterns of neatness, things that might be published in the shop windows, and
looked upon without affronting the faintest sensibility on the part of the beholders.
But the Gehazis, if they were converted, they would be men of energy, dash,
courage, fire; we should hear of them and of their work. If one might pray at all
regarding others, who would not pray that many who are in the Church might be
out of it, so far as activity of leadership, inspiration, and enthusiasm are concerned?
What excellent people they might make where there was nothing to do! and how
gratefully they would receive wages for doing it! But who would not desire that
many a journalist, many a merchant, many a man who is outside the Church might
be brought into it, because with his brains, with his mental fire, with his soldier-like
audacity and gracious violence, he would make the age know that he was alive? But
whilst we thus credit such men with high intellectual sense, we are bound to look at
the moral character which they but too frequently represent. Gehazi was no model
man in a moral sense. His invention was a lie; his cleverness was but an aspect of
depravity; his very genius made him memorable for wickedness.
But Gehazi was successful. He took the two talents of silver in the two bags, with the
two changes of garments; he brought them to the tower, and bestowed them in the
house; then he sat down—a successful man! ow all is well: lust is satisfied, wealth
is laid up; now the fitness of things has been consulted, and harmony has been

135. established between debtor and creditor, and Justice nods because Justice has been
appeased. Were the test to end with the twenty-fourth verse we should describe
Gehazi as a man who had set an example to all coming after him who wished to turn
life into a success. Who had been wronged? aaman pursues his journey all the
happier for thinking he has done something in return for the great benefit which
has been conferred upon him. He is certainly more pleased than otherwise. The man
of God has at last been turned, he thinks, into directions indicated by common-
sense. All that has happened is in the way of business; nothing that is not customary
has been done. Gehazi is satisfied, and Elisha knows nothing about it. The servant
should have something even if the master would take nothing. It is the trick of our
own day! The servant is always at the door with his rheumatic hand ready to take
anything that may be put into it. We leave nothing with the master; it would be an
insult to him. So far the case looks natural, simple, and complete; and we have said
Elisha knows nothing about it. Why will men trifle with prophets? Why will men
play with fire? When will men know that what is done in secret shall be published
on the housetops; when will men know that there can be nothing confidential that is
wicked? Observe Gehazi going in to his master as usual, and look at his face: not a
sign upon it of anything having been done that is wrong. Look at his hands: large,
white, innocent-looking hands that never doubled their fingers upon things that did
not belong to them. Look at Elisha: fixing his eyes calmly upon Gehazi, he says,
"Whence comest thou, Gehazi? And he said, Thy servant went no whither;" the
meaning being that he was on the premises all the time; always within call; the
lifting-up of a finger would have brought him. Then came the speech of judgment,
delivered in a low tone, but every word was heard—the beginning of the word and
the end of the word, and the last word was like a sting of righteousness. "Went not
mine heart with thee?" Oh that heart! The good man knows when wickedness has
been done: the Christ knows when he enters into the congregation whether there is a
man in it with a withered hand; he says, There is a cripple somewhere in this
audience. He feels it. "Went not mine heart with thee?" Was I not present at the
interview? Did I not hear every syllable that was said on the one side and on the
other? Did I not look at thee when thou didst tell the black, flat, daring lie? "Is it a
time to receive money, and to receive garments, and oliveyards, and vineyards, and
sheep, and oxen, and men-servants, and maidservants?" Has the age come to this?
Is this a correct interpretation of the time and of the destiny that is set before men?
Then the infliction of the judgment: "The leprosy therefore of aaman shall cleave
unto thee, and unto thy seed for ever" ( 2 Kings 5:27). Thou hast touched the silver,
thou didst not know that it was contagious and held the leprosy; thou didst bring in
the two changes of garments, not knowing that the germs of the disease were folded
up with the cloth: put on the coat—it will scorch thee: "He went out from his
presence a leper as white as snow." A splendid conception is this silent departure.
ot a word said, not a protest uttered; the judgment was felt to be just: "Cast ye the
unprofitable servant into outer darkness;" "These shall go away into everlasting
punishment." Oh the hush, the solemn silence! The judgment seemed to begin with
the sound of trumpets and the rending of things that apparently could not be
shaken; at the end there is simply a going away, a silent motion, a conviction that
the sentence is right. See Gehazi as he goes out of Elisha"s presence, and regard him

136. as a specimen of those who having been judged on the last day will—depart! Men
should consider the price they really pay for their success. Do not imagine that men
can do whatever they please, and nothing come of it. Every action we perform takes
out of us part of ourselves. Some actions take our whole soul with them, and leave us
poor indeed. Yes, the house is very large, the garden is very fruitful, the situation is
very pleasant, the windows look to the south and to the west, birds are singing on
the sunny roof, roses and woodbine are climbing up the south windows, and the
bargain was monetarily very cheap; but, oh! it was wrenched from honest hands, it
was purloined, it was taken over in the dark; the man who signed it away was half-
blinded before he attached his signature to the fatal document. Will the house stand
long? Will the sun not be ashamed of it? Will the roses bloom? Will the woodbine
curl its long fingers round the window-posts, and feel quite happy there? o! there
is a worm at the root, there is a blight on every leaf; no sooner will the roses and the
woodbine know that a felon lives there than they will retire from the scene, and the
sun which blessed will now blister with judicial fire. "A little that a righteous man
hath is better than the riches of many wicked." If any of us have gotten anything by
false accusation, by sharp practice, by infernal skill and energy of mind, better pour
it back again, and stand away from it, and say, "God be merciful to me a sinner!"
Better for a man that he should cut off his right hand and enter into life maimed
than having two hands be cast into outer darkness. Was not the leprosy a severe
punishment for such a sin? What do you mean by "such a sin"? What was the sin?
Think of it! The prophet was falsified, religion was debased, God"s mercies were
turned into merchandise, the Holy Ghost blasphemed, and to all the Gentile world
was sent the evil tidings that whatever Israel did it did for gain. The punishment
was a great one, but just. At the last the most wicked men amongst us being
adjudged to everlasting punishment cannot reply: for a voice within says, The time
is not too long!
Selected ote
The grateful Syrian would gladly have pressed upon Elisha gifts of high value, but
the holy man resolutely refused to take anything, lest the glory redounding to God
from this great Acts , should in any degree be obscured. His servant Gehazi was less
scrupulous, and hastened with a lie in his mouth, to ask in his master"s name, for a
portion of that which Elisha had refused. The illustrious Syrian no sooner saw the
man running after his chariot, than he alighted to meet him, and happy to relieve
himself in some degree under the sense of overwhelming obligation, he sent him
back with more than he ventured to ask. othing more is known of aaman.
"We afterwards find Gehazi recounting to King Joram the great deeds of Elisha,
and, in the providence of God it so happened that when he was relating the
restoration to life of the Shunammite"s Song of Solomon , the very woman with her
son appeared before the king to claim her house and lands, which had been
usurped, while she had been absent abroad during the recent famine. Struck by the
coincidence, the king immediately granted her application ( 2 Kings 8:1-6). As lepers
were compelled to live apart outside the towns, and were not allowed to come too
near to uninfected persons, some difficulty has arisen with respect to Gehazi"s

137. interview with the king. Several answers occur. The interview may have taken place
outside the town, in a garden or garden-house; and the king may have kept Gehazi
at a distance, with the usual precautions which custom dictated. Some even suppose
that the incident is misplaced, and actually occurred before Gehazi was smitten with
leprosy. Others hasten to the opposite conclusion, and allege the probability that the
leper had then repented of his crime, and had been restored to health by his master.
PETT, "2 Kings 5:20
‘But Gehazi the servant of Elisha the man of God, said, “Behold, my master has
spared this aaman the Aramaean, in not receiving at his hands what he brought.
As YHWH lives, I will run after him, and take somewhat of him.” ’
For Gehazi’s thoughts were full of greed. He felt that Elisha had spared aaman,
(‘this aaman the Aramaean’ indicating his contempt for foreigners) by not
accepting the gifts that aaman had brought, and he thought how nice it would be if
he himself could benefit by it. After all aaman would not miss it. He did not
consider the fact that such an act might have a bad effect on aaman’s new found
faith, nor that aaman was now a new found ‘brother in YHWH’. There is an irony
in his words, ‘As YHWH lives’, while at the same time he thought that he could get
away with sinning, by keeping it from the same ‘living God’. There was a
contradiction in his ideas (and yet how often we do the same). He should have
known that there could only be one consequence. But he dismissed such a thought
and decided to run after aaman and ask for a gift.
PULPIT, "But Gehazi, the servant of Elisha the man of God, said (see 2 Kings 4:12-
36 for the position held towards Elisha by Gehazi), Behold, my master has spared
aaman this Syrian. Gehazi either honestly thinks, or at least persuades himself,
that a Syrian ought to be, not spared, but spoiled, as being a foreigner and an
enemy. In not receiving at his hands that which he brought (see 2 Kings 5:5). Gehazi
may not have known how much it was, but he had seen the laden animals, and
rightly concluded that the value was great. But, as the Lord liveth, I will run after
him, and take somewhat of him. "As the Lord liveth" seems a strange phrase in the
mouth of one who is bent on lying and on stealing. But experience teaches us that
religious formulae do drop from the lips of persons engaged in equally indefensible
proceedings. This is partly because formulae by frequent use become mere forms, to
which the utterer attaches no meaning; partly because men blind themselves to the
wrongfulness of their actions, and find some excuse or other for any course of
conduct by which they hope to profit.
BI 20-27, "Gehazi, the servant of Elisha.
Gehazi
The name Gehazi means “valley of vision,” and is appropriate enough if we think of what
Gehazi saw as to the nature of wickedness when the prophet opened his eyes.
1. Gehazi was “the servant of Elisha, the man of God.” Surely then he would be a

138. good man? Can a good man have a bad servant? Can the man of prayer, whose life is
a continual breathing unto God of supreme desires after holiness, have a man in his
company, looking on and watching him, and studying his character, who denies his
very altar, and blasphemes against his God? Is it possible to live in a Christian house
and yet not to be a Christian? Cause and effect would seem to be upset by such
contradictions. There is a metaphysical question here, as well as a question of fact. A
good tree must bring forth good fruit; good men must have good children; good
masters must have good servants; association in life must go for something. So we
would say—emphatically, because we think reasonably. But facts are against such a
fancy. What is possible in this human life? It is possible that a man may spend his
days in building a church, and yet denying God. Does not the very touch of the stones
help him to pray? No. He touches them roughly, he lays them mechanically, and he
desecrates each of them with an oath. Is it possible that a man can be a builder of
churches, and yet a destroyer of Christian doctrine and teaching generally? Gehazi
did not understand the spirit of his master. He did not know what his master was
doing. How is it that men can be so far seperated from one another? How is it that a
man cannot be understood in his own house, but be thought fanciful, fanatical,
eccentric, phenomenally peculiar? Gehazi had a method in his reasoning. Said he in
effect: To spare a stranger, a man who may never be seen again; to spare a
beneficiary, a man who has taken away benefits in the right hand and in the left; to
spare a wealthy visitor, a man who could have given much without feeling he had
given anything; to spare a willing giver, a man who actually offered to give
something, and who was surprised, if not offended, because his gift was declined!
there is no reason in my master’s policy. It never occurred to Gehazi that a man
could have bread to eat that the world knew not of. It never occurs to some men that
others can live by faith, and work miracles of faith by the grace of God.
2. Gehazi prostituted an inventive and energetic mind. He had his plan (v. 22). The
case was admirably stated. We have no hesitation in saying that the men of the world
in most cases overmatch the men of the Church in matters of strong thinking
regarding practical subjects and practical ministries and uses. We who are in the
Church are afraid: we want to be let alone; not for the world would we be suspected
of even dreaming of anything unusual; we would have our very dreams patterns of
neatness, things that might be published in the shop windows, and looked upon
without affronting the faintest sensibility on the part of the beholders. But the
Gehazis, if they were converted, they would be men of energy, dash, courage, fire; we
should hear of them and of their work.
3. But Gehazi was successful. Now all is well: lust is satisfied, wealth is laid up; now
the fitness of things has been consulted, and harmony has been established between
debtor and creditor, and Justice nods because Justice has been appeased. Were the
test to end with the twenty-fourth verse we should describe Gehazi as a man who had
set an example to all coming after him who wished to turn life into a success. Who
had been wronged? Naaman pursues his journey all the happier for thinking he has
done something in return for the great benefit which has been conferred upon him.
He is certainly more pleased than otherwise. The man of God has at last been turned,
he thinks, into directions indicated by common sense. All that has happened is in the
way of business; nothing that is not customary has been done. Gehazi is satisfied,
and Elisha knows nothing about it. The servant should have something even if the
master would take nothing. It is the trick of our own day! The servant is always at the
door with his rheumatic hand ready to take anything that may be put into it. We
leave nothing with the master; it would be an insult to him. So far the case looks

139. natural, simple, and complete; and we have said Elisha knows nothing about it. Look
at Elisha: fixing his eyes calmly upon Gehazi, “Went not mine heart with thee?” Oh
that heart! The good man knows when wickedness has been done: the Christ knows
when He enters into the congregation whether there is a man in it with a withered
hand; He says, There is a cripple somewhere in this audience. He feels it. “Went not
mine heart with thee?” Was I not present at the interview? Did I not hear every
syllable that was said on the one side and on the other?
4. Then the infliction of the judgment: “The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave
unto thee, and unto thy seed for ever” (v. 27). Thou hast touched the silver, thou
didst not know that it was contagious and held the leprosy; thou didst bring in the
two changes of garments, not knowing that the germs of the disease were folded up
with the cloth: put on the coat—it will scorch thee! “He went out from his presence a
leper as white as snow.” A splendid conception is this silent departure. Not a word
said, not a protest uttered; the judgment was felt to be just. Men should consider the
price they really pay for their success. Do not imagine that men can do whatever they
please, and nothing come of it. Every action we perform takes out of us part of
ourselves. Some actions take our whole soul with them, and leave us poor indeed. (J.
Parker, D. D.)
Defilement of God’s work by covetous men
It is at once most surprising and most saddening to know that some of the best works
that have been done on earth for God, and some of God’s most eminent workers, have
been defamed and lowered, if their influence has not been actually counteracted and
nullified, by inferior workers and by unworthy men. This defiling of God’s work has
generally come from one source, and is the result of one vile lust or passion,
covetousness—the desire for the means of gaining power or wealth, or place, or self-
indulgence; the desire for dominion or money as the means of self-exaltation and
aggrandisement. As illustrating this I need only mention the repulsive histories of
Balaam, of Achan, of David’s impious numbering of Israel, the story of Gehazi now
before us, and the dark atrocity of the life and death of Judas Iscariot.
1. The action and duplicity of Gehazi are of singular unworthiness. Like so many
other histories they show that intercourse with good men and association with God-
like work may become only the occasion of worse vileness in a man. The followers of
Luther were seldom worthy of him. The followers of Calvin have not been true to
their master. The adherents of the hallowed Wesleys did not take their sacred work
only. The converts of Paul almost broke his heart. And the followers and servants of
Jesus—where is there one of us who is worthy of his Master? Too often has it been
found that one of the most repressive influences about the work of great men and
good servants of Jesus Christ is in the fact that some of their nearest followers have
had unworthy souls; and could turn their Master’s greatness into the service of their
own inferior aims and into the means of advance in this world. Do not many of us
come to Christ with selfish feelings and serve our God for hire? Being with the good
and great will not necessarily make us similar; otherwise Gehazi would have been a
better man.
2. Gehazi’s covetousness was of a gross, material kind—the love of money; and the
miserable influence of it upon him is seen in this: that it produced inability to
appreciate Elisha’s spiritual motives. All that Gehazi let himself see was, that with
the departing Naaman so much money went away too. More especially, however,

140. notice that, as with Gehazi, so, generally, the covetous and unprincipled man lowers
himself to a level on which he is unable, in daily life and business, to appreciate other
motives than those of getting gain; or to measure anything in life’s movements and
enterprises by any other gauge than that of the money that can be gained or must be
lost. Because of this abasing and prostituting of nature, Paul earnestly declares
covetousness to be practically idolatry, and has its legitimate consequences on man’s
inner life, in antipathy to Jesus, and self-mutilation, with much sorrow. Gehazi could
not feel the power of Elisha’s spiritual motives in sparing Naaman and letting him go
free of payment. He rather thought—why should my master not have taken the
money? What good was it to let the talents of silver and gold and the beautiful Syrian
robes go? The fair damask raiment of Damascus—why should it be lost? Naaman
could afford it; and it would be far less than the equivalent of what he had received
from Elisha. Look which way he would, the money that had been lost, the gain that
had not been made, was ever alluring his debased soul Elisha’s noble determination
that the mercy of his God should, in Naaman’s case, be had literally “for the asking”:
his resolve that the goodness of God should be then, as we say now, of grace, and not
of buying or deserving, either before or after it had been obtained,—this to such a
soul as Gehazi’s was useless, fanciful, intangible.
3. In several other ways Gehazi’s covetousness involved him in sin, and further
defiled the good work that had been wrought by Elisha. To notice these is to see a
testimony to a law of God that the young cannot heed too much—the law that forbids
the possibility of solitary sins, isolated transgressions. There are no lonely, single
sins. Sin needs sin to help it along, to buttress it, to back it, and give it success. One
deception leads to another, and needs it. One lie begets another, and requires it to
succeed. And it may be well for us all to remember that all the good and gains of this
grand world are not worth one little lie.
4. Now we come, as men say they have so often in daily life and business, to face this
misery—the success of the lie. The falsehood has thriven; to deceive has been found
to be the short road to wealth; to insult God, to defame His work, to misrepresent
Elisha and plunder Naaman, these things have “paid,” as men say. (G. B. Ryley.)
A voice of warning
I. Let us note the danger of unimproved and abused spiritual privileges. Gehazi’s
religious advantages, in all probability, began at a date anterior to the time and mission
of Elisha. One tradition speaks of him as the boy who sped at the bidding of the Tishbite
to the top of Carmel, to watch the rising of the expected cloud over the Mediterranean,
precursive of the longed-for rain. This, at all events, we know, that seven years previous
to Naaman’s pilgrimage, he was the witness of Elisha’s greatest miracle, when he
brought back the Shunammite’s son to life. Doubtless, during these intermediate years,
he had seen many other signs and wonders authenticating his master’s Divine call He
had mingled with the youths—his own contemporaries and fellow-students—in the
college of the prophets: and, above all, in common with them, and more than them, he
had been the privileged eye-witness of the pure, exalted character and consistent walk of
his honoured superior. Alas! that no fall is so low and so fearful as the fall of a man “once
enlightened,” and who has “tasted of the heavenly gift.” No recoil to sin is so terrible as
the recoil on the part of one who has “tasted the good word of God, and the powers of
the world to come.” The religious training and pious fellowship which softens and
ameliorates the docile, teachable heart; if abused and rejected, will only serve to stir up

141. the natural, innate tendencies of evil. Let us write “Beware” on our seasons of loftiest
privilege, and on our moments of highest inspiration. “Beware” of a spirit of indifference
to Divine things, harbouring aught that would blunt the fine edge of conscience, and
grieve the Holy Spirit of God; allowing religion to become a weariness; outwardly
professing godliness, while inwardly in league with the world, the flesh, and the devil.
II. A second lesson we may learn from the story of Gehazi, is the certainty of sin’s
detection. It was a boldly conceived and a boldly executed scheme of the audacious
criminal. Such were the air-castles which Gehazi, in common with thousands of
accomplished graduates in crime, have reared for themselves. But he forgot, or tried at
least to bury from remembrance, the truth which he had embodied in his own
thoughtless imprecation, that “Jehovah liveth.” It is true that sentence against an evil
work is not always (indeed, is seldom) executed speedily. God many times seems to
“keep silence”—to be like the Baal of Carmel, “asleep.” The daring and presumptuous
venture their own sceptic conclusions on this forbearance of the Most High, in thinking
Him “altogether such an one as themselves”—“The Lord doth not see, neither doth the
God of Jacob regard” (Psa_94:7). If, however, there be in the present state, exceptions to
this great retributive law in God’s moral economy, “It is a fearful thing to fall into the
hands of the living God.” And as the detection will be sure, so also will the punishment
be commensurate with the crime. In the case of Gehazi, most meet and befitting was the
nature of the retribution. He would rob the restored Commander of his festal garment; a
white garment, too, he shall have in return, but very different truly from the one he has
avariciously appropriated:—a garment of terrible import, which in a terrible sense shall
“wax not old,” for it shall go down a frightful heirloom to his children’s children. It is a
robe of leprosy, “white as snow.” Be not deceived, God is not mocked; for whatsoever a
man soweth, that shall he also reap!”
III. A third lesson we may draw from the narrative is, the tendency of one sin to
generate another. When the moral sense becomes weakened, and moral restraints are
withdrawn, the horde of demons gather strength;—the avalanche of depravity acquires
bulk as well as velocity, in its downward course of havoc and ruin. “These wild beasts—
the wolves of the soul—may hunt at first singly, but afterwards they go in packs, and the
number increaseth the voraciousness thereof.” When the citadel of the heart is carried
by assault, one bastion after another is dismantled, and its treasure abandoned to the
enemy. The Reaper angels, in the final harvest of wrath, are pictured as gathering, not
single stalks, or even sheaves, but “bundles to be burnt.” Mark the sad experience of
Gehazi:—
1. Note his covetousness. Avarice was the besetting sin of his nature—the prolific
parent of all the others.
2. But the motive-power of covetousness roused into action other depraved, and, till
now, slumbering forces. We have to note next, his untruthfulness. Isaac Watts’ child-
hymn, in simplest child-language, expresses in brief the sad experience of this
covetous attendant—
For he who does one fault at first,
And lies to hide it, makes it two.
3. Scarcely distinguishable from Gehazi’s sin of falsehood—akin to it, and a part of
it—(a sister-spirit of evil)—let us note his hypocrisy. (J. R. Macduff, D. D.)

142. Gehazi
I. That the highest religious advantages, unless duly improved, will fail to produce any
saving results.
II. That where unholy dispositions are cherished in the heart, they will break forth,
when a favourable opportunity presents itself, in corresponding action.
III. That while we proceed in a course of iniquity, it is in vain for us to expect either
concealment or impunity.
1. All your sin is known to God. Man cannot read the heart of his fellow-man without
a special revelation from heaven; but though man can only judge from outward
appearances, and is consequently incapable of forming a right estimate, all things are
known to God. “I, the Lord, search the heart and try the reins of the children of
men.”
2. All sin thus beheld is abhorred by God. The Lord is a God of infinite purity and
righteousness. There is no object we can contemplate or conceive, that is half so
offensive to the most delicate eye as sin is to God.
3. God, in His infinite wisdom, has a thousand means which we cannot conceive, of
bringing to light the hidden works of darkness. Gehazi thought that his secret
wickedness would never be discovered; but the whole scene passed, as it were, in
panoramic view before his master. The Lord can suggest a single thought to the mind
of a person acquainted with us, that may lead to a train of reflections, observations,
and inquiries which will discover our secret iniquities. (T. Jackson.)
Gehazi
Let us derive a few general and useful reflections from the whole narrative.
I. Persons may be very wicked under religious advantages. The means of grace and the
grace of the means are very distinguishable from each other, and are frequently found
separate.
II. Here is a warning against the love of money. “Take heed, and beware of
covetousness.”
III. See the encroachments and progress of sin; and learn how dangerous it is to give
way to any evil propensity.
IV. How absurd it is to sin with an expectation of secrecy! “There is no darkness nor
shadow of death where the workers of iniquity can hide themselves.”
V. Abhor and forsake lying. It is in common peculiarly easy to detect falsehood. Hence it
is said that every liar should have a good memory. And what an odious character is a
liar! How shunned and detested when discovered! To every mortal upon earth, the
appellation of a liar is the most detestable. A liar is the emblem of “the devil, who was a
liar from the beginning, and abode not in the truth.” (W. Jay.)
Gehazi
In dwelling on our subject we have suggested:—

143. I. Gehazi’s inestimable privileges. He held no ordinary position. He was servant to the
greatest of prophets, and lived in an atmosphere of the most exalted purity and the
highest piety. He had an example to contemplate which few others have been favoured
with. Hence he could not excuse himself by the plea of ignorance. He had the means of
knowing what was right. He was in constant contact with God’s Divine word, and knew
well the Divine law. He saw and probably enjoyed the ministrations of his master. Yet
notwithstanding all this he sinned in a notable and presumptuous manner.
II. Gehazi’s complicated sin. How one crime is tied to another! They follow like children
of a family. They are like the birds that collect after carrion. We seldom see one
prominent sin hovering in the moral atmosphere unaccompanied by others. Bad men
consort together. Bad spirits seek congenial company.
III. Gehazi’s exemplary punishment. We may imagine the radiant glee of Elisha’s
servant as he returned home well satisfied with his day’s work on his own behalf. He was
proud at the success of his well-contrived and ably executed stratagem. With these self-
complaisant thoughts he went in and stood before his master, and glibly covered his sin
with the lie. As if he could deceive God! He went out! In one moment he was
transformed, both body and soul. We sometimes come upon these sudden revulsions of
feeling, when in a single instant the whole current of a man’s life is changed at once and
for ever. The lessons which this subject has for ourselves are manifest:—
1. We see the danger of a covetous spirit. It is the mainspring of half the sins of the
present day, as it has been the exciting cause of half the wars and crimes of the
world.
2. We see in Gehazi the type of all sin. All sin is like his in its method. It never
remains stationary. It grows and stretches from one thing to another. All sin is like
Gehazi’s in its selfishness. Surely he might have respected his master’s honour and
position in the sight of the foreign prince. Sin is selfishness. It is placing personal
interests and ease and aggrandisement before the interest of others. And the simile is
continued in the last point. All sin is alike in the certainty of its punishment. The
wicked may persuade themselves that their wickedness is unobserved, but it will
soon be manifest that every thought is known and that the day of reckoning must
arrive. (Homilist.)
One man’s blessing another man’s curse
Judging only as we are able to do of one another now, Gehazi’s plan had succeeded, and
he had done well for himself. But he had left out of his scheme the remembrance that
God had something to do with it.
I. Lying and false ways of earthly prosperity always leave out God. Liars and deceivers
ignore God’s interest in their life, God’s knowledge of their plans and schemes and the
execution of them. And in their apparently untroubled doing without God these men and
their actions become most hurtful stumbling-blocks to many tender souls, such as that
most pure and deep thinker Asaph—or the man who wrote psalms for his use, who
mourned over the wicked that they say, How doth God know? and is there knowledge in
the Most High? Behold these are the ungodly who prosper in the world; they increase in
riches.” Such sin is either a practical ignoring of God altogether, atheism in daily action
and business (which is much more pernicious than atheism of intellect), or it is a
defaming and insulting of God’s omniscience.

144. II. One sin, one lie, makes others easier and worse. The lie came from him easily and
readily: for he had prepared himself beforehand, and the lie he had told to Naaman
trained him to insult, by deceiving, his master. The way to perdition is downhill, on a
slippery way, with a descent that is ever quickening.
III. Gehazi’s exposure and shame come now before us. How soon the scheme came to an
end, and such an end! How soon the bubble burst! Gehazi had deceived Naaman and
had gotten his money, but he had misled himself much more.
IV. Elisha’s patriotism cried out against Gehazi’s sin.
V. Gehazi pierced through with many sorrows. He had sought his good here; but with
Naaman’s money he got his leprosy, too. The blessing of the Syrian became the curse of
the servant of the man of God. (G. B. Ryley.)
The covetousness of Gehazi
I. We have here covetousness seeking to make gain of a connection with goodness.
Gehazi was the servant of Elisha. It was surely no small privilege to be an attendant upon
the prophet of God,—to be brought into such close connection with a man so good and
holy. One might have supposed that he could scarcely help feeling the influence of
Elisha. Now, covetousness of any kind is bad enough; but covetousness hanging on the
skirts of goodness,—covetousness taking advantage of some outward connection with
religion, and even with unselfishness,—this is surely one of the lowest forms of vice. Oh,
it is a fearful thing when a man comes to value his religious reputation chiefly as a
portion of his stock-in-trade.
II. We have here covetousness leading on to falsehood and theft.
III. We have here covetousness hindering the progress of the divine kingdom. Like a
true prophet as he was, Elisha was seeking to advance the kingdom of God. He cared far
more for the extension of Jehovah’s name and the promotion of Jehovah’s glory than for
his own advantage. If he magnified his prophetic office and stood on his honour, it was
that, through him, Jehovah might be honoured. This was no doubt the secret of his
treatment of Naaman. (T. J. Finlayson.)
Deception detected and punished
I. The deception practised. Naaman was proceeding on his way, thoughtful, grateful,
prayerful, hopeful, joyful. He is overtaken by Gehazi, who, unknown to his master, asks a
gift of him. After all Gehazi’s profession and all his religious opportunities, who would
have expected such action? Influences of pious homes, etc., are sometimes all lost. The
secret of Gehazi’s action was covetousness. This is a rock on which many split. Gehazi
thinks of all Naaman is taking back, and of his willingness to make the prophet a
present. He regrets the loss of an opportunity of gain. He longs for the silver, etc. He
resolves to seek for it. It is dangerous to parley with temptation. Unobserved, as he
supposes, by the prophet, he pursues after Naaman. Unheard, as he supposes, by the
prophet, he tells his story.
II. The deception succeeding; that is, for the time, and so far as regards the obtaining of
that for which he asked, and more than he asked for. Naaman pauses, descends from his
chariot, kindly inquires after the prophet’s welfare, listens to Gehazi’s application, grants

145. all he sought and more. Note the confidence, the artlessness, the unsuspiciousness of a
young convert to the faith of the God of Israel. He cannot suppose a prophet’s servant
could be guilty of a falsehood. Men expect much of those who profess godliness; guilty
indeed are they who, by disappointing such expectations, cast a stumbling-block in the
way of young believers (Mat_18:6). Gehazi obtains his desire; but how does he feel as he
returns to his master?
III. The deception detected. Verse 24, “When he came to the tower.” In the Revised
Version that reads—“When he came to the hill”; probably the hill brow from which he
could see his master’s house, and where his master, therefore, might possibly see him,
he then hid his ill-got treasure. He did not think of that eye that over sees (Psa_139:1-12;
Jer_23:24). Could he think to hide from the prophet, of the Lord that which he had
done? He did so think; but it was not hidden (verses 25, 26). He thought he had
managed all very cleverly! . . . Deception led to falsehood; it often does. Yet only
ultimately to increase the shame of detection. “Be sure thy sin will find thee out.”
IV. The deception punished. Shortlived is the prosperity of the wicked. If Gehazi will
have Naaman’s treasure, he shall have Naaman’s leprosy. (Homiletic Magazine.)
Avarice a fatal vice
Andrew Fuller one day went into a bullion merchant’s, and was shown a mass of gold.
Taking it into his hand, he very suggestively remarked, “How much better it is to hold it
in your hand than to have it in your heart. Goods m the hand will not hurt you, but the
goods in the heart will destroy you. Not long ago, a burglar, as you will remember,
escaping from a policeman, leaped into the Regent’s Canal, and was drowned—drowned
by the weight of the silver which he had plundered. How many there are who have made
a god of their wealth, and in hasting after riches have been drowned by the weight of
their worldly substance! (C. H. Spurgeon.)
When disguises are removed
A large lake in a nobleman’s park was a little time ago drained off for repairing purposes.
During the day it had shone under the sunlight like a sheet of gold, and at night a silver
sheen from the moon turned it into poetic beauty. It looked an emblem of purity and
peace. But when the water was drawn away what an awful contrast! Down in the oozy
slime at the bottom of the lake were thousands of crawling and wriggling abominations
of reptile and parasitic order. The waters, so fair in outward seeming, were a very haunt
of evil squirming horrors. What a terrible revealing will the withdrawing of life make to
many a Christless soul. When all disguises, veils, and falsities are taken away, and the
horrors of cherished sin are all laid bare. (H. O. Mackey.)
21 So Gehazi hurried after aaman. When
aaman saw him running toward him, he got
down from the chariot to meet him. “Is everything

146. all right?” he asked.
BAR ES, "He lighted down from the chariot - This was an act of quite
uncalled-for courtesy. It indicates eagerness to honor the master in the person of his
servant.
CLARKE, "He lighted down from the chariot - He treats even the prophet’s
servant with the profoundest respect, alights from his chariot, and goes to meet him.
Is all well? - ‫השלום‬ hashalom; Is it peace, or prosperity?
GILL, "So Gehazi followed after Naaman,.... As fast as he could:
and when Naaman saw him running after him; which he might observe, looking
back, or be informed of by some of his servants:
he lighted down from the chariot to meet him; in honour to the prophet, whose
servant he was:
and said, is all well? fearing something ill had befallen Elisha; or he himself had done
something wrong, which occasioned the servant to run after him.
BE SO , "Verses 21-23
2 Kings 5:21-23. He lighted down from his chariot to meet him — Thereby testifying
his great respect to the prophet his master, He said — My master hath sent me, &c.
— This story of Gehazi was a very unlikely one: aaman, however, was not willing
to question it, but glad of the opportunity of showing his gratitude to the prophet.
And he — aaman, urged him — Who at first refused it upon a pretence of
modesty and obedience to his master’s command.
ELLICOTT, "(21) He lighted down from the chariot to meet him.—An Oriental
mark of respect. Literally, fell from off the chariot: an expression denoting haste
(Genesis 24:64). The LXX. has “he turned,” which implies an ellipsis of “and
descended.”
Is all well?— aaman feared something might have befallen the prophet. The LXX.
omits this.

147. SIMEO , "THE HYPOCRISY OF GEHAZI
2 Kings 5:21-22. So Gehazi followed after aaman. And when aaman saw him
running after him, he lighted down from the chariot to meet him, and said, Is all
well? And he said, All is well.
I the preceding chapter we have seen a similar inquiry made by Gehazi himself;
and a similar reply from the Shunamite, who came in quest of Elisha [ ote: 2 Kings
4:26.]. The answer as made by her, under her most afflictive circumstances, justly
fills us with admiration: but the answer as here given, calls forth our severest
indignation. aaman, when he saw Elisha’s servant running after him, was afraid
that something was amiss; and therefore asked with great anxiety, Is all well? The
hardened villain, one might have hoped, should have relented at the sight of
aaman’s simplicity: but that same wicked spirit who put the evil into his heart,
furnished him with a ready answer, “All is well.” ow this answer is of considerable
importance;
I. As illustrating the character of Gehazi—
[Previous to this we have nothing that gives us any particular insight into the
character of Gehazi. He lived with a pious master, enjoyed the benefit of his
instructions and example, and was an eye-witness of the miracles he wrought. One
might have hoped therefore that he was impressed with a sense of true religion. But
in this answer we see that he was a subtle, self-deluding hypocrite.
As far as related to the general scope of aaman’s inquiry, the answer was true: but
was it true, as conveying all that Gehazi intended to convey? or would aaman have
thought it true, if he could have seen all that was in the heart of this vile impostor?
Was all well, when thou wast coming on so base an errand? when thou hadst
fabricated such a falsehood? and wast making it an occasion of such dishonest gain?
Was all well, when thou wast so belying thy master, so dishonouring religion,
casting such a stumbling-block before aaman, and bringing such guilt upon thine
own soul? Did not thine own conscience reprove thee, when thou thus confidently
daredst to assert, All is well?
From thy composure on the occasion it was evident, that thou expectedst to reap the
fruit of thine iniquity in peace; and that, when thou repliedst, “All is well,” thou
apprehendedst no evil. But didst thou forget that God saw thee? Didst thou forget
that he noteth down every thing in the book of his remembrance, and will bring it
forth at the last day in order to a final retribution? Didst thou forget that even now
God could reveal thy wickedness to his prophet, and punish it by some heavy
judgment? Hadst thou known at that moment that thy master’s eye was upon thee,
and that in less than an hour afterwards the leprosy of aaman would cleave to
thee, and that it would be the wretched inheritance of thy children to their latest
posterity, wouldst thou then have said, that All was well? Above all, if thou couldst
have realized thine appearance at the bar of judgment, and the sentence that there
awaited thee, wouldst thou then have said, All is well?

148. But so it is that sin blinds the eyes of men, and hardens their hearts: nor is there any
passion in the human mind, which, if suffered to gain an ascendant over us, may not
produce in us the very same effect. The ambition of Absalom, the envy of Cain, the
malice of Esau, the revenge of Jacob’s sons, the covetousness of Judas, the lewdness
of Herod, sufficiently shew, that, where there is some professed regard for religion,
a predominant lust will soon break down the barriers of conscience, and bring into
subjection every better principle — — —]
Let us now contemplate the answer,
II. As affording some valuable lessons to the world at large—
The great improvement which we are to make of Scripture history, is, to deduce
from every part of it lessons for our own instruction. ow from the conduct of
Gehazi we learn,
1. That such characters must be expected to exist—
[If in the house of Elisha, his only servant was such an impostor; if even among the
Apostles of our Lord there was a Judas; yea, and if among the very first Christians
immediately after the day of Pentecost such a deceiver as Ananias was found; what
reason have we to be surprised, if such characters exist in our day? Is not human
nature now the same as ever it was? And has not our Lord taught us to expect, that,
wherever the seed of his word is sown, the enemy will sow tares; and that no
effectual separation of the tares can be made till the last day? Doubtless it is most
distressing when any are found to act unworthy of their Christian profession; but
the wonder is rather that so few hypocrites are found, than that some occasionally
are detected in the Church of Christ.]
2. That the existence of such characters is no argument against true religion—
[People are apt to impute the misconduct of hypocrites to the doctrine they profess.
But is there any thing in the Gospel that tends to encourage hypocrisy? Is not every
branch of morality carried to its utmost height in the Gospel, and required as an
evidence of our faith in Christ? Are all who embrace the Gospel hypocrites? Was
Elisha a hypocrite because his servant was so? What would aaman have said, if he
had been dissuaded from embracing Judaism because he had been imposed upon by
a Jew? Would he not have said, ‘ The man’s wickedness must rest on his own head:
religion does not stand or fall with him: I am myself a monument of Jehovah’s
power and grace, and am under the most unspeakable obligations to him; and, if all
that profess his religion were hypocrites, it would be no reason why I should not
worship him in spirit and in truth?’ Thus then must we say, “Offences will come;
and woe be to those by whom they come:” but whilst I know myself to have been a
leper, and feel that the Lord Jesus Christ has healed me of my leprosy, I must love
him as my Benefactor, and serve him in the presence of the whole world.]

149. 3. That in whatever light men now appear, they will ere long be seen in their
true colours—
[Gehazi little thought that his master’s eye was upon him during the whole
transaction: but his iniquity was soon exposed, and fearfully punished. Thus, in
whatever place we be, God’s eye is upon us. In vain do we say, “Tush, God shall not
see;” for he does see even the most secret recesses of our hearts: and the time is
quickly coming, when, he “will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and
make manifest the counsels of the heart.”
Let not any of us then deceive our own souls. Let those who declaim against
hypocrites remember, that, if they seek not after God, the hypocrisy of others will be
no justification of their neglect: there is but one rule of judgment for all, and by that
shall every man be justified or condemned [ ote: Isaiah 3:10-11.].
But let those in whom hypocrisy, of any kind is found, tremble for themselves; for
their guilt is heinous, and their condemnation will be proportionably severe. “If
there be woe to the world because of offences, much more will there be to him by
whom the offence cometh.” Against every sin therefore I would most earnestly
caution you, but more especially against that which ensnared Gehazi. “The love of
money is the root of all evil, and drowns many in destruction and perdition [ ote: 1
Timothy 6:9-10; 2 Timothy 4:10; 2 Peter 2:14-15.].” This is most particularly the sin
to which persons professing godliness are apt to be addicted, and under which they
are most satisfied with their own state [ ote: Ezekiel 33:31.]: but, whatever
profession they may make, they deceive themselves to their eternal ruin.]
PETT, "2 Kings 5:21
‘So Gehazi followed after aaman. And when aaman saw one running after him,
he alighted from the chariot to meet him, and said, “Is all well?” ’
aaman, moving along at a leisurely pace (the roads were often not suitable for
chariots), saw Gehazi running after them and alighted from his chariot to meet him.
Gone was the old arrogant aaman. ow he was the new concerned aaman. And
he was concerned lest something had gone wrong with Gehazi’s master.
PULPIT, "So Gehazi followed after aaman. A company of travelers in the East,
even though it consist of the retinue of a single great man, will always contain
footmen, as well as those who ride on horses or in chariots, and will not travel at a
faster pace than about three miles an hour. Thus Gehazi, if he went at his best
speed, could expect to overtake, and did actually overtake, the cavalcade of
aaman. He probably overtook them at a very short distance from Samaria. And
when aaman saw him running after him. Gehazi was pressed for time. He could
not start at once, lest he should make it too plain that he was going m pursuit of
aaman; and he could not absent himself from the house too long, lest his master
should call for him. He had, therefore, at whatever loss of dignity, to hurry himself,

150. and actually "run after" the Syrian. aaman, either accidentally looking back, or
warned by some of his train, sees him, recognizes him, and is only too glad to
respond to his wishes. He lighted down from the chariot to meet him. An act of great
condescension. As Bahr notes, "Descent from a vehicle is, in the East, a sign of
respect from the inferior to the superior;" and aaman, in lighting down from his
chariot, must have intended to "honor the prophet in his servant". But such honor
is not commonly paid, and thus the act of aaman was abnormal. And said, Is all
well? The words admit of no better translation. Seeing Gehazi's haste and anxious
looks, aaman suspects that all is not well, that something has happened since he
left the prophet's house, and accordingly puts his question, ‫לוֹם‬ ָ‫ֲשׁ‬‫ה‬ —Rectene sunt
omnia? (Vulgate).
22 “Everything is all right,” Gehazi answered.
“My master sent me to say, ‘Two young men from
the company of the prophets have just come to me
from the hill country of Ephraim. Please give
them a talent[d] of silver and two sets of
clothing.’”
BAR ES, "From mount Ephraim - Bethel and Gilgal 2Ki_2:1, at both of which
there were “schools of the prophets,” were situated on Mount Ephraim.
A talent of silver - A large demand in respect of the pretended occasion; but small
compared with the amount which Naaman had pressed on the prophet 2Ki_5:4. Gehazi
had to balance between his own avarice, on the one hand, and the fear of raising
suspicion on the other.
CLARKE, "And he said - ‫שלום‬ shalom. It is peace; all is right. This was a common
mode of address and answer.
There be come to me from mount Ephraim - There was probably a school of the
prophets at this mount.
GILL, "And he said, all is well,.... He need give himself no uneasiness at the coming
and sight of him:

151. my master hath sent me, saying, behold, even now there be come to me; just
then, since he departed from him:
from Mount Ephraim two young men of the sons of the prophets: where
perhaps was a school of them:
give them, I pray thee, a talent of silver, and two changes of garments: which,
as it was a downright lie, so highly improbable that Elisha should ask so large a sum of
money, with two changes of raiment, for two young scholars, see 2Ki_5:5 and which
Naaman, with a little reflection, might have seen through; but his heart was so filled with
gratitude for the benefit received, that he was glad of an opportunity, at any rate, of
showing respect to the prophet.
ELLICOTT, "(22) Even now.—Or, this moment, just.
Mount Ephraim.—The hill-country of Ephraim,or highlands of Ephraim, where
Gilgal and Bethel were situate.
Changes of garments.—The same phrase as in 2 Kings 5:5.
PETT, "2 Kings 5:22
‘And he said, “All is well. My master has sent me, saying, ‘Behold, even now there
are come to me from the hill-country of Ephraim two young men of the sons of the
prophets. Give them, I pray you, a talent of silver, and two changes of clothing.” ’
Gehazi assured him that all was well and then began to spin a story about the
unexpected arrival of two young men of the sons of the prophets, who had seemingly
come in need. Could aaman let them have a talent of silver and two changes of
clothing?
PULPIT, "And he said, All is well. Gehazi's reply was, "All is well." There has been
no accident, no calamity—only a casual circumstance has caused a change in my
master's wishes, which I am sent thus hurriedly to communicate to thee. My master
hath sent me, saying, Behold, even now (i.e. just at this time) there be come to me
from Mount Ephraim two young men of the sons of the prophets. The details are
added to give a greater air of truthfulness to the story. Give them, I pray thee, a
talent of silver, and two changes of garments; i.e. a change apiece, and a talent
between them—rather a large sum in respect of the pretended occasion, but a trifle
compared with the amount which aaman had expected to expend (2 Kings 5:5),
and probably very much less than he had recently pressed upon the prophet (2
Kings 5:16). Gehazi had to balance between his own greed on the one hand, and the
fear of raising suspicion on the other. His story was altogether most plausible, and
his demand prudently moderate.

152. 23 “By all means, take two talents,” said aaman.
He urged Gehazi to accept them, and then tied up
the two talents of silver in two bags, with two sets
of clothing. He gave them to two of his servants,
and they carried them ahead of Gehazi.
CLARKE, "He - bound two talents of silver - It required two servants to carry
these two talents, for, according to the computation above, each talent was about 120lbs.
weight.
GILL, "And Naaman said, be content,.... Or be pleased; do not object to it:
take two talents: a talent for each young man, which amounted to between three
hundred and four hundred pounds apiece:
and he urged; pressed him hard, insisted upon his taking them, who might pretend a
great deal of modesty, and a strict regard to his master's orders:
and bound two talents of silver in two bags, with two changes of garments;
for each young man:
and laid them upon two of his servants, the servants of Naaman, not choosing to
burden Elisha's servant with them; for such a quantity of money and clothes was pretty
heavy:
and they bare them before him; both for his ease, and for his honour.
JAMISO , "in two bags — People in the East, when travelling, have their money, in
certain sums, put up in bags.
K&D, "But Naaman forced him to accept two talents (‫ח‬ ַ‫ק‬ ‫ל‬ ֵ‫ּוא‬‫ה‬, be pleased to take; and
‫ם‬ִ‫י‬ ַ‫ר‬ ָⅴ ִⅴ, with the dual ending, ne pereat indicium numeri - Winer) in two purses, and two
changes of raiment, and out of politeness had these presents carried by two of his
servants before Gehazi.

153. ELLICOTT, "(23) Be content.—Be willing, consent to take. The Vatican LXX.
omits; the Alexandrian renders ‫ב‬ὐ‫פן‬ῦ, owing to a transposition of the Hebrew letters
(hălô’ for hô’êl).
Bound.—Deuteronomy 14:25.
Bags.—Only here and in Isaiah 3:22, where it means “purses.”
Laid them upon two.—Gave them to two of his (i.e., aaman’s) young men. The
courtesy of the act is obvious.
Before him.—Gehazi.
PETT, "2 Kings 5:23
‘And aaman said, “Be pleased to take two talents.” And he urged him, and bound
two talents of silver in two bags, with two changes of clothing, and laid them on two
of his servants, and they bore them before him.’
The unsuspicious aaman pressed on him two talents of silver, one for each of the
fictitious men, as well as the two changes of clothing. He also supplied two men to
carry the silver and clothing for Gehazi (‘talent’ is a weight, not a type of coin. Thus
the silver would be heavy).
Some see the two men as being servants of Gehazi, but the above seems a more likely
scenario to us.
PULPIT, "And aaman said, Be content, take two talents; rather, consent, take two
talents. Do not oppose thyself to my wishes—consent to receive double what thou
hast asked. aaman is anxious to show his gratitude by giving as much as he can
induce the ether side to accept. He suggests two talents, probably because the
strangers who are said to have arrived are two. And he urged him. Gehazi must
have made some show of declining the offer. And bound two talents of silver in two
bags—i.e. put up two talents separately in two bags, closing the month Of the bag in
each case by "binding" it round with a string—with two changes of garments—as
asked for (2 Kings 5:22)—and laid them upon two of his servants. If the Hebrew
silver talent was worth £375 as Keil supposes, or even £300 as Thenius reckons, it
would be pretty well as much as an ordinary slave could carry, being somewhat over
a hundredweight. And they bare them before him; i.e. they—the servants—bare the
two sacks of money before him—Gehazi.

154. 24 When Gehazi came to the hill, he took the
things from the servants and put them away in the
house. He sent the men away and they left.
BAR ES, "The tower - Rather, “the hill,” the well-known hill by Elisha’s house. The
hill interrupted the view in the direction taken by Naaman, and Gehazi dismissed
Naaman’s servants at this point lest they should be seen from his master’s residence.
CLARKE, "When he came to the tower - The Chaldee, Septuagint, Syriac, and
Arabic understand the word ‫עפל‬ ophel, which we translate tower, as signifying a secret,
dark, or hiding place. He was doing a deed of darkness, and he sought darkness to
conceal it. He no doubt put them in a place little frequented, or one to which few had
access besides himself. But the prophet’s discerning spirit found him out.
GILL, "And when he came to the tower,.... Of Samaria, or which was near it; a
fortified place, and where was a watch, to whom he could safely commit the money and
clothes:
he took them from their hand; not willing they should go any further with him, lest
the affair should be discovered to his master:
and bestowed them in the house; deposited them there in the hands of some person
whom he could trust; or laid them out, or ordered them to be laid out, in the purchase of
houses, lands, vineyards, &c. see 2Ki_5:26.
and he let the men go, and they departed; to their master.
K&D, "When Gehazi came to the hill (‫ל‬ ֶ‫ּפ‬‫ע‬ ָ‫,ה‬ the well-known hill before the city) he
took the presents from the bearers, and dismissing the men, laid them up in the house. ְ
‫ד‬ ַ‫ק‬ ָ , to bring into safe custody.
BE SO , "2 Kings 5:24. When he came to the tower — A safe and private place,
which he chose for the purpose, and where possibly he hid and kept other things,
which he had got by such like frauds and artifices. And let the men go — Before
they came within sight of his master.

155. ELLICOTT, "(24) The tower.—Heb., the ’ôphel, the mound, on which the prophet’s
house may have stood. There would be no window in the exterior wall from which
Gehazi and his companions might have been observed approaching. Perhaps,
however, a fortified hill, forming part of the system of defences surrounding
Samaria, like the Ophel at Jerusalem, is to be understood. (Comp. 2 Chronicles
27:3.) Elisha’s house lay within the city wall (2 Kings 6:30, seq.). Keil explains the
hill on which Samaria was built. (Comp. Isaiah 32:14, and Cheyne’s ote; Micah
4:8 : “And thou, O tower of the flock; O mound of the daughter of Zion.”) This note
of place is also a note of historical truth.
Bestowed them in the house.—Stowed them away, laid them up carefully in the
(prophet’s) house. LXX., ‫נבס‬έ‫.טופן‬
Let the men go.—Before he “bestowed” their burdens in the house.
PETT, "2 Kings 5:24
‘And when he came to the hill, he took them from their hand, and placed them in
the house, and he let the men go, and they departed.’
Once they came to the hill of Samaria Gehazi took the goods from their hands and
sent them on their way. It would never do for Elisha to spot them. And so they
departed. We note that Gehazi’s sins are mounting up. First greed. Then taking
YHWH’s ame in vain. Then despising a foreigner. Then lying and fraud. And now
duplicity. This will be followed by lying to a prophet. But the worst thing of all was
that he had interfered in the prophetic process, and misrepresented Elisha. He had
been building up judgment on himself.
PULPIT, "And when he came to the tower; rather, to the hill (Revised Version).
Some well-known eminence at a little distance from the Damascus gate of Samaria
must be intended. Here Gehazi stopped the slaves, and took the money from them. It
was important for his purpose that they should not be seen re-entering the city, as
that would have occasioned remark, and might naturally have led to inquiry. He
took them—i.e; the bags—from their hand—i.e. from the hands of aaman's
servants—and bestowed them in the house; i.e. by himself or deputy brought them
to Elisha's house, and there hid them away. And he let the men— aaman's
servants—go, and they departed. They hastened, no doubt, to rejoin their master.
25 When he went in and stood before his master,
Elisha asked him, “Where have you been,
Gehazi?”

156. “Your servant didn’t go anywhere,” Gehazi
answered.
BAR ES, "Lest his absence should be noticed, Gehazi hastened, without being
called, to appear before his master. In the East it is usual for servants to remain most of
the day in their lord’s presence, only quitting it when given some order to execute.
GILL, "But he went in, and stood before his master,.... To know his will, and
minister to him, as he had used to do, and as if he had never been from the house:
and Elisha said unto him, whence comest thou, Gehazi? where had he been, and
where was he last?
and he said, thy servant went no whither; he pretended he had never been out of
doors, which was another impudent lie; one would have thought that he who had lived
so long with the prophet, and had seen the miracles wrought by him, and knew with
what a spirit of prophecy he was endowed, would never have ventured to tell such an
untruth, since he might expect to be detected; but covetousness had blinded his eyes and
hardened his heart.
K&D, "But when he entered his master's presence again, he asked him, “Whence
(comest thou), Gehazi?” and on his returning the lying answer that he had not been
anywhere, charged him with all that he had done. ְ‫ך‬ ַ‫ל‬ ָ‫ה‬ ‫י‬ ִ ִ‫ל‬ ‫ּא‬‫ל‬, “had not my heart gone,
when the man turned from his chariot to meet thee?” This is the simplest and the only
correct interpretation of these difficult words, which have been explained in very
different ways. Theodoret (οᆒχᆳ ᅧ καρδία µου ᅬ µετᆭ σοሞ) and the Vulgate (nonne cor
meum in praesenti erat, quando, etc.) have already given the same explanation, and so
far as the sense is concerned it agrees with that adopted by Thenius: was I not (in spirit)
away (from here) and present (there)? ְ‫ך‬ ַ‫ל‬ ָ‫ה‬ stands in a distinct relation to the ְ‫ך‬ ַ‫ל‬ ָ‫ה‬ ‫ּא‬‫ל‬ of
Gehazi. - ‫וגו‬ ‫ת‬ ֵ‫א‬ ַ‫:ה‬ “is it time to take silver, and clothes, and olive-trees, and vineyards, and
sheep and oxen, and servants and maidens?” i.e., is this the time, when so many
hypocrites pretend to be prophets from selfishness and avarice, and bring the prophetic
office into contempt with unbelievers, for a servant of the true God to take money and
goods from a non-Israelite for that which God has done through him, that he may
acquire property and luxury for himself?
ELLICOTT, "(25) But he.—And he himself (after putting away his ill-gotten gains).

157. Went in.—Into his master’s chamber. Gehazi was already in the house.
Stood before.—Came forward to (2 Chronicles 6:12).
Thy servant went no whither.—Literally, Thy servant went not away hither nor
thither.
GUZIK, "2. (2 Kings 5:25-27) Gehazi’s reward.
ow he went in and stood before his master. Elisha said to him, “Where did you go,
Gehazi?” And he said, “Your servant did not go anywhere.” Then he said to him,
“Did not my heart go with you when the man turned back from his chariot to meet
you? Is it time to receive money and to receive clothing, olive groves and vineyards,
sheep and oxen, male and female servants? Therefore the leprosy of aaman shall
cling to you and your descendants forever.” And he went out from his presence
leprous, as white as snow.
a. Did not my heart go with you: Elisha knew. We don’t know if this was
supernatural knowledge, or simply gained from observation and knowing Gehazi’s
character. One way or another, Elisha knew. All Gehazi’s attempts to cover his sin
failed.
b. It is time to receive money: It seems that Elisha had no absolute law against
receiving support from those who were touched by his ministry. Yet it was
spiritually clear to Elisha, and should have been clear to Gehazi, that it was not
appropriate at this time and circumstance.
i. Money . . . clothing . . . olive groves . . . vineyards . . . sheep and oxen, male and
female servants: Obviously, Gehazi did not bring all of these things home with him
from aaman. Yet he wanted all of these things, and Elisha exposed his greedy
heart.
ii. “The deepest wrong in the action of Gehazi was that it involved the Divine
witness which had been borne to the Syrian, aaman, by the action of the little
serving maid in his house, and the prophet Elisha. Their action had been wholly
disinterested, and for the glory of God.” (Morgan)
c. Therefore the leprosy of aaman shall cling to you and your descendants forever:
This was a severe judgment, but as a man in ministry Gehazi was under a stricter
judgment. When he allowed himself to covet what aaman had, he thought only in
terms of the money aaman possessed. God allowed him to keep the riches, but also
gave him the other thing aaman had - severe leprosy.
i. “Gehazi is not the last who has got money in an unlawful way, and has got God’s
curse with it.” (Clarke)

158. ii. “We see here a pagan who by an act of faith is cured of leprosy and an Israelite
who by an act of dishonor is cursed with it.” (Dilday)
PETT, "2 Kings 5:25
‘But he went in, and stood before his master. And Elisha said to him, “From where
have you come, Gehazi?” And he said, “Your servant went nowhere.” ’
Having bestowed the goods in a safe place hiding place Gehazi went to face his
master, secure in the knowledge that he knew nothing. Then Elisha asked where he
had been. He was providing an opportunity for Gehazi to confess his fault. But
Gehazi replied glibly, “Your servant went nowhere.” He had missed his
opportunity.
PULPIT, "But he went in, and stood before his master. Gehazi, lest his absence
should be noticed, as soon as he had put away the money, sought his master's
presence, entering the room casually, as if he had been busied about the house. He
was met at once, however, by the plain and stern question which follows. And Elisha
said unto him; Whence comest thou, Gehazi? literally, Whence, Gehazi? A short,
stem, abrupt question. And he said, Thy servant went no whither. There was no
help for it. One lie necessitates another. Once enter on the devious path, and you
cannot say whither it will conduct you. To deceive and plunder a foreigner of a
hostile nation probably seemed to Gehazi a trifle, either no sin at all, or a very venial
sin. But now he finds himself led on to telling a direct lie to his master, which even
he could not have justified to himself.
26 But Elisha said to him, “Was not my spirit with
you when the man got down from his chariot to
meet you? Is this the time to take money or to
accept clothes—or olive groves and vineyards, or
flocks and herds, or male and female slaves?
BAR ES, "Went not mine heart with thee? - i. e. “Was I not with thee in spirit -
did I not see the whole transaction, as if I had been present at it?” He uses the verb
“went,” because Gehazi has just denied his “going.”
Is it a time ... - i. e. “Was this a proper occasion to indulge greed, when a Gentile was
to be favorably impressed, and made to feel that the faith of the Israelites was the only

159. true religion? Was it not, on the contrary, an occasion for the exhibition of the greatest
unselfishness, that so a pagan might be won to the truth?”
And oliveyards and vineyards ... - Gehazi’s thoughts had probably run on to the
disposition which he would make of his wealth, and the prophet here follows them,
enumerating his servant’s intended purchases.
CLARKE, "Went not mine heart with thee - The Chaldee gives this a good turn:
By the prophetic spirit it was shown unto me, when the man returned from his chariot to
meet thee.
Is it a time to receive money - He gave him farther proof of this all-discerning
prophetic spirit in telling him what he designed to do with the money; he intended to set
up a splendid establishment, to have men-servants and maid-servants, to have
oliveyards and vineyards, and sheep and oxen, This, as the Chaldee says, he had thought
in his heart to do.
GILL, "And he said unto him, went not mine heart with thee?.... Did my heart
or knowledge go from me, that what thou hast done should be hid from me? so Ben
Gersom and others; or my heart did not go with thee, it was contrary to my mind and
will what thou didst; so Abendana; or rather, as the Targum, by a spirit of prophecy it
was shown unto me, &c. I knew full well what thou wentest for, and hast done; and so
Maimonides (y); was not I employed in my thoughts? or, did I not think that so it was as
thou hast done? I did:
when the man turned again from chariot to meet thee? meaning Naaman the
Syrian:
is it a time to receive money, and to receive garments: as Gehazi had now done:
and oliveyards, and vineyards, and sheep and oxen, and menservants, and
maidservants? that is, to purchase those with the two talents of silver he had received,
as he thought in his heart, or intended to do, as the Targum; or had given orders to
purchase such for him to the persons to whom he had committed the care of them in the
tower; this was not a proper time, when the honour of the prophet, and the credit of
religion, and the good of this man, as a new proselyte, were in danger thereby.
HE RY, "II. The punishment of this sin. Elisha immediately called him to an
account for it; and observe,
1. How he was convicted. he thought to impose upon the prophet, but was soon given
to understand that the Spirit of prophecy could not be deceived, and that it was in vain
to lie to the Holy Ghost. Elisha could tell him, (1.) What he had done, though he had
denied it. “Thou sayest thou wentest nowhere, but went not my heart with thee?” 2Ki_
5:26. Had Gehazi yet to learn that prophets had spiritual eyes? or could he think to hide
any thing from a seer, from him with whom the secret of the Lord was? Note, It is folly to
presume upon sin in hopes of secresy. When thou goest aside into any by-path does not
thy own conscience go with thee? Does not the eye of God go with thee? He that covers
his sin shall not prosper, particularly a lying tongue is but for a moment, Pro_12:19.
Truth will transpire, and often comes to light strangely, to the confusion of those that

160. make lies their refuge. (2.) What he designed, though he kept that in his own breast. He
could tell him the very thoughts and intents of his heart, that he was projecting, now that
he had got these two talents, to purchase ground and cattle, to leave Elisha's service, and
to set up for himself. Note, All the foolish hopes and contrivances of carnal worldlings
are open before God. And he tells him also the evil of it: “Is it a time to receive money? Is
this an opportunity of enriching thyself? Couldst thou find no better way of getting
money than by belying thy master and laying a stumbling-block before a young convert?”
Note, Those that are for getting wealth at any time, and by any ways and means
whatsoever, right or wrong, lay themselves open to a great deal of temptation. Those
that will be rich (per fas, per nefas; rem, rem, quocunque modo rem - by fair means, by
foul means; careless of principle, intent only on money) drown themselves in
destruction and perdition, 1Ti_6:9. War, and fire, and plague, and shipwreck, are not, as
many make them, things to get money by. It is not a time to increase our wealth when we
cannot do it but in such ways as are dishonourable to God and religion or injurious to
our brethren or the public.
BE SO , "2 Kings 5:26. Went not my heart with thee? &c. — Was not I present
with thee in mind, when the man, &c. Is it a time to receive money? &c. — Was this
a fit season for this action? I had but just refused his gifts, and that obstinately, for
important reasons; and now thou hast given him cause to think that this was done in
mere vain-glory, and that I inwardly desired, and sought only a fitter place and
opportunity, to take secretly in private what I refused in public; thus bringing
reproach on our religion, and on the God we worship. And olive-yards, &c. —
Which Gehazi intended to purchase with this money; and therefore the prophet
names them, to inform him that he exactly knew, not only his outward actions, but
even his most secret intentions. What a folly is it to presume upon sin in hopes of
secrecy! When thou goest aside into any by-path, doth not thy own conscience go
with thee? ay, doth not the eye of God go with thee? What then avails the absence
of human witnesses?
COKE, "2 Kings 5:26. Went not mine heart with thee, &c.?— Was not I present
with thee in mind, when the man, &c.?—Thou hast indeed taken money, with which
thou mayest buy gardens, and olive-yards, &c. Houbigant.
ELLICOTT, "(26) Went not mine heart . . . meet thee?—Rather, or did my heart
(i.e., consciousness) go away, when a man turned (and alighted) from his chariot to
meet thee. The prophet, in severe irony, adopts Gehazi’s own phrase: Maurer, “ on
abierat animus meus;” “I was there in spirit, and witnessed everything.” The
sentence has given the commentators much trouble. (See the elaborate ote in
Thenius. We might have expected wĕlô, and w may have been omitted, owing to the
preceding w; but it is not absolutely necessary.) The Authorised Version follows the
LXX. (Vat.), which supplies the expression “with thee” ( ‫לופ‬ὰ ‫ףן‬ῦ̑), wanting in the
Hebrew text. The Targum paraphrases: “By the spirit of prophecy I was informed
when the man turned,” &c. The Syriac follows with, “My heart informed me when
the man turned,” &c.

161. Is it a time to receive.—Comp. Ecclesiastes 3:2, seq. The LXX., pointing the Hebrew
differently, reads: ‫ךב‬ὶ ‫ם‬ῦ ‫ם‬ἔ‫פ‬ ‫כבגוע‬ὸ ἀ‫סד‬ύ‫ךב‬ ‫סיןם‬ὶ ‫ם‬ῦ ‫ם‬ἔ‫פ‬ ‫כבגוע‬ὰ ἱ‫ל‬ά‫ךב‬ ‫פיב‬ὶ. (“And now
thou receivedst the money,” &c.). So also the Vulg. and Arabic, but not the Targum
and Syriac. Böttcher, retaining the interrogative particle of the Hebrew, adopts this:
“Didst thou then take the money?” &c. But the Masoretic pointing appears to be
much more suitable. The prophet’s question comes to this: “Was that above all
others a proper occasion for yielding to your desire of gain, when you were dealing
with a heathen? Ought you not to have been studiously disinterested in your
behaviour to such an one, that he might learn not to confound the prophets of
Jehovah with the mercenary diviners and soothsayers of the false gods?” The
prophet’s disciple is bound, like his master, to seek, not worldly power, but
spiritual; for the time is one of ardent struggle against the encroachments of
paganism.
And oliveyards . . . maidservants?—The prophet develops Gehazi’s object in asking
for the money: he wished to purchase lands, and live stock, and slaves—whatever
constituted the material wealth of the time. The Targum inserts the explanatory:
“And thou thoughtest in thy heart to purchase oliveyards,” &c. So Vulg.: “ut emas
oliveta.”
PETT, "2 Kings 5:26
‘And he said to him, “Did not my heart go with you, when the man turned from his
chariot to meet you? Is it a time to receive money, and to receive clothing, and
oliveyards and vineyards, and sheep and oxen, and men-servants and maid-
servants?” ’
Then Elisha looked at him sternly. He pointed out that prophetically he had been
with him ‘in his heart’ when aaman had climbed down from his chariot. He
therefore knew everything that he had done.
Then he asked him whether he really thought that this was a time to be thinking of
accumulating wealth and servants, when it was a time when YHWH had wrought a
great miracle and an important man’s life had been transformed. It meant that a
man had come to know YHWH , and also that Israel would from now on have a
firm friend in the counsels of Aram (Syria). The wide sphere covered by his words
indicated that they were meant not just for Gehazi, but for all whose emphasis was
on increasing wealth. (The prophetic author regularly brings out the dangers of
wealth). Elisha’s mind was reaching out beyond Gehazi to the behaviour and
attitude of many in Israel (compare Amos 2:6-8; Isaiah 5:8).
ote the parallel with the maid-servant in 2 Kings 5:2. It was indicating that it was
not a time for tit for tat. Deeper purposes were at work.
PULPIT, "And he said unto him, Went not mine heart with thee? There is no "with

162. thee" in the original; and the words have been taken in quite a different sense.
Ewald regards ‫ִי‬‫בּ‬‫,ל‬ "my heart," as designating Gehazi, and meaning "my loved one,
my favorite disciple." "Thou hast denied that thou wentest any whither; but did not
my favorite disciple in truth go forth, when the man turned again from his chariot,
as aaman did?" (2 Kings 5:21 ). But no parallel instance can be adduced of any
such use of ‫ִי‬‫בּ‬ִ‫ל‬, which is altogether too strong a term to be applied to a mere favorite
servant. The irony, moreover, of the term under the circumstances would be too
great. Maurer's interpretation of ‫ִי‬‫בּ‬ִ‫ל‬ by "my prophetic power" (my prophetic power
had not departed from me) is no better, since it requires ‫ְַך‬‫ל‬ָ‫צ‬ to be taken in two
different senses in the two most closely connected clauses of 2 Kings 5:25 and 2
Kings 5:26. Altogether, our version would seem to be the best rendering that has
been suggested. It accords with the Septuagint, with Theodoret, and with the
Vulgate; and it gives a satisfactory sense: "Did not my spirit go forth with thee when
thou wentest forth, etc.? Was I not present in spirit during the whole transaction?"
When the man turned again from his chariot to meet thee? (see 2 Kings 5:21). Is it a
time to receive money, and to receive garments, and olive yards, and vineyards, and
sheep, and oxen, and menservants, and maidservants? The prophet follows Gehazi's
thoughts, which had been to purchase, with the money obtained from aaman, olive
yards, and vineyards, and sheep, and oxen, etc.; and asks—Was this a time for such
proceedings? Keil well explains, "Was this the time, when so many hypocrites
pretend to be prophets from selfishness and avarice, and bring the prophetic office
into contempt with unbelievers, for a servant of the true God to take money and
goods from a non-Israelite … that he might acquire property and luxury for
himself?" It was evidently a most unfit time. As Thenius says, "In any other case
better than in this mightest thou have yielded to thy desire for gold and goods."
27 aaman’s leprosy will cling to you and to your
descendants forever.” Then Gehazi went from
Elisha’s presence and his skin was leprous—it had
become as white as snow.
CLARKE, "The leprosy of Naaman - shall cleave unto thee - Thou hast got
much money, and thou shalt have much to do with it. Thou hast got Naaman’s silver,
and thou shalt have Naaman’s leprosy. Gehazi is not the last who has got money in an
unlawful way, and has got God’s curse with it.
A leper as white as snow - The moment the curse was pronounced, that moment
the signs of the leprosy began to appear. The white shining spot was the sign that the
infection had taken place. See on Lev_13:2 (note), and the notes at Lev_13:58 (note).

163. 1. Some have thought, because of the prophet’s curse, The leprosy of Naaman shall
cleave unto thee and thy seed for ever, that there are persons still alive who are this
man’s real descendants, and afflicted with this horrible disease. Mr. Maundrell
when he was in Judea made diligent inquiry concerning this, but could not
ascertain the truth of the supposition. To me it appears absurd; the denunciation
took place in the posterity of Gehazi till it should become extinct, and under the
influence of this disorder this must soon have taken place. The for ever implies as
long as any of his posterity should remain. This is the import of the word ‫לעולם‬
leolam. It takes in the whole extent or duration of the thing to which it is applied.
The for ever of Gehazi was till his posterity became extinct.
2. The god Rimmon, mentioned 2Ki_5:18, we meet with nowhere else in the
Scriptures, unless it be the same which Stephen calls Remphan. See Act_7:43
(note), and the note there. Selden thinks that Rimmon is the same with Elion, a
god of the Phoenicians, borrowed undoubtedly from the ‫עליון‬ Elion, the Most High,
of the Hebrews, one of the names of the supreme God, which attribute became a
god of the Phoenicians. Hesychius has the word ሤαµας Ramas, which he translates
ᆇ ᆓψιστος Θεος, the Most High God, which agrees very well with the Hebrew ‫רמון‬
Rimmon, from ‫רמה‬ ramah, to make high or exalt. And all these agree with the sun,
as being the highest or most exalted in what is called the solar system. Some think
Saturn is intended, and others Venus. Much may be seen on this subject in Selden
De Diis Syris.
3. Let us not suppose that the offense of Gehazi was too severely punished.
1. Look at the principle, covetousness.
2. Pride and vanity; he wished to become a great man.
3, His lying, in order to impose on Naaman: Behold even now there be come to me,
etc.
4. He in effect sells the cure of Naaman for so much money; for if Naaman had not
been cured, could he have pretended to ask the silver and raiment?
5. It was an act of theft; he applied that to his own use which Naaman gave him for
his master.
6. He dishonored his master by getting the money and raiment in his name, who
had before so solemnly refused it.
7. He closed the whole by lying to his master, denying that he had gone after
Naaman, or that he had received any thing from him. But was it not severe to
extend the punishment of his crime to his innocent posterity? I answer, it does
not appear that any of Gehazi’s children, if he had any prior to this, were smitten
with the leprosy; and as to those whom he might beget after this time, their
leprosy must be the necessary consequence of their being engendered by a
leprous father.
Reader, see the end of avarice and ambition; and see the truth of those words,
“He that Will be rich, shall fall into temptation, and a snare, and into divers hurtful
lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition.” - St. Paul.
4. We have already remarked the apparently severe and manifestly kind providence
of God in this business.

164. 1. A marauding party was permitted to spoil the confines of the land of Israel.
2. They brought away, to reduce to captivity, a little maid, probably the hope of her
father’s house.
3. She became Naaman’s property, and waited on his wife.
4. She announced God and his prophet.
5. Naaman, on the faith of her account, took a journey to Samaria.
6. Gets healed of his leprosy.
7. Is converted to the Lord; and, doubtless, brought at least his whole family to
believe to the saving of their souls. What was severe to the parents of the little
maid was most kind to Naaman and his family; and the parents lost their child
only a little time, that they might again receive her with honor and glory for ever.
How true are the words of the poet!
“Behind a frowning providence he hides a smiling face.”
And see the benefits of a religious education! Had not this little maid been
brought up in the knowledge of the true God, she had not been the instrument of
so great a salvation. See my sermon on this subject 2Ki_5:12 (note).
GILL, "The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto
thy seed for ever,.... As long as any of his race remained; as through his covetousness
he had his money, so for his punishment he should have his disease:
and he went out from his presence; as one ashamed and confounded, and
discharged from his master's service:
a leper a
HE RY, "2. How he was punished for it: The leprosy of Naaman shall cleave to thee,
2Ki_5:27. If he will have his money, he shall take his disease with it, Transit cum onere -
It passes with this incumbrance. He was contriving to entail lands upon his posterity;
but, instead of them, he entails a loathsome disease on the heirs of his body, from
generation to generation. The sentence was immediately executed on himself; no sooner
said than done: He went out from his presence a leper as white as snow. Thus he is
stigmatized and made infamous, and carries the mark of his shame wherever he goes:
thus he loads himself and family with a curse, which shall not only for the present
proclaim his villany, but for ever perpetuate the remembrance of it. Note, The getting of
treasures by a lying tongue is a vanity tossed to and fro of those that seek death, Pro_
21:6. Those who get wealth by fraud and injustice cannot expect either the comfort or
the continuance of it. What was Gehazi profited, though he gained his two talents, when
thereby he lost his health, his honour, his peace, his service, and, if repentance
prevented not, his soul for ever? See Job_20:12, etc.
JAMISO , "leper as white as snow — (See on Lev_13:3). This heavy infliction
was not too severe for the crime of Gehazi. For it was not the covetousness alone that
was punished; but, at the same time, it was the ill use made of the prophet’s name to
gain an object prompted by a mean covetousness, and the attempt to conceal it by lying

165. [Keil].
K&D, "“And let the leprosy of Naaman cleave to thee and to thy seed for ever.” This
punishment took effect immediately. Gehazi went out from Elisha covered with leprosy
as if with snow (cf. ex. 2Ki_4:6; Num_12:10). It was not too harsh a punishment that the
leprosy taken from Naaman on account of his faith in the living God, should pass to
Gehazi on account of his departure from the true God. For it was not his avarice only
that was to be punished, but the abuse of the prophet's name for the purpose of carrying
out his selfish purpose, and his misrepresentation of the prophet.
(Note: “This was not the punishment of his immoderate δωροδοκίας (receiving of
gifts) merely, but most of all of his lying. For he who seeks to deceive the prophet in
relation to the things which belong to his office, is said to lie to the Holy Ghost,
whose instruments the prophets are” (vid., Act_5:3). - Grotius.)
BE SO , "2 Kings 5:27. The leprosy of aaman shall cleave unto thee and thy seed
for ever — That is, for some generations, as the expression is often used, and as may
be thought by comparing this with Exodus 20:5; Exodus 34:7. This was a sentence
which Gehazi justly deserved, for his crime was aggravated by a greedy
covetousness, which is idolatry, profanation of God’s name, a downright theft, in
taking that to himself which was given for others, deliberate and impudent lying, a
desperate contempt of God’s omnipotence, justice, and holiness, a horrible reproach
cast upon the prophet and his religion, and a pernicious scandal given to aaman,
and every other Syrian who should chance to hear of it. We are taught from hence
that God knows our sins, though committed in secret, and will punish them; and
particularly that his wrath pursues, not only the unrighteous, but all those in
general who are given to covetousness and dishonest gain; and that goods acquired
by wicked means carry a curse with them, which often descends from parents to
their children. He went out from his presence a leper as white as snow — Which is
the worst kind of leprosy, and noted by physicians to be incurable. Those who get
money by any way which is displeasing to God, make a dear purchase. What was
Gehazi profited by the two talents of silver, when he lost his health, if not his soul,
for ever?
COKE, "2 Kings 5:27. The leprosy—of aaman shall cleave unto thee— A sentence
which Gehazi justly deserved, for his crime was aggravated by a greedy
covetousness, which is idolatry, prophanation of God's name, a downright theft, in
taking that to himself which was given for others, deliberate and impudent lying, a
desperate contempt of God's omnipotence, justice, and holiness, a horrible reproach
cast upon the prophet and his religion, and a pernicious scandal given to aaman
and every other Syrian who should chance to hear of it; while we are hence taught
that God knows our sins, though committed in secret, and will punish them; and
particularly that his wrath pursues all those, in general, who are given to
covetousness and dishonest gain; and that goods acquired by wicked means carry a
curse with them, which often descends from parents to their children. See Poole and

166. Ostervald.
REFLECTIO S.—Of all men in Israel, there was not one from whom we might
expect more exemplary piety than from the favoured Gehazi, the companion almost,
rather than servant, of the prophet, blessed with his daily conversation, and
beholding continually his bright example; and yet we find him as vile and hardened
as the most idolatrous Israelite. ote; The best of men and ministers cannot change
even those under their own roof. ay, to their grief, they behold them sometimes
more insensible and stupid than any others.
1. Gehazi's sin was great. A lover of filthy lucre, he could not see the gifts without
hankering for them, and blaming his master's refusal: a liar and robber, careless
what dishonour he brought on the prophet; or what disgust aaman might take
against God from such a procedure: crafty and dissembling, and as if he could
deceive the Spirit of God in his master, seeking to cover one lie by a worse. ote; (1.)
The love of money is the root of all evil. They who resolve to be rich, resolve on their
destruction and perdition, 1 Timothy 6:9. (2.) Covetousness and lying are nearly
allied. (3.) When the heart is hardened by one sin, it is more easily disposed to a
greater. (4.) Hope of concealment and impunity is the great encouragement to do
evil.
2. His punishment was exemplary. Elisha silences his lying tongue. His spirit
followed him to the chariot, and to the place where the robbery was deposited, and
clearly foresaw how he designed to lay out these wages of unrighteousness: but short
enjoyment shall his wickedness afford him. The curse of God is denounced upon
him, the silver of aaman is turned into his leprosy to eat up his flesh, and the
disease entailed upon his latest posterity. Elisha's doors are immediately shut
against him, and he departs a leper, loathsome as incurable. ote; (1.) The joy of
prosperous wickedness is short-lived, transitory, and terminates in sorrows bitter as
endless. (2.) Thus shall God at last lay open men's folly, sin, and shame; and,
speechless before him, they shall be driven from his presence, to suffer the just
reward of their deeds.
ELLICOTT, "(27) Shall cleave.—Or, cleave! i.e., let it cleave. The prophetic
sentence is naturally expressed as an imperative.
A leper as white as snow.—Comp. Exodus 4:6, umbers 12:10. A sudden outbreak
of leprosy may follow upon extreme fright or mortification (Michaelis).
Unto thy seed for ever.—Like other skin diseases, leprosy is hereditary. If it be
thought that the sentence is too strong, it should be remembered that the prophet is
really pronouncing inspired judgment upon the sin of Gehazi, and milder language
might have produced erroneous impressions. Covetousness and lying are never
spared in Scripture, and it is well for mankind that it is so. (Comp. Acts 5)

167. PETT, "2 Kings 5:27
“The skin disease therefore of aaman will cleave to you, and to your seed for
ever.” And he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow.’
The chapter began with a man badly skin diseased, and now it ends with a man
badly skin diseased. For YHWH’s judgment on Gehazi was that, because of the
awful nature of his sin, and the privileged position that he had enjoyed and abused,
he would experience aaman’s skin disease and that it would be passed on in his
family continually. And sure enough Gehazi went out from his presence as white as
snow. The vividness of the description is taken from Exodus 4:6.
It is perhaps possible that the clothing which aaman had passed on to him had also
been a means of his infection with aaman’s skin disease, and that his family were
especially prone to it, although if so the process was speeded up in Gehazi’s case. It
is important to recognise that his punishment arose because, being in a privileged
position he had allowed his avarice to persuade him to misrepresent YHWH. And
that at a crucial time in Israel’s history. o sin could be worse than that.
The Lord Jesus Christ would take this example of Elisha’s healing of aaman the
Aramaean as an illustration of the fact that God’s love reached out to the nations as
well as to the Jews (Luke 4:27). It is a reminder to us that God’s love is open to us
no matter what our background.
PULPIT, "The leprosy therefore of aaman shall cleave unto thee; i.e. "As thou
hast taken his goods, thou shalt also take his leprosy, which goes with them." A just
emesis. And unto thy seed forever. The iniquity of the fathers is visited upon the
children. Gehazi, however, could avoid this part of the curse by not marrying. And
he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow. There were many forms and
degrees of leprosy (Le 2 Kings 13:2 -46). Gehazi's was of the most pronounced kind,
And it fell on him suddenly, as her leprosy fell upon Miriam ( umbers 12:10),
complete at once, so that there could he no further aggravation of it. The lesson
should be taken to heart, and should be a warning to us, both against lying and
against covetousness.