Bible Commentaries
2 Kings 5

Verses 1-24

XI

THE STORY OF NAAMAN, THE SIEGE OF SAMARIA,

AND THE DEATH OF JEHORAM (OF JUDAH)

2 Kings 5:1-8:24

We commence this chapter with the story of Naaman, recorded in 2 Kings 5:1-24, which is a continuation of the record of Elisha’s miracles. In this passage we have a very graphic and complete account of two miracles which are especially remarkable in their relation to each other. One was the cure of leprosy and the other was the infliction of leprosy. One was wrought on a foreigner and a man of prominence; the other, on a Hebrew and a servant. The second was consequential on the first and the two together must have given Elisha a great reputation at home and abroad, and at the same time extolled Jehovah as the great God in the surrounding nations.

This Naaman was by nationality a Syrian, by position a captain, a great and honorable man. "He was also a mighty man of valor," one who had rendered valuable services to his country in giving deliverance (Hebrew salvation) from an oppressor. Here arises the question, "What was this deliverance of Naaman?" To this question we find no reply in the Scriptures but there is evidence enough from the Assyrian monuments. Prior to this time an Assyrian monarch had pushed his conquests as far west as Syria bringing this country into subjection, but Syria revolted after a few years and once more gained her independence. It was this deliverance that was wrought by Naaman in which he distinguished himself and won the special favor of the Syrian king.

But Naaman had one serious defect. He was a leper. The way this fact is introduced is most natural, viz.: by the adversative conjunction but. It is true that the conjunction is in italics, showing that the word does not occur in the original, yet the adversative idea is there. It is suggestive of the fact that too often people spoil a splendid recommendation of other people with the introduction of some defect; as, Byron was a great poet but was clubfooted. Or that man is an excellent gentleman but he has one failing, etc. So we go on describing people, saying all the good things we know about them, and then marring their fine reputation by pointing out some fault, altogether unlike the spirit of the inspired historian here in the case of Naaman. This thought is further illustrated in the case of David. Nathan said to him, "Jehovah hath put away thy sin, howbeit," and then follows with a long list of consequences of the sin which would come upon David. We find the adversative conjunction used to introduce good qualities also, as in 2 Chronicles 19:3. After Jehu the prophet had rebuked Jehoshaphat for his sin, he said, "Nevertheless there are good things found in thee," etc. Other examples might be given but these are enough. To sum up what I have said: But may be used adversely to introduce the bad when the good is mentioned first, and to introduce the good when the bad is mentioned first. A fact generally admitted by all, is that both qualities are found in varying ratios in all of us. Therefore we should remember the saying, "There is so much good in the worst of us and so much bad in the best of us that it scarcely behooves any of us to say anything about the rest of us."

As has already been stated, this defect of Naaman was leprosy, which comes from the Hebrew word meaning a stroke, because the ancients regarded this disease as a stroke from God. Of course it carried with it the idea of penalty for sin committed, just as the three friends of Job reasoned with respect to his case. They said, "This stroke is from God because of your sins." They thus attributed all afflictions to sin as the cause and to God as inflicting the penalty. The Greek word from which we get our word leprosy means "a scale" and thus indicates a certain characteristic of the disease, viz: that in certain stages of the disease the skin becomes scaly.

There is a most impressive lesson here for us in the instrumentality of this miracle. On some one of their marauding expeditions into northern Israel they had captured a little Jewish maiden who was made servant to Naaman’s wife. The beauty and radiance of her life are seen in the few words here said about her. She expressed a most ardent desire that her master might be healed and pointed out the source of such healing as her God, who would effect such a cure through his servant, Elisha, the prophet in Samaria. All this is an expression of affection, the affection of a servant for her master. How sublime such affection under such conditions! A captive maiden, with the loyalty of a child for a parent, reveals to her master the true source of healing. May we not think of this little Jewish maid in her love for and her loyalty to her oppressors, as a kind of type of Christians in their relation to the world? Surely the human instrumentality in this great divine transaction should not be underestimated. Neither can we fail to recognize the human in God’s plan for the salvation of the world. This little maid played her part and played it well. Are we doing our part in the great plan of God as well as she?

The transactions from this point in the story are rapid and interesting. Naaman appeals to the Syrian king who in turn sends a letter to Jehoram the king of Israel asking for the recovery of Naaman of his leprosy. This royal courtesy of the Syrian king was misunderstood by the king of Israel, who thought that the king of Syria was seeking a quarrel with him. Just here Elisha intervenes to save the day, by offering to do what Jeroboam in his royalty could not do, viz: to heal Naaman of his loathsome disease. But how simple the prescription! Dip in the Jordan seven times. Why seven? Seven was a symbol of perfection and here symbolized the perfect obedience required upon the part of Naaman. But Naaman was wroth and went away saying, "Behold, I thought, he would 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 recover the leper. Are not . . . the rivers of Damascus better than all the waters of Israel? May I not wash in them and be clean?" This reply shows what was in Naaman’s mind. He expected Elisha to make a great display, and he seems also to have expected an incantation by which the cure would be effected, but the prophet understood human nature too well to be engulfed into violating the law of his God. The captain’s anger was most natural; it was the result of a keen disappointment, but it prepared the way for a hearing from his servants, which resulted in his cure.

There are several lessons here for us: (1) Human nature calls for display. This is true often in the most vital matters, such as the salvation of the soul; (2) May we not find in this incident an illustration of the simplicity of the plan of salvation? Upon this point many stumble. They say, "What shall I do to be saved?" or "What shall I give?" (3) Healing is obtained by taking the remedy: "He that believeth on him is not condemned: he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God" (John 3:18).

It is noteworthy in this connection that the servants of Naaman interceded with him as children begging a father and this influenced him to try the offered remedy. Their reasoning with him was simple and effective: "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"? This was sufficient. He went down, dipped himself and was healed. Here arises the question of the virtue of his cure. It was not in the Jordan, nor in the seven dips, but in the power of God. Of course, it came in response to conditions met, just as in the case of all other blessings.

May we not find here a parallel case to the New Testament teaching on baptismal regeneration? Hardly; here the dipping was made a condition of Naaman’s healing, but in the New Testament we do not find baptism a condition of salvation, but the conditions of salvation are repentance and faith. However there is this parallel: that God’s own prescribed conditions must be met before there is any blessing. In this connection it is well to note also that the word for "dip" here, in the Septuagint, is bapto from which comes the New Testament word "baptize," and that this word means the same as the original Hebrew word, viz: to dip, to immerse. This Old Testament incident is an illustration of the meaning of bapto and baptize and thus confirms the New Testament teaching of baptism by immersion.

Naaman’s gratitude for his healing is very beautifully and impressively expressed: (1) He returned from the Jordan to Elisha, a journey of forty or fifty miles out of his way; (2) he offered the prophet the presents which he had brought from Damascus; (3) he embraced the Jehovah religion and made a vow to renounce all other gods but Jehovah; (4) he honored the request of Elisha (as he thought) by his servant, Gehazi. In all this one is reminded of the incident in the New Testament where the one leper returned to thank our Lord for his healing, evidencing the additional blessing of salvation, yet this act of Naaman involved far more trouble and inconvenience than that of the Samaritan leper..

It should also be noted here that Elisha refused his presents, not because he was not worthy to receive them, but to show this heathen man that not all of God’s prophets were mercenary, as was the case with the priests of other religions. It sets forth Elisha in a beautiful light. We see here the spirit of self-denial which reminds us of Paul’s life and teaching. One could wish that he might always be able to find just such a spirit in the prophets of Jehovah in this twentieth century. Alas, too often the spirit of Gehazi possesses them rather than the spirit of Elisha. But we thank God that the majority are walking in the steps of Elisha.

But what did Naaman mean by wanting "Two mules’ burden of earth"? It cannot be definitely known just what was in his mind, but of all the theories proposed, the context seems to have a great bearing on the one which says that he wanted this earth from the land of Israel to erect an altar to Jehovah in the land of Syria or, perchance, to sprinkle it upon a certain area of his own land, thereby making it "holy ground" and suitable for the worship of Jehovah. History tells us that some of the Jews carried earth from their own land when they were carried into captivity to Babylon. This seems to have been the prevailing idea among the Orientals. Yet another matter should be considered here, viz: If Naaman here embraced the Jehovah religion, why should he bow himself down in the house of Rimmon? This seems to be a reference to his work, as an attendant upon the king of Syria, to perform certain duties relative to his master in the house of Rimmon. He seemed to realize that Jehovah was a jealous God, but he was not strong enough to become a martyr to the Jehovah religion. In this we may not judge Naaman too severely, especially in view of the fact that Naaman was a heathen, reared in a heathen religion, and going back to a heathen environment, and may we not confidently expect to meet Naaman in the "Sweet By and By" as one of God’s jewels gathered out of a foreign land? One could wish that he might greet this Syrian general and this little Jewish maid along with Elijah’s widow of Zarephath, Elisha’s Shunammite woman and our Lord’s Syro-Phoenician woman on the bright shores of everlasting deliverance.

Over against this cheering picture of Elisha and Naaman hangs the blighting picture of Gehazi, a renegade Jew. With the spirit of avarice he seized his opportunity to get the presents offered his master. His sin was manifold. He was guilty of lying, covetousness, and sacrilege. He lied to Naaman outright in the matter of the presents; he was prompted in it all by the spirit of covetousness; and he committed sacrilege in the ill use he made of the name of his master and in his profane oath. But the eye of the seer was there and he was completely caught. May we not rejoice that justice found her own, or shall we revolt at the severity of the penalty inflicted? If the latter, then must we pass by the case of Ananias and Sapphira and a multitude of others like unto them? We will rejoice rather in the prophetic and apostolic judgments since they are strokes of God through his own appointed executioners. But what of the descendants of Gehazi involved in this penalty? Here comes in the law of heredity which he could escape only by denying himself of the privilege of marriage which he may have done; we do not know. One could wish that he might lift the curtain and see further into the course of Naaman and Gehazi, but we must be content with whatever revelation has disclosed, and dare not to intrude into the precincts of the Most Holy uninvited. Here they pass from our view never to reappear.

Turning to the Scriptures we meet again Benhadad II, king of Syria, who was under treaty with Israel twelve years during which time Ahab furnished troops in a league against Assyria, but now he breaks the treaty and invades Israel according to the prophecy given Ahab when he let Ben-hadad go (1 Kings 20:35-43). What a pity Ahab did not obey the Lord and put an end to him. But we should not have had this great lesson of national sin and its penalty.

This Benhadad comes now, besieges Samaria and causes sufferings in Israel unparalleled in their history. The head of an ass, the most undesirable part of the most undesirable animal, sold for 80 shekels, about $50.00; a kab of doves’ dung sold for 5 shekels, about $3.00; and the women killed their own sons and ate them. Such indicates the horrors of this terrible siege. But this is the fulfilment of the prophecy of Deuteronomy 28:56-57, which has three literal fulfilments in the history of the Jewish people, viz: (1) in this instance, the siege of Samaria by Benhadad; (2) in the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and (3) in the siege of Jerusalem by Titus, A.D. 70. The story here of the two women and the appeal of one of them to the king is very pathetic. Who can censure the mother for hiding her son? The mystery is that the other one ever gave up hers. All this shows the dire straights into which they had become because of this siege.

For all this the king of Israel proposes a remedy, viz: that the head of Elisha be taken from his shoulders. But we note the fact that this was contrary to law. An Oriental monarch might do such a thing consistently. Beheading was practiced in Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia, but it was positively forbidden by the Jewish law. Why should he strike for Elisha when such a calamity came? He evidently thought that Elisha was to blame for their condition. He may have associated this instance with the drought which came at the word of Elijah, or he may have thought that Elisha could work miracles at will and that he purposely refused to relieve the people. However the case may be, it is the common plea of the enemies of God’s cause against his agents and ministers. So with an oath he vows to take the head of God’s prophet.

But Elisha was not to be so ill-treated. He was a seer and the Spirit of God in him was sufficient for every emergency. He saw the plan before the messenger of vengeance arrived and made counterplans to defeat the whole purpose of the king. The story of this incident is beautifully told in the record: how Elisha stopped the messenger and even his master, and with keen insight into the future made a most interesting prediction, viz: that on the morrow they would be amply supplied at reasonable prices. The messenger was doubtful but this prediction allowed for Elisha a probation and a respite from the wrath of the king.

The fulfilment of this prediction is found in the incident of the lepers, the story of which is given in the record. The lesson of this incident is illustrative of the condition of the sinner: "Why sit we here until we die? If we say we will enter the city, when the famine is in the city, and we shall die there: and if we sit here, we shall die also . . . if the Syrians kill us, we shall but die." This pictures the state of the sinner and his reasoning when he faces the question of decision: "I can but die; therefore, will I trust him." This text has been used by hundreds of preachers to illustrate the point of decision. There is also another fine text in this connection, viz: "We do not well: this day is a day of good tidings, and we hold our peace." What a good missionary text! They told it and so should we. The world, like Samaria, is perishing for the necessaries of life, and we know where there is plenty. Let us tell it, lest when the blessed light of God’s eternal morning bursts forth upon us our sin of omission will overtake us.

They did tell it, but as is often the case when we preach, they did not believe it. It was received with distrust; they thought the Syrians had set a trap for them and so they sent messengers and chariots after them to ascertain the facts in the case. The report of these messengers was convincing. They pursued the Syrians as far as the Jordan and found garments and vessels scattered all along the way. Evidently the Syrians had gotten a good "scare" but this is easily explained when we take into consideration that it was the Lord’s "scare." He made them to hear a great noise of chariots, of horsemen and of a great host. It is no wonder that they ran for their lives. In this connection we find the fulfilment of the prophecy of Elisha to the messenger of vengeance in two important aspects, viz: (1) the price of flour and barley became reasonable; (2) the messenger of vengeance was made gatekeeper by the king and was trodden to death, thus fulfilling Elisha’s statement that he should see it with his eyes but should not eat thereof. This must have been a horrible death, to be trampled to death while starving and yet in sight of plenty. We may think of this as illustrating another class of sinners, those who die in sight of plenty and yet because of their previous course in sin are altogether unable to get to the table of God’s kingdom. This man died because of his unbelief, 2 Kings 7:2; 2 Kings 7:19 f.

The next event according to our study of this section is the death of Jehoram king of Judah and his sad funeral. He had a complication of dreadful diseases, which are mentioned in any good commentary. The sad feature of his funeral is the fact that he was not buried in the usual way in which they buried their kings. He had no burning for him, and was not interred in the sepulchers of the kings. It is sad to have such distinction in one’s death. But such must be the lot of those who sin against Jehovah. We may be sure our sins will find us out.

It is well to note that the book of Obadiah falls in this period, and will be studied in the light of this history when we take up the prophets of the Assyrian period.

QUESTIONS

1. Tell the story of Naaman, the leper.

2. Who was Naaman and what was his standing?

3. What was Naaman’s victory for God?

4. What word introduces the defect in Naaman, what play on it and what the lesson?

5. What this defect and why was it considered such a misfortune?

6. What was the instrumentality of his healing and what the lessons?

7. What was Elisha’s prescription, what was Naaman’s reply, and what the lesson?

8. How was he finally induced to take the remedy and in what was the virtue of his healing?

9. What was the word here in the Septuagint translated "dipped," and what was the bearing on the New Testament usage of the word?

10. What was the effect of this healing on Naaman and how did he show his gratitude?

11. Explain Naaman’s request for "two mules’ burden of earth" and his bowing himself in the house of Rimmon.

12. How did Gehazi get the reward, what was his sin and what was his punishment?

13. Who was Benhadad and what was his relation to Israel at this time?

14. What indicates the great suffering in the siege of Samaria?

15. What was the king’s proposed remedy and what the meaning of it?

16. Give the story of the king’s messenger of vengeance and Elisha’s promise of plenty.

17. Give the story of the four lepers at the gate. What was the lesson?

18. What missionary text in this connection?

19. How was the message of the lepers received, how was it verified, and how were Elisha’s promise and prophecy fulfilled?

20. Describe the awful sickness and death of Jehoram, and his sad funeral.

21. What prophetic book has its setting here?