TEXT [Commentary]

8. The greed of Gehazi (5:20-27)

20 But Gehazi, the servant of Elisha, the man of God, said to himself, “My master should not have let this Aramean get away without accepting any of his gifts. As surely as the LORD lives, I will chase after him and get something from him.” 21 So Gehazi set off after Naaman.

When Naaman saw Gehazi running after him, he climbed down from his chariot and went to meet him. “Is everything all right?” Naaman asked.

22 “Yes,” Gehazi said, “but my master has sent me to tell you that two young prophets from the hill country of Ephraim have just arrived. He would like 75 pounds[*] of silver and two sets of clothing to give to them.”

23 “By all means, take twice as much[*] silver,” Naaman insisted. He gave him two sets of clothing, tied up the money in two bags, and sent two of his servants to carry the gifts for Gehazi. 24 But when they arrived at the citadel,[*] Gehazi took the gifts from the servants and sent the men back. Then he went and hid the gifts inside the house.

25 When he went in to his master, Elisha asked him, “Where have you been, Gehazi?”

“I haven’t been anywhere,” he replied.

26 But Elisha asked him, “Don’t you realize that I was there in spirit when Naaman stepped down from his chariot to meet you? Is this the time to receive money and clothing, olive groves and vineyards, sheep and cattle, and male and female servants? 27 Because you have done this, you and your descendants will suffer from Naaman’s leprosy forever.” When Gehazi left the room, he was covered with leprosy; his skin was white as snow.

NOTES

5:20 Gehazi. Possibly his very name means “greedy” or “avaricious” (see note on 4:12).

5:21 Is everything all right? Lit., “is there peace?” (hashalom [TH7965, ZH8934]). Although not evident in the NLT, the term shalom is also found in Gehazi’s response to Naaman at the beginning of 5:22: “there is peace” (or, “everything is all right”). Both of these uses of the rich term shalom stand in sharp irony to its prior use in Elisha’s brief parting comment to Naaman in 5:19. Here is yet another connection between the two sections of the Naaman story, showing that the present Gehazi material was unlikely to have been added at a later time.

5:22 two young prophets. A motif of duality pervades 5:22-23: two prophets, two sets of clothing, “twice as much silver,” two bags, two servants—all this echoing, thematically, the two mule-loads of earth mentioned in 5:17.

75 pounds of silver. Lit., “a talent of silver” (see the second note on 5:5 and, for modern-day equivalences, the second note on 1 Kgs 9:14).

5:24 the citadel. Heb., ha‘opel [TH6077, ZH6755], probably a topographical term denoting the elevated part of a city (so Cogan and Tadmor [1988:66], who further note the definition of “Ophel” that Yigal Shiloh, the excavator of Jerusalem’s Ophel, the City of David, proposed: It is “an urban architectural term denoting the outstanding site of the citadel or acropolis”). In the present passage, the “Ophel” would presumably refer to a prominent part of the city of Samaria.

5:26 I was there in spirit. Lit., “did my heart (leb [TH3820, ZH4213]) not go [with you]?”; the NLT renders this by means of the contemporary expression of being somewhere “in spirit” if one is not there in the physical sense. Thus, Elisha was there with Gehazi both in his concern for, and knowledge of, the servant’s duplicitous attitudes and actions. Wiseman (1993:208-209) lists these as avarice (5:22), deception (5:23-25), derogation of superiors (“this Aramean,” 5:20), swearing deceitfully (5:20, contrasted with 5:16), and attempting to cover up the results of his actions (5:24-25).

5:27 his skin was white as snow. For the characteristics of such “leprosy,” see the third note on 5:1. The concluding reference here to “leprosy” forms a clear inclusio (on the term inclusio, see the first note on 1 Kgs 3:15) with the first verse of the chapter—further indication that the entire chapter is to be considered a literary unity.

COMMENTARY [Text]

As Cohn has reminded us (see previous commentary section for details), this section of the chapter has close ties with what precedes, with the result that the servant of Elisha (Gehazi) suffers greatly in comparison with the servant of the king of Aram (Naaman). This is a bold, internationalist touch on the part of the “theologian” (Cohn’s characterization) who put together this unforgettable narrative in its present form. Gehazi, in the end, is the one who “inherits” Naaman’s leprosy, and the reader can only reflect on the fitness of his final fate. As Cohn puts it (1983:184): “The theologian wanted the moral to transcend the miraculous,” and thus he balanced Elisha’s acceptance of Naaman with his rejection of Gehazi. That is how the story sadly has to end: Greedy, duplicitous Gehazi, who could not let “this Aramean” (5:20) get away with a “free” healing, must receive his just desserts—the same affliction for himself and his descendants “forever” (see 5:27). What a long-term price to pay for such a crass, impulsive attempt to make a quick profit!

Seow (1999:198) reminds us: “There are people in every era who are so terribly afflicted with diseases and other ailments, who are desperate to find any word of hope from spiritual leaders. And there are always opportunists like Gehazi who are ready to make a quick profit in the name of the Lord. This text sternly warns against such opportunism.” But as Seow himself points out, it may well be the unnamed Israelite slave back in the beginning of the chapter who is in a very real sense the proper foil to unfaithful Gehazi, and therefore the true role model of proper faith in her God, Yahweh. Although a hopeless captive in a foreign land, her “eyes of faith” perceived, and thus provided, hope for her foreign master, and through him, for his entourage as well. Thus, as greedy Gehazi fails, the unnamed servant girl succeeds in advancing the Kingdom of God beyond the borders of Israel. We today smile at Naaman’s overly literal transporting of Israelite soil to his Aramean homeland to worship his new God, but we surely recognize that none of that could have happened without the brave, simple testimony of a captive Israelite servant girl, whose name our storyteller probably never even knew. One never knows what simple word of testimony might well change forever the course of salvation history.