READINGS ON 2 KINGS (1) (SUMMARY)
[p. 352] READINGS ON 2 KINGS (1) (SUMMARY)
JT This chapter begins and ends with a leper; the number of lepers was not reduced by the cleansing of Naaman.
Rem It was the same leprosy.
JT The sins of the nation went back on Israel; there is no idea of improving the world. Taking away the sin of the world will take place, but at present that applies to persons. It seems the sin still remains, there is no reduction of it; there is no diminution of sin in the world by the gentiles getting blessing. The gospel does not remove sin out of the world, but from persons; the thing itself seems to increase rather than diminish by the gospel, but the time will come when it will be removed judicially, “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”; He does this sacrificially and actually.
The prophet himself imposes leprosy on Gehazi: “The leprosy of Naaman shall fasten upon thee, and upon thy seed for ever. And he went out from his presence leprous, as snow”, “He that is not subject to the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides upon him”. Gehazi discredited the whole position, saying Elisha had changed his mind, and requesting a talent of silver and two changes of raiment. The whole principle of the clerisy is to take something. It is as if God is anticipating that here, the taking of money, making a trade of the word of God. What is to happen now that the same thing is found in christendom? The leprosy of the gentiles has returned to the Jews, Naaman stands for the gentile. He returns to Syria, but ere doing so,
requests two mules’ burden of earth — of this earth — so that he can worship with a good conscience. He has left these two garments and money with Gehazi, and Gehazi himself becomes a leper; the leprosy of Naaman is passed on to him. Such garments as these would be worldly garments. It does not look as if Naaman was to relinquish entirely his place in Syria.
We gentiles have come into the place of blessing, and the Jews have come in for our sins, so to speak. In time they will be restored, and what is to happen to the gentiles? This incident shows the place money and garments have. Gehazi represents the Jew allowing his natural propensities to govern him; he was near the prophet positionally, though far away morally, so he would have the gentile’s garments. You see the same thing in christendom, money, cloth, show; what will the outcome be? Sin is no less in the world because christendom is in it; the sin remains. We are not to be partakers in other men’s sins; we shall be so, if we are partakers of their money and garments. The dog returns to its vomit. How? By money and garments — covetousness. Elisha says, Is it a time to receive money and to receive garments? The Lord was marked by the absence of these things, as were the apostles and early christians, but Gehazi was covetous; as was said, you get the thought of trading in the word of God.
After the prodigal is brought back he receives garments, and the elder brother remains outside the house, refusing to go in. Then in the next chapter you have a man living in luxury every day and clothed in purple and fine linen. He represents the Jew, while Lazarus, the gentile, has nothing, but heaven is occupied with him. Luke would point out that money is the great danger, so he brings forward a rich man and first a steward who uses the means under his hand to get friends, and the comment is,
“[p. 354] The sons of this world are, for their own generation, more prudent than the sons of light”. The point is to use whatever you have now in view of everlasting habitations.
Rem Lazarus went in without any money.
JT The man that went to paradise had nothing. The steward indicates the best use to be made of what one has, everlasting habitations.
Rem The love of money is a root of all evil.
JT Money appeals greatly to men. It is not the coin merely, but what it represents. The apostle says, “When the commandment came, sin revived, and I died”. And what was the commandment? “Thou shalt not covet”. The law in this sense ‘kills’ you, as man does covet; it is his very nature. Covetousness shows what I am, how exceedingly sinful I am. “That sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful”. Why does God enlarge on sin? why make it more sinful? Because He means it to come out in its fulness. God would have the iniquity of the Amorite come out in full. On this principle of Gehazi, christendom has become sinful. The man of sin is the full-blown thing; sin is to head up in one man. The light of christendom makes man’s guilt exceeding guilty.
What was in Naaman’s mind was wealth and garments. Read verse 5, as to what he brought, and compute what it might be worth! He takes it all back, but leaves two changes of raiment and two talents of silver. Thus Gehazi became what he was morally, there was the transfer of the leprosy with the raiment and money. The Jew would have the money and garments, but the sin of the gentiles is transferred to him, and now christendom is turning back to the same thing. The man of sin must have it. Judas sold Christ because he wanted the money, not because he hated Him. In presence of Mary’s beautiful [p. 355] tribute to Christ his thought was, what could have been done with the price of the ointment.
Rem The same principle is seen in Ananias and Sapphira.
JT The point is, what effect has christianity on me? how do I hold what I have? what use do I turn it to? Almost the first man that Luke brings forward, after the prodigal, goes to paradise: that is Lazarus, and he has nothing, so money is not needed to go there. What I have I am to use for the future, like the steward.
Rem The frequent references to money by Paul show how fully delivered he was from its power.
JT You read in Acts of those who were “well off”; Paul could carry their money (Acts 11: 30). Peter said, “Silver and gold have I none”. Money is what it represents. The Lord could take a piece of money from the mouth of a fish. He recognised God’s right to the fish to be used for the testimony. If I have money I can use it in love, in view of the future.
Rem The word to Simon Magus was, “Thy money perish with thee”.
JT If one is making a wrong use of money it may become a curse; the acquisition of money very often proves a curse. There is more money now than ever among the saints.
Naaman was a generic leper, it was not judicial, not what man has become by his conduct. It is the real state, sin working in man (Romans 1), and therefore one such is a subject of the gospel. But the leprosy was put upon Gehazi, as it was on Miriam; both refer to Israel. You would not preach the gospel to Gehazi; it is a fixed state with him, like Revelation 22: 11, he would be leprous “still”. “The leprosy of Naaman shall fasten upon thee, and upon thy seed for ever”; it is a judicial thing, and if judicial, the word would apply, “There is a sin unto death; I do not say that he shall pray for it”. Naaman the gentile was ready for the gospel. So the evangelical touch is most affecting. Greed, money and garments must be watched, the desire to make something out of the testimony.
Rem The little maid has a remarkable idea of the power of the prophetic word.
JT Yes. The Syrians had gone out “in bands”; that is characteristic. This maid had real feeling in regard to her master. No one asked her.
Rem Her presence there was no accident.
JT She was submissive to the government of God, like the Jews of the dispersion; Peter enjoins them to be subject. She has no animosity or personal feeling; she is accepting the conditions and happy in the position. She has great light as to things, and says, “Oh, would that my lord were before the prophet that is in Samaria! then he would cure him of his leprosy”. She has no doubt about it. This is a word for young brothers and sisters. How did she know? It is a great thing to have one’s ears open for what is current spiritually. Like the maidens in 1 Samuel 9, they knew all about Samuel; it is a reminder to young people.
Rem There is no need for constitutional diseases to exist.
JT She does not call Elisha a healer, as they do in so-called christian science, 1 John 5: 16 would leave the matter open for you to decide as to people. If one is often reproved, if one will have it like that, it results in one being like that, “But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant”. It is most solemn, and intended to warn us as to the pursuit of a course.
Rem The Lord says, “And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet, and none of them was cleansed but Naaman the Syrian”.
JT The sovereignty of God is seen in this. Naaman may have got his renown in engagements against Israel; who knows? Things will move if God is in them. Grace is seen here going outside Israel, and that is Luke’s line. This is a characteristic gospel chapter. The little maid did not have an atom of hard feeling, that hereditary feeling between Syria and Israel. Peter amplifies the idea in relation to Jew and gentile.
Rem Naaman changed his mind.
JT Men do. They resent the truth and then look into the matter. Who is not double-minded? We have to be watchful to have our minds under control. It is noteworthy that Naaman’s servants take no advantage of his leprosy; they call him, My father. It is the principle of being subject; God uses persons who are subject, accepting the position.
Ques What is the thought of Jordan?
JT It is the acceptance of death. Death is sometimes viewed as an enemy, here it is a servant. It is the virtue of death; death is ours.
The whole ministry of Peter is, If I am to be used I must be subject. It is a question whether Naaman ever came to real smallness. The servants knew he valued great things. His word, Take a present, is not good, that is a return for value received. Elisha is a man of rending garments; he will maintain the full dignity of christianity typically. Naaman speaks of the house of Rimmon; he is going to be there. He is a compromising man. There is nothing like that in the eunuch; he is a satisfied man, rejoicing, carrying the truth back home. Naaman is going to retain his dignity. Gehazi suits him; in a sense the same sort of man, like the Emperor Constantine becoming the President of the Council of Nicene! Naaman appeared to have no thought of converting the king. He asks for two mules’ burden of this earth, what Elisha stood on; it was for the easing of his conscience.
[p. 358] He was making terms. He would go free himself, and yet be a big man with the king leaning on him. He is a real christian, so to speak, but making a path for himself. He does not look to the prophet for any counsel, but makes up his mind.