- 99-
and Gentile that there was a living God in Israel, who had placed there His accredited
representative. Assuredly the most devoted affection could not have desired for a
child a place of greater honor or usefulness than that which this Jewish maiden
occupied in the household of the Syrian captain. What follows is told with utmost
simplicity, and bears the impress of truth. For, it was only natural that this child
should tell her mistress of the prophet in Samaria, or express the full confidence in
his ability to recover her master of his leprosy.^198 Similarly, it was only what we
should have expected when her mistress repeated to her husband what the child had
said, and perhaps equally natural on the part of Naaman to repeat this to his king,^199
alike to obtain his leave for going to Samaria, and in such a manner as would be most
likely to secure the desired result.
As heathens, and especially as Syrians, neither Naaman nor Ben-hadad would see
anything strange in the possession of such magical powers by a prophet of Israel.
Similarly, it was quite in accordance with heathen notions to expect that the king of
Israel could obtain from his own prophet any result which he might desire. A heathen
king was always the religious as well as the political chief of his people, and to
command the services and obedience of his own prophet would seem almost a matter
of course. It was for this reason that Ben-hadad furnished Naaman with a letter to the
king of Israel. Hence also, imperious as the tone of the letter seems, it scarcely
warranted the interpretation which the king of Israel - probably Joram – put upon it.
What is reported of it in the sacred text (2 King 5:6) must, of necessity be regarded as
only forming a part of the letter, stating its main object. On the other hand, we can
quite understand that, from the Jewish point of view, Joram would speak of what he
regarded as a demand that he himself should heal Naaman of his leprosy, as
equivalent to requiring of him what God alone could do. His only it was to kill or to
make alive (Deuteronomy 32:39; 1 Samuel 2:6), and leprosy was considered a living
death (Numbers 12:12). As he communicated this strange behest to his attendants
and advisers – presumably not in the presence of Naaman - it was not unnatural that
Joram should regard it as a desire to find occasion of quarrel. The craven king of
Israel rent his clothes, in token of deepest mourning - as if he had already seen his
own and his people's destruction.
Some of the lessons suggested by the conduct of Joram may be of practical use. We
mark first the cowardice of the man who gives way to despair before any danger has
actually arisen. Yet there are not a few who tremble not before that which is real, but
before fears which, after all, prove wholly groundless. It need scarcely be said how
much good work, whether on the part of individuals or of the Church, has been
hindered by apprehensions of this kind. The source of all lies, perhaps, not so much
in disbelief as in non-belief, which is by far the commonest form of unbelief. Joram
knew better and believed worse than the king of Syria - just as is sometimes the case
with the children of God and the men of the world. He knew, as the Syrian did not,
(^)