at that time: "I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel" (Matthew 8:10).  207 And he also showed, in such manner

as he could, the evangelical fruits of gratitude, and of a new life direction. Of the first he gave evidence in his desire to

offer a gift;  208 of the second, in his request for "two mules' burden of earth." This, for the purpose of constructing an

altar to Jehovah, as we infer from the expression of his resolve henceforth only to bring offerings unto the LORD.

Only very brief explanation seems necessary of Elisha's refusal to accept any gift from Naaman. For the prophets seem

not unfrequently to have accepted such offerings (1 Samuel 9:7, 8; 1 Kings 14:3), and Elisha himself had only lately

done so (2 Kings 4:42). But in the present instance it was of the utmost importance to show - in contradistinction to

heathen soothsayers - that, as the prophet of God did not work miracles in his own power, nor by his own will, so he

did it not for reward, and that the gift of God could not be purchased with money. Indeed, we can scarcely exaggerate

the impression which the refusal of Elisha must have made both on the followers of Naaman and generally in Israel.

One of the Fathers has here marked in the prophet's conduct the same principle which underlay the direction of our

LORD when He sent out His disciples with this injunction: "Freely ye have received, freely give" (Matthew 10:8). Nor

could Elisha be in doubt about the other request of Naaman. If in making his altar of earth according to the Divine

direction209 (Exodus 20:24), he wished to use that of the land of Israel, it could not have been with the thought that the

God of Israel could only be worshipped on Israelitish soil.

Any idea of Jehovah as a national Deity, bound to the soil of Israel, would have been in contradiction to his expressed

conviction that there was "no God in all the earth but in Israel:" no national deities, but the One living and true God,

Whose knowle dge and manifestation were only in Israel. Nor would Elisha have given his sanction to what rested on so

serious a mistake. But we can easily understand the feelings which prompted a desire to rear an Israelitish altar, not

only in loving remembrance  210 of t he benefit received, but as congruous to the worship of Israel, to which his new faith

had led him. It would be an outward expression of his inward faith, and would at the same time constantly proclaim

throughout Syria that there was no other God than He o f Israel, and no other worship than His.

And yet wider thoughts come to us. The Old Testament dispensation seems to enlarge as it has touch of the heathen

world: it seems to break through its temporary bounds; it becomes universal in its application, and in its wide-hearted

toleration loses its exclusiveness. Thus this incident also is prefigurative of New Testament times. For the implied

sanction of Naaman's sacrifices - though probably only burnt and thank-offerings,211 - seems to carry us beyond the

preparatory dispensation. On the other hand, it is evidence of this toleration when Elisha does not return a negative

answer to the plea of Naaman - in which, however, an important alteration in the reading should be noted: "When my

master goeth into the hous e of Rimmon212 to bow down there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow down in the

house of Rimmon when he213 boweth down in the house of Rimmon - oh, let Jehovah forgive thy servant in this

It will be noticed that according to this reading a sharp distinction is drawn - even although the terms used are the same

- between the "bowing down" of Naaman, simply because his royal master leant on his arm, and the "bowing down" of

the king of Syria for the purpose of worship. The very mention of this scru ple by Naaman proved not only the

tenderness of his enlightened conscience, but that he was not in any danger of conformity to heathen worship. And so,

without specially entering on the matter, Elisha could bid him "go in peace."  214

But there was yet another and a sad sequel to this history. We have already had repeated occasion to notice the essential

difference in spirit between the prophet and his servant. It now appeared in such manner as, if left unpunished, to have

marred the work of Elisha. It seems d ifficult to understand how, with full knowledge of the great work just wrought,

and of all that had passed, Gehazi could have taken up a position so different from that of his master. But, alas, there

have been too many similar instances to make it appear quite strange. The character of Gehazi was in every respect the

exact opposite of Elisha's. He was covetous, selfish, and narrow-minded. There is a striking contrast between the "As

Jehovah liveth," with which Elisha prefaced his persistent refusal to receive aught of Naaman (ver. 16), and the same

phrase in the mouth of Gehazi, as he resolved to "take somewhat" of "this Syrian" (ver. 20). To Gehazi it seemed that

his master "had spared this Syrian" very needlessly and very foolishly, "in not receiving at h is hands that which he

brought." He could not see in what had passed anything higher than a transaction between man and man. It had been an

act of romantic generosity, an unpractical display of mistaken principle, where every consideration - even nationality

and religion - pointed in the other direction. At any rate, there was no reason why he should not act differently.