general of the army of Benhadad, king of Syria, mentioned 2
Kings v. He appears to have been a Gentile idolater; but being
miraculously cured of his leprosy by the power of the God of Israel, and
the direction of his Prophet Elisha, he renounced his idolatry, and
acknowledged this God to be the only true God: Behold, now I know that
there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel,” 2 Kings v, 15, and
promised, for the time to come, that he would worship none other but
Jehovah, verse 17. He also requested the prophet, that he might have two
mules’ load of earth to carry home with him from the land of Israel,
most probably intending to build an altar with it in his own country;
which seems, indeed, to be implied in the reason with which he enforces
his request: “Shall there not, I pray thee, be given to thy servant two
mules’ burden of earth; for thy servant will henceforth offer neither
burnt-offering nor sacrifice to other gods but unto Jehovah.” He farther
says, In this the Lord pardon thy servant, that when my master goes into
the house of Rimmon, to worship there, and he leaneth upon my hand, and
I bow myself in the house of Rimmon; when I bow down in the house of
Rimmon, the Lord pardon thy servant in this thing,” verse 18; which some
understand to be a reserve, denoting that he would renounce idolatry no
farther than was consistent with his worldly interest, with his prince’s
favour, and his place at court. But, if so, the prophet would hardly
have dismissed him with a blessing, saying, Go in peace,” verse 19.
Others, therefore, suppose, that in these words he begs pardon for what
he had done in times past, not for what he should continue to do. They
observe, that השתחויתי, though rendered in the future tense by the
Targum, and by all the ancient versions, is really the preterperfect;
and they, therefore, understand it,--“when I have bowed myself,” or,
because I have bowed myself” in the house of Rimmon, the Lord pardon thy
servant. With this sense Dr. Lightfoot agrees, and it is defended by the
learned Bochart in a large dissertation on the case of Naaman. Yet it
does not seem very probable, that, if he meant this for a penitential
acknowledgment of his former idolatry, he should only mention what he
had done as the king’s servant, and omit his own voluntary worship of
the idol. The more probable opinion, therefore, is, that he consulted
the prophet, whether it was lawful for him, having renounced idolatry,
and publicly professed the worship of the true God, still, in virtue of
his office, to attend his master in the temple of Rimmon, in order that
he might lean upon him, either out of state, or perhaps out of bodily
weakness; because, if he attended him, as he had formerly done, he could
not avoid bowing down when he did. To this the prophet returns no direct
answer; making no other reply than, Go in peace;” putting it, probably,
upon his conscience to act as that should dictate, and not being willing
to relieve him from this trial of his recent faith.
After this we have no farther mention of Naaman. But in the following
account of the wars between Syria and Israel, Benhadad seems to have
commanded his army in person; from whence Mr. Bedford infers, that
Naaman was dismissed from the command for refusing to worship Rimmon.
But the premises are not sufficient to support the conclusion; for it
appears that Benhadad had commanded his army in person twice before;
once in the siege of Samaria, 1 Kings xx, 1, and once at Aphek, verse
26. Yet, from the total silence concerning Naaman, it is probably enough
conjectured, that he either died, or resigned, or was dismissed, soon
after his return.
Kings v. He appears to have been a Gentile idolater; but being
miraculously cured of his leprosy by the power of the God of Israel, and
the direction of his Prophet Elisha, he renounced his idolatry, and
acknowledged this God to be the only true God: Behold, now I know that
there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel,” 2 Kings v, 15, and
promised, for the time to come, that he would worship none other but
Jehovah, verse 17. He also requested the prophet, that he might have two
mules’ load of earth to carry home with him from the land of Israel,
most probably intending to build an altar with it in his own country;
which seems, indeed, to be implied in the reason with which he enforces
his request: “Shall there not, I pray thee, be given to thy servant two
mules’ burden of earth; for thy servant will henceforth offer neither
burnt-offering nor sacrifice to other gods but unto Jehovah.” He farther
says, In this the Lord pardon thy servant, that when my master goes into
the house of Rimmon, to worship there, and he leaneth upon my hand, and
I bow myself in the house of Rimmon; when I bow down in the house of
Rimmon, the Lord pardon thy servant in this thing,” verse 18; which some
understand to be a reserve, denoting that he would renounce idolatry no
farther than was consistent with his worldly interest, with his prince’s
favour, and his place at court. But, if so, the prophet would hardly
have dismissed him with a blessing, saying, Go in peace,” verse 19.
Others, therefore, suppose, that in these words he begs pardon for what
he had done in times past, not for what he should continue to do. They
observe, that השתחויתי, though rendered in the future tense by the
Targum, and by all the ancient versions, is really the preterperfect;
and they, therefore, understand it,--“when I have bowed myself,” or,
because I have bowed myself” in the house of Rimmon, the Lord pardon thy
servant. With this sense Dr. Lightfoot agrees, and it is defended by the
learned Bochart in a large dissertation on the case of Naaman. Yet it
does not seem very probable, that, if he meant this for a penitential
acknowledgment of his former idolatry, he should only mention what he
had done as the king’s servant, and omit his own voluntary worship of
the idol. The more probable opinion, therefore, is, that he consulted
the prophet, whether it was lawful for him, having renounced idolatry,
and publicly professed the worship of the true God, still, in virtue of
his office, to attend his master in the temple of Rimmon, in order that
he might lean upon him, either out of state, or perhaps out of bodily
weakness; because, if he attended him, as he had formerly done, he could
not avoid bowing down when he did. To this the prophet returns no direct
answer; making no other reply than, Go in peace;” putting it, probably,
upon his conscience to act as that should dictate, and not being willing
to relieve him from this trial of his recent faith.
After this we have no farther mention of Naaman. But in the following
account of the wars between Syria and Israel, Benhadad seems to have
commanded his army in person; from whence Mr. Bedford infers, that
Naaman was dismissed from the command for refusing to worship Rimmon.
But the premises are not sufficient to support the conclusion; for it
appears that Benhadad had commanded his army in person twice before;
once in the siege of Samaria, 1 Kings xx, 1, and once at Aphek, verse
26. Yet, from the total silence concerning Naaman, it is probably enough
conjectured, that he either died, or resigned, or was dismissed, soon
after his return.