A Rush to Judgment

So, last night, we read 2 Kings 5, which includes the story of the leprous general name Naaman, who was cured by bathing seven times in the Jordan river after Elisha (through a messenger) told him to. That much of the story is well known, but I don't remember having previously heard how this story ended. According to the chapter heading, "Elisha refuses to accept a reward—Gehazi [Elishas's servant] accepts a gift from Naaman and is cursed with leprosy."

Upon first reading this, I thought it best to reserve judgement. I didn't think "Oh, Gehazi was cursed, so he must have had it coming," just like those 42 youths "had it coming" for insulting Elisha's baldness. I also thought that there's nothing wrong with accepting gifts or donations. Bishops accept donations all the time. Sure, the money is used to build up the church and care for the needy rather than to line the Bishop's pockets, but Elisha could have done that. And even if Elisha or Gehazi kept the gift, what's wrong with that? If you bake the Bishop a plate of cookies, is he supposed to turn them away? I see nothing wrong with the voluntary giving and accepting of gifts. Elisha didn't ask for a gift. He didn't demand a gift. He didn't expect a gift. But I personally would have seen nothing wrong with him accepting a gift, especially if he used it to help others.

But there was something wrong with what Gehazi did. He didn't "accept" a gift that was offered to him. He went and asked for one. He lied to Naaman about having been sent to ask for it. He lied about why he wanted it. And when he returned with the "gift" that he gained under false pretenses, he also lied to Elisha about having gone anywhere at all. Sure, leprosy is a harsh punishment for lying and effectively stealing something that the theft victim was more than willing to simply give away, but I agree that Gehazi probably deserved some kind of punishment.

That's why I think it's important to reserve judgement, both judgments of guilt and judgments of innocence. I didn't know enough about Gehazi's part of the story to say whether his punishment was warranted. I still may not. I wasn't too quick to assume that Gehazi deserved to be punished, but I may have been too quick to judge that he probably didn't deserve it. Granted, the way the chapter heading is phrased, the punishment sounds ridiculously extreme, but the chapter heading (surprise, surprise) doesn't tell the whole story. With the benefit of greater context, I've come to the conclusion that, yes, Gehazi did indeed have some form of punishment coming. Maybe not leprosy, but who am I to judge?

In the United States, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Perhaps I carried that virtuous practice a bit too far. Unless we know all the facts, and we never do, perhaps we shouldn't be too quick to judge the guilt or innocence of anyone.