2 Kings 5:1–27

Original Meaning

The Cure of a Mighty Leper (5:1–14)

NAAMAN IS THE field marshal of the king of Aram, the commander of all the army units of fifty, hundred, or thousand, each of which is led by its own officer. The fame and valor of Naaman is expanded three times to emphasize his distinction: He is a great man before his lord; he is of high renown because of the victories he has won; he is a hero of valor (v. 1). He also has one other distinction; he is a leper. This one single word at the end of a string of accolades compromises all the others.

The term leper is usually avoided in modern medical usage. The Greek translates the Hebrew term ṣāraʿat consistently as lepra. In Hellenistic times both the Hebrew and Greek terms referred to a wide variety of cutaneous (skin) diseases, most of them benign.1 The term also refers to molds and fungi on clothes and buildings. In the law its distinctive signs include scales and blotches (Lev. 13). Naaman’s disease has caused whiteness (v. 27), something like vitiligo in which pigment is lost from areas of the skin. Naaman continued to have access to the court of the king of Aram in Damascus (v. 4), an indication that his distress is more aesthetic than contagion.

Naaman has been conducting raids in the territory of Israel, and in the course of war has taken citizens captive, including a young girl who serves in his household. The “little maiden” now rescues the “great man”; the captive saves the commander. She suggests to her mistress that if her master were to go to the prophet in Samaria he might be cured.2 Her remark begins a series of transmissions that travel like lightning.

No mention is made of the report to Naaman; he abruptly reports this information to the Aramean king, who in turn promptly prepares a letter for the Israelite king.3 Naaman prepares a large gift to establish diplomatic relations with the king of Israel (v. 5). He takes five times the amount of silver required to purchase the hill of Samaria (cf. 1 Kings 16:24), plus six thousand shekels of gold and ten changes of garments.4 Naaman then sets out for Israel with the letter and with the enormous royal gift.

The content of the letter is not disclosed until Naaman has actually delivered it. This shifts the focus to the dramatic response of the king, who takes the letter as an incitation to war. Requests from Damascus to Samaria require official diplomatic exchange, with the natural assumption on the part of the Arameans that prophets function under royal auspices.5 The king of Israel, knowing his precarious situation with the Aramean armies and the prophets of Elisha, reads the letter as a demand that he demonstrate his authority over matters of life and death (5:7). Though a follower of Baal, he apparently knows that such powers belong to God alone (cf. Deut. 32:39). The king of Aram can hardly be expected to know that the king of Israel actively opposes the worship of the God of the prophets in the camp of Elisha, at times even seeking to kill them. The story mocks the impotence of kings and royal protocol, especially when the God of the covenant is being actively rejected.

The account now brings Elisha directly onto the scene as the main character of the first division (5:8). The narrative sequence may suggest that Elisha is still at Gilgal, where he fed the prophets, when he hears about the letter (cf. 4:38), in which case it makes sense for him to ask Naaman to dip in the Jordan. Elisha interrupts the royal exchange, telling the unbelieving king of Israel that an Aramean general will come to know the power of a true prophet.

Naaman proves to have a pride of his own (5:9–12). He interprets the prophet’s indifference to royal protocol as an affront to his own status as someone esteemed by the mighty king of Aram. The prophet refuses to grant even a personal audience and does not come out to pray and offer a gesture of healing. Instead, he suggests the cure can be found in waters vastly inferior to those of his own country. The Abana and Pharpar were two rivers of the Anti-Lebanon Range, the first descending from Mount Amanah6 into plain of Damascus, the second descending eastward from the heights of Hermon. As a great man he expects some “great thing.” His own servants intervene with their own logic on the simplicity of faith; if Naaman were willing to do some great thing, why should he object to the simple instruction of the prophet?

The Conversion of a Conqueror (5:15–19)

Bridging Contexts

THE IRONY OF GRACE. This story of Naaman has three distinct divisions. Each division introduces another main character, so the miraculous healing is superseded by the lessons of subsequent events.13 The first division deals with the healing of Naaman (vv. 1–14); it describes how the words of a young maiden (v. 2) come to restore the skin of the leprous general to be like that of a young lad (v. 14).

The second division (vv. 15–19) shows how someone whose skin has returned to that of a youth then returns to face his healer (v. 15), so that he is both physically and spiritually transformed.

In the final section (vv. 20–27), the humility and generosity of Naaman, disparagingly referred to as “this Aramean” (v. 20), is starkly contrasted with the presumptuousness and greed of Gehazi. While the foreigner submits to the prophet, Gehazi the servant of the prophet takes matters into his own hands in doing what seems right to him. The miracle of the healing initially brings about the greater miracle of the conversion of a foreign general. Events then evolve so the prophet’s servant is afflicted with the disease the general originally suffered. The divisions that follow the initial healing transform the lesson on the miraculous to a lesson on faith and grace.

In the larger historical context, Gehazi shows himself to be like the rest of Israel, in violation of covenant trust.14 Naaman the foreigner and invader has voluntarily come to seek God and has turned to him. Israel steadfastly refuses covenant fidelity and trust in God. The Arameans have been God’s appointed agent for bringing judgment against Israel. This is not the time for Gehazi and the people of Israel to seek peace and security from the land of Naaman, with the hope of living securely on their own farms. Naaman judges the land of Israel by his acceptance of their God as the one and only (v. 15b); Gehazi betrays trust in God by attempting to derive peace and security through Naaman. The return of Naaman in peace and health is part of the prophetic indictment against Israel. Elisha knows this to be a time of judgment; the opportunism of Gehazi is completely misplaced.

The actions of Gehazi bring a whole new dimension to understanding divine grace. The grace of God begins with a series of miracles. A servant in a foreign household testifies to her own faith; her lord takes it seriously enough to undertake a diplomatic exchange, with the thought that help may be found in the royal courts of an adversary. The distress of the king of Israel gains the attention of the prophet, but the distance of the prophet only brings anger to the great foreign general. The servants of the mighty warrior bring him to a state of humility that fits him to be a recipient of divine healing. This leads to the real miracle; a foreign general, whose mission is to attack Israel, turns to trust their God as the only Lord of all the earth.

The irony of Naaman and Gehazi. To make his point Naaman requests some earth to take back to his own land (5:17), presumably so he can make an altar according to the requirements of his newly found faith (Ex. 20:23–25). The profundity of that miracle is brought into perspective by Gehazi. The miracle of conversion is lost on the servant of the prophet; he cannot rejoice with an enemy who has become a friend of God. Gehazi does not even seem to realize he has succumbed to the same kind of self-serving religion as the Baal worshipers of Joram.

The situation for Naaman is difficult. The king of Aram, in a polytheistic culture, would not object to Naaman worshiping another god from Israel; the problem would come in worshiping God alone, which seems to have been his intent. In his own land he will be required to show political loyalty, which means worshiping the national god of Aram; failure to do so will be regarded as treason. There can be no sympathy for a political leader denying the god of his own land for exclusive adherence to the God of Israel.

In another country a half a millennium earlier an Egyptian Pharaoh attempted to establish a type of exclusive supremacy of a native god. Pharaoh Akhenaten (ca. 1350–1334 B.C.) came to the throne as Amenophis IV; he changed his name to Akhenaten to show his strict devotion to one aspect of the sun god (Re), the Aten, specifically “the disk of the sun.” In conjunction with his new devotion he built a new capital in Middle Egypt at what is now called el-Amarna. All other priesthoods and localized religious practice were condemned. The names of traditional gods were removed from monuments to blot out all memory of their presence.

The Hymn to Aten15 is a well-known literary expression of his monotheistic belief. Similarities to Psalm 104 indicate that this poem was known in Israel (parallels are found esp. in 104:11–14, 20–27).16 This effort at creating a monotheistic religion with a native god was not well received; after Akhenaten’s death there was a rapid return to traditional polytheism. What was scarcely possible for a pharaoh regarded as divine was certainly not possible for a subordinate Aramean general who wants to acknowledge exclusively, as God of all the earth, the deity of an enemy land. At the same time he cannot acknowledge the God who has given him healing without confessing the exclusive claims of his universal sovereignty as Creator.

Naaman asks for pardon in advance for showing loyalty to his lord; it is his only choice if he is to survive. To do otherwise in his own land will make him a traitor and a deserter to his own army, crimes punished by death. Gehazi, on the other hand, criticizes his lord for sparing Naaman a cost for his newly found faith and excuses himself in advance for his treachery. In so doing he places material concerns above his devotion to God. The followers of Elisha are expected to give up their lives under charges of treason if they are not delivered by some other means (cf. 1 Kings 18:40). They are prepared for death as a necessary testimony to their commitment to the God of all the earth, who has granted the gift of their land. No doubt Gehazi, in his own ideals, is prepared for death, and for this reason chose to be a follower of Elisha. The treason of the house of Omri against God will not be successful in coercing the submission of the loyal followers of the covenant.

Though Gehazi understands this, he does not understand the material implications of his confession. The gift of divine grace is not to be reimbursed with gifts of money and clothes. His God is the Lord of the whole earth, who desires to give grace to all. This includes the land of the Arameans and the general he despises. Gehazi gives testimony to a God limited to the interests of his own nationality, a belief that they alone deserve his grace.

The prophet Isaiah, speaking of the time of the Exile, not only appeals to his people to wait for God’s deliverance, but reminds them that their salvation is intended for the world:

Listen to me, my people;

hear me, my nation:

The law will go out from me;

my justice will become a light for the nations.

My righteousness draws near speedily,

my salvation is on the way,

and my arm will bring justice to the nations.

The islands will look to me,

and wait in hope for my arm. (Isa. 51:4–5)

Gehazi does not think of the land of the Arameans as those who might be viewed as waiting for God to bring his salvation to the whole earth. He cannot even think of one converted Aramean as an example of God reaching out to his world. Instead, he becomes a representative of his own apostate society, even while he thinks the contrary. His preoccupation with the struggles and needs of his group seduce him.

God and the nations. It was never easy for the Israelites, who experienced such relentless judgment at the hands of the nations, to think of them as the recipients of divine mercy. The book of Jonah was written for Israelites who had difficulty in thinking of the nations as objects of God’s mercy. It focuses on what is evil. The expansion of the Assyrian empire, deporting peoples and demanding tribute, is not unique or more evil than the conduct of other nations, including Israel, but it is evil (Jonah 1:2). Under the preaching of Jonah, the Ninevites come to realize the evil of their ways (ironically, Jonah lived during a time when Israel did not); they repent, even to the extent of making their cows wear sackcloth and fast (3:7–8).

God sees that they have turned from their evil ways and in turn relents from the evil of judgment he intended for them (Jonah 3:10). In plain words, for God to destroy the Ninevites is not justice but punishment and harm. The response of Jonah comes in 4:1; in the Hebrew there is a double emphasis on the word “evil”: “It was evil for Jonah, a very great evil, and he was angry.” Jonah then explains: “Was this not exactly what I thought while in my own land, the reason why I fled to Tarshish?” (4:2).

At that point, Jonah quotes the statement about God in the Exodus story of the golden calf: “I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity” (Jonah 4:2). In the Exodus story, mercy is the very essence of the name of God (cf. Ex. 33:19; 34:6). In Exodus such mercy pertained to Israel; in Jonah it pertained to Nineveh. Jonah has no problem with the mercy of God in relation to Israel, but he has great difficulty with the mercy of God to those agents who victimize Israel, preferring death to having to preach such mercy.

Gehazi may be viewed as manifesting the attitude addressed in Jonah. He has no sense of the mercy shown to Naaman; he is completely self-absorbed, thinking only about the way that the mercy of God can be shown to him. Rather than rejoicing in mercy, he is scheming in selfish concerns. The needs of the schools of the prophets are no excuse; Elisha has provided for their needs repeatedly (e.g., 2 Kings 4:38–44). The problem is his self-interest in how justice should operate. Like Jonah, he presumes that mercy pertains to him and his group in a way it does not apply to those wicked Arameans.

The conversion of Naaman the Aramean is one of the examples Jesus uses to show what faith must mean for the Christian and their understanding of the Bible. His rebuke of the religious leaders of his day shows their propensity towards cultural blindness; they fail to recognize their own faithlessness and condemn whatever does not conform to their own interpretations. Luke introduces the sermon at Nazareth, where Jesus grew up, with words from the prophet Isaiah about the anointed servant (Luke 4:18–19; cf. Isa. 61:1–2a). The servant in Isaiah is anointed to bring good news to the poor, liberty to the captives, sight to the blind, and freedom to the broken, and to preach the year of Jubilee. This servant identifies with the eschatological Son of David (Isa. 11:1–4) and the Suffering Servant (42:1–5).17

When Jesus identifies himself as this servant, those who know him simply ask, “Is this not the son of Joseph?” (Luke 4:22). Jesus meets their unbelief by pointing out that Elijah in his time was sent to the Sidonian woman of Zarephath (v. 26), and Elisha was sent to the Aramean general Naaman (v. 27). Both prophets found faith outside of Israel, to the judgment of those without faith within Israel, who thought they were following God. The crowd at Nazareth has a faith much like that of Gehazi. Though they think themselves to be the true followers of the Scriptures, they are not prepared to hear the Scriptures. They can no more accept Jesus as the servant of Isaiah than Gehazi can accept Naaman the Aramean as one who belongs with the sons of the prophets as he himself does.

Contemporary Significance

THE INFLUENCE OF the vulnerable. This is not another story about the miracles of a prophet; the presence of the man of God is minimized in the conversion of Naaman. The point of the story is set out in the introduction: Naaman, whose high position in the Aramean court has been achieved at the expense of Israel, does not realize that his good fortune is the work of the God of Israel. A servant girl in his service, a victim of his exploits, is the means of introducing him to his benefactor and eventually to the exclusive worship of the God of Israel.

In this remarkable account, God is at work to demonstrate that the world is his and that all those who live in it belong to him (Ps. 24:1). Naaman the Aramean is of concern to God, not because he suffers from a rather harmless form of vitiligo but because God cares about the worship of Arameans as well. God chooses the small things of this world to confound the wise, the weak to confound the mighty (1 Cor. 1:27). Naaman, the potent Aramean, is reached through a captive of one of his mighty campaigns. All the forces of intimidation are present for the young Israelite maiden. She has no support group of her own; she is in a household expected to be contemptuous of her faith; she is in the lowest possible social status; she has no right to express any of her own opinions and might expect serious consequences for so doing. However she cannot be silent; in voicing her faith, she puts in motion of a chain of events that brings about an entire change of life.

God continues to bring about the work of his kingdom through the influence of the vulnerable. Mary Getui, senior lecturer of the department of religious studies at Kenyatta University, Nairobi, uses this servant girl as an example of what is needed in her continent today.18 She notes that African governments suppress or even eliminate intellectuals and others who try to speak out about the true situation of their people. Appalling conditions prevail. Like Naaman, solutions are often anticipated from the grand and spectacular. The great economic and political forces of the world have been frustrated by the turbulence of Africa. Christians of Africa practicing their faith and values may be the ones who can begin to turn the tide of relentless disease and violence that is destroying a continent. Christian morals can be a means to bring about the conversion of a people no less dramatic than the genuine worship of God coming to Syria in the person of Naaman.

The University of Winnipeg was recently graced with the presence of Archbishop of Matabeleland in Zimbabwe.19 Pius Ncube advocated abstinence and monogamous relationships as the necessary counter to the AIDS epidemic of Africa. University students recognized these practices as distinctly Christian; for them the proposition of the archbishop was unacceptable as the promotion of one religion and culture. He was specifically challenged by activist students on his position; for them sex education was the exclusive solution to AIDS. The archbishop replied that condoms were available everywhere as well as knowledge of what they were about. Many people simply live in denial of their effectiveness, which in truth is limited. Christian conviction has influence, not only in stemming the advance of AIDS, but also in establishing functional family units in which children receive care.

This was the viewpoint of the archbishop; Christianity potentially has more power for the problem of AIDS in Africa than all the money of the United Nations (which will never be enough, according to special envoy Stephen Lewis) and all of its influence (which is often ineffective). In the story of Namaan, the words of a young girl proved to be more powerful than the might of a soldier, the faithfulness of Elisha more influential than diplomacy with a king. Though faith may be expressed in ever so simple a fashion, it has the power to move mountains.

The struggles of newfound faith. There are always dangers and risks. The work of faith often falters, but faithfulness is the means God uses to accomplish his purpose. That purpose is nothing less than worship appropriate to the one who alone is Lord of the whole earth, as Naaman comes to understand (5:15). The kingdom of God depends on cross-cultural diffusion, but conversion across cultures is a complex process.

Andrew Walls points out that conversion involves more than a cognitive shift from incorrect to correct theological propositions.20 A transformation process aiming to redirect a culture toward Christ requires a “deep translation” that penetrates to “the very DNA of that culture.” Such a process takes multiple generations to accomplish. Walls believes that if such qualitative conversion occurs in African societies, there may come to be mature, discriminating standards of Christian living. If such a transformation does not occur, African Christianity will be reduced to a hollow echo of European Christian forms, with distortion, confusion, uncertainty, and almost certain hypocrisy on a large scale.

Naaman needs a concession regarding the practice of his newfound faith upon return to his land (5:18). Elisha dismisses him with a simple beatification; he does not further direct the genuine faith of the new convert. An article produced by the Overseas Ministries Study Center reminds us:

To be spoken for implies a degree of powerlessness on the part of those who are represented by the voice of another. This incapacity may issue from intrinsic reasons having to do with one’s degree of maturity, mental development, or medical condition; or it may be the result of extrinsic conditions that foster and perpetuate marginalization, rendering certain individuals and groups voiceless.21

Elisha the man of God affirms the new convert in the articulation of his newfound faith.

Conversion within another culture is a complex process. Whether the conversion of Naaman may have influenced the court of the Aramean king or those under his influence is not part of the story. The story of Naaman demonstrates God’s purpose that “all the families of the earth may receive his blessing” (Gen. 12:3). This purpose lies at the basis of Christian mission; however, the transformations necessary for the practice of faith are complex.

An article by Anatoliy Ablazhei, chiefly addressed to scholars in Russia, illustrates how an indigenous people in Siberia were not transformed by the lordship of Christ, but how Christianity was itself subverted without appropriate cultural transformation.22 The missionaries traveled through the localities where the baptized population had lived from time immemorial, relating to them within the confines of their customary dwellings and establishing close contact with representatives of traditional society. The culture of the aboriginals was shaped by the practice of “shamanism,” an irrational belief in the power of traditional ceremonies that forced natives to live and struggle with visible and invisible enemies under the most severe and burdensome conditions.

The shaman was a challenge to the missionaries; he entered into communication with invisible spirits in a trance to learn their demands. The shaman performed the task of protector and guarantor of traditional beliefs. The missionaries did perceive correctly several constituent parts of the aboriginal religious consciousness. The adoption of Christianity took the form of incorporating individual Christian elements as additions to the existing structures, rethinking and interpreting them as appropriate.

The ideological transformation of the traditional aboriginal belief centered on the figure of St. Nicholas the Miracle Worker. He was the most popular Christian saint between both the Russian and aboriginal populations of the area. A church building of St. Nicholas was established in almost every newly founded Russian settlement. Accounts from different periods show the evolution of religious stereotypes and the gradual adaption of figures of the Christian pantheon by traditional religion. The idol (the family spirit protector) came to be called the brother of St. Nicholas the Miracle Worker. As the authority of the saint rose, the aboriginals came to consider him a Russian god stronger than the pagan ones. The Khanty Mikola came to be a substantially new deity subsuming within itself traits of various religious traditions. Ostiak religion came to contain elements of a whole range of beliefs, identifying Christian saints with Ostiak deities or heroes of the national epic.

As a result of Christianization, a new cult rooted in traditional observances developed; “vows” were made to Mikola to ward off danger or misfortune. Baptism, important to the church, had little significance for the newly baptized person. It was a perfunctory superficial formality; certain Christian propositions and formalities were adopted into the structure of the traditional worldview. Only in the few places where the Ostiaks were significantly influenced by the culture of the Russian population was there a modification of the general Ostiak worldview.

Conversion can lead to the appropriate transformation of an entire culture. The promise to Abraham, adumbrated in the conversion of Naaman, is not an impossible ideal. Jennifer Trafton in an article on Samuel Fairbank shows how the gospel was good news to the people of Wadale, India, in the mid-nineteenth century.23 The kirtan, an indigenous style of teaching and singing, was adapted to Christian purposes to communicate the gospel. Socially, those subsisting as landless laborers, sharecroppers, or beggars, whose woes were compounded by droughts, blights, and famines, were given assistance through the development of industrial schools, agricultural work, and English classes. The caste of Untouchables was given the capacity to truly live the Christian faith. Conversion should be good news.

The practice of faith must be thoughtfully pursued even in the context of a worldview of the kingdom of God. Gehazi is an example of a failure to be consistent with the sovereignty of God in Israel and the school of the prophets. His own sense of justice led him to appropriate that which was not his and to depreciate what had happened to the “foreigner.”

As a pastor I have too often observed those who would reprimand others for failure of faith, with little understanding of their own compromises in their accusations. Not long ago I was ordering a meal on Sunday in a town well known for its abundance of churches. When the pleasant and cheerful table waiter came to take the order, I thanked her for such delightful attention to her customers, even when she had to work on a Sunday. She responded by saying my appreciation was a rather different attitude than the one she had just received. A couple had ordered their meal and discovered that the person serving them was a church member. They gave her a long lecture on the sin of working on Sunday, seemingly quite oblivious to the fact that if they thought such work on Sunday was a sin, they would do well to do their eating where someone else did not need to work for them.

Jesus often replicated the prophets. He both healed lepers and illustrated faith through them. On one occasion Jesus healed ten lepers (Luke 17:11–19). His instructions followed conventional requirements; the lepers were to show themselves to the priests to authenticate their healing. Only one of the lepers returned to show the gratitude of faith as a genuine trust in the gift of God. The one who returned was not among those of traditional faith, but was a Samaritan. Though the narrative makes no explicit reference to Namaan the Syrian, the parallel is obvious. Thanksgiving is the proper evidence of faith, for faith is to know and trust God’s grace. This one leper had what the others, who simply followed the rules, were lacking. Like Namaan, he may have faced his own threats in declaring the wonder of healing in his home country.

Elisha’s assurance of peace to Naaman when he should go to the house of Rimmon in the service of his master is a reminder that believers must be given freedom to choose how they can best give witness to their faith. The question is not whether believers should be faithful, but how they most effectively give testimony to their faith. Believers in hostile circumstances must make decisions about what constitutes a situation where they must be faithful to death. Though Naaman would likely have been banished rather than martyred for his refusal to go to the Rimmon temple, Ngan asks the question for those who might face death for confession of faith:

If, like Naaman, a new convert must return to a hostile environment, should martyrdom be demanded of such person? It may be an honor to be a faithful witness unto death, but should this not be a decision each person makes before God? Naaman knows the realities of life when he returns. His newfound faith will bring conflict to his life in Syria. He does not justify what he must do but recognizes the contradictions that he cannot avoid and asks for forgiveness.24

Von Rad correctly observes that Elisha leaves Naaman “completely to his new faith, or better, to God’s hand which has sought and found him.”25 Naaman submits to the mercy of God in the line of duty, in order that testimony to the divine mercy may continue to be confessed.

Original Meaning

The Conversion of a Conqueror (5:15–19)

THOUGH NAAMAN CONSENTS to abiding by the words of the prophet, his attitude remains a mystery. His return to the prophet settles the question of his disposition. His arrogance has become humility, and he now qualifies for his wish to have a direct audience with the prophet. He makes his confession to the God of Israel (5:15), proving the earlier words of Elisha to be true (v. 8). His confession also confirms the introductory verse: His victories are a provision of the God of Israel. The master of the servant girl now becomes the servant of the Israelite prophet.

Elisha refuses his proffered reward with a vow (5:16); Elisha can accept no responsibility for the mercy received. Grace granted by God cannot be rewarded with material benefits. As a confirmation of his confession, Naaman then makes two further requests of his own. He has changed his attitude toward the land of Israel; earlier he disparaged the river of Israel, but now wants two mule loads of earth to take back to the land of Aram.7 The earth is to build an altar to worship in Aram, because he acknowledges no God in all the earth except the God of Israel. The second request is related to the first. As a servant of his lord he will be required to worship the God of thunder.8 His seeming rambling request for forgiveness is actually a perfectly symmetric chiasm with the problem at the center.9

For this thing

may the LORD pardon your servant

when my lord comes to the house of Rimmon to worship there

and he leans on my hand

and I worship in the house of Rimmon (when I worship in the house of Rimmon)

may the LORD pardon your servant

for this thing.

As the esteemed soldier, Naaman will be required to participate with the king as his right hand man. Elisha dismisses him with a simple blessing: “Go in peace.” Elisha does not question Naaman’s loyalty. His humble petition serves as its own affirmation of his genuine faith.

The Curse of Envy (5:20–27)