So: The common Hebrew conjunction here indicates that Naaman acted as a result of what his servant had said to him.

He went down: The Hebrew verb used here implies going down to the Jordan River as Elisha had commanded. In many languages it will be wise to include this information in translation. Some commentators suggest that the verb may have been chosen in order to communicate a kind of double meaning. In addition to going down to the riverbank, Naaman also had to descend in the sense of humbling himself. This, however, is somewhat speculative and need not be reflected in translation.

Dipped himself: The Hebrew verb here differs from the verb “wash” in the prophet’s command (verse 10). The verb used here is relatively rare and is most often used of dipping objects into blood (Lev 14.6), water (2 Kgs 8.15), or other liquids (1 Sam 14.27).

The man of God: Here and in the following verse, this expression is replaced in the ancient Greek translation by the proper name “Elisha.” In many languages it may be more natural to use the proper name rather than the title for translational reasons and not because of textual considerations.

His flesh was restored is literally “his flesh returned.” See the comments on verse 10.

Like the flesh of a little child: This constitutes new information and was not included in the promise of verse 10. The Hebrew words for a little child in this case are very similar to the ones translated “a little maid” in verse 2 and “small boys” in 2 Kgs 2.23 (see the comments on 1 Kgs 11.17). The idea would be that of a young child, but not of a newborn baby.

And he was clean: The use of the two verbs, restored and was clean, reflects the wording of verse 10. Here the ritual purity promised in the earlier verse is emphasized by the use of the second term.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Kings, Volume 2. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2008. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .