TEXT [Commentary]

5. Naboth’s vineyard (21:1-29)

1 Now there was a man named Naboth, from Jezreel, who owned a vineyard in Jezreel beside the palace of King Ahab of Samaria. 2 One day Ahab said to Naboth, “Since your vineyard is so convenient to my palace, I would like to buy it to use as a vegetable garden. I will give you a better vineyard in exchange, or if you prefer, I will pay you for it.”

3 But Naboth replied, “The LORD forbid that I should give you the inheritance that was passed down by my ancestors.”

4 So Ahab went home angry and sullen because of Naboth’s answer. The king went to bed with his face to the wall and refused to eat!

5 “What’s the matter?” his wife Jezebel asked him. “What’s made you so upset that you’re not eating?”

6 “I asked Naboth to sell me his vineyard or trade it, but he refused!” Ahab told her.

7 “Are you the king of Israel or not?” Jezebel demanded. “Get up and eat something, and don’t worry about it. I’ll get you Naboth’s vineyard!”

8 So she wrote letters in Ahab’s name, sealed them with his seal, and sent them to the elders and other leaders of the town where Naboth lived. 9 In her letters she commanded: “Call the citizens together for a time of fasting, and give Naboth a place of honor. 10 And then seat two scoundrels across from him who will accuse him of cursing God and the king. Then take him out and stone him to death.”

11 So the elders and other town leaders followed the instructions Jezebel had written in the letters. 12 They called for a fast and put Naboth at a prominent place before the people. 13 Then the two scoundrels came and sat down across from him. And they accused Naboth before all the people, saying, “He cursed God and the king.” So he was dragged outside the town and stoned to death. 14 The town leaders then sent word to Jezebel, “Naboth has been stoned to death.”

15 When Jezebel heard the news, she said to Ahab, “You know the vineyard Naboth wouldn’t sell you? Well, you can have it now! He’s dead!” 16 So Ahab immediately went down to the vineyard of Naboth to claim it.

17 But the LORD said to Elijah,[*] 18 “Go down to meet King Ahab of Israel, who rules in Samaria. He will be at Naboth’s vineyard in Jezreel, claiming it for himself. 19 Give him this message: ‘This is what the LORD says: Wasn’t it enough that you killed Naboth? Must you rob him, too? Because you have done this, dogs will lick your blood at the very place where they licked the blood of Naboth!’”

20 “So, my enemy, you have found me!” Ahab exclaimed to Elijah.

“Yes,” Elijah answered, “I have come because you have sold yourself to what is evil in the LORD’s sight. 21 So now the LORD says,[*] ‘I will bring disaster on you and consume you. I will destroy every one of your male descendants, slave and free alike, anywhere in Israel! 22 I am going to destroy your family as I did the family of Jeroboam son of Nebat and the family of Baasha son of Ahijah, for you have made me very angry and have led Israel into sin.’

23 “And regarding Jezebel, the LORD says, ‘Dogs will eat Jezebel’s body at the plot of land in Jezreel.[*]’

24 “The members of Ahab’s family who die in the city will be eaten by dogs, and those who die in the field will be eaten by vultures.”

25 (No one else so completely sold himself to what was evil in the LORD’s sight as Ahab did under the influence of his wife Jezebel. 26 His worst outrage was worshiping idols[*] just as the Amorites had done—the people whom the LORD had driven out from the land ahead of the Israelites.)

27 But when Ahab heard this message, he tore his clothing, dressed in burlap, and fasted. He even slept in burlap and went about in deep mourning.

28 Then another message from the LORD came to Elijah: 29 “Do you see how Ahab has humbled himself before me? Because he has done this, I will not do what I promised during his lifetime. It will happen to his sons; I will destroy his dynasty.”

NOTES

21:1 Now there was a man named Naboth. This begins a new narrative, presumably independent of the war narratives (ch 20 [MT], and 22:1-40) that surround it. Sweeney (2007:247) nicely characterizes this passage as a presentation of a number of major characters who interacted with King Ahab: first Naboth (21:1-4), then Jezebel (21:5-16), and then finally Elijah (21:17-29). Ironically, the name Naboth (borne by the vineyard owner) probably means “shoot” or “sprout” (cf. HALOT 660). Concerning the order of chs 20–21 in the Old Greek (LXX, Codex Vaticanus), see the note on 20:1.

Jezreel. See the second note on 18:46. The fact that Naboth was a native of this city is emphasized in the MT and is an integral part of the story (Cogan 2001:476).

21:2 vegetable garden. Wiseman (1993:181) makes a strong case for translating the Hebrew term yaraq [TH3419, ZH3763] as “green growth” rather than “vegetables” or the like; royal gardens (which are probably what is in view here) naturally were located close to the royal palace, furnished with trees and shrubs for color and shade.

21:3 The LORD forbid that I should give you the inheritance. What follows is, in a nutshell, the ancestral law of inheritance that will be discussed at some length in the commentary below.

21:4 angry and sullen. This is identical to the phrase found in 20:43 (see note there). The seeming immaturity of the pouting king (turning his face away, refusing to eat) will find an ironic partial echo in the story of the good king Hezekiah (see 2 Kgs 20:2). (Note, however, that there is no specific Hebrew reference to the term “wall” in the present verse [although it is probably implied], in contrast to its clear inclusion in the Hezekiah passage.)

21:7 Are you the king of Israel or not? Jezebel, daughter of King Ethbaal of the Sidonians (see note on 16:31), may not have known (or cared) much about the Torah, but she certainly knew about the “divine right of kings” (at least in Phoenicia).

21:8 she wrote letters in Ahab’s name, sealed them with his seal. Cogan (2001:485) cites David Noel Freedman’s apt comment concerning this action as follows: “Ahab manipulated the manipulative Jezebel. He knew exactly what he was doing and what the outcome would be. Elijah’s condemnation is correctly aimed at the king; the use of his name signet cannot be without his permission and knowledge.” (Concerning the importance of the king’s seal, or better the state seal, which showed the endorsement of the state rather than the king in his own person, see Andersen 1966:52.)

elders and other leaders. Commentators note the sociological delineation here of the two rankings (zeqenim [TH2205, ZH2418], “elders”; and khorim [TH2715, ZH2985], probably “nobles”) of the Israelite aristocracy: the ancestral tribal leaders and the freemen or nobles who have been connected with the palace (Cogan 2001:479). The disturbingly remarkable cooperation of these groups of aristocrats sadly speaks loudly as to the ­corruptness of Israelite society at this time.

21:9 a time of fasting. How bitterly ironic such a summons must have been.

a place of honor. Lit., “at the head of the people.” Such a conspicuous position would be natural for such a distinguished citizen and landowner of the city. (The identical Hebrew phrase is translated “at a prominent place” in 21:12.)

21:10 two scoundrels. We sadly have here a parody of the Deuteronomic insistence on the need for two witnesses in order to convict the accused (see Deut 17:6; 19:15). The term “scoundrels” refers literally to “sons of Belial,” with the term Belial perhaps signifying “without worth” or, more intriguingly, “without [opportunity for] rising” (i.e., confined to the underworld, Sheol, with no chance for escape due to their wickedness [cf. Cogan 2001:479]).

cursing God and the king. These are capital offenses (see Exod 22:28; Lev 24:15-16). Cogan (2001:480) thinks only one offense is in view here: an abusive remark against the king, reinforced by a reference to the name of Yahweh. (Both here and in the parallel reference in 21:13, the Hebrew literally reads “bless” rather than “curse”; but this is a common Hebrew euphemism ensuring that no one reading or hearing the MT would encounter an impious expression; cf. Job 1:5, 11; 2:5, 9.)

21:11 followed the instructions. In typical folkloristic fashion, the next several verses repeat with very little variation the fulfilling of every detail of Jezebel’s written orders (cf. the second note on 21:9).

21:13 dragged outside . . . stoned to death. Being executed “outside” the town would avoid contamination by contact with the dead (Lev 24:13-14, 23; Num 15:35-36). If the procedure detailed in Deut 17:2-7 was followed here, the accusers (here, the “two scoundrels” of 21:10) would have had to throw the first stones.

21:16 immediately. This word in the NLT is perhaps a bit too interpretive (there is no exact correspondence to it in the Hebrew), but the force of the Hebrew verbs, “arose to go down . . . to take possession of it,” do imply quick action. The LXX softens this by adding the phrase “and he [Ahab] tore his garments and put on sackcloth.”

21:17 Elijah. As the NLT mg indicates, the full title “Elijah the Tishbite” is used here in the MT (see the first note on 17:1 for details).

21:18 Go down to . . . Samaria . . . Jezreel. Repeating the two place-names reinforces the disparity—Ahab’s capital is Samaria, not Jezreel. (One does indeed “go down” from Samaria to Jezreel inasmuch as the former location is significantly higher in elevation than the latter.)

21:19 Must you rob him, too? As Seow points out, the issue here is the breaking of the tenth commandment (Exod 20:17; Deut 5:21), the prohibition against coveting something that belongs to someone else:

The danger lies in the intensity of the greed that prompts someone to commit acts of violence against others in order to achieve his or her goals. . . . Covetousness leads ­quickly to perjury and murder; disregard for the tenth commandment leads to violation of the ninth and the sixth. It is no accident either that the narrator of this passage views Ahab’s sin as idolatry—that is, violation of the first and second commandments (21:26). Covetousness, in other words, is a form of idolatry: It is placing other priorities and desires before God; it is the elevation of material things to the status of gods. (Seow 1999:159)

dogs will lick. In regard to ancient people reckoning dogs only as opportunistic scavengers, see the note on 14:11. The present prophecy will be somewhat literally yet unexpectedly fulfilled, not in the city of Jezreel, but in Samaria (see 22:38; also cf. 2 Kgs 9:25-26 for Jehu’s further fulfillment of the prophecy in regard to Joram, Ahab’s son). As Wiseman (1993:183-184) notes, “the fulfillment of prophecy is sometimes by stages.” Here, Ahab’s dead body will eventually be exposed in Samaria with the dogs indeed licking up his blood; but, probably due to the reprieve promised by God in light of Ahab’s later repentance (see 21:29), it is Ahab’s son Joram who will be killed in Jezreel and his body left on Naboth’s plot of land by the usurper Jehu and his officer Bidkar. Whether it’s in the OT or in the NT, whether it’s large or small, God reserves the right to fulfill his prophecies at the time he chooses, and in the ways he sovereignly chooses. The resultant interplay between divine sovereignty and human freedom often remains a wonder to behold.

21:20 my enemy. This is a literal translation of the term ’oyebi [TH341, ZH367]. Ahab earlier had called Elijah a “troublemaker of Israel” (18:17). He will also characterize the prophet Micaiah in similar terms in 22:8.

21:21 every one of your male descendants, slave and free alike. See the first two notes on 14:10 concerning the two Hebrew idioms found here.

21:23 at the plot of land in Jezreel. As noted in the NLT mg, this follows a few witnesses in reading kheleq [TH2506, ZH2750] (which appears at 2 Kgs 9:36) for the MT’s khel [TH2426, ZH2658]. Eissfeldt, cited by Cogan and Tadmor (1988:112-113), prefers the MT (“at the city wall” [khel]) both here and as an emendation for kheleq in 2 Kgs 9:36, since Jezebel was thrown from the palace window and probably died on the fortification wall of the city. The NLT follows the more likely original, with the MT representing a secondary (or even tertiary) harmonization (cf. Cogan 2001:482).

21:24 dogs . . . vultures. See note on 14:11.

21:26 worshiping idols. Concerning the actual meaning of the term gillulim [TH1544, ZH1658], see the second note on 15:12. More fundamentally, as was pointed out in the first note on 21:19, Ahab’s sin of covetousness, and all that it leads to, is indeed nothing less than a form of idolatry.

Amorites. This is an ethnic designation of the Amurru or “westerners” (HALOT 67-68); the directional perspective is that from Mesopotamia, where the term carried a strongly negative connotation of a people who were basically uncivilized barbarians (cf. Mendenhall [ABD 1.199-200], who discounts the historical precision of this negative Mesopotamian categorization). In any case, wicked King Manasseh of Judah will also be condemned in terms quite similar to those found for Ahab here (2 Kgs 21:11).

21:27 But when Ahab heard this message. This is a remarkable change of action, filled with irony; Ahab fasted in sincere repentance here, instead of in self-pity as in 21:4, or symbolizing an occasion for so-called ethical outrage in 21:9 and 21:12. This fast was recognized by God as being genuine (cf. 21:29). Concerning the wearing of burlap or “sackcloth,” see the note on 2 Kgs 6:30.

21:28 another message. Like good King Hezekiah after him (see 2 Kgs 20:1-11), Ahab’s sincere actions led to a remarkable divine reprieve. It would seem that wicked King Ahab was a veritable Manasseh, but he instead was (at least for a bit) a veritable Hezekiah (or, indeed, like the repentant Manasseh of 2 Chr 33:10-20; cf. commentary below). The incredible nature of this passage of Scripture can hardly be overstated.

21:29 humbled himself. This is the Niphal of kana‘ [TH3665, ZH4044] (cf. commentary on 16:29-34). King Ahab is reckoned as nothing less than comparable to good King Josiah in this verse, and the mitigation of his punishment is appropriately akin to that of Josiah (see Huldah’s prophecy as found in 2 Kgs 22:18-20). Apparently, there is nearly always hope for anyone, no matter how wicked their past actions (cf. Ezek 18). What an ironic encouragement texts like these can be for any would-be leader today!

COMMENTARY [Text]

Naboth’s vineyard stood for something much more important than choice real estate; it was part of the family inheritance as ordained by God in the Torah (see comments below). Naboth was mindful of that fact, but King Ahab and Queen Jezebel showed utter disregard for it. This provides the setting for this unforgettable narrative.

Of the two royal personages, Jezebel is the more villainous. Ahab seems, once again, to be the picture of attempted accommodation in 21:1-6 (in contrast to a hardened villain who would not necessarily go home “angry and sullen,” or to his bed “with his face to the wall,” refusing to eat). Jezebel is the standard villainess “from central casting,” as it were, but her way is the way of thwarted royalty in general: “Are you the king of Israel or not?” she asked Ahab rhetorically. And she certainly played the part of imperious queen to grand effect (21:7-16). Queen Jezebel was foreign by birth, married (presumably) not for love or even by choice but as a result of larger diplomatic purposes (see note on 16:31), and probably quite unaware of the peculiar and stringent way of Torah when it comes to ancestral inheritance rights (Wiseman 1993:181). Nonetheless, her actions were harsh and unfeeling, and she fully deserved her bloody death (see 2 Kgs 9:30-37). This was the poetic justice of God being meted out to one who deserved it (see, e.g., Pss 37 and 49). Lord Acton, years ago, reminded us most famously that “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” How true that is.

But let us not elevate pathetic King Ahab and garden-variety-despot Queen ­Jezebel to tragic heights they don’t deserve. Whether it be power politics in church or state, innocent people are often hurt, and hurt grievously. The perpetrators of such hurt are often people, not unlike ourselves, who happen to have opportunities to wield power that we don’t ourselves enjoy. That is the real tragedy of the present passage, and that is what makes its ending satisfying—where we see Ahab condemned most harshly (21:25-26), yet given a chance to repent. When he—surprise, surprise—takes that opportunity, he is given a reprieve by God akin to that of Manasseh in 2 Chronicles 33:10-20. Villainy may take the guise of weak-willed petulance, wily maneuverings, or strong-armed brazenness; villains must and will meet their just deserts, but repentance is available to all, no matter how far from God they may happen to be. Our God is always and ever a most faithful God, and it is he who remains sovereign in all situations.

Comment should also be made concerning the specific issue addressed in the present passage: the issue of social justice, and more specifically, that of ancestral land rights. In the present age, when the rich get richer, and, seemingly, the poor poorer, such preoccupations with preservation of ancestral wealth within tribes, clans, and families might seem hopelessly quaint; but there certainly was such preoccupation in the Torah. The specific laws concerning the land and Yahweh’s ownership of it are to be found in Leviticus 25:1-34 (cf. especially Lev 25:23); and some special cases are dealt with in Numbers 27:1-11; 36:1-12 (both in reference to the daughters of Zelophehad from the tribe of Manasseh), as well as in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 (cf. Ruth 4:1-12; Jer 32:1-15). But the book that deals most extensively with tribal land inheritances is Joshua—nearly half of that book consists of land divisions among the tribes, including boundary descriptions as well as lists of cities (see especially Josh 13–21). What is of great importance throughout that book is the repeated reminder that larger tribes merited larger tracts of land, smaller tribes, smaller tracts. The only criterion, it would seem, was the actual size of the tribal population: Famously, in Joshua 17:14-18 the Joseph tribes successfully petition for more land due to the size of their population (Joshua himself tells them in 17:17, “Since you are so large and strong, you will be given more than one portion”). Once again, the issue here is simply the number of people, not any increase or decrease in their per capita wealth; strenuous efforts were extended to ensure strict fairness in this regard. I would submit that such economic concerns should still be taken most seriously in our modern age, as I have recently tried to argue in another context:

This dividing of the land [in Joshua] sounds fair enough. But is all this too utopian, akin to the brief period in the Early Church when God’s people had all things in common, as described in Acts 2:44-46? Certainly we cannot argue that the Bible insists that God’s people must accept one particular political or economic system of government, be it feudalism, democracy, capitalism, socialism, or the like. Still less can we say that biblical Christians are expected to force fellow believers to share their material wealth with the less fortunate (or with us). But here, as in so many other instances, God’s perfect plan seems to be in evidence: Those who care most about the kingdom of God and for God’s glorious presence in their lives will care little for economic advantage. They will be most pleased when all of God’s children are adequately blessed, and they will gladly give away some of their own economic excess so that others’ needs may be met. (Barnes 2003:374-375)

This, I submit, is the real answer to the modern conundrum of the rich getting richer and the poor, poorer—a radical spiritual orientation and focus on what is really important in life. This economic conundrum did not concern King Ahab or his wife Jezebel very much, but it should have. And this conundrum did and does concern Ahab’s God very much indeed; and so it is that we find in the Torah careful provisions concerning the Year of Jubilee (Lev 25:8-22, where every 50th year each Israelite is to return to their ancestral land). In particular, we read the following statement about the Jubilee (Lev 25:10): “Set this year apart as holy, a time to proclaim freedom throughout the land for all who live there.[36] It will be a jubilee year for you, when each of you may return to the land that belonged to your ancestors and return to your own clan” (with elaborate provisions being made in Lev 25:14-17 to adjust the buying and selling price of a piece of property in light of the number of years remaining until the next Jubilee). The law of redemption was also an important aspect of this Torah legislation, as found in the very next passage (Lev 25:23-34; cf. Deut 15:1-18; 25:5-10), reminding them and us that “the land must never be sold on a permanent basis, for the land belongs to me [Yahweh].” These are traditions Naboth the Jezreelite undoubtedly knew well, and that is why he uttered his famous oath to Ahab, “The LORD forbid that I should give you the inheritance that was passed down by my ancestors” (21:3). And the Lord will forbid—indeed, the Lord must forbid our trampling on the rights of his children in order to enlarge or beautify whatever may happen to be the modern equivalent of a king’s winter palace. As Moses succinctly reminds us in Deuteronomy 15:4, “There should be no poor among you, for the LORD your God will greatly bless you in the land he is giving you.”

One final note: Years later the usurper Jehu and his supporters made much rhetorical use of this infamous Naboth incident when they put an end to the Omride dynasty (see 2 Kgs 9:21-26). Cogan (2001:486) thinks it was Elijah and the prophetic circles associated with him who had kept the matter alive until Yahweh’s judgments against Jezebel and Ahab’s descendants would be finally and completely fulfilled, some 15 or so years after Naboth’s death. And what a bloody fulfillment it would prove to be (2 Kgs 9:1–10:31). In any case, it certainly does prove once again to be the case that “what goes around comes around,” and that human leadership (whether political or ecclesiastical) will eventually reap what it sows. Sadly, however, it is often the children who bear the brunt of their parents’ transgressions, whether it be Ahaziah or Joram (the immediate sons of Ahab) or the later, sixth-­century descendants of Manasseh of Judah in 2 Kings or, finally, the exilic and postexilic generations that were probably the intended audience of the Deuteronomistic editing of 1–2 Kings (for details, see “The ‘Sins of Manasseh’” under “Major Themes” in the Introduction). This ironically proves in its own way the point of the present passage: “The LORD [will] forbid” that the ancestral customs of the Torah be ignored or trampled upon by present or future generations. Come to think of it, this message—that future generations may suffer because of our present-day literal or metaphorical trespasses—may be one of the most effective deterrents against our trespassing against their (and our—i.e., the church’s) ancestral customs in the first place!