SOME TIME LATER there was an incident involving a vineyard belonging to Naboth the Jezreelite. The vineyard was in Jezreel, close to the palace of Ahab king of Samaria. 2Ahab said to Naboth, “Let me have your vineyard to use for a vegetable garden, since it is close to my palace. In exchange I will give you a better vineyard or, if you prefer, I will pay you whatever it is worth.”
3But Naboth replied, “The LORD forbid that I should give you the inheritance of my fathers.”
4So Ahab went home, sullen and angry because Naboth the Jezreelite had said, “I will not give you the inheritance of my fathers.” He lay on his bed sulking and refused to eat.
5His wife Jezebel came in and asked him, “Why are you so sullen? Why won’t you eat?”
6He answered her, “Because I said to Naboth the Jezreelite, ‘Sell me your vineyard; or if you prefer, I will give you another vineyard in its place.’ But he said, ‘I will not give you my vineyard.’”
7Jezebel his wife said, “Is this how you act as king over Israel? Get up and eat! Cheer up. I’ll get you the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite.”
8So she wrote letters in Ahab’s name, placed his seal on them, and sent them to the elders and nobles who lived in Naboth’s city with him. 9In those letters she wrote:
“Proclaim a day of fasting and seat Naboth in a prominent place among the people. 10But seat two scoundrels opposite him and have them testify that he has cursed both God and the king. Then take him out and stone him to death.”
11So the elders and nobles who lived in Naboth’s city did as Jezebel directed in the letters she had written to them. 12They proclaimed a fast and seated Naboth in a prominent place among the people. 13Then two scoundrels came and sat opposite him and brought charges against Naboth before the people, saying, “Naboth has cursed both God and the king.” So they took him outside the city and stoned him to death. 14Then they sent word to Jezebel: “Naboth has been stoned and is dead.”
15As soon as Jezebel heard that Naboth had been stoned to death, she said to Ahab, “Get up and take possession of the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite that he refused to sell you. He is no longer alive, but dead.” 16When Ahab heard that Naboth was dead, he got up and went down to take possession of Naboth’s vineyard.
17Then the word of the LORD came to Elijah the Tishbite: 18“Go down to meet Ahab king of Israel, who rules in Samaria. He is now in Naboth’s vineyard, where he has gone to take possession of it. 19Say to him, ‘This is what the LORD says: Have you not murdered a man and seized his property?’ Then say to him, ‘This is what the LORD says: In the place where dogs licked up Naboth’s blood, dogs will lick up your blood—yes, yours!’”
20Ahab said to Elijah, “So you have found me, my enemy!”
“I have found you,” he answered, “because you have sold yourself to do evil in the eyes of the LORD. 21‘I am going to bring disaster on you. I will consume your descendants and cut off from Ahab every last male in Israel—slave or free. 22I will make your house like that of Jeroboam son of Nebat and that of Baasha son of Ahijah, because you have provoked me to anger and have caused Israel to sin.’
23“And also concerning Jezebel the LORD says: ‘Dogs will devour Jezebel by the wall of Jezreel.’
24“Dogs will eat those belonging to Ahab who die in the city, and the birds of the air will feed on those who die in the country.”
25(There was never a man like Ahab, who sold himself to do evil in the eyes of the LORD, urged on by Jezebel his wife. 26He behaved in the vilest manner by going after idols, like the Amorites the LORD drove out before Israel.)
27When Ahab heard these words, he tore his clothes, put on sackcloth and fasted. He lay in sackcloth and went around meekly.
28Then the word of the LORD came to Elijah the Tishbite: 29“Have you noticed how Ahab has humbled himself before me? Because he has humbled himself, I will not bring this disaster in his day, but I will bring it on his house in the days of his son.”
THE NARRATIVE OF Naboth’s vineyard has a loose chronological affiliation with the events of the time of Ahab (21:1). The story also has variant positions in the canon; in the Greek versions it is connected with the Elijah stories (following ch. 19). It has an important role in the fulfillment of prophetic judgment; in the purge of Jehu, Joram the son of Ahab was cast into the vineyard to avenge the blood of Naboth (cf. 2 Kings 9:25–26).
In the development of the royal properties Ahab desires a field that will enhance his residence in Jezreel. Such appropriations of property were not uncommon; Samuel warned that this would happen if Israel were to choose a king like the other nations (1 Sam. 8:14). Naboth’s refusal to give up his ancestral property is in the spirit of each family retaining its heritage in Israel (Num. 36:7–8), which is provided for in the regulations of the Jubilee year (cf. Lev. 25:13, 23). There is no indication Naboth would give up his rights as a citizen if he sold his property, but it could have prejudiced his status making his family a royal dependent.1 For Naboth the heritage is worth more than any monetary compensation.
Judicial Murder of Naboth (21:1–16)
NABOTH, FROM JEZREEL, has property in Jezreel; the double mention of Jezreel in 21:1 is not superfluous, because a significant point in the story is that the property is located in his hometown. Jezreel is a royal center of the Omride dynasty, though Omri established a capital in Samaria (16:24). Jezreel is about ten miles (fifteen kilometers) east of Megiddo, on a ridge extending along the southern edge of the Valley of Jezreel.
On the basis of archaeological evidence in relation to Samaria, Ussishkin thinks that Jezreel was established as a fortified military center to serve as a strong central base for a large army, including substantial units of cavalry and chariotry.2 It was built concurrently with Samaria; the planners and architects of both sites followed the same architectural layout. The various buildings included a central building that served as a royal residence. The Hebrew for palace (hêkal) is a Sumerian loanword (ekallu) that normally refers to a temple, but occasionally has a secular referent (cf. 2 Kings 20:18).
The size and imposing nature of the fortifications clearly serve the purposes of propaganda.3 They express the need to show the strength and position of the royal dynasty. These grandiose public works are a means of social control over the local population. This function of Jezreel in the royal possessions conforms well to the desire of Ahab to enhance his presence by taking possession of Naboth’s vineyard.
The specification of Ahab as “king of Samaria” (21:1) is important to the story; the vineyard is in Jezreel, some distance from the capital. This explains the need for written correspondence from Samaria to Jezreel (21:8). Naboth refuses Ahab’s offer of purchase from the viewpoint of ancestral inheritance: All the land belongs to God; the Israelites are sojourners. It is not their prerogative to sell land in perpetuity or to alienate it from the family.
Ahab responds in the manner of an exacerbated king, but apparently does not intend to overcome Naboth’s opposition. Jezebel perceives Ahab’s response as weakness. She intends to exercise royal authority in his name in order to obtain the property (v. 7). She writes letters and signs them in the name of the king. According to the covenant, the king was to protect the rights of the citizens as fellow brothers (Deut. 17:14–20), but in Israel the corruption of authority extended to supervising elders and freemen with the power to exercise judicial authority.
Naboth himself appears to have been the head of an influential local family, as he is given a place of honor at the sacred occasion (v. 9). However, his refusal to cooperate with the royal request makes him a rival to the supporters of the king. It is an offense to curse a ruler of the people (Ex. 22:28), so it is not difficult for unscrupulous witnesses to bring a sentence of death against Naboth. The ease with which such a plot is accomplished demonstrates the pervasive corruption of Ahab’s reign. Once Jezebel receives word of the execution, she informs her husband that the vineyard is now his for the taking. This criminal act has been achieved with full judicial authority.
Judgment of Ahab (21:17–29)
JEZEBEL CAN ESCAPE legal consequences for murder and appropriation of property by acting through corrupt judges, but she cannot escape the judgment of the Owner who gave the land to Israel (cf. Lev. 25:23). Yahweh commissions Elijah to confront Ahab in Naboth’s vineyard. Ahab has gone from Samaria to Jezreel to inspect his property (21:16, 18b); Ahab “who is in Samaria” (v. 18; KJV, RSV) is a reference to his normal habitat at his royal residence rather than his personal presence there (NIV). Elijah is to confront Ahab at the scene of the crime.
The judgment against Ahab is that the dogs will lick up his blood just as they did that of Naboth (21:19). The dogs do literally lick up the blood of Ahab in Samaria when the chariot in which he dies is washed (22:38), but they also lick up his blood in the vineyard of Naboth when the body of his son Joram is thrown there (2 Kings 9:25–26). Human injustice is succeeded by divine judgment in a double sense; Ahab will die in battle, and his dynasty will end with the death of his son. The judgment against Ahab is not that every male will be cut off (1 Kings 21:21; cf. NIV), but that all the royal descendants will be exterminated.4 His death, and that of Jezebel, are described in the terms of Jeroboam and Baasha (21:23–24; cf. 14:10–11; 16:4). The fire of divine judgment will pursue his sons (21:21) until the last of the royal descendants dies.
Ahab’s response to Elijah betrays knowledge of his own guilt: “So you have found me, my enemy!” (21:20). Elijah is Ahab’s enemy because the latter has violated his responsibility as a king under the covenant. Elijah describes Ahab’s guilt for what it is: “You have sold yourself to do evil” (v. 20). Greed has led Ahab into the sin of murder and theft, so there is none who can be compared to him (v. 25). Though Jezebel is an accomplice in his crime, Ahab is still culpable as the instigator of her actions. Murder and theft are the results of desecrating the covenant (v. 26), a manifestation of his disrespect for God and the relationships that are divinely ordained.
The ending of the narrative offers a surprising turn on the character of Ahab (21:27–29). One would not expect a king described as more abominable in his deeds than the Amorites (vv. 25–26) to have a change of heart at the proclamation of judgment. Ahab shows his repentance by wearing sackcloth, fasting, sleeping in sackcloth, and conducting his affairs with gentleness. Though Elijah is not commissioned with any message for Ahab, God does inform the prophet that his punishment will be mitigated and will come to fruition in the days of his son. Though Ahab does die violently in battle, he is buried in the royal sepulcher (22:39–40), and his dynasty continues for another fourteen years under the rule of his sons.
Bridging Contexts
INHERITANCE RIGHTS IN ISRAEL. The matter of Naboth’s vineyard became a cause célèbre in Israel. The blood of Naboth was declared to be avenged at the death of Ahab (22:38) and further served to justify the revolt of Jehu in ending the Omride dynasty (2 Kings 9:24–26). This story is often regarded as secondary to Ahab, but we must accept the text as it has been received, with its testimony that Naboth was murdered in the reign of Ahab and that judgment for this act finally ends his dynasty with the death of Joram.
A further question is the location of the vineyard. Naboth is a Jezreelite; his ancestral land is in Jezreel (21:1, 3), the location Ahab established as a royal residence (cf. 18:45–46). The capital of Israel is Samaria (cf. 16:24), and the fulfillment of the prophecy of Elijah concerning the death of Ahab takes place in Samaria (22:37–38). These differences have been used to say the story has been adapted from elsewhere as a condemnation of Ahab. But the narrative is consistent; as recorded it assumes a distance between the palace in Samaria and the vineyard of Naboth, because Jezebel corresponds with the leaders of the city of Naboth through letters (21:8–9). In the narrative, the dogs licking up the blood of Ahab in Samaria is the equivalent of the dogs licking up the blood of Naboth outside the city of Jezreel. The vineyard is adjacent to the royal residence in Jezreel (21:1), but the burial of Ahab is in Samaria (22:37–38). The prophetic judgment declares only that the king will suffer the same ignominious death he inflicted on Naboth. The location of the actual event is not the point of the statement.
Kingship in Israel began with an account of how power was abused and the basic right of land violated. Saul was anointed as Israel’s first king, but his violation of that trust led to his rejection and the anointing of David in his stead. Saul was afflicted with an evil temperament (1 Sam. 16:14), which tormented him and led him to violence. After David’s victory over Goliath, Saul envied him and tried to kill him (18:9, 11). David was eventually forced to flee (19:10), driven from his home by the very person whose responsibility it was to protect it at all times.
It is possible that David’s experience is expressed in a psalm ascribed to him. David expresses his hope in God as that which has superseded the loss of his inheritance:
LORD, you have assigned me my portion and my cup;
you have made my lot secure.
The boundary lines have fallen for me in pleasant places;
surely I have a delightful inheritance. (Ps. 16:5–6)
The terminology of this passage is derived from the division of the land to the tribes. The land was apportioned to each family as an inheritance as determined by the casting of a lot (Num. 26:52–56), which determined the divine choice for the allocation of land each tribe would receive. The fields (portions) were assigned on the size of each tribe according to the listed names.5 The Jubilee year was the means of ensuring that once in every generation the land would return to its original owners, so that each family would always be able to enjoy the divine provision.
Psalm 16 is a celebration of trust when all means of support are lost. Yahweh is the only portion left to the psalmist (16:5); he is the One who makes the boundaries of the situation pleasant. Once when Saul had driven David into the desert, David had opportunity to dispose of his enemy. David and his men had invaded the cave where Saul was sleeping and could have killed him (1 Sam. 26:6–8). David rejected this opportunity because he lived by another rule: “From evildoers come evil deeds” (24:14). If David were to be as vengeful as Saul, then he would be indistinguishable from Saul.
Instead David insisted that Saul’s fate was in the hands of Yahweh, who had anointed him (26:9–11). David left with Saul’s spear and water jug, then made appeal to his enemy. David said that if he had sinned so that the anointed king was compelled to pursue him, he would make an offering (26:19). However, if this pursuit was of human design, then those pursuing him were cursed. They had driven him away from securing his rightful inheritance, and in so doing had abandoned him to serve other gods.
This line of thought is consistent with the covenant; all who belong to the covenant have a share in the land that God has given. If they do not rightfully possess that land, they belong to the Canaanites. However, the psalmist left without land will not be separated from his God. Though enemies can drive him from his land, they cannot drive him from his God. In such circumstances God is his inheritance and his portion. Murderous individuals who drive people from their rightful inheritance are under a curse. This was demonstrated in the case of Saul, and the same principle pertains in the judgment against Ahab.
The injustices of Israel that eventually drive them into exile involve the violations of land rights. Isaiah, in the introduction of his prophecy, sets out an alternative for Jerusalem. They need to cease from their evil, learn to do good, seek justice, and assist the oppressed (Isa. 1:16b–17a). If they learn to do justice, they will eat from the prosperity of the land, but if they refuse and rebel, they will be consumed by the sword (1:19–20). The very first of the woe oracles against Jerusalem is because of the violence of land appropriation: “Woe to those who add house to house and join field to field, till no space is left and you live alone in the land” (5:8). Those who act in such greed will never get to live in their houses or enjoy the produce of the land because of Yahweh’s judgment (5:9–10).
Land is among the most sacred of human rights in the biblical understanding of justice. Those whose rights to land are violated become the object of God’s concern, the violators the objects of his judgment. Naboth’s death will not go unnoticed; Ahab rightly fears the appearance of the prophet.
ECONOMIC OPPRESSION. Murder and the confiscation of land are perhaps the most common crimes of state against individual citizens. Virtually every country has within it a segment of citizens who believe they have experienced the tyranny of the state in their past. Some may be refugees from another country; others may feel they have been robbed within their own country.
The story of Naboth is a biblical paragon for such injustices, as it exemplifies how the powerful take advantage of the weak to add to their wealth. It has all the features that are typical of such instances. The actions are done “legally” because they are in the power of the state; they are justified by the people in power, so the victims may not even be able to make a case for their deprivation being unjust. Naboth is vilified as being an enemy of the state (21:13), which he is in that he has resisted the desires of the king. The leaders of the community can justify their actions as being loyal to their king (21:11), for they receive their instructions from the palace. The witnesses are described as “scoundrels” (NIV), sons of beliyyaʿal (21:10, 13), malicious individuals who “swallow up” others. As a society becomes corrupt because of oppressive leaders, there is increased opportunity for such individuals to ply their trade.
My mother was born in Novgorodskoye, a village in eastern Ukraine to the east of the city of Donetsk. In 1926, when she was three years old, her parents fled Ukraine as the terror of Stalinism became increasingly oppressive. I grew up hearing the stories of how my grandparents were dispossessed and gradually realizing how this had profoundly affected not only the life of my mother but the lives of her children as well. It was only later that I began to understand the horror of what happened in Ukraine under Stalinism and what I had been spared, even though my grandparents lost all their property.
Between 1929 and 1932 the Soviet Communist Party struck a double blow at the peasantry of the USSR; the elimination of kulaks6 enabled the state to dispossess and deport millions of peasant families, and collectivization abolished all private ownership of land. This was followed in 1932–33 by a “terror-famine,” which the state inflicted on the collectivized peasants of Ukraine. The state demanded impossibly high grain quotas, removed every other source of food, and prevented any outside help from reaching the starving millions. The state dispossession of property and food grown on collectivized farms led to the greatest genocide in human history. The story of Ukraine is Naboth’s vineyard multiplied many millions of times.
This state confiscation of property is well documented by Robert Conquest, senior research fellow and scholar-curator of the East European Collection at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.7 At the end of the war the peasants owned or rented out four times the land held by other owners. The collapse of the old regime in March 1917 resulted in the peasantry forcibly taking over the large estates. The land decree of November 1917, immediately following the Bolshevik seizure of power, was a conscious maneuver to gain peasant support. All land, including state land, was to be given to the use of those who worked on it. Lenin explained: “We Bolsheviks were opposed to the law.… Yet we signed it, because we did not want to oppose the will of the majority of peasants.”8
The next stage in collectivization was to ally the poor peasant against the kulak, those who presumably oppressed the peasant through loans and mortgages. The kulak in the sense of a rich man exploiting a peasant was in reality a mythical figure. The real struggle was not that of the poor against the rich, but the abolition of the peasant’s right to sell his grain. A decree in May 1918 “on the monopoly of food” empowered the Commissariat of Food to extract from the peasants any grain held in excess of quotas set by the Commissariat, with the claim that “this grain is in the hands of kulaks.”9 Quotas were set impossibly high, and kulaks who failed to meet their quotas were expropriated and exiled.
Those who escaped these deportations thought no fate could be worse than that of the kulaks. They did not realize that confiscation of grain to meet procurement targets would result in the ultimate penalty of death. R. Conquest provides a conservative estimate of approximately seven million premature deaths due to famine from 1926–37, and four million deaths because of deportation and collectivization.10 This was rationalized and defended on the basis of creating a just state of equality for workers.
Similar accounts of dispossession and death can be told for every continent in every era, and individual stories can be found in every community. Adjacent territories can be described in different ways, such as nations neighboring each other in an increasingly global economic system. Don Helder Camara, diminutive Brazilian archbishop, used the Naboth story as illustrative of political force where the greed of multinationals could export entire factories to paradises of investment where salaries are low and dispute impossible.11
He said that the pessimist in him mocked his receipt of a degree in law when “Law is ever more a hollow word, resonant but empty, in a world increasingly dominated by force, by violence, by fraud—in a word, by egoism;” when civil law permits “the progressive and rapid increase of oppressed people who continue being swept toward ghettos, without work, without health, without instruction, without diversion and, not rarely, without God;” when under so-called international law “more than two-thirds of humanity (exist) in situations of misery, of hunger, of subhuman life;” and when agrarian law or special law permits “today’s powerful landowners to continue to live at the cost of misery for unhappy pariahs” and whereby “modern technology achieves marvels from the earth with an ever-reduced number of rural workers (while) those not needed in the fields live sub lives in depressing slums on the outskirts of nearly all the large cities.”12
Justice is not a simple matter. Most North American citizens are part of an economic system in which economic power involves exploitation of others. Camara almost suggests that all individuals in industrialized states are an Ahab. This is an unfair comparison. The problems of economic justice will not be solved by one individual, one government, or in one generation. These injustices ought not to be compared with the kind of state terror that took place in Ukraine, as sometimes seems to be implied. At the same time it must never be denied that there are injustices between industrialized states and others on a different economic system. Consumers are part of these systems just as much as the marketers, and it will take the cooperative and consistent effort of all to provide a proper inheritance for those economically oppressed. Individuals can have an influence for good and must consistently seek how they can make a difference in the lives of other individual people.