XXI.

The narrative of this chapter, clearly drawn once more from the prophetic record of Elijah’s life and mission, returns to the same vividness of style and lofty spiritual teaching perceptible in 1 Kings 18, 19. It describes the turning-point of Ahab’s probation, which, like the great crisis of David’s history, is an act of unrighteous tyranny, so common in Eastern despotism, that it would hardly be recorded by an ordinary historian. So in the prophetic writings moral evils, especially profligacy and bloodshed and oppression of the weak, are denounced at least not less severely, and even more frequently, than religious unfaithfulness. The whole description is strikingly illustrative of Ahab’s character, in its essential weakness and subservience, more fatal in high place of authority than resolute wickedness. It might be painted in the well-known description of Felix by Tacitus, as “swaying the power of a king with the temper of a slave” (jus regium, servili ingenio exercuit).

(1) Which was in Jezreel.—The LXX. omits these words, and makes the vineyard to be “hard by the threshing-floor of Ahab, king of Samaria”—the word being the same as that rendered “void place” in 1Kings 22:10—apparently near the palace of Ahab in Samaria, not in Jezreel. The Vulgate renders “who was” instead of “which was” in Jezreel. The question of the position of the vineyard, apparently the scene of Naboth’s murder, is difficult. The “plot of ground” of Naboth, referred to in 2Kings 9:25-26—not, however, called “a vineyard”—is clearly at Jezreel. where, as a native of the place, Naboth would be likely to hold land. But the vineyard may have been an outlying property near Samaria, which Ahab might naturally suppose Naboth, even for that reason, likely to sell. In favour of this supposition—which is, perhaps, on the whole the more probable—is the very emphatic prediction of 1Kings 21:19, which in 1Kings 22:38 is declared to have been fulfilled at the pool of Samaria. Moreover, the whole action of the chapter, as far as Ahab is concerned, seems to have been at Samaria; and, indeed, if we take 1Kings 21:18 literally, this is actually declared to be the case. On the other side, however, we have the reading of the text, the more obvious interpretation of the words “his city” in 1Kings 21:8; 1Kings 21:11; and the reference to the prophecy of Elijah, in connection with the casting of the body of Jehoram into the plot of ground at Jezreel (2Kings 9:25-26). It is, perhaps, impossible to clear up the discrepancy entirely with our present knowledge.

(2–4) And Ahab spake.—The whole history is singularly true to nature. At first, as the desire of Ahab was natural, so his offer was courteous and liberal. The refusal of Naboth—evidently grounded on the illegality, as well as the natural dislike, of alienation of “the inheritance of his fathers” (see Leviticus 25:13-28; Numbers 36:7), and therefore not only allowable, but right—has nevertheless about it a certain tone of harshness, perhaps of unnecessary discourtesy, implying condemnation, as well as rejection, of the offer of the king. It is characteristic of the weak and petulant nature of Ahab, that he neither recognises the legality and justice of Naboth’s action, nor dares to resent the curt defiance of his refusal. Like a spoilt child, he comes back sullen and angry, throws himself on his bed, and will eat no bread. All that he has is as nothing, while the little plot of ground is refused; as to Haman all was worthless, while Mordecai the Jew sat in the king’s gate (Esther 5:13). This temper of sullen, childish discontent is the natural seedplot of crime, under the instigation of more determined wickedness.

(7) Dost thou now.—The scorn of Jezebel is, like the impatience of Lady Macbeth, expressed in a striking boldness of emphasis. First comes the bitter irony of the question, “Dost thou govern the kingdom of Israel, and yet suffer a subject to cross thy will?” expressing her scornful wonder at one who “lets I dare not, wait upon 1 would.” Then in the invitation, “eat bread, and let thine heart be merry,” there seems the same half-contemptuous recognition of a self-indulgent weakness of nature, which may be traced in Elijah’s words in 1Kings 18:41, “Get thee up, eat and drink, for there is a sound of abundance of rain.” Ahab is fit only to desire and to revel; it is for bolder spirits to act for good or for evil.

(8) Sealed them with his seal—with the name, or token, of the king, engraved on stone, and impressed (see Job 38:14) on a lump of clay attached to the letter. The sealing (as the modern sense of “signature” implies) was the pledge of authenticity and authority. (See Genesis 38:18; Nehemiah 9:38; Nehemiah 10:1; Esther 3:10; Esther 3:12, Daniel 6:17, &c.) The use of the seal—ordinarily worn or carried on the person—implies Ahab’s knowledge that something is being done in his name, into which he takes care not to inquire.

In his city.—This would be most naturally interpreted as Jezreel; but if Naboth dwelt or sojourned at Samaria, it may be Samaria. Jezebel naturally desires that neither Ahab nor she herself, though close at hand, should appear in the matter; but gives the necessary authority in writing, because without it the deed could not be done.

(9) Proclaim a fast.—This might be only to cover all that was to be so foully done with a cloak of religious observance, or, perhaps more probably, to imply that some secret sin had been committed, which would draw down vengeance on the whole city, and so to prepare for the false accusation. There is a like ambiguity as to the explanation of the command, “set Naboth on high,” as either an exaltation of pretended honour, or the “lifting up his head” (Genesis 40:20) for accusation. It may be noted that the whole scheme implies a return of the people to at least the outward observance of the Law of the Lord.

(10) Two men—in accordance with Numbers 35:30; Deuteronomy 17:6.

Sons of Belial.—See Judges 19:22; Judges 20:13; 1Samuel 1:16; 1Samuel 2:12; 1Samuel 10:27; 1Samuel 25:17; 1Samuel 25:25; 1Samuel 30:22; 2Samuel 16:7; 2Samuel 20:1, &c.; properly, “children of lawlessness, or worthlessness.”

Blaspheme.—The word is the same used in Job 1:5; Job 1:11; Job 2:5, there rendered “curse.” It properly signifies “to bless;” thence, to “part from with blessing;” finally to part from, or “disown.” It is, rather, therefore, “to renounce” than “to blaspheme.” The punishment, however, was stoning, as for positive blasphemy. (See Leviticus 24:16; Deuteronomy 13:9-10.)

(11) And the men of his city . . . did.—The pains taken in the invention of this foul plot, and the ready acquiescence of the rulers of the city in carrying it out, are characteristic of the baser forms of organised Eastern despotism—not venturing to take life by simple violence without some cause apparently shown, and yet always able to poison the springs of justice, and do murder under form of law. In Israel, where the king was held to be but a vicegerent of God, subject, in theory, under the old constitution or “manner of the kingdom” (1Samuel 10:25), to the supreme law, the need of clothing crime with legal form would be especially felt.

(13) Carried him forth—as usual, in order to avoid polluting the city with blood—possibly to his own ground, the coveted vineyard itself.

(15) Take possession.—Naboth’s sons (see 2Kings 9:26) were murdered with him, so that there was none to claim the inheritance. Even had this not been so, the property of executed traitors would naturally fall to the king, although no enactment to this effect is found in the Law.

(16) When Ahab heard.—It is characteristic of Ahab that he takes care to ask no question about Naboth’s death, desirous “to be innocent of the knowledge,” and yet tacitly to “applaud the deed.” The guilt is Jezebel’s; the fruit, his own. In the LXX. there is here a curious and striking insertion: “he rent his clothes and put on sackcloth,” representing Ahab as struck with momentary horror, and then, after thus salving his conscience, still resolving to carry out his desire for the coveted vineyard. The picture is equally true to nature, especially to such a nature as his. But the insertion has little authority, and is probably a mistaken interpolation from 1Kings 21:27.

(17) Elijah.—We have heard nothing of him since the call of Elisha, as though he had once more retired to solitude. In the mere political service of the preceding chapter, important in the eyes of the world, he takes no part; but emerges now for the higher moral duty of rebuking crime, and avenging innocent blood, in what Eastern tyranny would deem a very trivial matter. Ahab’s address to him seems to imply wonder at his unusual appearance among men.

(18) Which is in Samaria.—These words are almost unmeaning, unless they literally signify that Ahab was then in Samaria, not in Jezreel. To interpret them as simply part of Ahab’s title, or as signifying the country, not the town of Samaria, is to explain them away.

(19) Hast thou killed, and also taken possession?—The stern, indignant brevity of the accusation, at once shaming the subterfuge by which Ahab shifts his guilt to Jezebel, and unmasking the real object of the whole crime, leaves the king speechless as to defence, unable to stay the sentence which at once follows. The marked particularity and emphasis of that sentence, “In the place where the dogs licked the blood of Naboth shall dogs lick thy blood, even thine,” preclude all explanations, which would seek its fulfilment in the fate of Jehoram (2Kings 9:25); nor can such explanations be justified by reference to 1Kings 21:29, for it is not this part of the sentence which is deferred by Ahab’s repentance. (See Note on 1Kings 22:38.)

(20) Hast thou found me, O mine enemy?—The cry is partly of dismay, partly of excuse. Ahab, having no word of defence to utter, endeavours to attribute Elijah’s rebuke and condemnation to simple enmity, much as in 1Kings 18:17 he cries out “Art thou he that troubleth Israel?” The crushing answer is that the prophet came not because he was an enemy, but because Ahab had “sold himself”—had become a slave instead of a king—under the lust of desire and the temptation of Jezebel.

(21-24) Behold, I will bring evil.—Distinct from that message of personal judgment is the doom of utter destruction pronounced on the dynasty of Omri—the same in substance, and almost in word, as that already pronounced in 1Kings 14:10-11; 1Kings 16:3-4. It is, indeed, called forth by the last sin of Ahab, but the ground assigned for it (1Kings 21:22) extends to the whole course of idolatry and apostasy, “making Israel to sin.” It is only this more general sentence which is postponed by the repentance of Ahab (1Kings 21:29).

(25) The dogs shall eat Jezebel.—In all his address to Ahab, Elijah has, as yet, disdained to name the instigator, on whom the coward king, no doubt, threw his guilt. Ahab stands revealed as the true culprit before God, without a shred of subterfuge to veil his ultimate responsibility. Now, briefly and sternly, the prophet notices the bolder criminal, pronouncing against her a doom of shame and horror, seldom falling upon a woman, but rightly visiting one who had forsworn the pity and modesty of her sex. In the “ditch” (see margin) outside the walls, where the refuse of the city gathers the half-wild dogs—the scavengers of Eastern cities—her dead body is to be thrown as offal, and to be torn and devoured.

This verse and the next are evidently the reflection of the compiler, catching its inspiration from the words of Elijah in 1Kings 21:20. There is in them a tone not only of condemnation, but of contempt, for a king most unkingly—thus selling himself to a half-unwilling course of crime, against the warnings of conscience, not disbelieved but neglected, for the sake of a paltry desire—thus moreover, grovelling under the open dominion of a woman, which, to an Eastern mind, familiar enough with female intrigues, but not with female imperiousness, would seem especially monstrous.

(26) As did the Amorites.—The reference is probably not only to the idolatry and worship of false gods, but to the nameless abominations always connected with such worship.

(27) And went softly.—The translation seems correct; the meaning is variously conjectured. The LXX. (in some MSS.) has “bent down” in sorrow; the Vulgate similarly “with head bent down;” the Eastern versions and Josephus, “barefooted,” which seems far the most probable meaning.

(29) How Ahab humbleth himself.—As there is something entirely characteristic of Ahab’s impressible nature in this burst of penitence; so in the acceptance of it there is a remarkable illustration of the Divine mercy. The repentance might seem not only to come too late, but to be the mere offspring of fear—more sensible of the shame of discovery than of the shamefulness of sin. Man’s judgment would despise it; God sees in its imperfection some germs of promise, and His partial remission of penalty shows it to be not disregarded in His sight. Ahab himself is still to suffer the predicted doom; but he is to die in honour, and the utter destruction waits, till Jehoram shall fill up the measure of iniquity.