"Yahweh forbid me that I should give you the inheritance of my fathers." With these words Naboth the Jezreelite took a dangerous stand against the aristocracy of northern Israel which would eventually cost him his property, family, and life. The author of Kings uses this event as a polemic against flagrant transgression of covenant law by Ahab and the non-Yahwistic manner in which his dynasty reigned. I shall consider a few issues under recent discussion which relate to the Naboth incident, an overview of property law in the Pentateuch, 1 Kings's theological points and the means used to bring them across, reaction of the people to the subversion of egalitarian standards, and specific violations of the covenant which are highlighted in the passage.

Many have attempted to reconstruct the legal justification behind the takeover of Naboth's vineyard by Ahab. Francis Andersen has proposed that the setting for the "fast" was a court lawsuit brought forth by Ahab which accused Naboth of reneging on the sale of his vineyard.1 Naboth was in the position of a party in a lawsuit, but not that of one accused of a crime. He was expecting to defend his property rights, but was surprised by the different charges which were brought against him, for which he was quickly executed.2

Andersen has made some interesting points. The setting for the "fast" does not appear to be a trial setting for Naboth.3 On the other hand, the idea of the charges of a reneged sale seems unlikely for the following reasons: First, no strong evidence of this defense of the transaction exists in the text. Second, it seems that the people would have been suspicious if there was (a) a property hearing in dispute with the king; (b) the charge of cursing God and the king; and (c) possession of the vineyard after the execution by the king. By having Naboth appear as a blasphemer without Ahab having his hand in the affair makes Ahab look like a good guy. On these grounds I find it hardly plausible that Ahab could have expected this action to escape notice.4

A second legal aspect concerns the status of a criminal's property. It has been stated by Gray and Noth that in the ANE a criminal's property "reverted to the Crown."5 Ahab simply used this concept when he took possession of Naboth's vineyard. There are, however, problems with this analysis. It is possible that this was the practice, but evidence presented for this is scanty at best (if not circular): the Naboth incident. Even if this was the practice, it has its roots in changes which began under Solomon, not the covenant or league ideals, and could be considered an object of condemnation by the Biblical author (and as I have said, the evidence presented for this is scanty at best).6 As we shall see below, there is no provision stating that the property of criminals reverts to the crown (or public domain) in the Pentateuch; it goes to the nearest relative (Num. 27.6-11).7

While much has been written concerning what grounds Ahab had for expropriating Naboth's vineyard, there is surprisingly little which addresses the theological point(s) addressed in 1 Kings 21. Whatever the resolution to the above problems is, his point remains the same: the monarchy and the aristocracy were subjugating the property rights of the people of Israel, violating covenant law, and acting like kings outside the covenant might be expected to act.8

The Naboth incident should be considered against the backdrop of covenant ideals. One of the main emphases of the civil law codes was the protection of property rights. In order to determine the violations of land laws as most likely understood by the Biblical author we must examine the laws concerning land ownership and use as set forth in the Pentateuchal traditions. Yahweh is the donor of the land (Num. 33.53). The size of the inheritance was to be proportional to the size of the family. Larger groups shall receive more inheritance, and smaller, lesser. The location of the inheritance was determined by lot and was not to be changed (Num. 33.52-56). An inheritance was not to be transferred from one tribe to another, but "each hold to his own inheritance" (Num. 36.9). If a man dies, the inheritance goes to the nearest relative (Num. 27.6-11). The land belongs to Yahweh and is not to be sold permanently (Lev. 25.23).9 Houses in walled cities can be sold permanently (Lev. 25.29-33), "but the pasture fields of their cities shall not be sold, for that is their perpetual possession" (Lev. 25.34). In the case of a temporary sale it was to revert in the year of Jubilee (Lev. 25.13-17, 23-28) More evidence that the land was to remain permanently within a family is the statement that a poor man who has sold himself to someone will be released in the year of Jubilee and return to the property of his forefathers (Lev. 25.41). Roland de Vaux sums the land laws as follows: "As Yahweh is the only true king of Israel, so he is the sole lord of the soil.... It is the land he had promised to the Fathers, the land he has conquered and given to his people."10

The emphasis of 1 Kings 21 is not the question of the legality of Ahab's actions, but the theological/ethical import of his actions. The point of the Biblical author is this: Ahab had no legal justification for taking over Naboth's inheritance. This passage was carefully constructed to condemn the practices of the northern kingdom by presenting a clearly unjust case, choosing the details which demonstrated his theological point.11 He used the event of Naboth's vineyard in a manner which paints a portrait of the northern kingdom in general and northern kingship in particular, strongly condemning the non-Yahwistic subversion of egalitarian standards. According to 1 Kings, Ahab was deposed for violating property laws, the law of the king, and three points in the Decalogue (the 10 commandments).

Before looking directly at 1 Kings 21 we shall take a brief look at the historical background which relates to the subject at hand. Under the Omrides the northern kingdom had become a prosperous one. At first glance this might appear to be a positive note, but the prosperity achieved was at the expense of the poor. This was the continuation of a trend of the 10th-8th century B.C. which had its origins in Solomon's practices.12 As de Vaux has observed, "The monarchical institutions produced... a class of officials who drew a profit from their posts and the favours granted them by the king."13 This change from the earlier egalitarian standards14 was looked upon with disgust by the prophets, the Biblical author, and undoubtedly the people.15

Conditions in Israel were seen by the Biblical author as deplorable, and 1 Kings 21 highlights some of the specifics. The stage is set: Ahab wanted Naboth's vineyard and attempted to acquire it in an orderly manner. Although on the surface this appears to be an innocent action,16 it could only be so construed if viewed in isolation. The Biblical author uses this to set the stage for the sinister actions which follow. (That Ahab attempted to do this indicates that people were willing to give up their land rights.) Naboth, though, refused in the name of Yahweh, citing a principle based on covenant law.17 Ahab then went home dejected. Jezebel's speech is carefully crafted to make a statement of the attitude of the northern kingdom and demonstrate how it had assimilated foreign ideals of kingship. Jezebel, surprised that Ahab did not act like a typical oriental king, also realized that there was a strong cultural resistance to this type of action. She helped Ahab to act like an ancient Near Eastern monarch by arranging to obtain the vineyard by a means which she thought would, at least on the public level, be considered acceptable to the public. 1 Kings then goes on to show how, acting under Ahab's authority, false testimony was arranged which led to the immediate execution18 of Naboth and his family.19 Ahab went down to take possession of the vineyard when he heard of Naboth's death. Elijah was immediately commissioned to bring an oracle of judgment to Ahab for devoting himself to practice evil and making Israel sin. Ahab mourned because of the oracle, and Yahweh decided to carry out the full effects of the during his son's days, not his.

The main concerns of the Biblical author at this point are as follows: the northern monarchy violated land laws, violated the law of the king by acting as a foreign monarchy might be expected to act, and violated three points of the Decalogue. I also do not think it would be pressing it too far to say that some of the Biblical author's others concerns also included: this incident did happen;20 this is not an isolated incident; this is a flagrant violation of covenant law; and judgment from Yahweh was the result of these breaches of covenant.21

Ahab is shown to be in gross violation of land laws. Evidence that these ideals of the Pentateuch were well-entrenched with the people include Naboth's reaction to Ahab's offers and the necessity to use "legal" means. Ahab was quite unsuccessful in his attempt to pursuade Naboth to breach traditional morals.22 There was a strong attitude among the people which hindered Ahab from directly taking over Naboth's vineyard. The fact that Jezebel had to arrange a situation which would appear acceptable to the public at large indicates that "the structure of Israel's national law was so firmly established that the monarchy was quite unable to disrupt it."23 It was because these principles were, to a great degree, still in the minds of the people that the expropriation of Naboth's vineyard had to be accomplished in a deceitful manner.

There is also evidence that the use which Ahab did put the court to was unacceptable in the eyes of the people. Evidently it became known that the whole thing was a sham (if for no other reason than the fact that Elijah's railing denunciation of Ahab became public). Jehu, one of Ahab's officers, was well aware of the situation when he executed his coup (2 Kings 9.22, 25, 36-37). The support that he had indicates that the Israelites were accustomed to a different treatment of landowners and became angry.24

This account is also a critique of the assimilation of foreign ideas into the northern kingdom in contrast to the law of the king, furthering the Biblical author's condemnation of the northern kingdom. The law of the king in Deuteronomy makes it clear that the king was subject to the same laws that the common man was, and that he was to rule his kingdom based on the law. The king is explicitly told not to "lift up his heart over his fellow Israelites" (Deut. 17.14-20) Ahab flagrantly violated all of the above in the incident of Naboth's vineyard. The details of Jezebel's speech are part of the polemic against the introduction of foreign ideas of kingship which Ahab imported. She was surprised that Ahab was not using his position to get what he wanted. I also believe that this does not only describe his practices, but also uses him as a paradigm case for how the northern monarchy in general acted.25

Ahab violated at least three commandments from the Decalogue: (1) he attempted (with success) to procure another's property through the legal processes by (2) having false testimony born against the landowner which resulted in (3) the unjust premeditated execution (=murder) of Naboth. Within the scope of Deuteronomistic writings these actions clearly violate covenant law. The result of these actions was the denunciation by Elijah, pronouncing judgment on him. Yahweh fulfilled His covenant obligations by "visiting the results of the iniquity" on Ahab and his immediate descendants (Deut. 5.6-21).26

The above trends continued in Israel. During the next century, Micah, Amos, and Isaiah all prophesied against the rich becoming richer at the expense of fellow Israelites (Micah 2.2; Isaiah 5.8; Amos 6.1-14; 1.6). Biblically speaking, these practices were among the elements which led to its downfall in 722/1.

In conclusion, I propose that 1 Kings 21 and 2 Kings 9.21-26 intentionally point to one of the major abuses of the day: the violation of the property/inheritance rights of the common people by the aristocracy. This was carried out by further violation of the covenant. The Naboth incident serves as a paradigm case for the abuses carried out by the royal house and the rich in general, containing all the major elements of abuse at once: the rich desired the property of fellow Israelites, employed their influence to bring about unjust court action, executed the innocent, and took over their property. If this is so, then a major point of the author of 1 Kings is this: Israelites have inalienable property rights which have been given by Yahweh. Violation of this principle is to transgress the commands of Yahweh and therefore subject to punishment. Ahab's household serves as an example of the type of judgment deserved for this sin, and the continual violations of this nature eventually brought down the kingdom of Israel.

1. Francis I. Andersen, "The Socio-Juridical Background of the Naboth Incident," Journal of Biblical Literature (85, 1966), pp. 53-55, 57.

2. Andersen, pp. 53-57.

3. At head = prominent place of the people, not the place of accusation. See John Gray, I & II Kings, 2nd. Ed (London: SCM Press, 1970), pp. 440-441; Gwilym H. Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), p. 356.

4. In reality the actions that Ahab took did not escape notice. This will be considered later.

5. Gray, p. 441; Martin Noth, The History of Israel (New York: Harper & Row, 1960), p. 214n1.

6. Noth, pp. 213-4.

7. In the case of Achan, the criminal, his household, and his personal property were heremed (Joshua 7).

8. Another reason given for the inclusion of this story is to justify Jehu's bloody coup which annihilated Ahab's house. See Robert North, S.J., "Social Dynamics from Saul to Jehu," Biblical Theology Bulletin 12, 1982), pp. 114-115. This element may be present but is secondary to the idea of condemnation of the northern monarchy's violation of covenant law. (For an extensive bibliography on Naboth, see North, pp. 116-119.)

9. "The land, moreover, shall not be sold permanently, for the land is Mine; for you are but aliens and sojourners with Me" (Lev. 25.23).

10. Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961), pp. 164-5.

11. Ziony Zevit, "Deuteronomistic Historiography in 1 Kings 12-2 Kings 17 and the Reinvestiture of the Israelian Cult," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 32, 1975), pp. 57-73.

12. Noth, pp. 213-14.

13. de Vaux, p. 73. See also de Vaux, p. 167. He also observes that "the go'el did not always exercise his right of pre- emption and the economic development of the first centuries of the monarchy hastened the break-up of family properties in favour of rich landlords."

14. de Vaux, p. 72 "In the early days of the settlement, all the Israelites enjoyed more or less the same standard of living."

15. Bright pp. 244-45, 250.

16. See Jones, p. 353. He states that "No sinister motive can be detected in Ahab's proposal to Naboth...." However, as we have seen above, the inheritance was not to be permanently sold or traded (Lev. 25.23; Num. 36.9). Ahab asked Naboth to violate the land law. This would not have been seen by the Deuteronomistic editor as exactly pure.

17. Jones, p. 353. "Naboth's refusal is based on a religious conviction that God as proprietor of the land of Israel had given it as an inheritance to his people. God also protected the rights of tenants, who held land in trust from him." See Andersen, p. 49 Yahweh owned the land and gave it to His covenant people. "This implies a doctrine, explicitly stated in Lev. 25.23, that Yahweh was the proprietor of the territory of Israel and its donor to his covenant people. He protected the rights of his tenants to their holdings, which they must retain in sacred trust."

18. de Vaux, p. 153.

19. It was not Naboth alone who was executed. See 2 Kings 9.26; Gray, p. 441; Jones, p. 357.

20. I have not encountered any work which questions whether the incident happened at all or not.

21. Napier, p. 374. Napier finds intentional parallels between the deaths of Naboth and Ahab. "In its broader implications then, we submit that 1 Kings 21.19 predicts for the `house of Ahab' a fate corresponding in place and manner to that of Naboth."

22. See Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, Vol. 2 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967), p. 318 "The inheritance of one's fathers is regarded as sacred, and men are not to be inveigled into alienating it for gain."

23. Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, Vol. 1 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961), pp. 88-89.

24. John Bright, A History of Israel, 3rd edition (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981), p. 250.

25. de Vaux, pp. 124-5.

26. Gray, p. 442. Gray noticed the overt covenant violations, but he only mentioned two: murder and coveting (forcefully appropriating) property.

Andersen, Francis I. "The Socio-Juridical Background of the Naboth Incident." Journal of Biblical Literature 85 (1966), pp. 46-57.

Bright, John. A History of Israel, 3rd edition. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981.

DeVries, Simon J. Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 12, 1 Kings. Waco: Word, 1985.

Eichrodt, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament, Vol. 1. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961.

Eichrodt, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament, Vol. 2. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967.

Gray, John. I & II Kings, 2nd. Ed. London: SCM Press, 1970.

Jones, Gwilym H. 1 and 2 Kings, 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.

Miller, J. M. "The Fall of the House of Ahab." Vetus Testamentum 17 (1967), pp. 307- 324.

Napier, B. D. "The Omrides of Jezreel." Vetus Testamentum 9 (1959), pp. 366-378.

North, Robert, S.J. "Social Dynamics from Saul to Jehu." Biblical Theology Bulletin 12 (1982), pp. 109-119.

Noth, Martin. The History of Israel. New York: Harper & Row, 1960.

de Vaux, R. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.

Zevit, Ziony. "Deuteronomistic Historiography in 1 Kings 12-2 Kings 17 and the Reinvestiture of the Israelian Cult." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 32 (1975), pp. 57-73.