Thread by @JamesBejon

THREAD: Innocence, Tyranny, and Intertextuality.

A REQUEST: Bear with me a while here; it will hopefully worth it in the long run.

Below is an anonymised version of a Biblical narrative. I suspect you’ll soon recognise it.

In the days of the kings, Israel won an important battle against the Syrians.

Soon afterwards, a little-known Israelite came to acquire an important possession—a possession which had been in his family for many years.

That possession became very precious to him.

He cherished it. In many respects, it was all he had.

By contrast, the king of Israel was a man of exceptional wealth. (Oddly, however, at the outset of our story, we find him in bed in the middle of the day.)

He had an *array* of possessions like that of the little-known Israelite.

None of them, however, satisfied him.

The king wanted more. Specifically, he wanted what his subject, the little-known Israelite, had.

The king therefore sought to take ownership of his subject’s prized possession. But it turned out to be unlawful for him to do so.

Which (thankfully) put an end to the matter.

Or at least it did for a while.

But, sadly, the king refused to take ‘No’ for an answer,

and the Israelite refused to co-operate with him.

As a result, the king took drastic action.

He wrote a letter to enlist the help of a few select men and had the Israelite killed in the course of duty—an admittedly nasty business,

but then the Israelite shouldn’t have been so stubborn.

With the Israelite out of the way, the king took ownership of the Israelite’s possession, which he was at last able to enjoy as his own.

Or so he thought.

But God had other ideas.

While the king’s helpers had turned a blind eye to his deeds (or been kept in the dark), God had not.

God had seen. And God had taken note of the king’s behaviour. And God was about to bring the king to justice.

The next day, God dispatched one of his prophets to announce the king’s fate.

The prophet confronted the king on his property and declared his sins to him—sins of both unlawful acquisition and of murder.

The result was dramatic.

Despite the king’s backslidden state, the words of the prophet spoke to his heart.

The king did not try to defend his actions.

He immediately confessed his sin and began to fast and pray before the Lord.

And, remarkably, God chose to have mercy on the king.

God said he would not bring disaster on the king in the king’s own lifetime.

Nevertheless, the blood shed by the king would have consequences.

Violence would plague the king’s house and would result in the death of many of his sons.

——————

So then, whose story is this?

David and Bathsheba’s, right?

In part, yes.

But it is also the story of Naboth’s vineyard.

(Read back over it and see how well it fits.)

The parallels between these two stories are not a coincidence.

Indeed, some of the more tangential aspects of Nathan’s parable (2 Sam. 12.1–4) even resonate with Naboth’s story.

For instance, the poor man in the parable is said to ‘acquire’ (קנה) a ewe, which is said to ‘grow up’ (גדל) alongside him and his children.

If the poor man is Uriah and the ewe is Bathsheba, these details seem rather awkward,

but, if the man and his ewe instead describe Naboth and his vineyard, they can be read more naturally.

Naboth ‘acquires’ (קנה) a vineyard which he ‘cultivates’ (גדל cp. Jon. 4.10) and tends.

Also noteworthy is way in which Nathan’s parable locates the rich and the poor man ‘in the same city’ (2 Sam. 12.1).

In the present thread, I consider the parallels between the stories of Ahab and David in more detail and how they can profitably be read in light of one another.

First, then, a few words on the text of 1 Kgs. 21.

Our story begins (unsurprisingly) in v. 1.

Naboth acquires a vineyard (וַיְהִי…כֶּרֶם הָיָה לְנָבוֹת) which is situated next to Ahab’s palace. Ahab could probably see it from his roof.

Unusually, Ahab’s palace is described as a היכל.

The only other structures to be described by the term היכל (in the Biblical narrative) are temples or foreign palaces.

As such, things don’t seem quite right in Ahab’s house.

In v. 2, Ahab asks Naboth if he is prepared to sell him his vineyard.

Ahab expects Naboth to make his decision on the basis of whether or not the idea appeals to him—i.e., ‘seems right in his eyes’ (טוב בעיניו)—since that is the way Ahab makes his decisions.

But, for Naboth, the matter is theological.

The land belongs to YHWH. As such, it is not his to sell (21.3 w. Lev. 25.23–25), which Naboth tells Ahab in no uncertain terms.

In v. 4, Ahab therefore returns to his palace, where he begins to sulk.

He retreats to his room, shuts the door, and refuses to come out for dinner.

Now, every spoilt child like Ahab needs a mother to spoil him, and Ahab’s happens to be Jezebel, who makes her first appearance in our narrative in v. 5. (Jezebel is also Ahab’s wife.)

Jezebel asks poor Ahab why he is so upset. And, in v. 6, he tells her. Ahab’s account of events, however, is rather creative.

For a start, Ahab implies he is still in dialogue with Naboth. He describes his conversation with Naboth by means of an imperfect verbal form (אדבר), i.e., a form connected with incomplete activities.

Furthermore, he omits a vital detail from Naboth’s statement.

In Ahab’s version of events, Naboth’s motivations are not theological; Naboth is simply an awkward character.

‘I will not sell my vineyard!’, Nathan declares, without any explanation as to why.

Jezebel is astounded by Ahab’s attitude.

‘Aren’t you the one who makes (עשה) the rules in Israel?’, she asks.

The answer, of course, is ‘No’. Israel’s rules are made by YHWH. But that is not how Jezebel sees things.

Jezebel therefore tells Ahab to sit tight and relax.

*She* will get him Naboth’s vineyard soon enough.

How she plans to do so Ahab does not ask, but he must have been able to guess.

He knows the vineyard cannot be obtained by legal means,

and he has seen Jezebel at work before (e.g., in her slaughter of YHWH’s prophets: cp. 18.3–4 w. 19.1–2).

Indeed, what follows clearly has Jezebel’s name written all over it, since, while Jezebel’s plan is detailed in letters signed by Ahab (v. 9),

Jezreel’s elders instinctively realise Jezebel is the one behind it (v. 14).

Ahab, however, does not ask any questions since he would rather not what Jezebel is up to.

In v. 8, Jezebel begins to effect her plan.

She drafts a batch of letters in Ahab’s name and sends them to Jezreel’s elders (i.e., the elders of Naboth’s hometown).

Interestingly, her actions are reported differently in the Qere and Ketiv.

The Qere reads (roughly), ‘Jezebel wrote and sealed letters in Ahab’s name, and she sent letters (ספרים) to Naboth’s elders’,

while the Ketiv reads, ‘Jezebel wrote and sealed letters in Ahab’s name, and she then sent those very letters (הספרים) to Naboth’s elders’.

The difference, I assume, as follows.

In the Qere, Jezebel drafts and seals a batch of letters, at which point (per standard ANE conventions) she archives them for posterity’s sake and sends *copies* of those letters to Naboth’s elders (hence the absence of the art. in ספרים).

Note: For attestation of a similar practice, cp. Jer. 32.9–12, where Jeremiah’s purchase deed is said to have both a ‘sealed’ version (kept for posterity’s sake) and an ‘open’ copy (which can be inspected).

In the Ketiv, however, Jezebel drafts and seals a batch of letters, and she then sends those very letters to Naboth’s elders,

which is less conventional, but seems the more likely scenario, since Jezebel would obviously not want her letters to be archived for posterity’s sake.

Rather, she would want plausible deniability. (‘Naboth who!?’)

At any rate, the letters are sent to Jezreel’s elders, who swiftly carry out their instructions.

A fast is proclaimed;

Naboth is seated at the head of the people;

Naboth is (falsely) accused of blasphemy;

and Naboth is consequently stoned to death.

Pas de problème.

Our text’s description of these events (viz. vv. 9–15) is noteworthy for a number of reasons.

First, it suggests Naboth is not only murdered but defamed.

A fast could not be proclaimed for no reason. On what basis, then, did Jezreel’s elders proclaim one? We are not told. But, given Ahab’s continued disobedience (cp. 19.1–20.43),

God may well have afflicted the region with a blight of some kind (cp. 17.1ff.).

If so, the blight would no doubt have been pinned on Naboth.

Not only Naboth’s life is, therefore, taken from him, but his name/reputation as well.

Meanwhile, like so many of the world’s evils, Jezebel’s wickedness is carried out under the guise of religious piety.

Second, it reflects Jezebel’s iron grip on the kingdom of Israel.

The text of v. 12, where the execution of Jezebel’s commands is described, is almost a carbon copy of Jezebel’s original commands:

The similarity between vv. 9 and 12 is significant. What Jezebel commands is carried out to the very letter. No one dares disobey her.

The text of v. 13 is also noteworthy, though for a different reason, since, in grammatical terms, v. 13 subtly rewords Jezebel’s commands.

V. 10 requires the elders of Jezreel to ‘seat’ two false witnesses before Naboth (via a causative verb: הושיבו שני אנשים נגד נבות),

yet, in v. 13, the relevant witnesses are implied to come forward of their own accord (via non-causative verbs: ויבאו שני האנשים…וישבו נגד נבות).

As such, v. 13 reflects how warped Israel’s society has become under Jezebel’s influence.

Naboth is a righteous man, which has probably not made him very popular (given the state of Jezreel’s society).

People are only, therefore, too happy to come forward to testify against him. They do not need encouragement.

Third, our text subtly pays tribute to Naboth’s integrity.

Read literally, the accusation levelled at Naboth claims is as follows:

‘Naboth has blessed both God and king’ (ברך נבות אלהים ומלך).

Given the context of vv. 10 and 13, the verb לברך is clearly meant to be understood euphemistically; that is to say, it is to be read as ‘to curse’ (as it also is in Job 1–2).

But I do not take v. 13’s turn of phrase to be *merely* euphemistic.

Insofar as Naboth refuses to comply with Ahab’s sin, Naboth does in fact bless his God and king (since to keep men from sin is to bless both them and their God).

As such, v. 13’s turn of phrase reflects the integrity of Naboth’s character and the injustice of what is done to him.

Even as he blesses his enemy (Ahab), Naboth is viewed as ‘smitten of God’—a point we will take up later.

Fourth, our text reflects Jezebel’s guile and resourcefulness.

Consider, by way of illustration, how she reports Naboth’s death to Ahab. V. 13 outlines the facts of the matter. At Jezebel’s command, Jezreel’s authorities took Naboth outside the city and stoned him to death.

These facts obviously reflect an act of grave injustice. But Jezebel puts a remarkably positive spin on them.

‘Arise’, she says to Ahab, ‘and take possession of the vineyard which Naboth refused to give you (in exchange for good money), since Naboth is not alive, but dead!’.

Naboth is thus portrayed as the villain of the piece—a man who was made a perfectly reasonable offer which he should have accepted, but stubbornly declined. And now, Jezebel says, Naboth is dead anyway. (Quite how he died remains a mystery though.)

Also noteworthy is Jezebel’s description of Naboth’s condition: ‘Naboth is not alive’, she says, ‘but dead’ (אֵין נָבוֹת חַי כִּי־מֵת).

Jezebel’s statement is, of course, a tautology, but it is not merely a tautology.

Jezebel does not king Ahab to focus on Naboth’s death—a mere detail which she includes only for the sake of completeness—, but on the fact Naboth is no longer alive.

While Naboth was alive, Ahab was unable to take possession of his vineyard.

But now, since Naboth is out of the picture, Ahab is free to fulfil his heart’s desires.

Fifth, our text reflects the callousness of Jezreel’s inhabitants.

No great horror at Jezebel’s behaviour is expressed by our narrator because no outrage is expressed by Jezreel’s elders.

Jezebel’s demands are simply received, processed, and carried out.

The whole account reads in an incredibly callous and matter-of-fact manner.

Just as Jezebel decrees Naboth’s death with a few quick strokes of the pen, so our narrator describes them.

Granted, an innocent man has lost his life in the process, but then life is tough sometimes. You can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs.

————————————

We therefore come to v. 16.

Per Jezebel’s command, Ahab arises and heads down to Jezreel to take possession of Naboth’s vineyard.

But, even as Jezebel’s word is sent to Ahab, the word of YHWH is sent to Elijah the prophet. (Jezebel’s קום רֵשׁ is countered by YHWH’s קום רֵד.)

Hence, just as Ahab is about to enjoy a stroll around his newly acquired possession (and work out where to plant his herbs), he finds himself confronted by Elijah!

Elijah’s charge against Ahab is clear and incisive.

‘Have you not only murdered a man, but also taken possession of his property?’ (הֲרָצַחְתָּ וְגַם־יָרָשְׁתָּ),

the answer to which is ‘Yes’.

Granted, Ahab has distanced himself from the relevant events (and Jezebel has played her part in them too: v. 25).

But Ahab is not thereby absolved of responsibility.

As a Jew who is answerable to YHWH’s law (cp. Deut. 17.18), he should have known better.

As Jezebel’s husband, he must take responsibility for Jezebel’s actions—actions which he not only tacitly endorsed...

...but set in motion in the first place (vv. 4–6).

And, as a king of Israel, he must take responsibility for what has occurred on his watch.

As such, Ahab’s sin is threefold and will be punished in a threefold manner.

Not only *Ahab’s* life will be lost, but the lives of his wife and sons as well.

Ahab’s punishment will also be highly poetic in nature.

Just as Naboth died a dishonourable death, so too will Ahab and his household.

His blood, like Naboth’s, will be licked up by the dogs;

his wife will suffer an even more ignominious fate;

and his sons will be slain and their bodies left to rot in the open air,

while Naboth’s vineyard flows with the blood not of grapes but of Ahab’s heir (2 Kgs. 9.24–26).

And for what? For the sake of a herb garden! The whole affair is as ridiculous as it is tragic.

At the outset of our story, Ahab wanted to buy Naboth’s vineyard—and, in a sense, he succeeded—, but in the process ‘he sold his soul’ (התמכר: v. 25).

And if a man who gains the whole world in exchange for his soul is (in Jesus’ estimation) a fool, then how much foolish is a man who merely gains a herb garden?

Suffice it to say, Ahab’s behaviour ill befits the behaviour of a king.

Indeed, aside from our text’s first verse, the Biblical narrative never once refer to Ahab as a ‘king’ in 1 Kgs. 21, just as 2 Sam. 11 never refers to David as a ‘king’. (Both men are simply referred to as ‘Ahab’ and ‘David’.)

Equally poetic are our text’s comments on Ahab and Naboth’s legacies.

Although Ahab takes possession of Naboth’s vineyard, our narrator does not recognise him as the vineyard’s owner, since, even after Naboth’s death, the text continues to refer to the vineyard as Naboth’s,

which it does on three occasions (vv. 15, 16, 18).

Note: Analogously, after Uriah the Hittite is murdered in 2 Sam. 11.17, the text of 2 Samuel continues to refer to Bathsheba as Uriah’s wife, which it does on three occasions (2 Sam. 11.26, 12.9, 10).

Hence, in his attempt to remove Naboth’s name from Israel’s land registry, Ahab only manages to remove his own name from it.

——————————

FINAL REFLECTIONS:

As we’ve seen, the stories of Ahab and David share a number of contact-points.

Either these connections are coincidental and of no major significance or we are intended to read these men’s stories in light of one another.

I personally incline towards the latter view—which is well and good to say. But what difference does it make?

What do we learn when we consider our stories as a couplet as opposed to isolated incidents?

My suggestions are set out below.

First, the exploitation of power is not an uncommon phenomenon.

Power is repeatedly exploited in Israel’s history—and exploited in an uncannily similar manner—because the tendency to exploit power is intrinsic to man’s fallen nature.

Samuel warns Israel of as much in his coronation Israel’s prototypical fallen king (1 Sam. 8.10–20).

Equally commonplace is the persecution of the unjust.

Since man is given to the exploitation of power, faithful believers will often suffer at the hands of unjust rulers (1 Pet. 4.12–16).

As such, our text cries out for a man who combines the righteousness of a Naboth/Uriah with the power of an Ahab/David,

but, sadly, its cry will go unanswered for many generations.

Second, men with sinful desires invariably involve other people in their sinful acts.

Ahab is the instigator of our text’s crimes, and Jezebel is their main perpetrator,

but others are also involved, as they are in David’s story.

In both stories, then, sin is able to flourish not merely because of the power of a few ungodly men, but because of the silence-cum-complicity of many others.

Third, Bathsheba is treated like an object in the course of 2 Sam. 11’s events.

The counterpart of Naboth’s vineyard is David’s story is not a plot of land but *Bathsheba*, which is an instructive detail.

David views and treats Bathsheba as a mere object—a possession, a commodity to be ‘acquired’.

As such, David mistreats Bathsheba, who should not be viewed as complicit in 2 Sam. 11’s affairs.

Bathsheba is not an ‘actor’ in the narrative, but an individual who is acted *upon* (in unlawful ways).

Fourth, when the poor are exploited by the rich (and the weak by the powerful), God does not always intervene.

As Ahab and Jezebel go about the slaughter an innocent man (21.1–16), the name of YHWH disappears from the text (aside from Naboth’s exclamation חלילה לי מיהוה = ‘God forbid!’).

And the same thing happens when David and Joab commit the same crime (2 Sam. 11.1–26).

The only ‘lord’ (אדני) mentioned in the text is David, which says a lot about David’s mindset at the time.

In the end, however, God has his say. And, in God’s good time, he brings every man to account.

Tyrannical kings think blood is merely blood. They think voices are silenced when their owners are slain.

But Scripture states otherwise.

Throughout the centuries, the blood of the innocent/righteous has been spilt on the earth (from Abel onwards).

And the God of heaven has heard its voice.

Moreover, that same God will restore the lives of the righteous, for, while the OT’s final word on the condition of Naboth is ‘He is not alive, but dead’,

the NT is the story of a man who can declare, ‘I once was dead, but now​ am alive, and I hold the keys of death and hell’ (Rev. 1.18).

Fifth, the sin committed by David in 2 Sam. 11 is extraordinarily grievous.

Ahab is one of Israel’s worst kings. Yet, when we read his story alongside David’s, it only makes David’s sin look worse.

Left to his own devices, Ahab would have taken ‘No’ for an answer (v. 4).

He required a Jezebel to escalate the matter. David, however, directs 2 Sam. 11’s affairs without any assistance.

Moreover, while Ahab realises he’s been ‘found out’ as soon as Elijah appears, David is untroubled by the appearance of Nathan.

He has managed to justify his behaviour and requires a persuasively worded parable (in the style of Rom. 1–2) in order to convict him of his sinfulness.

Men are disturbingly good at self-deception.

Sixth, if the sin committed by David in 2 Sam. 11 is extraordinarily grievous, then the mercy outpoured on him is extraordinarily gracious.

Given David’s sin, God could have brought an end to David’s line, just as he brought an end to Ahab’s.

But the Messianic line lives a charmed life in the Biblical narrative.

In its first few years, it almost dies out, yet is revived by the ‘resurrection’ of Isaac.

In the events of Gen. 38, it descends into Canaan’s darkness, yet somehow emerges blessed.

In the book of Ruth, it appears to implode (due to its incorporation of a Moabite), yet a principle of grace at work within it overcomes the law’s demands (cp. Rom. 5.20), as is suggested by @DrPJWilliams here:

https://twitter.com/DrPJWilliams/status/1180465095501123585

And, in the prophecies of Jeremiah, it is apparently doomed by Jehoiachin’s curse, yet, by means of Shealtiel’s intervention, it is enabled to continue—a subject I may tweet about at some point in the future.

2 Sam. 12’s events can be viewed in light of the same concept/principle.

While Ahab’s line is cursed, David’s is allowed to continue due to God’s gracious and superabundant purpose for it.

Just as the Messianic line is a *means* of grace, so it is *covered* by grace.

Seventh, the stories of Ahab and David provide us with a remarkable picture of Christ’s sacrifice.

Jesus is not Scripture’s first ‘innocent victim’.

On the contrary, Jesus is the culmination of a long line of innocent victims—a notion which he takes to a completely new level.

On the one hand, Jesus’ life can be viewed in light of Uriah’s.

Jesus is sent to the battlefield with his death warrant in his hand.

Out of solidarity to his brethren, he declines his means of escape/relief.

As a man under authority, he follows orders.

And, as a forerunner, he heads into the heart of the enemy’s territory, where he is slain due to man’s envy and weakness.

But Jesus’ life can equally well (or perhaps better) be viewed in light of Naboth’s.

The etymology of the name ‘Naboth’ (נבות) is unclear, but it is evocative of the term נבה = ‘prophet’, and Naboth is certainly treated like a prophet (insofar as he is slain by Jezebel: 18.3–4).

As such, Naboth’s life can be seen as a picture of Jesus’, who is the culmination of Israel’s line of prophets (cp. Matt. 21.33ff.).

Both men defend the purity of God’s law against a corrupt and unjust regime.

Both men remain true to their principles, despite their position of weakness.

Although both men are mistreated, God does not intervene in their affairs (until their blood cries out from the grave).

Both men are falsely accused by two witnesses in the midst of a religious assembly.

Both men are accused of blasphemy and (wrongfully) treated as sinners.

Both men own a vineyard and are slain so others can take possession of it.

And both men are ultimately carried outside an important city, where they are left to die an ignominious death.

But, of course, the deaths of Naboth and Jesus are also different in an all-important way.

While the blood of Naboth only brings condemnation to those who are involved with it, the blood of Jesus brings redemption.

Moreover, the day will come when, in the person of the risen Messiah, a greater righteous than Naboth and Uriah’s will be combined with a greater power than Ahab and David’s, and authority will never be exploited again.

Please RT if helpful.

Pdf here: academia.edu/40650265/Innoc…