Naboth’s Vineyard
Some expository thoughts on 1 Kings 21: 1 – 14 [1]
Our passage is a revealing one since it gives us much detail of the characters involved. A king and one of his subjects have a talk on a matter of business which leads the queen to plan the subject’s death; a simple account perhaps, but full of spiritual significance.
We are told that Naboth owned a vineyard “hard by the palace of [king] Ahab”. This means, in fact, that Naboth’s vineyard was virtually next door to the royal palace. We need not assume that the king actually objected to having Naboth as a neighbour. It was simply that he wanted to have the vineyard for himself. He was like a spoiled child who, when he sees something that appeals to him can only say “I want it”.
But let us be fair to Ahab where fairness is due; originally he only wanted to have the vineyard so that he could turn it into a vegetable garden to serve the needs of the palace. The fact that it was so near obviously made it more attractive. So, the king explained this to Naboth and promised that if he would hand over the ownership of the vineyard, then in exchange he would be given a better vineyard somewhere else or, if he preferred its cash value.
On the surface the whole offer seems so very reasonable perfectly and fair. Naboth had a piece of ground that could be very handy for the king. He is being given what seems like a fair and reasonable offer. Is Naboth’s peremptory refusal not a little bit churlish?
The clue to this really lies in the view that the Israelites took of their own private property inherited from their forefathers. To them their property was not just something to be owned for a while and then sold at will. Rather, it was part of their religious heritage, part of the land of promise that the Lord had given their forefathers and which would be passed down from father to son from generation to generation. The God-fearing Naboth would not - could not – sell his land or even exchange it for something better, no matter how attractive the offer might seem. Their inheritance was given by God and, as such, could not be alienated. As the invaluable Matthew Henry puts it: “Canaan was in a peculiar manner God’s land; the Israelites were His tenants; and this was one of the conditions of their leases that they should not alienate any part of that which fell to their lot unless in case of extreme necessity and then only till the year of Jubilee, Lev 25: 28.”
There is an interesting illustration of this point in the book of the prophet Jeremiah. Jerusalem was about to be overthrown by the Chaldeans when the prophet heard that a plot of ground in his native village of Anathoth which belonged to a kinsman named Hanameel had come up from sale. Jeremiah had the right of both inheritance and redemption and as such he was religiously obliged to buy it to prevent it going out of the family, which would have been seen as a disgrace (Jer. 32: 6 – fin). He did this at a time when Jerusalem was in great danger.
Now, it would seem very foolish to buy land just at the time when the city was about to be overrun by the enemy, but Jeremiah did buy it and publicly – almost ostentatiously – took possession of the title deed to the land and had it placed in a sealed jar for preservation. This was a sign – a sign that no matter how dark things appeared, the Lord still had a purpose fpor his people. The day would come when once again they would be able to work and inherit their own land (verse 43) which was part of the promise of God.
It was for such reasons that Naboth was so emphatic when he declined to sell his vineyard even to such an important person as the king. “The Lord forbid,” he said, “that I should give you the inheritance of my fathers.” Of course, as Ahab was himself an Israelite, he knew that Naboth was right and so he made no attempt to argue. He went back into his own house, vexed and angry. He lay down on his bed with his face to the wall and refused to eat any food. He was frustrated because his plan for the vegetable garden had been thwarted and there was nothing that he, even as the king could do about it. Naboth was quite within his rights – indeed his attitude in the circumstances was the correct one – so all that Ahab could do was sulk.
The story might well have ended there. Ahab would have got over his chagrin and no more might have been heard of the matter. However, at this point in the drama there enters the formidable figure of Ahab’s wife, Jezebel. She was not an Israelite by birth. She came from the Phoenicians – a brilliant pagan race. Jezebel had inherited this brilliance and, along with it, all the ruthlessness of an oriental despot. To her, the religious tradition of Israel, with its firm belief in the one true and living God, was something to be stamped out at all costs and replaced by the Baal gods of her own country; and she certainly did not spare herself in the effort. It was so sad that her efforts were not directed towards the truth. Had Divine Providence made Jezebel an ally of Elijah instead of an adversary, they would have been a formidable force in the Lord’s cause. But, as it was, Elijah and Jezebel were destined to be sworn enemies. In fact, Elijah prophesied that the dogs would eat Jezebel within the bounds of Jezreel and in due time this shocking and terrible event came to pass. There was no happy ending for Jezebel.
The point that Jezebel could not – or would not – see was that for Naboth this piece of ground was not just any old piece of property to be bought and sold at will, nor was it an investment; it was part and parcel of his religious faith and life. To sell or exchange this vineyard would be, in fact, a subtle way of selling out not only his personal faith but also the faith of his forefathers. Such action could not even be considered.
Sometimes we can be caught in a similar situation. We can be given what seems to be a reasonable offer to sell out for an apparently attractive price or to exchange for something that seems superficially equivalent or perhaps even better. Perhaps that is why so many people have, often unthinkingly, sold out on the spiritual values of the eternal gospel in favour of some bogus “modern” theology or in favour of a purely secular type of social concern or involvement.
It is very tempting for many who are not mature in the faith to forget that Christianity is, in the very best sense, exclusive. It is the claim of the Christian Gospel that it – and it alone – gives a unique solution not only to the problems of the individual, but to the history of the whole world.
Christians would not want to deny the value of social action and witness. Indeed, evangelicals were frequently pioneers of reform in former days. But ultimately ever our finest and bravest works come under the judgment of God, before whom we are all unworthy servants. We do not and cannot justify ourselves to God but rather we come empty handed, clinging only to the Cross of Christ and pleading his eternal sacrifice. As the Apostle Peter said “... there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
We have, as Christians, the most precious of all heritages but that does not mean that we can be content to pull up the drawbridge and sit in the ivory tower. It certainly does not mean that we can be content with a mere status quo as if that is all that matters. We must remember that being called a “Christian” is a costly thing and that if we call ourselves such, then we need to be ready for all the consequences.
The church naturally wants to bring people in. When we look at the life of Jesus, we see that he mixed with ordinary people in all the circumstances of life, from weddings to funerals, from work to picnics. Jesus was inclusive and certainly not exclusive. Yet, there are lines that need to be drawn and this is not always easy.
There is an important dividing line between accommodating and compromising. Given the forces of secularism and the marginalising of Christian values, there is always a real temptation to compromise. But if we are to speak of “moving with the times”, we have to be careful not to dilute the Christian message so much that people cannot tell the difference between the church and the world. It is one thing to move with the times; it is quite another to be moved uncritically by the times. Put it another way – if you or I were in a country where Christianity is suppressed and we are on trial for being Christians, would there be enough evidence to convict us? (I say that to myself more than to anyone else.)
Like Naboth, we have received a great heritage and we have received it only through the grace of God. Through that grace, we have been chosen to be heirs of what we do believe to be the one true faith. Of course, the church has not always got it right and there are things that have happened in the past that we could wish had never taken place or had been handled differently. Yet through that Christian faith, we have received some of the greatest traditions and noblest aspirations made known, by the grace of God, to man.
We did not create our heritage; it is something that has been passed down to us and which we aspire to pass on to the next generation, hopefully strengthened and renewed. Like Naboth, we are expected to look after, protect and defend this precious heritage and not to trade it in for anything else, no matter how pleasing and attractive it might seem at a superficial level.
Again, like Naboth, although we want to keep and guard our heritage we do not do this out of greed or selfishness. It is our hope that the great message of the Gospel can be passed on to others in the best possible state. The Christian Gospel is not something to be passed on and presented as something that is worn out, shabby, second rate – something that we only half believe in. The Good News of the Gospel is something that is living and true, grounded in Jesus Christ as the incarnate crucified and risen Lord. Indeed, throughout the history of the Christian church, it has always been most effective when it presents Jesus Christ to the world.
The great covenanting leader, Samuel Rutherford, often felt that he had to preach quite politically about the situation in Scotland as he saw it. But one morning he was preaching on Jesus Christ and one man in the congregation shouted out in encouragement – “Ye speak o’ Jesus Christ. Haud ye to it!”
It is in this sense that we can talk about the Gospel being exclusive – not as something that we want to keep to ourselves in some holy huddle but as treasure of which we are called to be stewards and evangelists.
My hope is built on nothing less
Than Jesus’ blood and righteousness
I dare not trust my sweetest frame
But wholly lean on Jesus’ name
On Christ the solid rock I stand
All other ground is sinking sand.