The Pulpit Commentary — 1 Kings — Section 505

readiness with which he reaped the fruits of her crime makes him a partaker in her ein. It is e. oom.mon saying that the '' receiver is as bad as the thief." And he must have known that" Jezebel could not give this vineyard with dry hands." 3. The depra'IJit1J of Jezebel. Great e.s Ahab's guilt was, it was altogether eclipsed by that of his wife. At her door lies the ren.l sin of the murder. The hands that accomplished it were not so guilty as the hen.rt that suggested it and the mind that planned it. Ahab broke the tenth, Jezebel the sixth, eighth, ninth, and tenth comma,ndments. Covetousness, false witness, murder, confiscation, she stands convicted of them all. But what lends its most hideous feature to her sin is the consideration that she, the sworn foe of the law of Jehovah, availed herself of its forms to compass Na.both's death. Was ever such black-hearted ingenuity as hers? We ca.n fancy her laughing in her sleeve at the crafty use she made of the hated system of the Jews. We can see her shaking her finger at Na.both and say- ing "Simple fool I thou hast stood out for the law; tbou shalt have a surfeit of it this time.'' It is possible that she rejoiced at the base part to which she commits the elders of J ezreel. If they will cling to their austere and gloomy creed, she will make them carry out its provisions. To this shameful murderess it added zest to her sin that she scored a triumph against the followers and the law of the God of Israel. We must also observe the evident satisfaction, the malicious triumph, with which she bears of Naboth's death. Su far from feeling the least compunction, she hurries with the good news to her husband. Her part, so far as we know, is absolutely without a. parallel of all the daughters of our first mother. What name is there so deservedly infamous as hers? 4. The corruption of the elders. We may readily acquit them of liking the task entailed upon them. They could not embark on that course of crime without many qualms of conscience and secret self-upbra.idings. But the name of J czebel inspired so much terror that they da.red not resist her will. Their sin was, first, that they feared man more than God. It was unbelief at bottom; they had more faith in the finger of the queen than in the o.rm of the Almighty. They argueJ, as the Turkish peasant does, that the queen was near a.nd God was o. long wny off. It was, secondly, that they abused their oflioe. In defiance of law (Exod. xxiii. 2, 6; Deut. xvi. 19), they wrested judgment and condemned the innocent (Dent. xxvii. 19, 25), and so they she.re with Jezebel the guilt of the murder. It is idle to plead the constraint put upon them, to say tha.t they would have died had they resisted her; they should have died rather the.n sle.y the innocent. But for their com- plaisance, the queen might have been baffled. One might reasonably expect elders -the "judges and officers'' of the land (Deut. xvi. 18)-to a.nswer, "We ought to obey God rather than man." History tells of many judges who ha-ve withstood the corrupt commands of their sovereign. During the Mohammedan rule in Spain one of the caliphs took forcible possession of a field belonging to one of his subjects. This man, as a forlorn hope, stated hls grievance before the kadi, a 1D.l1Il renowned for his integrity, and the ke.di promised to bring his oase before the king. Loo.d- ing his mule with a eack of earth whioh he had taken from the stolen field, he strode into the presence of the prince, o.nd asked him to be so good as to lift the sa.ok of earth to his shoulders. The caliph tried to oomply with his request, but the burden proved too heavy for him; he oould not move, still less carry, it. "Wretched man I" cried the judge," see what thou hast done. Thou canst not carry • one mule's burden of the earth of this field of which thou hast deprived thy subject. How, then, canst thou hope to sustain the whole field on thy shoulders in the dread- ful ~ay of judgment? " The appeal wa.s successful; the prince made immediate restitution and rewarded the judge. But nothing of this kind did the elders of Jezreel. They only feared for their skins. They argued that one or the other must die, and if so it must be Naboth. And so he died, and they bore the stain of blood upon their souls. 6. The perjury of the witnesaea. It is hardly correct to describe their sin as perjury. It was muoh more than that. It was actual murder also. As witnesses, they had to cast the first stone-to take the principal part in the execution. Even without this they were guilty of murder, for it wns upon their testimony tho.t ti16 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [oB. XXI. 1-29. --- ------------------------------ Na both wru; condemned to die. They shnre with the elders, consequently, the guilt of violating the sixth and ninth commandments. But they were "sons of Belial" to begin with. They were not ministers of God; still less were they the "Lord's anointed." And they were but instruments in the hand of others. The elders were the hand ; the queen was the head. It is clear, then, that N aboth's death was e. true martyrdom. He died e. victim to his faith in God and bis obedience t-0 law. He was e. witness (µapro~·), consequently, for God no less than Elijah or Elisha. Like Elijah, he was a public vindicator of the law, and he sealed his witness with his blood. He died because be would not deny it; because others, its guardians and executors, violated and abused it. But if any deny his right to be enrolled in the army of martyrs, it only needs to compare bis end with that of the protomartyr Stephen, and indeed with thn,t of our blessed Lord. The analogy could not well be closer. 1. The same passions and influences were at work in each case. It was unbelief and pride and covetousness occasioned the death of Nn.both. These were the forces arrayed against our Lord and against Stephen. Was there a coveted vineyard in one case? so there was in the other (Luken::. 14, 15). 2. The tribunals were equally corrupt. The Sanhe- drim was the counterpart of the elders ; the council of Jerusalem of that of J ezreel (Jlfatt. xxvi. 59 ; Acts v:i. 12). 3. The princes of this world occasioned the death of Naboth; the princes of this world took counsel againRt the Christ (Acts :iv. 26, 27), and crucified the Lord of glory (1 Cor. ii. 8). 4. The charge was the same in every case, viz., blasphemy (Matt. xxvi 65; Acts v:i. 13). The variation :is extremely slight: "God and the king" in one case; " against Moses and God" in another (Acts v:i. 11). 5. The charge was made in each instance by men who were con- spicuously law-breakers (John xvii. 19; Acts vii 53), and it was made in the name of law (John xix. 7; Acts. v:i. 14). 6. The means used to compass the death were alike in every case, viz., false witness (Matt. xxvi 59, 60; Acts v:i. 11, 13). 7. Each of these three martyrs suffered without the gate (Acts vii. 58 : Heb. xiii. 12). Like Naboth, Stephen was stoned; like Naboth, our Lord would have been stoned if the Jews had had the power (John xviii 31), and if the counsel of God had not willed otherwise (Acts iv. 28). 8. There is indeed one difference, and that is sug- gestive. The martyrs of our religion prayed for their murderers (Luke xxiii. 34; Acts vii. 60); the martyrs of Judaism could only cey, "The Lord look on it and require it " (2 Chron. n::iv. 22). The blood of the covenant speaks better things than the blood of N aboth. Vers. 17-24.-Divine RetaUation. We hn,ve just seen Naboth martyred because of his fidelity to law; we have seen him murdered by men who in the name of law violated all the laws of God and man. Now the dispensation under which these men lived promised a present recom- pense, a temporal reward, to obedience, and it denounced temporal punishment against" every transgression and disobedience.'' We may imo.gine, consequently, how this tragedy would strike the men of thn,t o.ge. They would see in it a_ direct failure of justice. They would ask whether there wo.s a God that judgeth m the earth. They would look, and especially the God-fearing amongst them, in utter perplexity and distress on this conspicuous insto.nce of the triumph of force and wrnng. "What is the Almighty," they would be tempted to ask,'' tho.t we should 6erve him? and what profit should we have if we pray unto him ? " (Job xxi. 15.) They would be tempted to think that " in keeping of his commo.ndments there was no reward ; yes, even tempted to say in their hearts, "There is no God" (Psa. liii. 1). It would have been strange, therefore, if such 0, red-ho.nded, cold-blooded murder had passed unnoticed and unavenged ; if the dogs had been l_eft _to feast o_n the remains of No.both, and Ahab had been suffered to enter on his vmeyo.rd without protest. But this was not to be. The men of J ezreel had not seen the Inst net in the tragedy. They must learn that "no reckoning is brought in the midst of the meal; the end pays for all ; '' they must be taught to count no man happy before bis death. They must be reminded that there is a prophet in Israel, o.nd a God of OD, XXI. 1-29.] 'l'HE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. IH7