to learn what would call for our active resistance, or, in the absence of it, fill our conscience with uneasiness. And

while remaining in willful ignorance, Ahab may have flattered himself that he had not incurred responsibility in the

murder of Naboth.

The measures of Jezebel were at least plain and straightforward. The old Mosaic civil order still continued in Israel by

which jurisdiction, even in matters of life and death, lay in the first instance with the "judges and officers" of a place

(Deuteronomy 16:18). This local "senate," consisting partly of elected life -members, partly of what may be designated

a hereditary aristocracy, might in times of corruption become subject to court influence, especially in a small royal

borough such as Jezreel. Jezebel knew this only too well, and with a terrible frankness wrote to each member of that

senate what would seem the king's directions. By these each recipient of the letter would become a fellow-conspirator,

and each feel bound to keep the horrible secret. As if some great sin rested upon the city (comp. 1 Samuel 7:6), and, in

consequence of it, some heavy judgment were to be averted, (2 Chronicles 20:2-4; Jeremiah 36:6, 9), the eldership of

Israel gathered the people to a solemn fast. If it had been so, and some great sin had been committed or were even

suspected, it would have been the duty of the city thus to purge itself of guilt or complicity. For according to the deep

and true idea which underlay all the institutions of the Old Testament, t here is solidarity (as it is called in modern

language) between those whom God has placed side by side. There is solidarity between all the members of the human

family - solidarity of curse and of blessing, of judgment and of promise, because all have spru ng from a common stock.

There is solidarity also in a city, since ten righteous men might have preserved Sodom from destruction; solidarity in a

nation, since the sins or the piety of its rulers were returned in blessing or in judgment on the people - a solidarity

which as it pointed back to a common ancestry, also pointed forward to the full and final realization of its inmost

meaning in that great brotherhood of believers which Christ came to found. And hence it was that, when blood had

been shed and the doer of the crime -remained unknown, the elders of the district had by a solemn act to clear

themselves of the guilt (Leviticus 4:13, etc.; Deuteronomy 21:1-9), and that, as here, when a great crime was supposed

to have been committed, all would humble themselves in fasting before they put away the evil-doer from among them.

In the assembly thus called Naboth was to be "set on high," not in order to assign him an honorable place, so as the

more effectually to rouse public indignation when one so honored wa s convicted of such crime, nor yet to give the

appearance of impartiality to the proceedings that were to follow. Evidently the fast had been appointed in humiliation

for a sin as yet unknown to the people, and the assembly was called to set before them the nature of this crime. For this

purpose Naboth was "set on high," as one incriminated before the elders, against whom witnesses were to rise, and on

whom judgment was to be pronounced by the people of his own city. This explains (ver. 10) how these "two s ons of

Belial"  59 who were to bear false testimony against Naboth were "set before him."

The sacred text only informs us that the two witnesses (comp. Deuteronomy 17:6, etc.; 19:15; Numbers 35:30) testified

that Naboth had "blasphemed" - uttered blasphemo us language against "God and the king." It is scarcely conceivable

that Naboth should not have made some defense, nor that the people would have given so ready credence to such a

charge against one so well known, if some colorable confirmation could not have been found for it. May it not have

been that the refusal of the vineyard to Ahab had become known to the townsmen of Naboth, and that these two sons of

Belial were suborned to say that Naboth had at the same time pronounced in their hearing a curse upon Ahab - perhaps

also that he had uttered threats of resistance? Such a solemn curse would be regarded as an act of blasphemy, not only

against the king, but primarily against God, Whose authorized representative the king was (comp. Exodus 22:28). But

blasphemy against God was to be punished by stoning (Deuteronomy 13:10; 17:5).  60

As in all such cases, the punishment was immediately carried out, and apparently in Naboth's own vineyard, (Compare

1 Kings 21:19; 2 Kings 9:25,26.) where the witnesses would, according to our suggestion, have located the

"blasphemy" spoken in reply to the request of the king. It is not necessary to suppose (as some commentators have

done) that the property of a man stoned for such a crime was treated like that of one on whom the b an was pronounced,

since in that case it would have been laid waste, not given to the king (Deuteronomy 13:16). But it was quite natural

that the property of one who had been found guilty of high treason should be forfeited to the Crown. And so, when the

elders of Jezreel informed Jezebel that Naboth was stoned, she could tell her royal husband to go and take possession of

the vineyard that had been refused him for purchase by "the Jezreelite," since Naboth was dead.

There was bitter as well as haughty irony in the words of Jezebel, as if she had felt herself a queen whose wishes and

commands were above all law, human or Divine, and could not be resisted by God or man (ver. 15). The text gives no

indication that she had informed Ahab of the manner of Naboth's death; nor did the king make inquiry. But there was