Which was in Jezreel. — The LXX. omits these words, and makes the vineyard to be “hard by the threshing-floor of Ahab, king of Samaria” — the word being the same as that rendered “void place” in 1 Kings 22:10 — apparently near the palace of Ahab in Samaria, not in Jezreel. The Vulgate renders “who was” instead of “which was” in Jezreel. The question of the position of the vineyard, apparently the scene of Naboth’s murder, is difficult. The “plot of ground” of Naboth, referred to in 2 Kings 9:25-26 — not, however, called “a vineyard” — is clearly at Jezreel. where, as a native of the place, Naboth would be likely to hold land. But the vineyard may have been an outlying property near Samaria, which Ahab might naturally suppose Naboth, even for that reason, likely to sell. In favour of this supposition — which is, perhaps, on the whole the more probable — is the very emphatic prediction of 1 Kings 21:19, which in 1 Kings 22:38 is declared to have been fulfilled at the pool of Samaria. Moreover, the whole action of the chapter, as far as Ahab is concerned, seems to have been at Samaria; and, indeed, if we take 1 Kings 21:18 literally, this is actually declared to be the case. On the other side, however, we have the reading of the text, the more obvious interpretation of the words “his city” in 1 Kings 21:8; 1 Kings 21:11; and the reference to the prophecy of Elijah, in connection with the casting of the body of Jehoram into the plot of ground at Jezreel (2 Kings 9:25-26). It is, perhaps, impossible to clear up the discrepancy entirely with our present knowledge.
(2–4) And Ahab spake. — The whole history is singularly true to nature. At first, as the desire of Ahab was natural, so his offer was courteous and liberal. The refusal of Naboth — evidently grounded on the illegality, as well as the natural dislike, of alienation of “the inheritance of his fathers” (see Leviticus 25:13-28; Numbers 36:7), and therefore not only allowable, but right — has nevertheless about it a certain tone of harshness, perhaps of unnecessary discourtesy, implying condemnation, as well as rejection, of the offer of the king. It is characteristic of the weak and petulant nature of Ahab, that he neither recognises the legality and justice of Naboth’s action, nor dares to resent the curt defiance of his refusal. Like a spoilt child, he comes back sullen and angry, throws himself on his bed, and will eat no bread. All that he has is as nothing, while the little plot of ground is refused; as to Haman all was worthless, while Mordecai the Jew sat in the king’s gate (Esther 5:13). This temper of sullen, childish discontent is the natural seedplot of crime, under the instigation of more determined wickedness.