Charles Ellicott Commentary 1 Kings 21:1

"And it came to pass after these things, that Naboth the Jezreelite had a vineyard, which was in Jezreel, hard by the palace of Ahab king of Samaria." — 1 Kings 21:1 (ASV)

Which was in Jezreel.—The Septuagint 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. However, the vineyard may have been an outlying property near Samaria, which Ahab might naturally suppose Naboth, even for that reason, likely to sell.

In favor 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 hand, 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 current knowledge.

(2–4) And Ahab spake.—The whole history is singularly true to nature. At first, as Ahab’s desire was natural, so his offer was courteous and liberal. Naboth’s refusal—evidently grounded on the illegality, as well as the natural dislike, of alienating the inheritance of his fathers (Numbers 36:7), and therefore not only allowable but right—nevertheless has about it a certain tone of harshness, perhaps of unnecessary discourtesy, implying condemnation, as well as rejection, of the king’s offer.

It is characteristic of Ahab’s weak and petulant nature that he neither recognizes the legality and justice of Naboth’s action, nor dares to resent the curt defiance of his refusal. Like a spoiled child, he comes back sullen and angry, throws himself on his bed, and will eat no bread. All that he has is as nothing to him while the little plot of ground is refused; just as for 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.