Melakhim I Chapter 21 – The Vineyard of Navot and the Use of Repetition in the Biblical Narrative

The story of Navot’s vineyard is a horrible tale of governmental corruption and abuse of an ordinary citizen. At first glance, the blame seems to lie solely with Izevel, Achav’s wife, but God and Eliyahu hold Achav fully guilty: "Have you murdered, and also seized possession? ...I am about to bring evil upon you, and I will burn up every last trace of you." Upon closer examination, we can see Achav’s culpability, but first, let us introduce an essential literary tool: repetition.

The Tanakh uses various methods to describe events. We might hear details as they happen from the objective narrator in what is called an enactment. Alternatively, we may hear a future plan of what is to occur, such as through prophecy, command, or request, termed a forecast. Lastly, events may be recounted later by one of the characters, in what is referred to as a report.

Sometimes, the Tanakh uses only one of these methods. For example, a divine command might simply be followed by “And so he did”, or a past event we've read about might be summarized, as in “Mordechai told him all that had happened” instead of repeating the story. However, sometimes the Tanakh chooses to repeat an event two or three times, offering a rare glimpse into how characters experienced the event or how they chose to retell it. In our chapter, a series of repetitions sheds new light on the entire story.

Achav initially approaches Navot with a generous and reasoned offer: "Give me your vineyard so that I can use it as a vegetable garden, for it is right next to my home. I will give you a better vineyard in its place, or, if you prefer, I will give you its worth in silver.” He presents Navot with the choice of an upgrade or cash compensation. Navot replies with a reasoned refusal containing two parts: “But Navot said to Achav, 'The Lord forbid that I should give up my ancestral share to you.'” Navot refuses on religious grounds, unwilling to give up his ancestral land.

The Tanakh describes Achav’s reaction, revealing what he truly heard in Navot’s response: "Achav came home, dour and sullen over what Navot the Jezreelite had told him: ‘I will not give up my ancestral share to you.’” Achav disregards the religious reasoning and noticed only the tribal argument. In Achav’s view, tribal pride does not justify Navot’s refusal, leaving him upset and dejected.

When Achav recounts the event to Izevel, further alterations emerge. In describing his offer to Navot, Achav reverses the order of the monetary and vineyard offers, totally leaves out the generous promise of a superior vineyard, and substitutes it with an offer for just another vineyard. He says, "I spoke to Navot the Jezreelite' he told her, 'and I said to him, ‘Give me your vineyard for silver, or, if you prefer, I will give you a vineyard in its place.’” As the narrative unfolds, it becomes clear that Achav fears Izevel, a tough queen who mocks his weakness. To avoid appearing weak in front of his subject, he downplays the generosity of his offer.

The most significant change, however, is in Navot’s refusal. Achav omits all reasoning: “But he said, ‘I will not give you my vineyard.’” No tribal, nor religious explanation — just pure aggravating stubbornness. Izevel’s response is decisive: "'Why you must now exercise your royal rights over Israel', his wife Izevel said to him. 'get up and eat, and take heart. I will give you the vineyard of Navot the Jezreelite'.” What follows is Izevel’s detailed and vicious plot, which we readers witness in full detail. Achav, however, hears only the outcome: “take possession... for Navot is no longer alive; he is dead.” Without questioning the details, Achav promptly inherits the vineyard.

Eliyahu’s rebuke targets Achav with severity. Achav had allowed a queen ruling in a Sidonian-style monarchy to infiltrate Israel, a queen he feared from himself. He presented her with a misleading and incomplete story, and when she executed her plan, he eagerly took possession of the field. Though Achav’s hands may have been clean of direct action, his moral culpability remains clear: he both murdered and seized possession.