1Kings 21:1-21, the story of Ahab and Naboth’s vineyard, is
the Hebrew Scripture from the Lectionary for this coming Sunday, June 12. As I
have been reflecting on this, I thought that it spoke to political leadership
and campaigns. To appreciate the power of this story requires some familiarity
with conditions in during the Divided Kingdom Ahab’s reign in the Northern
Kingdom of Israel where foreign, pagan influences identified with the Phoenician
Baal worship of Jezebel.
The Hebrew kings had their power and wealth specifically
circumscribed in Deuteronomy 17:14-20. So when Jezebel chides Ahab, “Do you now
govern Israel?” (v. 7) she is thinking in terms of the absolute despots who
were above the law and common among pagans. She mocks Ahab as too weak a king.
Though pagan influences in the Northern Kingdom of Israel
had diluted the force of Mosaic Law, some such as Naboth still adhered to it.
Thus he would neither sell nor trade for the land designated as his ancestral
inheritance. Whether a clear line of succession from the time of Joshua could
be documented does not diminish Naboth’s appeal to this principle.
Interestingly, when Ahab first approached Naboth (v. 2) he
first offers a trade and gives Naboth the option of selling it for money. But when Ahab is explaining it to Jezebel (v.
6), he first mentions buying the vineyard for money and second said he offered
to trade. I suspect the shift in order suggests that Ahab was hoping to appeal
to a certain Hebrew mentality when talking to Naboth and reveals more pagan
priorities when talking to Jezebel.
Ironically, Jezebel does have enough of an understanding of
Hebrew law to manipulate it to accomplish her nefarious purposes. She arranges
for two false witnesses to testify that Naboth had cursed God and the king so
the city elders will condemn him to death by stoning. So rather than just a
royal decree (such as when Herod had John the Baptist beheaded) as would be
typical for a pagan despot, she arranged for the appearance of a Hebrew trial
and execution.
With our modern, casual interchange of God and Lord, as though they
were equivalent, we also miss an important distinction in the text. They
translators do try to clarify for us if we will pay attention. Naboth answered
Ahab (v. 3) “The Lord forbid that I
should give you my ancestral inheritance.” The use of “Lord” is translators’ code that the Hebrew word is YHWH, the
personal proper name for the God of Israel. Whereas Jezebel has the false
witnesses say that Naboth has cursed God. This is translators’ code that the
Hebrew word is ELOHIM, which might be understood more generally as “the deity.”
To me this suggests Naboth believed he had a personal relationship with the God
of Israel, while Jezebel (and presumably Ahab) were thinking more generically,
lumping the God of Israel together with the pagan gods.
Perhaps those who read this far are bored with what I find
fascinating in the passage but have kept reading to find out what I think it
has to do with political leadership and campaigns.
Through its history the US has had both strong and weak
Presidents. Sometimes the strong ones are politically able to expand the power
of the office because of responding to a time of crisis such as war or economic
decline. But these strong Presidents have always had their critics and
detractors who complain that they are overreaching the authority granted to
them by the US Constitution.
To be sure, Franklin Roosevelt has been both lauded as a
strong President who led the country in the crises of both the Great Depression
and World War II. He has also been vilified as an autocrat who manipulated and cajoled
to wield his power. I well remember the accusations of the “imperial
presidencies” of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. In the political paralysis
of the impasse between the US Congress and President Obama, he has been accused
of abusing the authority of the office of the President. In the current
political campaign, Donald Trump has spoken of the power of the President in
terms similar to his power over his businesses. Hilary Clinton has been
criticized for her unilateral actions as Secretary of State and at least tacit
support of President Obama’s executive orders.
My point is not to
endorse or even condemn a candidate. Rather, as I reflected on Ahab and Naboth,
I was taken back to the Hebrew understanding of a righteous king. Such a
position is not primarily about power. The king could not do whatever he wanted
(though some, even the best did try). The king was subject to the same legal
code of justice as all the other people of the country. And the king was not to
accumulate great wealth. In fact, wealth and power were regarded as highly
dangerous for the king and for the people. In Psalm 72 the king is specifically
charged with insuring justice and prosperity for the weak, the poor, the
widows, the orphans, the foreigners.
As a Christian in a pluralistic, secular democracy, I do not
expect the President to share my theological perspective or religious identity.
I would like to think that if the President was also a disciple of Jesus that
President would be an advocate for justice for those who struggle most and
would be extraordinarily cautious about the accumulation of wealth and power.
And actually, that is what I would welcome in any President or presidential
candidate, regardless of their religious affiliation or convictions. I lament
that should such a person run for office, that one would be roundly rejected by
the voters. And should such a person somehow become president, that one would
be vilified as weak.
No comments:
Post a Comment