830083
research-article2019
RAE0010.1177/0034637319830083Review & ExpositorVandagriff
Article
Review and Expositor
2019, Vol. 116(1) 38–41
A modern rendering of Naboth’s © The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
vineyard sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0034637319830083
https://doi.org/10.1177/0034637319830083
journals.sagepub.com/home/rae
Matthew Vandagriff
Kirkwood Baptist Church, USA
Abstract
The story of Naboth’s vineyard is a simple story to conceptualize for most readers. A king sees
something he desires, and he devises a way to take it. In the case of Naboth, the king had him
murdered. In the twenty-first century, imagining a king or other leader who wields this type of
authority and influence can be difficult. This article outlines a different understanding for the story
(1 Kgs 21:1–16), in which economic forces, not a singular person, drive the procurement of land
through the use of fair and legal means. After a brief contextualization of the passage, the article
moves to outline the relationship between Kirkwood, MO and the area of Meacham Park. The
purpose of this article is help readers understand how fair and legal means can wield the same power
as a monarchy, and that Christians must see the world through a lens other than economic issues.
Keywords
economy, eminent domain, fair market value, Meacham Park (Missouri), vineyard
Introduction: What’s the theme?
The story recounted in 1 Kgs 21:1–16 reflects numerous themes: the abuse of power between a
king and a common land owner; dealing with disappointment as Naboth denied Ahab’s overtures
toward land, and Ahab’s resulting depression; greed; marital relationships as Ahab and Jezebel help
define dysfunctional marriage. During sermon preparation, a quote from Roger Nam stuck out:
Our modern twenty-first century sensibilities prevent us from easily grasping the concept of buying land,
just as it would be hard to explain the profession of a modern real estate agent to the ancient Israeli. Land
was rarely bought and sold, and when it was done, it was only done to people within the kin. Even the royal
land of Samaria was sold to a kinsman (see 1 Kgs 16:24). Land was a gift from God, a symbol of provision
and conquest. In a time with limited mechanisms to store wealth, land was the income, resource, home,
bank account, and retirement plan of the people.1
1. Roger Nam, “Commentary on 1 Kgs 21:1–10 [11–14] 15–21a,” June 16, 2013, accessed October 29,
2017, http://www.workingpreacher.org/preaching.aspx?commentary_id=1713.
Corresponding author:
Matthew Vandagriff, Kirkwood Baptist Church, 211 North Woodlawn Avenue, Kirkwood, MO 63122, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Vandagriff 39
Reading this comment sparked a way of understanding this biblical narrative as not simply about
an abuse of power or the other themes listed above, but also about the way economics drives our
understanding of land and life. The question for this author is, “As Christians, should economic terms
and ways of thinking be the way we understand land and life?” The following article is adapted from
a sermon based on 1 Kgs 21:1–16, one that seeks to incorporate the biblical story into a contemporary,
localized issue of annexation and with an understanding of land as more than a commodity.
Text: 1 Kings 21:1–16
First Kings 21:1–16 is not a difficult story to understand. Children probably understand it better
than adults, for their classrooms are filled with versions of this simple rule: “You are not supposed
to take something that belongs to someone else.” Therefore, if someone does not want to sell you
his/her property, that person is not required to sell it. Forcing someone to sell his/her property is
un-American. More importantly, you should not participate actively or passively in a property
owner’s death. In some sense, the sermon could end at this point, and everyone could get to lunch
a little earlier. After all, the story is an easy one for even children to comprehend.
Many children love to play games, and one of the games they play is Monopoly. As adults, we
might be better equipped to play the game, however, because we understand how ruthless the game
really is. Interestingly, the modern version of Monopoly is actually part of an older game called The
Landlord’s Game designed by an American woman named Elizabeth Magie. The older version of
the game was actually meant as a critique against a capitalistic economy and against an understand-
ing of land as nothing more than a commodity.2 The game, which often ends with a board over-
turned and pieces scattered everywhere, was originally meant to critique an unchecked economic
system. Those who grew up playing the game may well consider it a children’s game; yet, Monopoly
is much more than it appears on the surface. Monopoly, as the biblical text, is about land, and,
according to Walter Brueggemann, the text is further about “theories of land ownership.”3
Ahab desired land and Naboth did not want to sell. For some readers, this story does not make
sense because Ahab’s offer seems to be fair. Nothing in the story should cause readers to think Ahab
was being anything less than genuine in his offer.4 Ahab saw the vineyard; it was closer to the cas-
tle, and he wanted to buy it. He even offered to give Naboth a better vineyard or pay “fair market
value.” However, fair market value can be deceiving.
History: The City of Kirkwood, MO and Meacham Park
Moving to a new region of the country can mean learning the history of the area, as one attempts to
know and understand the history of the place one inhabits. Learning about an area’s history is a way
of comprehending the events that have created its culture and community.
In my current ministerial context, I live in a suburb of St. Louis, Missouri that prides itself
on its historical context. The community resides beside a historic railroad station, and the town
of Kirkwood, Missouri was a stop on the historical Route 66, which is demarcated and adver-
tised in several areas of St. Louis County.5 Through learning the city’s history, I learned an
2. “The Landlord’s Game,” Wikipedia, accessed January 21, 2019, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The
_Landlord’s_Game.
3. Walter Brueggemann, 1 & 2 Kings, Smyth and Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth and
Helwys, 2000), 257.
4. Ibid.
5. Prior to incorporation, the community that became Kirkwood brokered a deal with the railroad surveyor.
The surveyor was willing to plot the railroad through the small community if the town went by his last
name, Kirkwood.
40 Review and Expositor 116(1)
interesting piece of Kirkwood history, in particular the history of an area of Kirkwood known
as Meacham Park.6
The story is told that, beginning in the 1970s, Meacham Park petitioned the City of Kirkwood
to be annexed. For nearly twenty years the City of Kirkwood declined the overture. Meacham Park
was an unincorporated area surrounded by several other municipalities, and none of the other
neighbors sought to annex Meacham Park either.7 In 1991, the City of Kirkwood altered its stance.
A big-box store representative approached Kirkwood about placing retail stores near the intersec-
tion of Highway 44 and Lindbergh. Coincidentally, the city suddenly became very interested in the
unincorporated Meacham Park.
The city then began developing that neighborhood, a place that had been residential homes. It
was, and the remnant of this locality still is, an area whose ethnic make-up is predominantly
African-American, while Kirkwood is a predominantly white town. The homes and properties in
Meacham Park were often passed down for generations, thus creating an area with decade after
decade of affordable housing. In the course of redevelopment and rezoning from residential to
commercial property, the City of Kirkwood became extremely interested in the term “eminent
domain.” Through the use of terms such as “eminent domain” and “fair market value,” the city
developed Meacham Park. The area where many Kirkwood residents now shop was once popu-
lated by homes, and a place where commerce convenes could have previously been the site of a
family garden.
The developer and the City of Kirkwood purchased these properties at “fair market value.”
Nevertheless, the purchase of these homes inadvertently created another issue. Many of the fami-
lies living in the homes during redevelopment had been paying property taxes and utilities, but not
mortgages. Receiving fair market value for a property did not mean a family had the money to
purchase a home elsewhere in the Kirkwood area. The end result was that many of the families who
sold their homes, some with the enforcement of “eminent domain,” were forced to leave the area
and relocate elsewhere in St. Louis City or County. These families lost their place and their space.
Application: Understanding of land and marketplace
Naboth does not take the king’s offer, for a number of reasons. Cultivating a vineyard takes time,
approximately three years before fruit will appear on the vine. Then there is the whole winemaking
and aging process. Furthermore, starting a vineyard is an expensive and painstaking process. In
Naboth’s situation, his family had passed that vineyard down for several generations. He is not
interested in relinquishing it; he wants to give something to his children. More importantly, he
understands that the land on which his family has grown is more than a piece of land: it is a place
that ties him to something larger than himself.8
Renowned author, Wendell Berry, has written a series centering around a fictional place called
Port William, Kentucky, loosely based on where he resides in Port Royal, Kentucky. Berry’s writ-
ing displays a deep sense of place and belonging. He portrays a tremendous understanding of the
multi-faceted nature of community and how it can operate. Furthermore, he considers the land a
gift and not simply a commodity. One common critique of Berry is that he longs for a day prior to
technological advances. Yes, Berry has written an entire essay about why he will never own a
6. This version of the history of Kirkwood was relayed to me from a local pastor who grew up in Kirkwood
and now serves a congregation in Kirkwood.
7. Issues of annexation and incorporation are a common problem in the area of St. Louis County, MO.
There are currently 88 municipalities in St. Louis County, with populations ranging from twelve people
to almost 50,000 people. These “towns” function independently with one another and will occasionally
partner with regard to police and fire departments.
8. Brueggemann, 1 & 2 Kings, 258.
Vandagriff 41
computer.9 Even so, Berry’s is not an uncritical eye looking backward for the halcyon days of old.
Instead he provides a critique of people whose appreciation of the world views it primarily through
the lens of money.
First Kings 21:1–16 illustrates the danger of seeing the world only through the lens of the mar-
ketplace. Ahab was an evil, awful king, who rarely heard the word “no.” When rebuffed, he became
sullen and downcast; he would not eat or drink. Because he made an offer on a piece of land that
was not for sale and that offer was turned down, he went into a deep depression. Nevertheless,
Ahab had the power, and his wife was cunning, and they created a way to murder Naboth. In the
end, the people with economic power won.
Conclusion: Land as more than commodity
The story might create a sense of hopelessness within readers, because Naboth did nothing wrong.
He did not want to give up his property, his home, his inheritance. He saw this place as a gift from
God and not something to sell. Yet he was powerless to stand against the king, and none of the
people in his village stood for him.
Instead, the queen sent a letter to the village elders and nobles, telling them to have a charge
brought against Naboth that he cursed God and the king. Using the king’s credentials, she need not
provide further justification for the action, and what the king says has to be true. No journalists
were there to fact-check Ahab’s claim. There were no checks and balances, and no appeals. The
king’s declaration was final; the nobles and village elders facilitated the murder of their neighbor,
one whose only known fault was owning something that the king wanted. He owned a piece of
land, and someone with greater power and influence than he wanted it.
One might argue that present culture differs from Naboth’s world, but I posit this question to the
congregation: “If the people of Meacham Park had not sold their homes, do you think retail stores
would still now exist on those properties?” The process might have taken longer, and it might have
been messier, but when the way we understand the world is through the lens of economy, every-
thing has a price. As Christians, we must understand creation as being more than a commodity—it
is a gift. When we seek to commodify creation, we wittingly or unwittingly participate in the
destruction of it.
As the church, a community constituted around the cross and the table, we can offer a cor-
rective to economic abuse in the form of the table. Week after week, or month after month in
some traditions, we come to the communion table to receive the elements of body and blood
(for us Baptists, it is always bread and juice, of course). This communion is a gift that can only
be received. It cannot be taken. It cannot be sold. This gift of grace is similar to the gift of crea-
tion. Creation is not a commodity—it too has been freely given by God and received by human-
ity. In the table, God provides an alternative way of seeing this world, this creation gift. The
story of Naboth’s vineyard reflects a way of seeing creation solely through commerce and
violence. The communion table provides a way of seeing the world through infinite grace and
God’s self-giving.
Author biography
Matthew Vandagriff is the Senior Pastor at Kirkwood Baptist Church near St. Louis, MO. He earned his DMin
from George W. Truett Theological Seminary in 2016 with a project on preaching and spiritual formation.
9. Wendell Berry, “Why I Am Not Going to Buy a Computer,” in What are People For? (Berkeley, CA:
Counterpoint, 2010), 170–77.
