10<\/strong>. sons of Belial<\/em> ] In Deu 13:13<\/span>, the R.V. has translated this expression ‘base fellows’, putting in the margin ‘sons of worthlessness’. This is the sense everywhere in the O.T. and should have been in the text. In N.T. times ‘Belial’ was personified (see 2Co 6:15<\/span>), but there is no trace of this idea in the earlier Scriptures. The LXX. has . The men were good-for-noughts, who would swear to anything for which they were paid. Josephus makes them three in number.<\/p>\n Thou didst blaspheme<\/em> [R.V. curse<\/strong> ] God and the king<\/em> ] The verb in the original is very frequently used of blessing, but it had the opposite sense also. The root idea appears to be ‘to say adieu to’. This might be and most frequently was with a parting benediction; but it also might be a renunciation, a declaration of hostility. Hence the R.V. has put ‘renounce’ in the margin, to indicate how the sense of ‘curse’ is obtained. The verb is used in the bad sense also in Job 1:5<\/span>; Job 2:9<\/span>. It is remarkable that an accusation of this nature should have been set afoot by Jezebel. We need not however assume that she had any care about the cursing of God; only that she found this the first convenient mode of getting rid of Naboth. But amongst the people, who were to suppose Naboth justly executed, there must have still been some regard for the divine name and the divine law. The death stoning was appointed by the Mosaic code (Lev 24:16<\/span>), and so was the necessity for two witnesses at least (Deu 17:6<\/span>; Deu 19:15<\/span>) before the accused could be put to death.<\/p>\n that he may die<\/em> ] The R.V. omits ‘may’.<\/p>\n Sons of Belial – <\/B>i. e., worthless persons (Deu 13:13<\/span> note). Witnesses must be two in number according to the Law Num 35:30<\/span>; Deu 17:6<\/span>; Deu 19:15<\/span>.<\/P> The word rendered blaspheme is that which commonly means bless. The opposite sense of cursing, seems, however, to be required here and in Job 1:5<\/span>, Job 1:11<\/span>; Job 2:5<\/span>. Perhaps the best explanation of the bad sense of the original word is to be found in the practice of blessing by way of salutation, not only on meeting, but also on taking leave Gen 47:7<\/span>, Gen 47:10<\/span>. From the latter custom the word came to mean bidding farewell to, and so renouncing, casting off, cursing.<\/P> Carry him out and stone him – <\/B>Naboths offence would be twofold, and in both cases capital; blasphemy against God being punishable with death by the Law (marginal reference), and blasphemy against the king being a capital offence by custom 1Ki 2:8<\/U><\/span>; 2Sa 16:9<\/span>; 2Sa 19:21<\/span>. The punishment would be stoning, since the greater crime would absorb the lesser, and the Law made stoning the punishment for blasphemy against God. As stoning always took place outside the city (see Act 7:58<\/span>), Jezebel told the elders to carry Naboth out.<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 10<\/span>. Set two men<\/B><\/I>] For life could not be attainted but on the evidence of two witnesses at least.<\/P> <\/P> Sons of Belial<\/B><\/I>] Men who will not scruple to tell lies and take a false oath.<\/P> <\/P> Thou didst blaspheme God and the king.<\/B><\/I>] Thou art an atheist<\/I> and a rebel<\/I>. Thou hast spoken words injurious to the perfections and nature of God; and thou hast spoken words against the crown and dignity of the king. The words literally are, Naboth hath BLESSED<\/I> God and the king<\/I>; or, as Parkhurst contends, “Thou hast blessed the false gods and Molech,” And though Jezebel was herself an abominable idolatress; yet, as the law of Moses still continued in force, she seems to have been wicked enough to have destroyed Naboth, upon the false accusation of blessing the<\/I> heathen Aleim<\/I> and Molech<\/I>, which subjected him to death by De 12:6<\/span>; De 17:2-7<\/span>. The first meaning appears the most simple.<\/P> <\/P> Many think that the word barach<\/I> signifies both to bless<\/I> and curse<\/I>; and so it is interpreted in most Lexicons: it is passing strange that out of the same word proceedeth blessing<\/I> and cursing<\/I>; and to give such opposite and self-destructive meanings to any word is very dangerous. Parkhurst denies that it ever has the meaning of cursing<\/I>, and examines all the texts where it is said to occur with this meaning; and shows that blessing<\/I>, not cursing<\/I>, is to be understood in all those places: see him under , sec. vi.<\/P> <\/p>\n Thou didst blaspheme, <\/B>Heb. bless<\/I>. Blessing is put for cursing and blaspheming<\/I>, as Job 1:5<\/span>; 2:9<\/span>, so also here, as is apparent, because his blessing God and the king had been no crime. It is a figure called euphemisms<\/I>. God would have blasphemy so much abhorred, that it should not easily and unnecessarily be named by its proper name. Compare Psa 16:4<\/span>. <\/P> Carry him out<\/B>, to the place where malefactors were punished, which was out of the city, Lev 24:23<\/span>; Jos 7:24<\/span>; Mar 15:20<\/span>; Heb 13:12<\/span>, partly to show that they were unworthy of all human society, and abhorred by all the people; and partly because the place where they were killed was thereby ceremonially polluted. <\/P> Stone him; <\/B>the proper punishment of blasphemers, Lev 24:15<\/span>,16<\/span>. <\/P> That he may die; <\/B>as one that cursed his God, and his political father, his king. See Exo 21:17<\/span>; 12:28<\/span>. <\/P> <\/p>\n And set two men, sons of Belial, before him, to bear witness against him<\/strong>,…. Worthless wretches, that have cast off the yoke of the law, as Belial signifies, lawless abandoned creatures, that have no conscience of anything; “knights of the post”, as we call them, that will swear anything; these were to be set before Naboth, right against him to confront him, and accuse him to his face, and charge him with crimes next mentioned:<\/p>\n saying, thou didst blaspheme God and the king<\/strong>: and so was guilty of death for the former, if not for both, and of confiscation of estate for the latter, which was the thing aimed at; and Jezebel was willing to make sure work of it, and therefore would have him accused of both:<\/p>\n and then carry him out, and stone him, that he die<\/strong>; immediately, without requiring the witnesses to give proof of their charge, and without giving Naboth leave to answer for himself.<\/p>\n (10) Two men<\/strong>in accordance with Num. 35:30<\/span>; Deu. 17:6<\/span>.<\/p>\n Sons of Belial.<\/strong>See Jdg. 19:22<\/span>; Jdg. 20:13<\/span>; 1Sa. 1:16<\/span>; 1Sa. 2:12<\/span>; 1Sa. 10:27<\/span>; 1Sa. 25:17<\/span>; 1Sa. 25:25<\/span>; 1Sa. 30:22<\/span>; 2Sa. 16:7<\/span>; 2Sa. 20:1<\/span>, &c.; properly, children of lawlessness, or worthlessness.<\/p>\n Blaspheme.<\/strong>The word is the same used in Job. 1:5<\/span>; Job. 1:11<\/span>; Job. 2:5<\/span>, there rendered curse. It properly signifies to bless; thence, to part from with blessing; finally to part from, or disown. It is, rather, therefore, to renounce than to blaspheme. The punishment, however, was stoning, as for positive blasphemy. (See Lev. 24:16<\/span>; Deu. 13:9-10<\/span>.)<\/p>\n 10<\/strong>. <\/strong> Two men <\/strong> The law required at least two witnesses to convict a man of murder or any great crime. See Num 35:30<\/span>; Deu 17:6<\/span>; Deu 19:15<\/span>. So, says Wordsworth, “even Jezebel bears witness to the Pentateuch.” <\/p>\n Sons of Belial <\/strong> Literally, sons of worthlessness; <\/em> that is, worthless, good-for-nothing fellows. See note on 1Sa 1:16<\/span>. <\/p>\n Thou didst blaspheme God and the king <\/strong> The word rendered blaspheme <\/em> is , which usually means to bless, <\/em> and is often used in the farewell blessing of one departing from the presence of another. Compare Gen 47:10<\/span>; 1Ki 8:66<\/span>. “To this latter signification,” says Furst, “belongs the meaning, to give the parting salutation to one in a bad sense, that is, to wish away, to imprecate upon one, to curse, to revile. Job 1:5<\/span><\/em>; Job 2:5<\/span>. Analogy in the Semitic dialects admits of directly opposite meanings in a word.” So, also, Gesenius in his Hebrews Lexicon. Some think that blasphemy of God and the king was so shocking to the Hebrew mind that it was expressed by this word euphemistically. <\/p>\n Stone him <\/strong> According to Lev 24:16<\/span>, the blasphemer of Jehovah is to be stoned to death; and according to Exo 22:28<\/span>, cursing of the ruler is a kindred crime. The first martyr, Stephen, was stoned on the charge of blasphemy. According to 2Ki 9:26<\/span>, Naboth’s sons were also put to death with him. They were, perhaps, the only heirs that could rightly claim the inheritance; or, like Achan’s children, they may have been regarded and treated as involved in the parent’s guilt. See note on Jos 7:24<\/span>.<\/p>\n 1Ki 21:10<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>Thou didst blaspheme God and the king<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> It was death by the law of Moses to blaspheme God; Lev 24:16<\/span> and by custom it was death to revile the king, Exo 22:28<\/span>. Now, in order to make sure work, the witnesses, as they were instructed, accused Naboth of both these crimes, that the people might be the better satisfied to see him stoned. There is this difference, however, to be observed between these two crimes, that if a man had blasphemed God, his goods came to his heirs; whereas when a man was executed for treason, his estate went to the exchequer, and was forfeited to him against whom the offence was committed; for this reason it was that they accused Naboth of this crime likewise, that his estate might be confiscated, and Ahab might by that means get possession of the vineyard. See Patrick, and Selden, De Succes. cap. 25: Note; <\/em>1. Perjury is among the most deadly sins, and most dangerous to society; no man’s life or property is safe against a lying tongue. 2. Injustice committed under the pretext of law is the most insupportable kind of oppression. 3. No innocence can protect a man from the power of oppressors. 4. There is a day, when the blood of innocence, and the tears of the oppressed, will come into remembrance; and then woe to the murderer and the oppressor. <\/p>\n 1Ki 21:10 And set two men, sons of Belial, before him, to bear witness against him, saying, Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And [then] carry him out, and stone him, that he may die.<\/p>\n Ver. 10. And set two men, sons of Belial.<\/strong> ] Two such as she pointed out, and well knew to be for her purpose: knights of the post, as we call them, devils incarnate. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Thou didst blaspheme God and the king.<\/strong> ] Heb., Thou didst bless: Euphemismus per antiphrasin.<\/em> The Hebrews, saith Martyr, did so far abominate blasphemy, that they would not once name it, when the blaspheming of God was to be spoken of. See on Job 2:9<\/span> . <\/p>\n <\/p>\n And then carry him out.<\/strong> ] As a , or public pest; not fit to breathe out his spirit in the city.<\/p>\n two. Compare Deu 17:6. <\/p>\n sons of Belial. Compare Deu 13:13. 1Sa 1:16; 1Sa 2:12, &c. <\/p>\n blaspheme. The current Hebrew text reads “bless”. In spite of this the Authorized Version and Revised Version render it “blaspheme”. It is one of the emendations of the Sopherim (App-18), and is correctly rendered “blaspheme”, but should have had a marginal note of explanation. <\/p>\n two men: Deu 19:15, Mat 26:59, Mat 26:60, Act 6:11 <\/p>\n sons of Belial: Deu 13:13, Jdg 19:22 <\/p>\n Thou didst blaspheme: Some, with Parkhurst, would render the original, bairachta elohim wamailech, “Thou hast blessed the gods and Molech;” a sense, however, which seems extremely forced, and is not acknowledged by any of the ancient versions, though the LXX and Vulgate render bairachta by , benedixit, “blessed.” It is no unusual thing for a word to have opposite senses. Exo 22:28, Lev 24:15, Mat 26:59-66, Joh 10:33, Act 6:13 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Exo 20:16 – General Exo 23:1 – an unrighteous witness Lev 19:16 – stand Lev 24:11 – blasphemed Lev 24:16 – blasphemeth Deu 19:16 – a false witness 1Sa 2:12 – sons of Belial 1Sa 25:17 – a son of Belial 1Sa 30:22 – wicked 2Sa 16:7 – man of Belial 2Sa 19:21 – Shall not 2Ki 6:32 – son of a murderer 2Ch 13:7 – the children of Belial Job 1:5 – cursed Pro 6:19 – A false Pro 7:14 – this Pro 19:28 – An ungodly witness Isa 32:7 – lying Eze 22:9 – men that carry tales Mat 26:65 – He Mat 27:31 – and led Mat 27:32 – as Mar 14:55 – sought Luk 5:21 – blasphemies Luk 23:2 – forbidding Joh 8:17 – that 2Co 13:1 – In Heb 11:37 – stoned<\/p>\n A VILLAINOUS COMPACT<\/p>\n And set two men, sons of Belial, before him, to bear witness against him, saying, Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die.<\/p>\n 1Ki 21:10<\/p>\n Ahab is akin, both in his sin and his recovery, to the mass of mankind. He has neither sinned like Saul, nor will he mourn like David. He has been pusillanimous in his sin, and he will not be other than faint-hearted in his return to God. He moves, on the whole, in that middle sphere of moral life which is at best never heroic, and at worst something better than detestable, and which is, after all, the sphere of the mass of humankind.<\/p>\n I. Observe, first, that the repentance of Ahab, so far as it went, was a real repentance.(1) There is evidently in him a measure of that fear of God which is the beginning of true spiritual wisdom. (2) He does not attempt to palliate his sin. He is silent, not because he has nothing to acknowledge, but because he knows himself to be so simply and altogether wicked that he has nothing to say.<\/p>\n II. Wherein was Ahabs penitence deficient?At what point does he cease to be an example and become a terrible warning?<\/p>\n There is nothing in Ahabs subsequent conduct to show that he had attained to anything deeper than a fear of Gods judgments and an acknowledgment of his own guilt. He feared the consequences of sin, but that by loving God he hated sin itself is more than we can venture to suppose. For: (1) A true hatred of past sins will at all cost put them away and cut off the occasions which led to them. (2) The contrite sinner is concerned for the glory of God, which he has obscured. But with Ahab self was the centre still. He trembled at judgments which would light upon himself; and, on the same principle, he was unequal to sacrifices which were painful to self, however necessary to his Masters honour.<\/p>\n III. The paramount influence upon Ahabs mind came from without, and not from within him.Jezebel stands behind him as an incarnation of the evil one. If Ahab ever struggled to maintain his fear of God, he soon sank vanquished by the more than human energy of his foe, to await his final reprobation.<\/p>\n Canon Liddon.<\/p>\n Illustration<\/p>\n Compared with Ahabs palace gardens the property of Naboths was a quite insignificant detail. Yet that little piece of land was Ahabs ruin. It was small, yet it was large enough to wreck him. He set his heart on it with such desire that everything else seemed valueless without it. And it was not the great possessions which he owned, nor the great dreams of conquest which he cherishedit was not these, but a few roods of land, that brought Ahab in dishonour to his grave. It does not need a blow to destroy eyesight. A grain will do it, or the prick of a fine needle. You may silence the lute by breaking it in twain, but a little rift makes all the music mute. Whenever Christ is crucified afresh, great sins are like the spear that wounds His side, but little sinswhat we call little sinsare like the nails that pierce His hands and feet.<\/p>\n 1Ki 21:10. And set two men before him to bear witness It was the Roman custom also; and was most rational, that the accused should have the accusers face to face, Act 25:16. Thou didst blaspheme God and the king Hebrew, , beracta, thou didst bless. Blessing is here put for cursing and blaspheming, as in Job 1:5; Job 2:9, as is apparent, because his blessing God and the king would have been no crime. It was death by the law of Moses to blaspheme God, Lev 24:16; and by custom it was death to revile the king, which was forbidden, Exo 22:28. Now, in order to make sure work, the witnesses, as they were instructed, accused Naboth of both those crimes, that the people might be the better satisfied to see him stoned. There is, however, this difference to be observed between these two crimes, that by blaspheming God, a person only forfeited his life, not his estate, which went to his heirs; whereas, when a man was executed for treason, his estate was forfeited to him against whom the offence was committed. For this reason it was that Naboth was charged with this crime also, that his estate might be confiscated, and Ahab might, by that means, get possession of the vineyard. And then carry him out Not merely out of the assembly, but out of the city, 1Ki 21:13. For while they were in the wilderness, and before the conquest of Canaan, they executed punishments without the camp, Lev 24:23; Jos 7:24; but afterward without the gates of their cities. By this they intended to signify, that they would take the evil out of the midst of them, and not suffer wickedness to remain among them.<\/p>\n And set two men, sons of Belial, before him, to bear witness against him, saying, Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And [then] carry him out, and stone him, that he may die. 10. sons of Belial ] In Deu 13:13, the R.V. has translated this expression ‘base fellows’, putting in the margin ‘sons … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Kings 21:10”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9473","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9473","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9473"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9473\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9473"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9473"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9473"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"