Summary As they figure in I Kings 21, the vineyard and the garden have a different semantic colour spectrum. While the familiar vineyard is largely subject to the prevailing soil conditions and the mercy of the climate, the garden by way of comparison requires far more human attention and dedication. Consequently, when the vineyard stands for receptivity and acquiescence, the garden asserts itself as man's own space, as the space of his creativity, of his sense of form and order. Thus the vineyard and the garden suggest two different ‘worlds’. From his conservative, traditional way of life, Nabot rejects the expansionist garden scheme of Achab, who resides in the foreign and unfamiliar Samaria, as an unwelcome novelty and above all as a secular enterprise. The Phoenician Izebel revives the garden scheme as a prestige object. As it is carried out, Nabot is disposed of, as he has failed to recognize the new order, and has violated the divine authority of the king. While Elijah on his part resists the garden...