SBL Annual Meeting Papers — November 2007

WORKING DRAFT: Please do not cite without permission of the author

Beth Bidlack
University of Chicago

Differentiating Elijah: A Study of 1 Kings 19

Adobe Acrobat Version

Abstract: As a Unitarian Universalist trained in biblical studies, I became very interested in “psychological” approaches to the Bible while completing a unit of Clinical Pastoral Education. During CPE, I found that members of my peer group did not share the same assumptions about the Bible. Using psychological approaches I was able to talk about biblical texts not only with my CPE peer group, but also with hospital patients, nursing home residents, and members of my denomination. In this paper I will illustrate one example of such an approach by discussing the biblical character Elijah in 1 Kings 19 and the concept of differentiation. Within the Elijah cycle, at times Elijah embraces the Mosaic prophetic tradition, whereas at other times, he differentiates himself from it.

1. My Experience with Psychological Approaches to the Bible

While I was in seminary, I had one course in psychology and religion and many courses in biblical studies. In the psychology course, entitled “Personality, Culture, and Religious Development,” we discussed Freud, Jung, and Erickson, but made no real connection between psychology and biblical studies. In my “Introduction to Hebrew Bible” course, very little was said about psychological approaches to the Bible. In a course on Jeremiah, I vaguely recall someone mentioning Robert P. Carroll’s When Prophecy Failed, but I never read the book.1 During my final year of seminary, I had a seminar on the book of Ezekiel. David Halperin’s Seeking Ezekiel2 was mentioned in this seminar, but not discussed in much detail. During graduate school, I focused mainly on historical and literary approaches to the Bible, although I did begin to think about what readers bring to the text and to the process of interpretation.

When I began teaching, I thought more about psychological methods, but not in a systematic way. I focused on how to make my teaching relevant to students going into parish ministry. As a teaching assistant in the “Introduction to Hebrew Bible” course, I gave a lecture on Israel’s transition from judges to monarchy, focusing on Samuel, Saul, and David. In this lecture, I explored the personalities of Saul and David, and tried to draw possible connections between the biblical text and leadership models in contemporary faith communities. I also gave a lecture on the Psalms, which included Walter Brueggemann’s model of how people go through periods of orientation, disorientation, and reorientation.3 This lecture in particular was very well received by students because it was so practical. Students could see how biblical scholarship was relevant to their future work in parish ministry.

Several years later when I was a faculty member at a small, free-standing seminary, I began to think more seriously about psychological approaches to the Bible because of the nature of the student body. First, the seminary was ecumenical, perhaps even interfaith since there were a number of Unitarian Universalist students. Second, the students had varying degrees of biblical literacy. Some had not grown up hearing or learning stories from the Bible. While at this institution, I would preach at the seminary’s chapel services and at local Unitarian Universalist churches. In my preaching, it was important for me to learn about my audience and to preach a sermon that somehow addressed the congregation’s needs. For example, when I was asked to preach to incoming seminary students, I chose Genesis 32:22-32 because it was a story of journeying and commissioning. I didn’t think I was applying psychological methods to a text, yet I was. I mentioned the interconnectedness between the name Jacob and the location Jabbok and invited my audience to consider how their identity is or may be related to their current geographical location, especially since some of them had left home in order to attend seminary. Another theme in the Genesis text is the relationship between being alone and being in community. A third is what it means to “wrestle” with something, someone, or ourselves. I continued preaching without an explicit awareness that I was adopting a psychological approach to biblical texts. From my perspective, it seemed like the best way to reach my audience.

The explicit realization became apparent when I started a unit of clinical pastoral education. One of the textbooks for the unit was Creating a Healthier Church: Family Systems Theory, Leadership, and Congregational Life by Ronald W. Richardson.4 The questions at the end of each chapter in this book included “What biblical stories and theological themes seem relevant to what is discussed in this chapter?” During peer group discussions, supervision, and chapel services, I had the opportunity to explore this question in greater depth. During my visitation in the hospital and my Bible study with cognitively challenged adults in a nearby nursing home, I would sometimes respond to people’s questioning of their faith with biblical models of questioners (e.g., Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Jeremiah).

One topic discussed in Richardson’s book—differentiation—seemed especially relevant to several members of my peer group who were trying to define themselves within their denominations. I myself, as a Unitarian Universalist, was struggling to redefine and reclaim theological vocabulary such as atonement, salvation, and conversion. At times I felt that I was standing firmly within my tradition, but at other times, I felt that I looking in from the outside. I thought about when and how it might be helpful for me to differentiate from my tradition. This led me to look for biblical texts which were relevant to this concept. I went back to 1 Kings 19, a text I had heard in many sermons.

2. Defining Some Concepts

CPE was my first exposure to family systems theory as developed in the work of Murray Bowen and Edwin H. Friedman. My CPE group was exposed to family systems theory through the work of Peter L. Steinke and Ronald W. Richardson, who each apply systems theory in their work with pastors and congregations. According to Steinke, “System thinking is a way of seeing the whole, how the parts mutually influence one another, how the circle of influence becomes patterned, and how the pattern is maintained by the arrangement of the functional parts.” He also notes that “in an emotional system there is always information (a reaction or a response) and the struggle to be self-defined and yet in touch with others.”5

This struggle can be understood as a continuum between fusion and differentiation. The opposite of fusion, differentiation is, in Jungian terms, “the separation of a part from the whole to allow for its individual development.”6 Yet, as Richardson and others have noted, “One is never fully ‘fused’ or ‘differentiated,’ as if these were total states of being, but one is always ‘more or less fused’ or ‘more or less differentiated.’”7 Drawing on the work of Friedman, Richardson elaborates by describing different levels of differentiation:

A higher level of differentiation means a person has: 1. the ability to perceive more accurately the reality of situations, to not create threat that isn’t really there, and to discern what is actually threatening and how; 2. the ability to identify his or her own opinions, beliefs, values, and commitments, and the principles of behavior that derive from these, as they are relevant to a particular situation; 3. the ability to think clearly and wisely about possible options for action and the likely consequences for each of these options; 4. and the ability to act flexibly within the situation on the basis of these perceptions, thoughts, and principles.8

Differentiation can be both internal—“the degree to which a person can separate thinking and feeling, and bring greater objectivity to his or her own inevitably subjective stance”—and interpersonal—“the degree to which a person can be clear or more objective about the emotional separateness between self and other, knowing what is self and self’s responsibility, and what is not.”9

A few other concepts which are relevant to my study of 1 Kings 19 are “anxiety” and “emotional triangles.” According to Oxford’s Dictionary of Psychology, anxiety is “a state of uneasiness, accompanied by dysphoria and somatic signs and symptoms of tension, focused on apprehension of possible failure, misfortune, or danger.”10 The concept of “emotional triangles” is perhaps explained best by Edwin Friedman,

The basic law of emotional triangles is that when any two parts of a system become uncomfortable with one another, they will “triangle in” or focus upon a third person, or issue, as a way of stabilizing their own relationship with one another. A person may be said to be “triangled” if he or she gets caught in the middle as the focus of such an unresolved issue. Conversely, when individuals try to change the relationship of two others (two people, or a person and his or her symptom or belief), they “triangle” themselves into that relationship (and often stabilize the very situation they are trying to change).11

Simply put, triangles often serve two purposes: “(1) absorbing anxiety, and (2) covering over basic differences and conflicts in an emotional system.”12

3. Elijah in 1 Kings 19

With these concepts in mind, let’s turn to the story of Elijah in 1 Kings 19. The story begins with Ahab telling Jezebel that Elijah has killed the prophets of Baal (cf. 1 Kings 18:40). Here Ahab “triangles” Jezebel into his relationship with Elijah. In the previous chapter Ahab had obeyed Elijah’s command to gather the people of Israel, the 450 prophets of Baal, and the 400 prophets of Asherah (1 Kings 18:19-20). Thus, he set into motion a series of events which resulted in the slaying of the prophets of Baal, events which he now recounts to Jezebel, omitting his own role in their deaths.13 At the end of chapter 18, the reader is unsure if Ahab has abandoned syncretism and embraced monotheism. He has obeyed Elijah’s command to eat and drink and has left for Jezreel. Knowing that his relationship with his wife will be strained when she hears the news, Ahab shifts the blame to Elijah. Jezebel had been killing the prophets of the Lord, thus increasing the hostility between herself and Elijah so in response to Ahab’s report, Jezebel makes a vow (through her messenger) to kill Elijah.14

Elijah responds on an emotional level and allows his anxiety to get the best of him. He is afraid15 and flees for his life. Having run to Jezreel to meet up with Ahab, Elijah stops at the entrance to Jezreel then goes south to Beer-sheba. Thus, whatever alliance may have occurred between Elijah and Ahab seems abandoned.16 Ahab and Jezebel do not reappear in this story. In fact, the three characters are not mentioned together again until 1 Kings 21:17 when Elijah confronts Ahab about Naboth’s vineyard and pronounces God’s judgment upon Ahab and Jezebel. Jerome Walsh has commented on how the narrator expressed Elijah’s panic “in a rapid series of short clauses, beginning with three consecutive verbs: ‘he feared and he arose and he fled for his life.’” The narrator then slows the pace slightly by adding the clause “which belongs to Judah.” In five words, “Elijah has fled the entire length of the divided kingdoms from the heart of the north, the Jezreel Valley in Israel, to the extreme southern boundary of the southern kingdom, Judah.” The reader is left “a bit breathless”17

Under the threat of death, Elijah seems to lose all ability to self-differentiate. He cannot separate thinking and feeling and bring some degree of objectivity to his situation. He cannot really discern the level of threat. Ironically, Jezebel sends a messenger Elijah rather than an assassin. You would think if she really wanted him dead she would not have merely threatened him. We are not told anything about why Elijah decided to flee to Beer-sheba. By leaving his servant there,18 he seems to lack the ability to think clearly about possible options for action.19 In sharp contrast to the previous chapter, Elijah is now isolated. Alone, he travels a day’s journey into the wilderness and comes to an isolated broom tree.20

Fleeing for his life (nefesh), he now prays that God will take away his life (nefesh).21 In his despair, he resumes a religious practice (i.e., prayer). The act of prayer may be an attempt to regain his communion with God, but the content of his prayer certainly emphasizes Elijah’s sense of distance from God. He wants to die.22 Elijah who is alive, but alone, is contrasted with the many dead prophets of Baal whom he killed in chapter 18 and with Elijah’s dead ancestors. Who are these ancestors? Is Elijah referring to his family or does he recognize himself as a prophet in the line of Moses?23 Now Elijah, the one who raised the widow’s dead child in 1 Kings 17:21, wishes he was dead too. Gina Hens-Piazza has commented, “This is the first time Elijah speaks to God since the contest on Mount Carmel. There he asked to be publicly endorsed as God’s prophet (18:38). … This expression of a desire for death may be related to a frustrated ambition for recognition and authority. Elijah wants to die but he does not want to be killed.”24 After all, if he really wanted to die, why flee from Jezebel? No, there must be something more going on here. I agree with Walsh that the depths of Elijah’s despair here contrasts with his manic behavior in chapter 18 (e.g., killing all the prophets of Baal and running to Jezreel), in which he triumphed over the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel: “As far as he is concerned, his triumph on Mount Carmel and the conversion of the people have had little lasting effect: Jezebel’s persecution of the prophets has become less overt, perhaps, but no less lethal, and Ahab seems not to have been affected by the Carmel display at all…. To the height of Elijah’s exaltation corresponds the depth of his despair.”25

Yet all is not lost. After his desperate plea for death, Elijah falls asleep under the broom tree. In verse 5 a messenger26 touches him and tells him to eat. At first the reader may wonder if this messenger is the same one whom Jezebel sent in verse 2. Has he followed Elijah to carry out Jezebel’s threat? The intimacy of the messenger touching Elijah and speaking to him directly is contrasted with the response of Elijah, who simply obeys, but gives no verbal response. God who had previously provided food for Elijah via ravens (1 Kings 17:4-6) and a widow (1 Kings 17:7-16) again provides food and drink. Maybe this is why he doesn’t question the messenger.27 Just as Elijah had commanded Ahab to eat and drink (1 Kings 18:41) now the messenger commands him to eat and drink (19:6). Elijah obeys and lies down again.28

In verse 7 the messenger appears again, this time the reader is told that it is a messenger from the Lord, thus clarifying that this is not the messenger of Jezebel. Just as Elijah returns (shuv) to his prone position, the messenger returns (shuv). Walsh notes that God is “just as stubborn as Elijah. The prophet, fed by God’s miraculous bounty, refuses to take up his office once more and instead ‘returns’ to his inaction. In response, Yahweh’s messenger ‘returns’ again to urge Elijah to renewed effort.”29 Thus, Elijah will not get his death wish granted after all. This time a reason is given for the nourishment, “otherwise the journey will be too much for you.” The day’s journey in verse 4 was just a short preview of the journey alluded to here in verse 7. The words rav and derek connect verses 4 and 7. In verse 4 Elijah says “enough” (rav), while in verse 7 if Elijah does not eat and drink, the journey will be too much (rav) for him.

There is still no verbal response from Elijah, but he got up, ate, drank, and then was able to walk forty days and forty nights. Elijah wasn’t told to go forty days and nights, but he does. Is this the journey (derek) referred to by the messenger? Elijah wasn’t told where to walk, but he ends up at the mountain of God at Horeb. Here Elijah (or at least the narrator) is seeking to immerse himself in the Mosaic prophetic tradition of Deuteronomy.30 As Hens-Piazza notes, “Such parallels cultivate expectations of an upcoming Moses-like theophany for Elijah. Yet, a fundamental difference separates Elijah from his ancestor. As prophetic intercessor, Moses journeyed to the wilderness to plead on behalf of the people. By contrast, Elijah flees to the wilderness on his own behalf.”31 In her commentary, Hens-Piazza is quite critical of Elijah.

Here on Mount Horeb (i.e., Mount Sinai) Elijah enters a cave to rest. This brings to mind the hundred prophets of the Lord whom Obadiah hid and fed (1 Kings 18:4, 13). Whatever happened to those hundred prophets? Is Elijah hoping to fade from the story as well? He goes to Horeb so how can he not be expecting something more from God? And notice that he doesn’t go into just any cave. We are told he goes into the cave. Is this the cave in which Moses hid in order to shield himself from the glory of God (Exodus 33:22-23)? Is Elijah seeking out Mosaic tradition and authority in order to comfort himself?
Sure enough in 1 Kings 19:9b the word of the Lord comes to Elijah and addresses him by name. The two occurrences of “there” (sham) in 19:9a are contrasted with God’s direct question “Why are you here (poh), Elijah?” This question seems to imply that God expected Elijah to be somewhere else, not at Horeb. How does this relate to the journey Elijah is supposed to be undertaking (19:7)? Elijah, who has been quiet since verse 4,  speaks again yet his response in verse 10 doesn’t seem to answer God’s question: “I have been very zealous for the LORD, the God of hosts; for the Israelites have forsaken your covenant, thrown down your altars, and killed your prophets with the sword. I alone am left, and they are seeking my life, to take it away.” Just as he acted out of his anxiety and emotional state in verse 3, now Elijah speaks out of that same anxiety. He has been very zealous for the Lord. The infinitive absolute of the verb for jealous (qn’) is usually used to speak of God (e.g., Exodus 20:5; 34:14; Deuteronomy 4:24; 5:9; 6:15).32 By using this expression, is Elijah comparing or likening himself to God?

In his response to God’s question, Elijah “triangles” the Israelites, blaming them for forsaking God’s covenant, throwing down God’s altars, and killing God’s prophets.33 He seems to have forgotten that, according to 1 Kings 18:39, the people flung themselves on their faces and cried out: “The LORD alone is God, The LORD alone is God.” Elijah also claims to be alone: “I alone am left.” Is Elijah again somehow comparing himself to God? See also 1 Kings 18:22 in which Elijah says “I am the only prophet of the LORD left, while the prophets of Baal are four hundred and fifty men.” Again, what about the hundred prophets of the Lord whom Obadiah hid in the cave? “They are seeking my life, to take it away.” Who is the “they” referred to here? At the beginning of the chapter it was Jezebel who threatened Elijah’s life. It was Jezebel who killed the prophets of the Lord. Now, “she” has become “they.” Is Elijah referring to Ahab and Jezebel? To the Israelites? His initial flight from Jezebel’s death threat has now become an indictment of Israel. Yet in the previous chapter the Israelites affirmed their allegiance to God and helped to round up the Baal prophets so Elijah could kill them.34 Hens-Piazza notes that “the prophet’s zeal for the Lord is enmeshed with zeal for his own life.”35 Nelson offers a more sympathetic interpretation: “Psychologists tell us that such depression does not necessarily make logical sense. Elijah forgets Obadiah’s hundred prophets; he ignores the great conversion on Carmel. Jezebel disappears as a villain and the whole people take her place. The burned out prophet can see only the darkest side of the situation as he voices his ego-centered complaint to God (cf. the grammatical emphasis on “I” in vv. 10, 14).”36

God responds by commanding Elijah to go out and stand on the mountain before the Lord, for the Lord is about to pass by (19:11). Elijah himself has claimed to stand before the Lord (1 Kings 17:1; 18:15),37 but in this chapter there is no report of Elijah obeying this command. In fact, Elijah does not move until verse 13. In 19:11a it seems that God is trying to reconnect Elijah to the Mosaic prophetic tradition (cf. Exodus 33:17-23). God does not become triangled or caught up in Elijah’s anxiety.

What happens next is very familiar.38 There was a great wind, but the Lord was not in the wind; an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake; a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire.39 Then, in verse 12 comes the sound of demamah daqqah, which has traditionally been translated as “a still small voice” (KJV), the “sound of sheer silence” (NRSV), or a “soft murmuring sound” (TNK).40 In this encounter with Elijah it seems that God chooses to be made manifest in a new way. Can God self-differentiate? We are not told that the Lord is in this sound, but whatever it was Elijah hears it and responds by wrapping his face in his mantle and going to the mouth of the cave.41 He must suspect he is in the presence of the divine since he does protect himself with his mantle. Does he think he is standing before the Lord? Has he differentiated himself from Moses? At any rate, he does seem ready to take action.

A voice (qol as in verse 12) then repeats the question of 19:9b: “What are you doing here, Elijah?” This time there is a slightly different emphasis than before—what are you still doing in this cave when I asked you to stand before the Lord? But Elijah’s response is the same as before. Has what happened between God’s questions had no impact on him whatsoever? If Elijah had sought a theophany, it sure seems that he has not changed; however, God brings about change by instructing Elijah to go back the way (derek; cf. verse 7) he came, but then to go on to Damascus and anoint Hazael, Jehu, and Elisha. This time he will not be alone for God will leave 7,000 non-Baal worshippers in Israel (19:18). Again, God does not get drawn into Elijah’s triangle of God, Elijah, and the Israelites. God is able to stand back from this triangle and Elijah’s accusation and to bring the conversation back to a focus on Elijah.

In verse 19 Elijah leaves “there” (sham) and finds Elisha plowing in a field. Elijah goes over to him and throws his mantle upon him.42 In a fashion similar to the way Moses chooses Joshua to succeed him (Numbers 27:12-23), Elijah chooses his disciple, the one who is next in line in the prophetic line of Moses.43 Elisha leaves his oxen and goes after Elijah, asking him if he can kiss his parents goodbye, then he will follow Elijah. Elijah’s reply seems odd, “Go back. What have I done to you?” Here probably unbeknownst to himself, Elijah begins to act toward Elisha as God acted toward him. As Walsh notes,

Yahweh “passed by” Elijah on Horeb (v. 11); Elijah “passes by” Elisha in the fields (v. 19b). Elijah wrapped his face in his mantle (v. 13); he now covers Elisha with the same mantle (v. 19b). Yahweh’s commands to Elijah began, “Go, return”; Elijah’s first words to Elisha are identical (v. 20b). We can infer that Elisha’s encounter with Elijah is parallel to Elijah’s encounter with Yahweh, and is therefore more of a prophetic empowerment than Elijah either realizes or intends.44

Thus, as Elisha becomes a disciple of Elijah, he too may need to differentiate himself not only from the Mosaic tradition, but also from Elijah.

This account doesn’t mention Elijah completing God’s other charges. To some extent, they are carried out by Elisha or one of his followers. The chapter concludes with a communal meal in preparation for Elisha to join Elijah. In contrast to Elijah eating alone in wilderness, here he eats with others, including one who will carry on his prophetic mission. Elisha seems to take place of the servant Elijah left behind in verse 3.

4. Conclusions and Implications

In his commentary on 1 Kings, Jerome Walsh points out not only the similarities between Elijah and the Moses tradition in 1 Kings 17—19, but also the differences. He concludes that in chapter 19 “Elijah fails to live up to the Mosaic paradigm.”45 To some extent, I disagree since I am a little more sympathetic to the character of Elijah. By going to Horeb, I believe that Elijah was seeking a theophanic experience which would renew him so that he could carry out his prophetic charge. His experience differed from that of Moses. Instead of being a failure in the Mosaic paradigm, he differentiated himself from the Mosaic paradigm in order to find his own prophetic voice.46 This is a struggle future prophets would also face, finding the balance between tradition and innovation in order to speak to their contexts. It is a struggle shared by church leaders today. God too differentiates in this story and avoids Elijah’s attempts at triangulation.

To go back to Richardson’s discussion of differentiation, he sets up a diagram in which closeness (left) and distance (right) are at opposite ends of a horizontal axis. On the vertical axis at opposite ends are differentiation (top) and fusion (bottom). These axes create four quadrants of adjectives: “connected” in the top left, “alone” in the top right, “enmeshed” in the bottom left, and “isolated” in the bottom right. A differentiated self may feel connected (on the closeness end) or alone (on the distance end of the horizontal axis). On the other hand, a fused self may feel enmeshed (on the closeness end) or isolated (on the distance end of the horizontal axis).47 Feeling connected or alone are healthier responses than feeling enmeshed or isolated. In 1 Kings 19, Elijah journeys from being isolated (the bottom right quadrant) to being connected (the top left quadrant).

In CPE, I noticed that some members of my peer group and some hospital patients and nursing home residents felt isolated. It was sometimes helpful for me to assist them in connecting their feelings with a specific biblical passage such as 1 Kings 19. Sometimes I feel alone as a UU biblical scholar, but I think being able to apply psychological approaches to biblical texts will be one way in which I can connect more with Unitarian Universalists and also reconnect Unitarian Universalists to the Bible. My denomination is a diverse movement. The people within it have very different understandings of the Bible, ranging from some who might embrace parts of it to others who reject it in its entirety. I have found that using historical and literary approaches to the Bible does not always work in UU congregations, but psychological approaches can sometimes be more effective. At the very least, most congregations have triangles. The concept of differentiation is important to me as a Unitarian Universalist, a tradition which often seeks to differentiate itself from others. This is a theme throughout our history. When do we claim our religious traditions and when do we need to understand or claim them in a new way? When do we feel connected to our traditions and when do we feel alone? For me, the challenge remains: how can I take elements of biblical scholarship and the behavioral sciences and apply them to the context of congregational life? My discussion of 1 Kings 19 is one way I have addressed this challenge.

Return to Homepage

Send messages to webmaster: psybibs@worldnet.att.net
Site designed by
Last updated November 21, 2008