When encountering today’s passage, many sermons focus on the “still, small voice” (v.12). A common theme is how God’s voice can’t be heard in the busy-ness and noise of life, and that we need to get away if we want to hear him.
Another approach might be to take Elijah’s anxiety and fear in running away from Jezebel and go into a discussion of how he ought to have trusted in God and stayed put, or perhaps a message about how to cope with discouragement and depression.
I think there is good case and support for each of these approaches. Yet what struck me as I read through the passage this time was what I perceived as similarities to Jonah chapter 4. It’s a short chapter so I’ll read it now in its entirety.
Jonah 4:1 Now this greatly displeased Jonah, and he became angry. 2 He prayed to the Lord and said, “O Lord! Is this not what I said while I was still in my own land? This is the reason that I fled before to Tarshish, because I knew that You are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger, abundant in faithfulness, and ready to relent from punishment. 3 Therefore, Lord, take my life from me, for it is better for me to die than to live.”
4 Then the Lord said, “Is it right for you to be angry?”
5 So Jonah went out of the city and sat down east of the city and made for himself a booth there. He sat under it in the shade, waiting to see what would happen to the city. 6 Then the Lord God appointed a plant, and it grew up over Jonah to provide shade over his head, to provide comfort from his grief. And Jonah was very happy about the plant. 7 But at dawn the next day, God appointed a worm to attack the plant so that it withered. 8 When the sun rose, God appointed a scorching east wind, and the sun beat upon the head of Jonah so that he became faint and asked that he might die. He said, “It is better for me to die than to live.”
9 Then God said to Jonah, “Is it right for you to be angry about the plant?”
And Jonah replied, “It is right for me to be angry, even to death.”
10 The Lord said, “You are troubled about the plant for which you did not labor and did not grow. It came up in a night and perished in a night. 11 Should I not, therefore, be concerned about Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people, who do not know their right hand from their left, and also many animals?” (MEV)
So here are particular points of similarities to note:
- Both Elijah and Jonah had fled
- Both ask God to take their lives
- In both cases, God’s response comes in simple questions
- Both situate themselves in a solitary place
- God provides miraculous provisions in both cases
- Wild natural events occur in both stories
- God asks questions twice
- In both cases the response from Elijah and Jonah repeat their first responses
- In both cases God’s final response is about a large number of individuals
What shall we make of this? Is it merely coincidence? The book of Kings was placed into its final form sometime during or closely after the Jewish exile in Babylon. The book of Jonah was composed sometime after that. I think it is entirely possible that the author of Jonah used the story of Elijah as a kind of template, and perhaps even as a parody rebelling retelling of the earlier account. A number of commentators suggest that there could be some connection between the two stories.
Also, according to a number of Jewish traditions regarding Elijah’s story, they see God’s command to Elijah to anoint Elisha as his replacement, and to begin traveling the region anointing leaders, as a punishment of Elijah. In other words, Elijah’s response to God’s query (in 1Ki 19) is found wanting, and Elijah is placed on a retirement path. This too, aligns with the story of Jonah where at the end is found God’s rebuke of Jonah.
The rebuke is that Jonah had perceived God incorrectly, that Jonah’s desires about those who are “against God” are inappropriate. And so I began to wonder if something similar could be seen in Elijah’s story.
We need to back up and quickly review Elijah’s story prior to 1 Kings 19. Elijah was called to speak against Ahab and announce a drought. For three years the drought continued while Elijah was hidden and provided for, first through ravens and then through a widow in a foreign land. At the end of the three years God commands Elijah to “go and present [himself] to Ahab, and [God] will send rain upon the earth” (1Ki 18:1). Elijah does so and sets up a showdown between his God, and Baal and Asherah. It takes place on Mt. Carmel where Elijah’s God is shown to be the victor and Elijah commands the people to seize and kill all the prophets of Baal and Asherah, which they do. And this is where chapter 19 picks up with Ahab telling his wife, Jezebel, of what had happened. She gets angry and declares Elijah a traitor and enemy of the state. Elijah flees.
Now, the frequent interpretation I’ve heard growing up in the church of this preceding set of stories is how wonderful it is that God showed himself to be right, and how fitting it is that evil was destroyed. It’s a “Go God!” story, showing how God will vindicate himself.
But is it really?
Often when we read stories like these, we make the assumption that because things turn out in favor of God and the righteous, that what happened must be right and God’s will. In this case because God sends down fire on Mt. Carmel, it must have been his will, and that the subsequent action taken by Elijah was also God’s will.
But was it really?
What if Elijah was overstepping his bounds? What if Elijah had assumed things about God and was acting upon his own ideas about how he thought God would respond and about what he thought God wanted?
I’ve already laid out some evidence from Jonah and from Jewish commentators as to why an alternate reading is plausible. Now I’d like to show why I think the text of 1 Kings 18 and 19 itself supports this alternate interpretation.
First, in the command God gives to Elijah about returning to Ahab, God’s command is to “present himself [Elijah] to Ahab” and then the rain will return. There is nothing here about God commanding a showdown or a demonstration of power. This reminds me of Moses and his action at Meribah (Numbers 20). In biblical interpretation, Elijah is seen as a type of Moses, so it should not be surprising that the chronicler of Elijah might allude in some ways to Moses’ life events. At Meribah, the people are complaining about a lack of water. God commands Moses to speak to a rock, but instead, Moses, in his anger, strikes the rock twice. In spite of Moses’ actions God supplies water, but Moses is punished by not being allowed to enter the Promised Land. In this story Moses oversteps God’s commands and carries out his own desires. Perhaps the chronicler of Elijah is alluding to this story about Moses. I believe it is quite likely that the entire showdown at Mt. Carmel (that also, incidentally, uses water) was of Elijah going beyond God’s command. God still manifests himself through a sign, but it can be interpreted as not what God desired to happen. And the slaughter of the prophets of Baal? Quite possibly overzealousness on Elijah’s part, and his imitating surrounding culture in how opposing prophets were handled by victorious powers.
When God finally speaks to Elijah (in 1Ki 19) after fleeing Jezebel, there is no commendation of Elijah’s prior actions. Rather there seems to be a sense of rebuke. Elijah’s response is that he was defending God’s honor (“I’ve been zealous for the Lord”), and by pointing out that he was all alone in this, perhaps seeking some kind of pity and affirmation. But God offers neither. This happens twice. And Elijah’s response is identical both times.
In between the two conversations a violent storm, an earthquake, and fire come, but God is not in any of them. These are metaphors associated with violent judgment. But when God finally speaks, it is not through any of them but rather, in “a still, small voice.” Perhaps this is an explanation that the fire that came down on Mt. Carmel was more about Elijah’s desires rather than God’s. Perhaps this is God trying to tell Elijah that power and violence are not the means of reaching the hearts of people. I think here, Jonah’s story is the counterpoint, where merely speaking changes people’s hearts.
God asks again what Elijah is doing here, and Elijah gives an identical response, word for word. It seems clear that Elijah has failed to comprehend God and his methods of working with humans, even with those that fail to acknowledge him. Jewish commentaries suggest that Elijah’s failure was to consider God’s mercy and compassion as greater than his power and vengeance. It appears his zeal has consumed his ability to be merciful or to even think about it as a possibility. There is still work for Elijah, but it is in wrapping up his time on earth and appointing a successor.
I hope you can see now that Elijah's confrontation with the prophets of Baal on Mt. Carmel, often seen as an example for us to confront forcefully those we think are opposing God, could be the antithesis of what the storyteller in this passage really wanted the reader to understand. In the broader picture, this could be a story about people overzealously claiming things for God that God himself wants no part of.
I think we should be extremely wary of any claims to force, power, and violence as tools that God desires or uses. I think we should be very careful in how we defend God, if we ever feel the need arises. I think we need to re-read the Bible with more nuance and not automatically assume that because something turned out okay, God must have desired things to come about in the manner described. I think our frequent desire for judgment and vengeance is more a reflection about our nature than about God’s. I don’t think we can ever exaggerate the magnitude of God’s love, mercy, and compassion.
Whenever we are confused about how to respond to another person, favor the way of love, mercy, and compassion – with no ulterior motives and with no strings attached. Don’t let your zeal for God consume your mercy and love for others.
No comments:
Post a Comment