Image of Jonah Fleeing God

Chapter 1 of the Book of Jonah

UNEDITED NOTES DIRECTLY FROM THE PAPER

The images amplification from ancient pre-Christian sources

One of Jonahs contemporaries among the Hebrew Prophets was Micah. He wrote the following
in the eighth century BCE:
For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of
YHVH, our God, for ever and ever (Micah 4:5).
The context of this prophecy of Micah (the last days) is given in the first verse of this chapter.1
In the Tenach, this expression refers to a future time, event, epoch, or era which represents the
culmination of Jewish religious history. Some equate it with the time when the Messiah comes
or when the Messianic era comes into being. In all examples from the Scripture it refers to
something that has not yet happened. Psychologically, the term may also accompanied by a state
of tension resulting from a conviction of certainty, that these events will occur at some future
time, and doubt, uncertainty since no human being can say when it is that this will occur.
Therefore I suggest that the last days always refers to an image which is both partially
unknown and numinously tinged. The last days has been defined eschatologically as the era in
which the forces of good triumph over the forces of evil.
I suggest that the phrase, the last days, bears some psychological similarity to the common
fairy tale introduction of once upon a time. In fairy tales, once upon a time is interpreted as
meaning that the tale comes out of the constellated collective unconscious or represents a
creative content that is timeless. Therefore, I suggest that the time of Jonah, as well as the time
of Micah, was one in which there was an unconscious conditioning effect (the last days) upon
the collective consciousness. Additionally, this idea is supported by the historical facts. The
invasion and eventual destruction of the Northern Kingdom of Israel by the stronger Assyrian
Empire (whose capital is the same Nineveh spoken of in the book of Jonah) would take place
within 60 years in 720 BCE.2
Perhaps the prophet Micahs words are compensatory to the fear induced by the politically
volatile situation that the Jewish people faced. The prophet sees the current within the
collective unconscious as the image of the eventual respect that YHVH would gain among the
1

But in the last days it shall come to pass that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be
established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall
flow unto it (Micah 4:1).
2
See this papers section, Authorship, dating, and place in the canon of the book of Jonah, Place
in the Canon, for the approximate dates of the lives of the Hebrew prophets and important
events in the history of the nation of Israel.

gods of the world by what happened to the Jewish people, For all people will walk every one in
the name of his god, and we will walk (Micah 4:5). Micah saw a time when Gentiles
would come to his house (Micah 4:1 see footnote). The word, house (Hebrew biit) is an
analogy for the Jewish Temple and in this passage refers to the physical place on earth which is
dedicated to the worship of YHVH. It is in this place that the Gentiles learn of YHVHs ways
and walk in YHVHs paths.3
Though the prophets themselves could not grasp the psychological significance of such images, I
suggest that what was seen as being in the future (in the last days) may be understood as a
contemporary and unconscious psychological background that the time was short. If such a
constellation were to drive behavior, it might stir individuals to try to accomplish things in the
little time they had left. Perhaps such a constellation conditioned some of the actions of YHVH
seen in the book of Jonah: an expansion of the practice of Judaism to include the Gentiles as well
as Jews. If this were the case, it follows that such a deeply unconscious constellation might only
find a suitable hook for projection onto the imago dei. This might be an explanation for it being
described in the text as His desire rather than the desire of a particular human being.

The revelation of Jonah

Now the word of the Lord (YHVH) came to Jonah the son of Amittai, saying, 2 Arise, go to
Nineveh, that great city, and cry out against it; for their wickedness has come up before Me
(Jonah 1:1-2).
The book's first verse explains its context: a message from the Lord comes to Jonah. From such
a beginning point one can assume that there was a pre-existing relationship between the prophet
Jonah and his God, YHVH. The Hebrew phrase, the word of the Lord, needs an amplification
for us to understand its more specific meaning, not as a general message, but rather as a
revelation. The Hebrew, davar, translated as word used in combination with YHVH occurs
over 100 times in the Hebrew Bible. In almost all of these occurrences the word of the Lord is
used to introduce a revelation or prophecy. What is revelation or a word of prophecy
from a psychological point of view? First, such words describe the actualities of a numinous
encounter between an individual human being and a divine figure. From the psychological
standpoint, these indicate communication with a subject from within the collective unconscious.
Secondly, the passage itself characterizes Jonah as having had an experience of psyche which
came to Jonah unbidden, that is, it was an autonomous experience. It is more accurate to say
that the text describes this davar as coming upon Jonah; by this we understand that Jonah did not
speak, author, or will the word into existence. The text itself supports the notion that in this
experience, Jonah was the object of the actions of an autonomous subject identified as YHVH.
The phrasing of this first verse leaves entirely open the question of who wrote this account. The
entire first chapter of Jonah is written in the third person as the story and experience of a
particular man living in a definite time and at a specific place on earth. Therefore the question of
3

And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his
paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem (Micah 4:2).

whether the narrator is Jonah, another individual, or a group of people who later heard the story,
edited it, and wrote it down in its present form is unanswerable.
Based upon the numinous character of the recorded experience and the lack of information about
the authorship of this chapter, it is reasonable to compare the experience of Jonah to an
archetypal dream an encounter with ones highest value.

Amplification of the name Jonah

came to Jonah the son of Amittai (Jonah 1:1)
Since very little is known about the empirical man Jonah, a philological approach may shed
some additional information for our investigation. The Hebrew names of the Scripture often
carry a symbolic meaning: a fact frequently made use of in theological inquiry. Jonah is the
English translation of the Hebrew, Yonah which literally means "dove." Beside its use in the
book of the Jonah yonah occurs 36 other times in the Scriptures. Its first appearance is in the
Torah (Five Books of Moses Pentateuch) when Noah releases a yonah (dove) for the
purpose of determining if the flood waters had receded from the earth (Gen. 8:6-13). If the dove
returned to the ark, then Noah would take it as an indicator that there was as yet no dry land. In
this context, the dove could be conceived of as a carrier of knowledge that no human could know
or refer to thoughts / ideas which come unexpectedly very much like suddenly seeing a bird fly
by. This amplification bears similarities to those from non-Jewish sources in which the bird is the
carrier of the soul or delivers divine messages. The dove is also associated with Aphrodite and
Eros in general. In our day, dream birds often relate to intuitions, airy thoughts, or divine
wisdom. Elsewhere in the Torah, the yonah (dove) is mentioned as one of the animals (beside
a lamb) that is deemed acceptable for sacrifice on the altar in the Tent of Meeting4. This early
usage was before the Jewish people moved the sacrificial altar into the First Temple (Constructed
during the reign of King Solomon. See time line in my section Place in the Canon.). The
sacrificial dove was chosen for its innocence and purity. Like all animal sacrifices in Judaism,
the sacrificial dove had to be anatomically perfect5.
In the Songs of Solomon, the feminine figure of the Shulamite is described as a dove or having
the eyes of a dove.6 The sad emotions of Hezekiah, king of Judah, are described by the prophet
Isaiah (740 to 680 BCE) as being dove-like.7 Similar analogical usage occurs in the books of
Jeremiah (48:28) and Nahum (2:7). Lastly, the Prophet Hosea describes the Northern Kingdom
4

And if the burnt sacrifice for his offering to the Lord be of fowls, then he shall bring his
offering of turtledoves, or of young doves (yonah) (Leviticus 1:14).
5
And if his oblation be a sacrifice of peace offering, if he offer it of the herd; whether it be a
male or female, he shall offer it without blemish before the Lord (Leviticus 3:1).
6
Behold, you are fair, my love; behold, you are fair; you have doves eyes within your locks:
your hair is as a flock of goats, that appear from Mount Gilead (Songs of Solomon 4:1).
7
In chapter 38 of the book of Isaiah Hezekiahs first person account of his emotional state during
a sickness which almost took his life is described as being like a crane or a swallow, so I
chattered; I mourned like a dove; my eyes fail from looking upward. O YHVH, I am oppressed;
Undertake for me (Isaiah 38:14).

of Israel, Ephraim as being like a silly dove without heart: they call to Egypt, they go to
Assyria (Hosea 7:11).
To summarize these amplifications, I suggest that at this time the dove represented a feminine
carrier or mediator of both the divine essence and knowledge along with a quality of feeling
and / or Eros not typical of masculine consciousness during the Biblical period.
In the New Testament, the dove clearly takes on a larger and more important role. The dove, as
the Holy Spirit, descends from heaven and alights upon Jesus.8 The event occurs with a voice
from heaven announcing the sonship of Jesus.9 Such a symbolic usage, while consistent with the
its usage in the Tenach imagery suggests a fundamental change in at least the air region
manifestion of the imago dei.
Jung amplifies the dove from the a Gnostic (post New Testament) source:
According to Irenaeus, the Gnostics held that Sophia represents the world of the Ogdoad
[eight], which is a double quaternity. In the form of a dove, she descended into the water and
begot Saturn, who is identical with YHVH. Saturn, as we have already mentioned, is the other
sun, the sol niger of alchemy. Here he is the primus Anthropus. He created the first man,
who could only crawl like a worm (Aion, CW 9:2, para. 307).
This connection of the dove with Sophia makes clear the necessary feminine imprint to the
incarnating aspect of the creative work of the Holy Spirit that is not explicitly present in the
Bible. Such imagery is consistent with ones overall impression of the lack of Eros in the
Biblical period.
As to Jonah's specific role as the "dove" man of chapter ones narrative, I suggest two
possibilities:
Jonah's name signifies that he is a man with the dovish qualities who is considered worthy to
deliver such an important message. Jonah's call from God to proclaim a message to the people of
Nineveh (later acted upon in Jonah, chapter three) is a concrete example of what would be
realized much later in a more extensive way in the spread of Christianity through the ministry of
Jesus and the actions of the Holy Spirit. Such an interpretation seems to me to correspond to the
prospective aspect of an archetypal dream.
As I will take up more extensively in my treatment of the second image from the book of Jonah,
Jonah is perhaps a carrier of a higher level of consciousness in nascent form. As such, his dovish
side also contains a divine spark, the Lumen naturae, the chthonic feminine divinity which is
excluded from the more masculine YHVH. As the unrealized feminine or carrier of Eros in a
spirit-form he perhaps bears the characteristics which the Apostle John used to encourage the
Hebrew members of the ecclesia (body, i.e. literally means called out ones) of Christ, But you
have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things (I John 2:20).
8
9

Matthew 3:16, Mark 1:10, Luke 3:22, and John 1:32

This event is known theologically as the Annunciation.

The nature of Jonahs revelation

Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry out against it; for their wickedness has come up
before Me (Jonah 1:2).
Arise makes it clear that YHVH and Jonah are not engaged in a dialogue, but rather YHVH
has issued Jonah a command that he expects him to obey. The revelatory command, Arise, go
to Nineveh, suggests that the relationship between YHVH and Jonah was not one of equals.
However, a similar Hebrew phrasing is not uncommon in the other books of the major and minor
Prophets. As far as the context and meaning of YHVHs command to Jonah, I found nothing else
like it in the Tenach. It seems that never before had a Jewish prophet been asked to bring such a
message to a large group of non-Jews. One might see a superficial similarity between this
command and the story of YHVHs judgment against Sodom and Gemorrah (Genesis 18 and 19).
However, in that case there was no opportunity given for the people to respond to a message.
Also during that time period the Jewish nation had just formed (only consisted of the household
of Abraham) and did not possess a specific territory where its people dwelled.
The message given to Jonah is quite clear: YHVH has judged Nineveh as deserving of judgment
and that soon He would destroy them. To the modern reader, this meaning may not feel
warranted by the poetically framed English, cry out against it. However, in the Scripture this
wording typically means that destruction is certain unless repentance takes place. The cry out
against it also suggests that Jonah, as prophet, would publicly stand before the people to declare
YHVHs judgment.
Why has Nineveh, among all the heathen or pagan cities of the earth been chosen as the setting
of this story? There is no immediate satisfactory answer to this question. The Soncino
(Conservative Jewish) commentary calls the state of Nineveh as one of intense moral and social
sins. Therefore its code of conduct, rather than its religious practices, is highlighted, which may
give us a hint that the meaning of the narrative may extend beyond religion to the level of human
consciousness in general.
I find the Hebrew phrasing used in this verse interesting: YHVHs judgment is designated as
being upon an eer (city) rather than the text saying something like, the people of Nineveh. To
me the phrasing brings a more impersonal feeling to the impending judgment. This raises the
question of just how well does YHVH know the people of Nineveh? In a collective setting,
impersonal phrasing often occurs when two nations are at war; one then projects its evil on its
enemy. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to suggest that such phrasing indicates that YHVH may
have had little contact or relationship with the people of Nineveh. Such an hypothesis is
supported by the lack of contemporary parallels in the Tenach.
As to the reason given for the judgment itself, the text clearly implies its relation to the city's
moral state as "wickedness" (ra'ah'tam) literally means a stench or bad smell has reached
YHVHs nostrils. One might ask, why is YHVH now planing such a judgment? The use of
present tense, has come up, suggests that YHVH is now aware of their wickedness in way that
he was not aware of it before. The texts imagery is of one who smells a bad odor which they
cannot bear for much longer. This gives an immediacy and intensity to the command. This

along with the subsequent events of chapter one, suggest that YHVH wants Jonah to go to
Nineveh immediately. It seems to me that many Christian Biblical commentators unconsciously
pick up on this felt-sense by suggesting, in way of explanation, that YHVH had been holding off
his judgment of Nineveh for some time. Such a delay, says the commentators, was an act of
mercy toward a people who did not deserve it. Since the impending judgment upon Nineveh
takes place after the Law has been given to Moses on Mount Sinai, Jonah must have assumed
that YHVH based it upon Torah principles. But since the people of Nineveh are non-Jews they
cannot know or follow the Torah. One might then consider from Jonahs standpoint whether
such a judgment could be fair. Said another way, on what basis can YHVH justify to Jonah
applying a Jewish standard to non-Jews? It seems to me that from our present-day standpoint
one could reasonably suggest that YHVHs action seem unjust or unfair. Could Jonah have felt
this as well? The question is unanswerable as we have no evidence from the text itself to
understand Jonahs feelings except that he fled from YHVH. However, from the contemporary
collective standpoint, one might suggest that YHVH's plan to judge an entire city reflects upon a
collective attitude that at least on a symbolic level needed a death and rebirth experience.
Perhaps Nineveh was following an overly instinctive lifestyle which was too low from YHVHs
standpoint. Such judgments when taken symbolically were perhaps hints that there was a
collective call constellated to stimulate humanity to a higher level of conscious adaptation to life.
From what we know of the region's religious practices, the likely word picture implied by the
stench that YHVH smelled were the pagan sacrificial rituals connected with either matriarchal
worship or earth gods which preceded the historical era of tribal monotheism which began with
the Jewish people.
For the sake of discussion, the impending judgment of Nineveh raises important questions: Why
does YHVH want Jonah to go to the Gentiles? Of what concern was it to him that the heathen
town of Nineveh was wicked? How is YHVHs process intertwined with Jonahs? And since in
Hebrew Jonah means dove why is it that the dove is the one who he needs to speak? I pose
these questions to stimulate the reader to contemplate the situation from new vantage points.
Regardless of ones answers to these questions, our text is unique; it is the first recorded attempt
of YHVH to give a religious message to Gentiles after the formation of the Jewish nation.10

YHVH as an archetypal image reflecting upon the potentiality

for the development of greater consciousness
As I mentioned in the introduction, previous psychological treatments of this image focus upon
the motif as representative of the ego fleeing from an encounter with the self and subsequently
falling back into an unconscious state. However, research by Jung allows us to also consider the
passage from YHVHs standpoint by the hypothesis: At this time, was the imago of YHVH in
transformation? If this is so, then his portrayal in the passage reflects a not yet realized
potentiality within the collective unconscious whose purpose, when considered teleologically, is
to bring about a higher level of conscious development.
10

While it is true that before the Jewish nation was formed under Abraham, Noah preached a
message of repentance to the nations. Unlike the story of Jonah and Nineveh, the people did not
listen. The judgment of Elohim destroyed all life on earth until it returned after the flood waters
receded.

As Jung pointed out in Answer to Job the imago of YHVH as presented in the book of Job, if
viewed from our current standpoint, seems to be minimally conscious. Unfortunately Jungs
empirical characterization (based on a psychological understanding of a literal reading of the
Biblical text itself) was so challenging to most peoples conscious attitude that his points were
almost universally misunderstood. In the Torah, written before both the books of Job and Jonah,
YHVH explained to Moses that his name was, I am that I am.11 To translate such statements
into psychological terms is very difficult. Looked at from the standpoint of ego psychology such
a level of development might be characterized as one who has minimal knowledge of their outer
and inner world other than the knowledge that they exist, that they are an I am. However, such
a statement is only applicable if we also consider archetypal energies from the prospective side
as the urge of all life to grow and expand. Therefore, YHVH as an imago, must have a certain
degree of autonomy and consciousness since he appears to have these two aspects. Such a
characterization is what led Jung to write of the concept of the subject within the collective
unconscious and also of the multiple consciousnesses (luminosities) within the unconscious.
However, one must always keep in mind that when the psyche is viewed from a reductive
standpoint, there is no evidence that nature (archetypal forces) care much about human ego
development. Consciousness is a psychic fact which is contra naturam (against or contranature). However, it is also the decisive factor in the growth of human personality and, by
inference, it must play the same role in the growth of the imago dei. As we know from both
child development and psycho-pathological states, consciousness, particularly when it is fragile,
must be guarded from the destructive effects of the unconscious, paradoxically the very factors
that also may, at times, activate and promote its growth. This paradox or duality of the psyche
can never be done away with. However, one can say that the pair of 1) contact with the
unconscious and 2) integration of its contents are always productive, leading in the direction of
an enlarged consciousness and greater ego development.
Jung established that the symbols of the self (quaternities, mandalas, circles, spheres, and the
center) cannot, from the empirical standpoint, be distinguished from symbols of the imago dei.
Additionally, if one looks at dream series, there appears to be something like a regulating process
operating which draws the ego toward a consideration of images relating to or of a center, while
at the same time enlarging the personality. These two facts provide a psychological justification
for looking at the portrayal of YHVH in the Tenach as reflective of the future potential that
promotes the development of ego consciousness. Additional support for this notion is provided
by concepts derived from the psychological exploration of the historical record of Western
religion. In the Scriptural record there appears to be the presence of a factor or factors that seem
to promote a development line of the psyche much as one sees in the line of development
when studying embryology or development biology. Jung calls this developmental process or
factor (or set of factors) resulting in personality enlargement, individuation.
11

And Moses said to God, Behold, when I come to the children of Israel, and shall say to them,
The God of your fathers hath sent me to you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? What
shall I say to them?
14 And God said to Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shall you say to the children of
Israel, I AM has sent me to you (Exodus 3:13-14).

Especially in regard to traditional religion, Jung noted that its symbols12 wear out and need
transformation to remain carriers of energy. If one accepts the idea of development and change
of the Western imago dei then the constellation of YHVHs psychic state portrayed in the book of
Jonah also should contain transformational energies for both Jonah and YHVHs personality
enlargement. Therefore, I suggest that one meaning of YHVHs command for Jonah to preach to
Nineveh is that there is an activation of an inner factor within Himself which promotes
personality growth and which manifests in His desire for growth and expansion of his outer
sphere to gain more people who worship Him as God.
Seen from another vantage point, is it psychologically valid to use ones characterization of the
imago dei in the book of Jonah to make hypothesis about the level of the Hebrew ego
development at the time of Jonah and the dynamisms that confronted it? I suggest that it is. As
an example, consider how one might describe the ego development in a person who upon
awakening to a bad smell, wants to immediately destroy what it assumes to be its source? Such a
conception of the outside world if seen in an adult suggests extreme fear. Such an impersonal
and negative attitude might be seen in extreme introversion, narcissism, or, at the very least, in
immaturity. Objectively, at this time one could say that the sphere of Jonah and YHVHs world
is small. There is contact with only with a few men, the prophets, who are part of a small
compact society, the Hebrew people. If one stays within the category of immaturity, YHVHs
behavior is at about the level of a modern small child, perhaps around age 3-4. Considering
YHVH as collective image, such a conception suggests that, at this time, the collective adult
level of consciousness of the Hebrew people was in a state of almost complete participation with
the outside environment. Ego consciousness would then not extend much beyond the point of
there being little more self-awareness other than that one exists. Is such a hypothesis of level of
consciousness supported by the Scripture? Jung used such an approach in the Kundalini
Seminar:
But by means of the [tantric psychology] ... we can observe that suprapersonal events do take
place within our own psyche. ... The cakra system manifests itself in culture and culture can
therefore be divided into various levels such as the belly, heart, and head centers. Therefore we
can experience and demonstrate the various centers as they appear in the life of the individual, or
in the evolution of humanity. We begin in the head; we identify with our eyes and our
consciousness: quite detached and objective, we survey the world. That is ajna [head]. But we
cannot linger forever in the pure spheres of detached observation, we must bring our thoughts
into reality. We voice them and so trust them to the air. When we clothe our knowledge in
words, we are in the region of visuddha, or the throat centers. But as soon as we say something
that is especially difficult, or that cause us positive or negative feelings, we have a throbbing of
the heart, and then anahata [heart] center begins to be activated. And still another step further,
when for example, a dispute with someone starts up, when we have become irritable and angry
and get beside ourselves, then we are in manipura [belly] (Jung, 1996, p. 63).
Such a somatic psychological grid may also be found in the Scriptures. Scriptural word-pictures,
such as belly or heart, may then be suggested to be complex symbols illustrating certain aspects
of a particular level of consciousness. For example, one can see in the both the Old and New
12

Specifically, I mean its archetypal images which Jung calls cultural symbols in his book
Man and His Symbols (Jung, 1964, p. 93).

Testament13 the admonition to achieve a heart level of devotion to God. A detailed exploration
of this motif in the Tenach and a discussion of it as a psychological concept is beyond the scope
of this paper.14 The evidence for this in the Tenach suggests to me that in Biblical times, the
Hebrew people considered themselves as living on a belly level corresponding for the
Kundalini schema of manipura. Such a conception is analogous to the contemporary and
collective perspective of Westerners who believe they are living at a head level. However, it
is clear that despite this contemporary conscious attitude and opinion the general psychological
level of development of consciousness is considerably lower. For the most part, the Western
collective remain blissfully unaware and inflated, not being in touch with either their own
instincts or the unconscious which are the dominant factors influencing their lives.
In the context of the discussion of the potential for a numinous imago to increase its level of
consciousness, I suggest that YHVHs desire to expand his influence beyond the Jewish people
to the Gentiles of Nineveh represents the activation of an archetypal and creative factor which
might promote growth within both the unconscious as well as consciousness. Said simply, one
might say that in the record of Scripture the imago dei seems to want to be more than He
currently is. Said psychologically, the imago dei itself exhibits the urge toward individuation.
Now I turn to a consideration of Jonahs reactions and responses. His reaction to the command
of YHVH is, at the very least, extreme psychic discomfort. I suggest that Jonah, while being
unaware of the reasons for his reaction, acutely feels it is intolerable for him to stay in Israel. At
the same time, it appears that Jonah also has an immediate and autonomous judgment that he
cannot fulfill the wishes of YHVH. Jonah, at least on some level, understands the implications
of his encounter. As the first chapter clearly points out, from YHVH's standpoint he issued a
command that Jonah must either obey or face the consequences, destruction.

Jonah flees
But Jonah arose to flee to Tarshish from the presence of the Lord. He went down to Joppa,
and found a ship going to Tarshish; so he paid the fare, and went down into it, to go with them
to Tarshish from the presence of the Lord. (Jonah 1:3).
Was Jonahs flight from Israel a feeling or an emotion? It depends on the image one sees. The
traditional idea that most theologians or psychologists hold is that Jonah was in midst of an
emotion: that he was carried away by his affect. In other words, Jonahs emotion grabbed him
and he involuntarily took flight. The theologians espouse that his emotion was fear of judgment
for rejecting the call of the Lord to preach the message to Nineveh. This opinion is supported by
13

And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all
your might (Deuteronomy 6:5).
Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, 36
Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, You shall love the
Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the
first and great commandment (Matthew 22:35-38).
14

For example, the Hebrew word for heart is used over 700 times in the Tenach.

the fact that the text says the storm which threatened the ship was sent by the Lord (Jonah 1:4).
In my opinion, most psychologists say much the say thing but re-frame it as Jonah fearing a
numinous encounter with the Divine Personality. These focus upon the fact that he fled from
the presence of the Lord (v. 3). I suggest that either the theological or psychological
conclusions may not be warranted from the facts as presented in these first few verses of chapter
one.
Instead, perhaps Jonah initially fled on the basis of an emotion but his subsequent actions suggest
a more complex and partially conscious response: a feeling-toned judgment that he could not
obey the command of YHVH. While Jonah may have been aware of his internal judgment, I am
not suggesting awareness of the unconscious aspects of either his emotion or feelings. If this
possibility can be imagined then it allows one to consider that Jonah was not completely overcome
by a state of numinous fear and dread but rather he experienced a psychic conflict with moral
overtones and ethical undertones. Being a prophet of the God of Israel he must have regularly
heard from Him and conveyed what he heard to the people. But perhaps in this particular
instance, he was confronted with a command he simply could not stomach. Considered from the
standpoint of an even more nuanced layer of psyche, perhaps Jonah unconsciously suffered from
an as-yet and unrealized conflict of duty, an ethical rather than a moral question. By this I
mean that there exists a conflict between ones moral (collective) values and a transpersonal
reality that compels one to take a different direction from what is collectively acceptable.
Let us now compare Jonahs response of flight with YHVHs angry reaction of attempting to
destroy the ship Jonah was on. There certainly is a qualitative difference between the two
reactions. YHVHs actions feels more explosive and instinctual than Jonahs. The description of
Jonahs flight implies some degree of ego consciousness: He went down to Joppa, and found a
ship going to Tarshish; so he paid the fare . (v. 3). On a psychological level, Jonah's paying
of the fare represents, at least on some level, a choice to give whatever energy he had left to this
course of action. The story line notes that after he paid the fare Jonah has his first nekyia
(descent), not into the belly of the Great Fish which takes place at the end of the chapter, but
rather into the hold of ship where he falls asleep (v. 5). I suggest this depicts a minimally
conscious Jonah with barely enough energy to remain conscious, losing that energy by making an
ego choice and then falling asleep (unconscious state).
Let us now amplify this motif of being unconscious in a boat. A ship is a carrier of people and
cargo across the water. It travels on the surface of the water a borderline region between the
depths of the water and the air above. In this sense, all water journeys have a psychological
application to liminal experience or phenomena. From the ground, a human being descends into
the water region the groundless aspect of the unconscious. A ship protects one from the
waters lack of solidity. The person who is unaware of their boat is in a way carried along by a
maternal vessel, perhaps as a compensation for a too masculine or logos orientation or approach
of consciousness. Therefore the initial steps which take one on a sea journey may relate to the
momentary characteristics of the threshold of consciousness. A journey by ship also represents,
at least to consciousness, a sense of time transition, a before and an after the journey and a
space transition, a from and a to. Taken together one can readily appreciate the transition
from consciousness concretism of time and space to their relative nature within the unconscious.
At the time in which Jonah lived, a ship was the only means by which a person could travel a

great distance. Therefore it seems to me an appropriate symbol to represent the psychic fact that,
in general, the nascent consciousness of all human beings living at this time was very far from
having the ability to realize concepts like a vast, limitless unconscious. Furthermore, ships,
unlike cars, are generally collective vessels in which one is taken to a destination along with
others. This represents the collective nature of the Jonah narrative with its individual aspects
appearing in Jonahs choice of ship and the circumstances behind the trip.
In light of my above discussion of the feeling-emotional differences between Jonah and YHVH
and also my subsequent discussion of chapter fours image, it is my opinion that YHVHs action
reveal him as the more emotional of the two personalities. From a literal rendering of chapter
ones text we know that three facts: Jonah had an encounter with the Greater Personality; he
received a revelatory command; and he fled from it. If Jonah was less emotional than YHVH
then one should consider the hypothesis that there was something about the command itself, e.g.
its meaning to Jonah, rather than the fact that it came from God that was behind Jonahs flight.
Posed against this hypothesis is the counter-hypothesis that Jonah had extreme and numinous
fear which evoked an instinctual flight as part of a fight or flight response. In The
Psychology of Dementia Praecox Jung explains that fright is an affect related to awareness of a
threatening situation (Jung, 1960, para.86). He goes on to point out that the emotion of fear is
always accompanied by involuntary innervation of autonomic bodily functions as well as a
psychic innervation of image, the complex. However, in the immediate moment, it is the visceral
and bodily side of fight or flight that dominates; when the reaction is flight, the complex
response is more akin to an aversive and instinctual response to noxious stimuli. The fight or
flight reaction has been proven to be a fundamental human response through later work in the
field of child psychology. Rudimentary forms of the reaction can be seen in infants. And it
seems that the full-blown reaction takes some time to become well-formed and consistently
elicitable. By the time an infant is one-year old, there is a well-developed response to seeing
unfamiliar people. The extent of the reaction, which is probably temperamentally / genetically
determined, ranges from fidgetiness / restlessness to wariness (expressions of alarm) to aversion
(body and head movements) to frank fear (all of the previous are typically accompanied by
screaming and crying). In Jonahs case, it seems to me that his response was not completely a
fight of flight reaction. As outlined in the narrative, though perhaps Jonahs initial flight had
an element of the fight or flight response, I suggest it might be understood as a complex
behavioral response to as-yet unconscious feelings of anger15 (Also see my later explanation
relating to chapter four of the book of Jonah). I see Jonahs behavioral sequence as a more or
less automatic flight, followed by the conscious choice of a destination, and the purchase of a
ticket to begin a long journey. It seems to me that at this time, Jonah knew that he simply could
not accept the call of YHVH, so he ran away, perhaps with the hope that the problem would be
sorted out later.

Nature intervenes with a storm

But the Lord (YHVH) sent out a great wind on the sea, and there was a mighty tempest on the
sea, so that the ship was about to be broken up (Jonah 1:4).

15

But it greatly displeased Jonah, and he became angry (Jonah 4:1).

With this verse begins a rather dramatic change of background setting. A destructive storm
means that the weather has becomes disturbed in such a way that is now dangerous for human
beings. From the psychological standpoint, one must consider that the outer storm reflects upon
an activation of an inner destructiveness or dark side of the psychic dynamic. The entire ground
of Jonahs imaginal being, and here the text helps us to understand it more fully, of the
unconscious above (wind) and the unconscious below (sea) stirs with a great potential for
destruction.
From the psychological standpoint one might point out the similarities between YHVHs angry
actions and those of a nature god of antiquity, such as Wotan who is characterized as a god of
storm and frenzy. Now the destructive elements of the unconscious have pre-eminence or are
emphasized. We know that in themselves, the two regions of disturbance of wind and sea have
both destructive and creative elements. However, without a psychological approach, most find it
is very difficult to see within the story its creative potentialities. Here, YHVHs actions appear
active and intentional; there is no doubt from the text that his desire is to see the ship broken
up (destroyed). From an intellectual viewpoint, one can say that YHVHs extremely angry
actions appear to be a reaction to Jonahs disobedience. As a personality he seems unable to
control his urge to destroy. On an ego level, one might describe it as an attitude that says, If you
will not obey me, I will destroy you. Psychologically, he seems unable to bear his own
emotional tension but can only let it erupt to discharge it as is the case of all primal emotional
outbursts. Outbursts or abreactions effect a depotentiation of energy by displacing them upon an
object (s). Is the reaction of YHVH in the book of Jonah, an isolated incident? No. One can
find many such portrayals of YHVH elsewhere in Tenach. Two similar examples come to mind:
YHVH sends a lion to kill a prophet of Judah (1 Kings 13:1-31).16 In this narrative, YHVH had
commanded the prophet not to eat or drink. Then another prophet (from Bethel) came to see him
saying that he received a revelation from YHVH to take him to his home and feed him.
However, the narrative explains that the prophet of Bethel was lying. The prophet of Judah
should not have listened to him. YHVH became angry that the prophet of Judah didnt follow
his instructions exactly and sent a lion to kill him.
YHVH killed Uzziah who touched the Ark of the Covenant (2 Samuel 6:1-11).17 In this passage,
the Ark of the Covenant was being transported on a cart to the city of David. It started to fall and
Uzziah touched it, seemingly in an attempt to prevent it from falling. YHVH killed him because
no one was allowed to touch the Ark of the Covenant.
Therefore, it seems that YHVHs actions toward Jonah were not out of character for him.
Viewed from the present-day standpoint of ego development, these examples of YHVHs
behavior might be compared to an individual with poor ego strength manifested in the inability
16

And when the prophet that brought him [the dead body of the prophet of Judah] back from the
way heard [the story], he said, It is the man of God, who was disobedient to the word of the
Lord: Therefore the Lord delivered him to the lion, which tore him up, and killed him, according
to the word of the Lord, which he spoke to him (1 Kings 13:26).
17
And when they came to Nachons threshing floor, Uzzah put his hand to the ark of God, and
took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. 7 And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah;
and God killed him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God (2 Samuel 6:6-7).

to hold the tension of a strong emotion. At the same time, if the situation is viewed from Jonahs
standpoint, perhaps one might suggest there is something wrong with his attitude toward the
unconscious. It is a general principle in dream and fairy tale interpretation that when the
unconscious becomes dangerous that perhaps the subject is unfriendly toward the unconscious or
that his or her distance from it is not right (too close / merged or too far / dissociated). In this
chapter, the ship faces destruction: the psychic container floating on the sea of the unconscious
faces imminent destruction. And what could such destruction mean? At its extreme, the
destructive storm means that there is a potential that the unconscious could inundate and
destroy consciousness. From our present-day psychological standpoint this would mean the
imminent risk of psychosis a destruction of the whole personality. Yet, despite our general
principle, I am not so certain that Jonahs attitude here was wrong. It could be that it was
YHVHs attitude that needed an adjustment. Such a dilemma over deciding about the attitude of
our characters in this drama underscores the clinical difficulty that a therapist has in deciding
whether a client might safely confront such a dangerous psychic storm or whether it is wiser to
flee from it. If it is a battle that ego needs to embrace and it has the strength to withstand it, then
the choice becomes ethical rather than practical. Then, such a question of what to do cannot be
answered in principle but only by the individual in the unique situation. However, in such
situations of high emotional tension, it always remains important to be able to form an opinion
about the ego strength of the client. Without this, the therapist is in the dark about the meaning
of the clients dreams that almost always reveal the relation of conscious attitude to the
unconscious constellation. I must leave it an open question of whether, at the moment, it is more
advantageous to approach the unconscious or to flee from it since both actions are appropriate at
times.
For completeness, lets consider another psychological factor about the storms origin: Does an
unconscious archetypal tension between a man and a divine figure sometimes change the actual
outside environment manifesting in a storm? What I mean by this is the idea that perhaps in the
life of the empirical Jonah, a violent storm arose at same point in time he was in a state of
alienation from YHVH. Then the outer storm would be a synchronistic event symbolizing an
inner drama of extremely high energy tension manifesting in the matter pole, rather than the
psychic pole. From the empirical standpoint, such occurrences do happen. However, one must
not think of such situations from the standpoint of material causation. At most, one can say that
it is a fact that at times there seems to be an acausal connection or conditioning between outer
events and inner psychic states and that such an occurrence appears to have a natural intelligence
and will behind it.
Then the mariners were afraid; and every man cried out to his god (El)18 and threw the cargo
that was in the ship into the sea, to lighten the load. But Jonah had gone down into the lowest
parts of the ship, had lain down, and was fast asleep (Jonah 1:5).
Once the storm begins, the text provides us some additional information:
18

El is the singular form of Elohim Then YHVH said to Moses, Now shall you see what I
will do to Pharoah; for with a strong hand shall he let them go and with a strong hand shall he
drive them out of his land. 2 And Elohim spoke to Moses and said to him, I am YHVH. 3 And I
appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, to Jacob by the name of Elohim Almighty (Shaddai), but by my
name YHVH I was not known to them (Exodus 6:1-3).

The human reaction to the storm: The text distinguishes between the reaction of the mariners and
the reaction of Jonah. The mariners are in state of fear, each calling out to their individual god
(El) while Jonah is asleep in the hold of the ship.
The name of God switches in the text. Up until this fifth verse, the Hebrew for God is
exclusively YHVH, the God of Israel. However, in this verse the mariners cry out, not to
YHVH, but to El19.
Jonah has descended to the hold of the ship and is said to be asleep. At the very least, we can say
that psychologically, he is unconscious or unaware of what was happening. The difference
between the two reactions perhaps highlights the intrapsychic state of Jonah. The symbolic
identity of the mariners may help us better understand Jonahs condition. Are the fearful
mariners symbolic of polytheistic complexes that existed in Jonahs unconscious? Was Jonah too
cut off from the polytheistic roots of his ancestors?20 Was Jonah too rigidly monotheistic in his
conscious stance? Were these unconscious factors the source of the angry feelings we later learn
that Jonah had when YHVHs commanded him to preach to Nineveh?
Jonah must have been under an extreme psychic tension at this point. The image of the mariners
frantically attempting to lighten the ships load to avoid it being capsized calls to mind the
projection or expelling of contents which are incompatible with the conscious attitude of Jonah.
It is clear from the context of the story (the prayer of the mariners to El) that Jonahs conscious
attitude is under a different religious containment than the mariners. From a psychological /
religious viewpoint, one might say that the mariners represent an unconscious pagan and
polytheistic containment which lays in juxtaposition with Jonahs rigidly monotheistic
containment within YHVH. The source of tension within Jonah appears to be a split between his
conscious attitude and unconscious factors. Furthermore, his tension is increased because it
appears to him that YHVH seems to be violating his own rules by wanting the pagans or
polytheists of Nineveh to follow Him.

Captain asks Jonah to intercede with his god

So the captain came to him, and said to him, What do you mean, sleeper? Arise, call on your
God (El); perhaps your God will consider us, so that we may not perish (Jonah 1:6).
The captain, the leader or head of the ship, goes to the hold of the ship and awakens Jonah. He
asks him to conform to group behavior, that is, he must call upon his El just as the mariners do.
The captain represents the psychological leader (or perhaps the strongest complex) within
Jonahs unconscious. Outwardly, he would represent a form of polytheistic containment within
El, who we can call the Hebrew form of the God of Creation. The captains actions (he treats
Jonah as he does the other mariners) suggests that in the collective consciousness of this time,
19

For more on this distinction from the Hebrew, see the text of Genesis 1 where the God of
creation is (Elohim) presumably to distinguish Him from the more later YHVH (God of Israel).
20
Terah, Abrahams father, was an idol worshipper and polytheist who live in the Chaldean
territory of Ur. Abram left his home country to become the founder of the Jewish people. The
story is told in Genesis 11:26-12:6.

there is not yet a wide enough knowledge of YHVH to distinguish him from El. However, such
an interpretation limits the captain and mariners to being symbols of Jonahs personal
unconscious, e.g. shadow personifications. One must also consider that the captain is a ruler of
sorts, a personification of the shadow and self, as yet intermixed, but which, if understood
symbolically, would work toward building up the ego. If Jonah could have understood the
captains symbolic aspects, perhaps he would have been connected to a deeper layer of the
psyche. However, such speculation is not warranted by the text. The captain seems to be a
figure that has knowledge or a special wisdom. Here it is the knowledge that there is a difference
between El and YHVH, or at the very least, by his words, perhaps your God will consider us, so
that we may not perish there is an implication that he knows that Jonahs god is not El.
I find it interesting that the natural response of both the mariners and the captain is to pray.
Viewed psychologically, prayer is the attempt of consciousness to communicate with the highest
transpersonal value. One could say that in a crisis these men natural called out to that which they
believed was higher than them. It is clear that the collective consciousness of this time period
believed in an absolute divine causality; that is, there was no such thing as the present-day
Western idea of chance.

Mariners cast lots: it falls upon Jonah

And they said to one another, Come, let us cast lots, that we may know who caused this
trouble that has come upon us. So they cast lots, and the lot fell on Jonah. 8 Then they said to
him, Please tell us. Were you the cause of this trouble that came upon us? What is your
occupation? And where do you come from? What is your country? And of what people are
you? (Jonah 1:7-8).
These verses are unique in the Hebrew Bible since they portray certain aspects of the lot that are
not found elsewhere in the Tenach. Firstly, the lot is being thrown or instigated, not by a Jew, but
by a group of non-Jews. Though lots do not violate Torah statutes, Jews were clearly forbidden
from consulting other forms of divination.21 Secondly, the narrative portrays the throw as being
accurate Jonah is identified as the cause of the storm. Elsewhere in the Hebrew Scripture,
the lot is used to help Israel divide up the land among its tribes or to pick a scapegoat for
sacrifice. Its use in Jonah seems to be quite closer to how a lot was used in pagan societies. The
accuracy of the lots throw allows one to suggest that the time-moment or the psychological
situation has been clarified by an act of divination instigated by non-Jews. Psychologically, as
Jung has shown in his papers Synchronicity (CW 8, para 816-997) and Forward to the I
Ching (CW, para 964-1018), one can conceptualize such a phenomena as occurring when there
is a high energy constellation (the emotion of imminent death from the boats destruction) and
21

When you have come into the land which YHVH, your God gives you, you shall not learn to
do after the abominations of those nations. 10
There shall not be found among you any one
that makes his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that uses divination, or an observer
of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, 11 or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a
wizard, or a necromancer. 12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto YHVH: and
because of these abominations YHVH your God drives them out from before you
(Deuteronomy 18:9-12).

the asking of a definite question. Jung has written that the psychic state conditions the throw of
the lot so that the features of the time moment can be accurately read. The mariners question,
Were you the cause of this trouble that came upon us? meets the parameters which Jung has
outlined. It seems to me that the results of the lot also give one a window into the attitude of the
collective consciousness of this time: nature acts not accidentally but causally through the gods.
Since their throwing of the lot feels to be something familiar to them, the implication is that they
must have been in the habit of seeking answers by this sort of divination.

Jonah answers
And he said to them, I am a Hebrew; and I fear the Lord (YHVH), the God of heaven, who
made the sea and the dry land. 10 Then the men were exceedingly afraid, and said to him,
Why have you done this? For the men knew that he fled from the presence of the Lord
(YHVH), because he had told them (Jonah 1:9-10).
According to the world-view of the mariners, the problem was now on its way to being solved.
The individual responsible for angering the deity YHVH has been identified. As Jonah told his
story to mariners, the men understood the problem: Jonah was called by his god, he fled, and as a
result the storm of judgment had come. It seems from their later question (What shall we do to
you that the sea may be calm for us? v. 11) that the mariners knew that such an action required
an appeasement sacrifice.
Though there is a tendency to see the narrative as only the story of Jonah, one must make an
effort to understand the story as a whole, that is, from the standpoint of YHVH, as well as the
mariners. Let us now consider the attitude of the mariners. It seems to me that Jonahs journey
or said another way, his inner psychic process links itself to the situation the mariners find
themselves in. Through the actions of Jonah the mariners become exposed to, from their
standpoint, a new god, YHVH. If we look ahead in the story to verse 16 it is clear that the
mariners have changed their standpoint toward YHVH. They are said to fear YHVH and offer
Him sacrifices and their vows. One could say that YHVHs status among a particular group of
non-Jews had changed. Now it was in the process of being elevated to a deity who was at least
on the same level as the pantheon of gods which they already worshipped. If one continues this
line of thought from a psychological standpoint, by embracing YHVH, the mariner shadow
complexes have become constellated by the addition of another numinous content.
Understanding the mariners as representing part of the non-Jewish collective consciousness of
this time period, it seems that the highly emotionally charged situation of the story afforded the
collective attitude the opportunity to embrace this new content. Also the acceptance of this new
attitude, personified by YHVH, did not require them to entirely discard their old gods, e.g. old
attitudes. Certainly, it is much easier for a polytheist to add one god to the many they hold in
esteem than for a polytheist to become a monotheist since the two are pairs of opposites that are
incommensurables. Evidently the idea that there was a new god who could send a destructive
storm was not too disturbing to the psychic balance of the mariners. The mens numinous fear
(v. 10) suggests that psychologically they could accept YHVH as a god. From the standpoint of
YHVH, he appears to have experienced in part, what he had hoped to gain from his original
command that Jonah preach to the city of Nineveh. He had gained a new status that he did not
possess before acceptance as a god by a group of non-Jews, the mariners. One might even

suggest that YHVH, being encouraged by their response, now is more determined than ever to
send his representative to Nineveh to preach a message. In fact this is exactly what happened in
chapter three, when YHVH send Jonah there22 From an overall psychological vantage point,
perhaps a way of understanding this section is that autonomous shadow personalities have been
exposed to and accepted numinous contents that are part of the conscious attitude of Jonah. This
has the effect to increase the energy of the unconscious and decrease the energy of
consciousness, personified in Jonah.

Jonah suggests himself as an appeasement offering to YHVH

Then they said to him, What shall we do to you that the sea may be calm for us? For the sea
was growing more tempestuous. 12 And he said to them, Pick me up and throw me into the
sea; then the sea will become calm for you. For I know that this great tempest is because of
me. 13 Nevertheless the men rowed hard to return to land, but they could not, for the sea
continued to grow more tempestuous against them (Jonah 1:11-13).
Jonah appears to have accepted his fate, or said another way, he lacks the energy to resist. He
suggests that if they throw him into the sea, the storm will be calmed. Jonah asks the mariners to
be the active agents of his sacrifice, which from our present-day Western standpoint appears
suicidal. Since, according to Torah, suicide is not permitted by a Jew, though Jonah chooses his
death as a sacrifice, he cannot use his own hand to carry it out. It appears that initially the
mariners could not accept Jonahs suggestion either. Their response to Jonahs suggestion was to
row harder. Their response was to attempt to use their own strength to save themselves from the
storm. Since the rowing does not help them escape, their energy charge is less than that of
YHVH as storm. As a result the whole psychic atmosphere is even more ominous or
threatening. At any moment the entire psychic drama could dissolve into an elemental or matterlike state. If the storm should overtake all the human figures of the drama it would symbolize a
psychic death and the story would end. Without two sides, there is no energy tension. And
without energy tension or potential there is no animation of images possible.

The mariners pray to YHVH and ask not to be held responsible

for Jonah's murder
Therefore they cried out to the Lord (YHVH) and said, We pray, O Lord (YHVH). We pray,
please do not let us perish for this mans life, and do not charge us with innocent blood; for
You, O Lord (YHVH), have done as it pleased You. 15 So they picked up Jonah and threw him
into the sea, and the sea ceased from its raging. 16 Then the men feared the Lord (YHVH)
exceedingly, and offered a sacrifice to the Lord (YHVH) and made vows. 17 Now the Lord
(YHVH) had prepared a great fish to swallow Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish
three days and three nights (Jonah 1:14-17).
Verse 14 shows that the men were not eager to be the agents of the sacrifice of Jonah.
Apparently there were in their cultural consciousness strong prohibitions against murder. Since
they did not yet accept YHVH as a god, the wording of their prayer is quite precise in regard to
22

Now the word of the YHVH came to Jonah the second time, saying, 2 Arise, go to Nineveh
the great city and proclaim to it the proclamation which I am going to tell you (Jonah 3:1-2).

their innocence. Also It is interesting that the phrase, we pray, is doubled and its object,
YHVH, is used once. Does this signify that an action, prayer, related to a content YHVH
becoming a god to them is rising to the threshold? In this instance, the single use of YHVH
suggests to me that to the mariners YHVH was, for the most part, still unknown and only existed
as a potentiality. Therefore, from the psychological standpoint, one must consider that for the
shadow mariners, their limited luminosity does not as yet enable them to understand YHVH as a
content. I regard the phrase you have done as it pleased you (at the end of verse 14) as an as
if indirect statement very much characteristic of ancient culture. It suggests, as mentioned
above, that the mariners (or the multiple complexes) had not yet fully accepted YHVH as one of
their gods (added Him to their other contents).
After Jonah was thrown into the sea, the storm immediately stopped (v. 15). The mariners see
this and their immediate reaction is a great fear of YHVH (v. 16). They have clearly had an
autonomous and genuine numinous experience. At this moment of great fear, YHVH became
a god. Supporting this, is the fact that the experience is followed by a change in attitude; they
now made a sacrifice and a vow to Him. Such outward acts speak of a genuine encounter with a
Greater Personality. The Hebrew text confirms that this is a religious attitude as their actions are
made specifically to YHVH, the God of Israel, not to their own individual gods (previously
designated as El in the text). However, the text does not say that they exclusively worshipped
YHVH. There is no mention that they gave up their other gods.
The section concludes by a change in the narrative voice. We leave the perspective of the
mariners and change to the point of view of Jonah. What are we to think of Jonah? Certainly
being thrown into the sea is a type of death, but what could this mean psychologically? Is the
ego being swallowed by the unconscious to the point that it would no longer exist? Taken
personalistically such an interpretation does not seem to fit. However, if one considers that
Jonah was not killed, then we must grapple with the factor of a pre-meditated action of a god
YHVH had prepared a great fish to swallow Jonah. Psychologically, I suggest that as the
shadowy mariner complexes become constellated by the numinosity of YHVH, the energy
animates a more instinctual layer of psyche which manifests as the image of the Great Fish.
Jonah is drawn into this Great Fish and in a sense he disappears within a new atmosphere the
containment within a protective and potentially transforming vessel. The Great Fish represents
an unconscious factor which both imprisons and saves and protects enabling the narrative to
continue in prayer of Jonah in chapter two.