Asylum Seekers in the Old Testament: Reinterpreting Moses, Elijah and David

Abstract

Migration issues remain one of the most contentious topics in contemporary social discourse. This paper reinterprets key Old Testament figures who can be identified as asylum seekers or political migrants. The central question is the following: who represent asylum seekers in the Old Testament? Employing a narrative methodology, the study focuses on biblical stories and their thematic development rather than linguistic or historical analysis. The paper unfolds in three key sections. First, it defines asylum seekers and reviews prior research related to migration in the Old Testament. Second, it analyzes three significant biblical figures—Moses, Elijah, and David—who represent the law, the prophets, and the Messiah, respectively. Their migration experiences (genocide, resistance, political violence, dictatorship, and rebellion) provide a theological bridge for churches to engage with contemporary political migrants. Lastly, the paper offers practical approaches for churches to support asylum seekers.

1. Introduction

News related to migrants is not hard to hear in the present, because migrant issues remain one of the most contentious social debates worldwide today. The IOM (International Organization for Migration) published Migration and the 2030 Agenda to emphasize migration related to global agendas, including the seventeen SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) announced by the UN (Irvine 2018). At least ten out of the seventeen SDGs are linked to migration, either through a direct or cross-cutting connection (Migration Data Portal 2025; Irvine 2018, pp. 20–21).

Also, in the theological sphere, migration issues are one of the significant themes, leading to the need to analyze the phenomenon of migration and practices for supporting migrants in churches based on theological perspectives. Specifically, issues related to forcibly displaced migrants, such as political asylum seekers and refugees, are closely related to human rights, and theologians have a responsibility to deal with this. In terms of theology’s responsibility toward society, I am curious about the following question: who represents political asylum seekers in the Old Testament? This question serves as the starting point of this paper.

This paper is also theologically based, specifically on the hermeneutical approaches alongside social science definitions on political refugees and asylum seekers. Methodologically, this study employs a narrative methodology, focusing on biblical stories and their thematic flow rather than linguistic analysis or historical critiques for building on a narrative reinterpretation of Moses, Elijah, and David as asylum seekers and political refugees. It approaches Scripture not merely as a historical record, but as a living testimony that can speak prophetically on contemporary crises of forced migration.

To achieve this, first, a definition and categories of political asylum seekers and refugees as forced displacement migrants are explored. This definition supports the identification of three characters’ migration experiences. After defining the terminology, I explain why we need to make connections between current political migration issues and the Old Testament. The following section is one of the most important parts, exploring traditional identification related to Moses, Elijah and David in the Old Testament, and suggests one simplified way for reinterpreting the biblical stories with asylum seekers’ and refugees’ views. The fourth section is the main section in this article, because it interprets the three persons as political asylum seekers and refugees with different causes and types. The last section discusses the implications of decolonized Bible reading for the Church, speaking out toward governments in support of political asylum seekers and refugees.

2. Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Social Science and the Old Testament

Migrant categories vary according to multiple criteria such as duration, destination, motivation, and other factors (De Haas et al. 2019, pp. 21–41). Forced migrants possess different characteristics compared to other categories of migrants, particularly voluntary migrants. According to the Lausanne Occasional Paper (Sydnor et al. 2024, Terminologies), forced displacement is defined as “an involuntary move.” This means that forced international migrants leave their home countries due to violence and oppression beyond their control (De Haas et al. 2019, p. 31). The UNHCR (2008, p. 12) also defines “asylum seeker” and “refugee” in relation to “a well-founded fear of persecution.” In other words, asylum seekers and refugees are generally classified under the category of forced migrants in migration studies. De Haas et al. (2019, p. 31) discuss asylum seekers and refugees under the subtitle “Forced migration: Refugees and asylum seekers.” Therefore, this research is based on the understanding of asylum seekers and refugees as involuntary and forced migrants.

Further explanation is needed to clearly define asylum seekers and refugees, as the two terms are often mistakenly used interchangeably. According to the UNHCR (2008, p. 11), refugee status requires several criteria to be met. First, the individual must have crossed a national border. Second, the person must clearly be identified as a victim of persecution. Third, returning to their homeland must be impossible until the critical issue is resolved (Whittaker 2006, pp. 2–3). In short, refugees are individuals whose lives are threatened by persecution, causing them to flee their home countries. Once in another country, they are legally recognized and granted the right to stay and receive protection; thus, they are not subject to expulsion (Whittaker 2006, p. 3).

However, the context for asylum seekers differs slightly from that of refugees. As is commonly explained, “Not every asylum seeker will ultimately be recognized as a refugee, but every recognized refugee is initially an asylum seeker (IOM 2019, Asylum Seeker).” This means that asylum seekers are in a preliminary stage of migration, seeking legal recognition as refugees. They remain in the process of legal verification within the host country (UNHCR 2008, p. 11).

Although asylum seekers and refugees experience different legal statuses depending on the verification of refugee status, both share the same involuntary reason for migration: persecution. Whittaker (2006, p. 7) explains persecution with the formula: “Persecution = the risk of individual serious harm + failure of state protection.” Both asylum seekers and refugees are affected by personal danger and the inability of their home nation to provide protection. Specifically, political refugees and asylum seekers are often inextricably linked to political persecution and violence, typically by their own governments.

The aforementioned definitions of asylum seekers and refugees, particularly as they relate to political persecution, can be applied in interpreting stories from the Old Testament, even though current social contexts differ compared to Old Testament societies. Connections with the Old Testament can serve as a meaningful bridge to address the present limitations in protecting and supporting these individuals. This is one of the expectations of this research. Rajendra (1977) discusses the current societal gap regarding asylum seekers and refugees, rooted in nation-state-centered views and policies. He emphasizes the following question: “Who has the responsibility to protect the rights of poor and vulnerable migrants? (Rajendra 1977, p. 28)” In other words, asylum seekers and refugees are caught between the jurisdictions of nation-states. This reflects a significant limitation in government policymaking, as policymakers often prioritize the rights of citizens or residents with voting power over universal human rights, what Arendt (2017, p. 390) famously called “the right to have rights.” As a result, national borders play a pivotal role in both understanding and protecting forced migrants.

The concept of universal human rights for forced migrants, particularly political asylum seekers and refugees, requires a framework that transcends the control of nation-state authorities. Even though such discussions may be imperfect, they serve to alert the global community to these challenges. Therefore, interpreting the Old Testament through the lens of asylum and refuge might inspire people to look beyond the limitations imposed by nation-state governments. Religion, especially Christianity because it is addressed in this paper, represents a universal value that transcends national borders. In this light, reinterpreting the Old Testament in connection with political asylum seekers and refugees can reaffirm their rights as rooted in divine, borderless justice. A Vatican document, The Love of Christ Towards Migrants (Vatican City 2004, #13), highlights this potential: “Migration in the light of those biblical events that mark the phases of humanity’s arduous journey towards the birth of a people without discrimination or frontiers, depository of God’s gift for all nations and open to man’s eternal vocation.”

However, despite the potential for connecting Old Testament narratives to the contemporary experiences of political asylum seekers and refugees, the existing research remains insufficient. In 2018, Political Theology addressed the topic of political migration through a Special Issue titled “Forced Migration, Political Power, and the Book of Jeremiah” (Crouch 2018, pp. 457–59). This volume is a valuable resource for exploring political migration in the Old Testament. Wright and Macelaru (2018, pp. 91–101) explore refugee issues in the Old Testament, but their article remains broad and introductory in scope. Some existing studies focus on the themes of exodus or exile in the Old Testament rather than on specific characters, and these works tend to concentrate on forced migration, in general, rather than on political migration specifically (Sydnor et al. 2024; Burnside 2010, pp. 243–66). Other studies emphasize the interpretation of patriarchal figures in Genesis or legal codes (Carroll Rodas 2013, pp. 9–26; Stackert 2006, pp. 23–49; Strine 2018, pp. 485–98). This paper aims to address the gap between political migration and the Old Testament by focusing on well-known biblical characters and their stories.

3. Three Characters’ Interpretation in the Old and New Testaments

Moses, Elijah, and David are among the most important and representative figures in the Old Testament (Van de Beek 2012). Their lives form a theological framework through which the Bible may be summarized. Luke 9:28–36 provides a clear example of their significance in relation to Jesus, the central figure of the New Testament. The Transfiguration event in the Gospels features three figures, Moses, Elijah, and Jesus, who is a descendant of David. Biblical scholars often interpret this scene typologically: Moses symbolizes God’s law, Elijah represents the prophets (Hutton 1994, p. 99), and Jesus symbolizes David’s kingship and fulfills both the law and the prophets as the Messiah. Van de Beek (2012) highlights the structure of the Old Testament through the connection between these three figures: Moses (law), Elijah (prophets), and David (psalms, part of the Ketuvim).

Expanding on this traditional understanding, Moses is widely recognized as the lawgiver and leader of Israel during the exodus from Egyptian slavery to freedom as God’s covenant people (Harrington 1991, chp. 43). John Lierman (2004, pp. 29–30) outlines Moses’ multiple roles—as prophet, priest, apostle, king, and lawgiver. Among these, Exodus 34 is especially important for understanding Moses’ central role in the Old Testament (Teresa 2021, p. 52). On Mount Sinai, Moses received the law directly from God and conveyed it to Israel (Lierman 2004, pp. 124, 172). Regardless of whether he is described as the law-receiver, law-giver, or law-maker, Moses serves a pivotal role in mediating divine instruction. Van de Beek (2012, pp. 3–4) even concludes that “Moses is the Torah.” The first five books of the Old Testament, the Pentateuch, are referred to as the “Books of Moses,” and many biblical passages reference the “Law of Moses,” underscoring his foundational legal role.

This theological understanding of Moses continues into the New Testament, particularly in relation to Jesus. When Moses descended from the mountain, his face shone with divine glory. It is a transformative moment (Exod. 34) that parallels the transfiguration in the New Testament (Matt. 17). Moses is thus associated with the giving of the old covenant, while Jesus is portrayed as the giver of the new covenant (2 Cor. 3).

Elijah is another pivotal figure who connects the Old and New Testaments. While Moses is associated with the law, Elijah is linked with the prophets or Nevi’im and represents the prophetic tradition in Israel (Teresa 2021, pp. 52–53). Although Elijah and Moses share some similarities, such as mediating between God and Israel and delivering divine messages, their emphases differ. Elijah is not a lawgiver like Moses (Teresa 2021, p. 54). Elijah’s prophetic role focuses on reminding Israel of the covenant and calling them back to God (Heller 2018, p. 219). Specifically, Teresa (2021, p. 54) emphasizes Elijah’s eschatological prophecy. Elijah also differs in his role as a mediator, “exerting priestly, prophetic, and thaumaturgic mediation (Teresa 2021, p. 54).”

Roy L. Heller (2018, pp. 220–21) further explains that Elijah’s prophetic role is grounded in Deuteronomic regulations for true prophecy (Deut. 13:1–6; 18:15–22), which originate in the Pentateuch. Elijah calls Israel to return to God by proclaiming God’s word. Prophets’ miracles and signs do not stand alone; “the true prophet always proclaims the word of Deuteronomy (Heller 2018, p. 230),” even when accompanied by miraculous acts. Thus, Elijah stands beside Jesus at the transfiguration as the representative of the prophetic tradition (Friedeman 2024, p. 62).

The third figure, David, is crucial for understanding the concept of the Davidic Messiah in Israel’s history (Levin 2006, pp. 86–112). In Christian theology, Jesus is considered the anointed King and Son of David, fulfilling God’s promise: “I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever (2 Sam. 7:12–13).” Consequently, many Christians understand the relationship between David and Jesus in terms of messianic kingship, although Judaism does not share this interpretation (Levin 2006, pp. 83–84).

The Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus as the Son of David. Despite contemporary debates over David’s historical and moral character (Bosworth 2006; McKenzie 2000; Brueggemann 2002, pp. xi–xii), Matthew highlights his significance: “Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah (Matt. 1:17).” The core concept of the Davidic Messiah is the King Messiah (Blenkinsopp 2013, pp. 136–49). Israelites often remembered David’s reign as a golden age politically, economically, and religiously, and longed for a return to such conditions (McKenzie 2000, p. 146). In the Deuteronomistic History, David becomes the standard by which other kings are judged, regardless of the division between the northern and southern kingdoms (McKenzie 2000, pp. 27–28). David thus occupies a central role as the eternal king in Israel’s collective memory.

In light of the New Testament understanding, the transfiguration narrative and characters serve as a theological lens through which to view the entire Old Testament. Moses represents God’s law (Torah), Elijah embodies the prophets who proclaim and interpret that law, and David symbolizes the Kingdom of God and the prophecy of the Messiah, Jesus. This extends to Jesus in the New Testament, who is the fulfillment of all three.

However, it is evident that traditional interpretations of these three figures lack an explicit connection to the experiences of political asylum seekers or refugees. While the conditions of political marginalization may differ between the biblical world and the present, this gap calls for a renewed interpretive lens. The following section of this paper proposes a fresh approach, identifying Moses, Elijah, and David in terms of forced migration and political displacement, and exploring how their stories may resonate with the experiences of contemporary asylum seekers and refugees.

4. Reinterpreting Stages

The previous sections have explored the definitions of asylum seekers and refugees from social science perspectives and examined the traditional portrayals of three Old Testament figures, Moses, Elijah, and David, who may be understood as political asylum seekers or refugees through the New Testament. However, as the saying goes, “nothing is complete unless you put it in final shape.” In order to form a meaningful conclusion, it is necessary to develop a method for interpreting biblical texts and characters through a migration lens.

Miguel A. De La Torre (2002, chp. Introduction) proposes a hermeneutical model for reading the Bible from marginalized perspectives, consisting of three stages. The first step is to read the Bible through the eyes of the marginalized. The second is to investigate biblical narratives that resist marginalization. The third step involves adopting the biblical witness as a tool for liberation. Additionally, the missional approach to biblical interpretation has gained popularity in recent years. This perspective encourages Christians to read Scripture through a threefold inquiry (Barram and Franke 2024, chp. 1): “Who is God? What does God care about? What is God doing?” While there are evident differences between marginal and missional approaches, they share important similarities.

Both models begin by identifying the subject of concern: “Who?” De La Torre (2002, chp. 1) asks who the marginalized are, while Barram and Franke (2024, Part 1), proponents of the missional approach, focus on who plays the central role in God’s mission. The second shared step is the object or focus: “What?” This includes which stories in the Bible address marginalization, or what narratives reveal God’s missional activity. The third step is application: “How?” This stage involves reinterpreting Scripture in light of the previously identified “who” and “what.” De La Torre (2002, chp. 5) emphasizes using Scripture as a tool of empowerment for the marginalized, while Barram and Franke (2024, Part 1) focus on lived obedience and practical action.

Based on these three stages, I propose a framework for reading the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, with a focus on political asylum seekers and refugees. This framework builds on the definitions and the interplayed interpretations between the Old and New Testaments previously discussed in this paper.

• Identifying the Migrant:

The term migrant is complex and context-dependent, with meanings that vary depending on factors such as duration, voluntariness, legal status, and destination. Thus, before engaging biblical texts, we must define key terms. In this study, asylum seekers and refugees are understood as involuntary and forced migrants. The term political highlights their vulnerability to persecution and violence perpetrated by governing authorities.

2.

Reading the Bible for Migrant-Related Narratives:

This stage involves identifying stories and figures in the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament, which involve experiences similar to those of political asylum seekers and refugees. The focus in this paper is on Moses, Elijah, and David, all of whom were exposed to political violence and persecution at different points in their lives.

3.

Reinterpretation for Present Practice:

The final stage, to be developed in the next section, bridges contemporary realities of political migration with the biblical witness. It offers a new interpretive lens that connects the experiences of asylum seekers and refugees with the narratives of Moses, Elijah, and David. This reinterpretation aims not only to deepen theological understanding, but also to inform practical action within both Church and society.

5. Reinterpretation of Three Characters

In the traditional perspective, Moses, Elijah, and David represent a lawgiver, a prophet, and a king, respectively. However, they were displaced people because of political persecution and violence under different governments. Therefore, reinterpreting them requires identifying the forms of oppression they experienced.

5.1. Moses Related to Politicide and Resistance

Moses’s experiences in the Old Testament reveal the suffering imposed by social authorities and oppressive structures. At the time of his birth, the Israelites endured extreme labor and systemic discrimination under the Egyptian government (Nguyen 2021, p. 38; Hoffmeier 2009, pp. 60–63). Pharaoh’s ultimate strategy of population control was genocide, designed to reduce the Israelite population. This may be described as politicide, that is, political genocide. The International Organization for Migration (IOM 2019, Genocide) defines genocide as: “Any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, such as: killing members of the group; … deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

In Exodus, Pharaoh’s policy toward the Israelites fits this definition of genocide. His strategy divided society into two ethnic groups, Egyptians and Israelites, and subjected the latter to physical oppression. Scripture records: “So they put slave masters over them to oppress them with forced labor, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh (Exod. 1:11).” Furthermore, Exodus 1:16 illustrates Pharaoh’s policy of infanticide: “When you are helping the Hebrew women during childbirth on the delivery stool, if you see that the baby is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live.” As a result, Moses was transferred from the Israelite community into the Egyptian household. Daniel G. Groody (2022, p. 83) vividly depicts Moses as an “asylum seeker boat person,” emphasizing his victimization under genocidal policy. Indeed, Moses was born in the midst of politicide and became a symbol of its victims.

This genocidal policy continued for many years in Egypt (Exod. 2:11, 23–24). Lischer (2014, p. 319) illustrates a motivation that sustained persecution through forced labor and discrimination became a trigger for oppressed people’s longing for freedom and relocation. Israelites also desire freedom from political persecution and express it through their groaning and crying (Exod. 2:24). Moses thus emerged as a leader who guided his people in their escape as political refugees (Exod. 4:30–5:1).

Moses himself experienced a second episode of political asylum seeking in Exodus 2. In an act of resistance against systemic oppression, he attempted to protect an Israelite laborer under surveillance. Exodus 2:11–12 records, “One day, after Moses had grown up, he went out to where his own people were and watched them at their hard labor. He saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his own people. Looking this way and that and seeing no one, he killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.” While living as a prince in Pharaoh’s household, Moses resisted oppression and maintained ties with Israelite leaders, particularly among the Levites (Exod. 2:1–13). It is even possible to interpret Moses as acting covertly against Egypt for the sake of Israel’s liberation. He is a figure of resistance (Cho 2022, p. 33).

The consequence of his act of resistance to protect the oppressed Israelite’s rights was his escape from Pharaoh’s anger. When Pharaoh heard of the killing, “he tried to kill Moses, but Moses fled from Pharaoh and went to live in Midian, where he sat down by a well (Exod. 2:15).” By definition, political asylum seekers and refugees are driven out by government oppression, and Moses likewise fled Pharaoh’s wrath. As Pharaoh embodied divine authority in Egypt, Moses’s flight reveals the life-threatening danger he faced (Nguyen 2021, pp. 36–37). Moreover, a political refugee cannot return to their homeland until threats are eliminated, and Moses’s journey as a political refugee reflects this same pattern. He remained in Midian until the political threat was removed, as Exodus 4:19 records: “Now the LORD had said to Moses in Midian, ‘Go back to Egypt, for all those who wanted to kill you are dead.’”

Furthermore, in Midian, Moses initially hid without legal status (Hoffmeier 2009, p. 62), depending on the support of marginalized figures such as women. Cheryl A. Kirk-Duggan (2012, pp. 6–8) underscores that Moses could not have fulfilled his mission without the assistance of women, who often represented the powerless in society in the past. Over time, Moses settled in Midian and received legal recognition through his marriage to Zipporah, a Midianite citizen (Hoffmeier 2009, p. 62). Scholars note that Moses’s legal status shifted from an asylum seeker, awaiting permission to remain in a host nation, to a resident alien through marriage (Nguyen 2021, p. 39; Hoffmeier 2009, p. 62).

In sum, traditional interpretations of Moses related to the New Testament often overlook his migrant experiences as both an asylum seeker and a refugee. Yet the biblical account portrays him as a victim of politicide, a survivor of persecution, a resistance figure against government oppression, and ultimately a refugee struggling to settle in a host country. As Groody (2022, pp. 84–85) argues, Moses’s identity cannot be separated from his experiences of migration and displacement.

5.2. Elijah and Oppressions from the Government

The case of Elijah can be interpreted as a narrative of political conflict between opposing parties, culminating in an attempt by one side to eliminate its adversary. After the Israelites settled in Canaan, the promised land, they were exposed to diverse cultural influences. No longer nomadic asylum seekers awaiting recognition, they became more established and secure, resembling refugees who had obtained legal status. This change in living conditions contributed to a shift in worldview from a law-centered faith in Yahweh to a prosperity-oriented faith associated with Baal.

Norman Habel’s renowned book Yahweh versus Baal highlights Baal’s role as a deity of agriculture and fertility (Habel 2018, p. 93). Habel explains that Baal was associated with natural powers, especially rain for agricultural abundance, whereas Yahweh was not bound by natural cycles. As Habel notes, “Yahweh as a dispenser of fertility and not as a god of fertility, the God who lives to give life and not a god who is but part of the cycle of life and death (2018, p. 109).” Yahweh is thus understood as the source of life not only for humanity, but for all creation. This perspective resonates with contemporary human rights and ecological movements, in contrast to economic-growth ideologies such as the market economy.

Between these two worldviews, Israel’s newfound stability and openness to foreign cultural practices weakened their concern for marginalized residents and their rights, despite the command to remember their own history as oppressed migrants in Egypt (Exod. 23:9; Nguyen 2021, p. 40). Groody (2022, p. 91) observes that neglecting the marginalized is a dereliction of Israel’s duty, since they were once migrants themselves.

The biblical narrative can be read as a reflection of two ideological parties within Israel: one prioritizing economic development, and the other grounded in human rights and faithfulness to God’s law. The account of Naboth’s vineyard (1 Kgs. 21) illustrates this division. King Ahab viewed the vineyard in economic terms: “Let me have your vineyard to use for a vegetable garden, since it is close to my palace. In exchange I will give you a better vineyard or, if you prefer, I will pay you whatever it is worth (1 Kgs. 21:2).” Naboth, however, resisted by appealing to covenantal inheritance: “The LORD forbid that I should give you the inheritance of my ancestors (1 Kgs. 21:3).” Heller (2018, pp. 96–97) shows that Elijah opposed Ahab’s profit-driven policy, denouncing it as a violation of human rights (1 Kgs. 21:17–19).

The Baal-oriented party was led by King Ahab and Queen Jezebel, while the Yahweh-centered opposition was represented by Elijah. Their conflict culminated in a dramatic confrontation on Mount Carmel (1 Kgs. 18), where Yahweh’s prophets triumphed. Yet political power was far from equal: the royal party held enormous influence, while Elijah and his supporters were marginalized. Consequently, Jezebel sought to eliminate Elijah physically: “So Jezebel sent a messenger to Elijah to say, ‘May the gods deal with me, be it ever so severely, if by this time tomorrow I do not make your life like that of one of them’ (1 Kgs. 19:2).” As Whittaker (2006, p. 7) notes, such persecution exemplifies both the risk of serious harm to an individual and the failure of state protection. Fearing for his life, Elijah became an asylum seeker, fleeing into the desert (1 Kgs. 19:3–5; Goldingay 2003, pp. 621–22).

Elijah’s main ministry took place in Northern Israel; however, after the event on Mount Carmel, he migrated to Mount Horeb, which was located in Judah (Heller 2018, pp. 75–77). Some argue that Elijah’s journey should not be considered migration because Northern Israel and Southern Judah had originally belonged to a united Israel in the past. Nevertheless, it is evident that Elijah migrated from his own country, Israel, to a rival country, Judah, in search of asylum from political threats. Heller (2018, p. 77) cites Walsh’s illustration: “he gradually removes himself from his own kingdom, Israel, to enter Judah, then from settled land to enter the wilderness, and finally from all human companionship.”

Moreover, suicidal thoughts or attempts, such as Elijah’s experience (1 Kgs. 19:4), are recognized as common phenomena among asylum seekers (Ingram et al. 2022, pp. 2–3). Elijah exemplifies the features of an asylum seeker and refugee, such as trauma and social isolation. The hospitality of God prevented Elijah’s suicide attempt by the isolation, sustained him in his journey, and offered hope for renewed social connection with others (2 Kgs. 19:18).

Elijah’s flight was not the end of his asylum journey, but the beginning. A defining characteristic of asylum seekers and refugees is the uncertainty of return. Without the removal of threats, political migrants cannot safely return home, even when their families remain there. Forced separation from family and the inability to return are central features of refugee identity (Nguyen 2021, p. 43). Like other political refugees, Elijah lived in constant anxiety for safety, unable to secure a long-term place of residence. His hometown, Tishbe (1 Kgs. 17:1), is itself an uncertain location (Heller 2018, p. 43), and 2 Kings describes his life ending away from his origins even though it was located in the North Israel boundary (2 Kgs. 2).

From this perspective, Elijah’s story can be reinterpreted through the lens of political asylum. He was a victim of political persecution and violence, targeted by an opposing party for challenging economic-centered policies and upholding human rights grounded in God’s law. He lived a life of displacement, continually fleeing government threats. Ultimately, Elijah found asylum not in earthly settlement, but in his departure by God’s intervention (2 Kgs. 2:11).

5.3. David Related to Dictatorship and Rebellion

The life of King David reflects a distinctive form of political violence characterized by both dictatorship and rebellion. C. A. Strine’s article (Strine 2021), “On the Road Again: King David as Involuntary Migrant”, analyzes David’s life as a journey marked by repeated experiences of asylum seeking and refuge. Strine (2021, p. 405) identifies two central episodes of forced migration in David’s life: first, under King Saul’s reign, and later, during the rebellion of his son Absalom. Each period of displacement was shaped by distinct political dynamics.

In Comparative Government and Politics: An Introduction, McCormick et al. (2019, p. 94) describe how “authoritarian rule is usually associated with dictatorship, and dictators are commonly portrayed as unpredictable, brutally repressive, and eccentric.” Their framework outlines several forms of authoritarianism, including absolute monarchy, personal rule, ruling parties, military governments, and theocracy, all of which exemplify centralized power (McCormick et al. 2019, pp. 94–102). With Saul as Israel’s first king, the nation transitioned from a system of charismatic judges and religious leaders to an early monarchy (Dietrich 2007, p. 16; Goldingay 2003, pp. 549–52). According to 1 Samuel 8:10–17, this system vested kings with absolute authority: commanding armies, collecting taxes, conscripting citizens, and appointing officials. Such concentration of power situates Saul’s monarchy within the framework of authoritarian governance.

David’s first experience of political violence emerged from Saul’s fear of losing power. When Saul heard the people acclaiming David’s military success, “Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands (1 Sam. 18:7),” he grew envious and insecure. This anxiety manifested in assassination attempts, including attempts to spear David (1 Sam. 18–19) and political traps (1 Sam. 18). Ultimately, David fled Israel and sought refuge in Gath, the hometown of Goliath (Strine 2021, p. 405). Yet, as a foreigner without legal status, David embodied the precarious position of an asylum seeker. The memory of his victory over Goliath made him unwelcome in Gath, forcing him to feign madness to escape (1 Sam. 21:10–15).

The following chapters (1 Sam. 21–27) portray David’s prolonged nomadic existence. He moved from Gath to the cave of Adullam, from Adullam to Mizpah in Moab, and later through Judah, Keilah, the Desert of Ziph, En Gedi, the Desert of Paran, the hill of Hakilah, and back to Gath. Saul’s authoritarian regime deprived David of protection, leaving him in perpetual flight. In asylum-seeking terms, David lived with a “well-founded fear” of persecution and the absence of state protection (Strine 2021, pp. 405–6). Over time, however, he gained recognition and was able to negotiate a more secure political status, transitioning from asylum seeker to refugee with limited protection.

David’s second major displacement arose not from dictatorship but from rebellion. His son Absalom carefully plotted against him, exploiting political discontent and undermining his father’s legitimacy (Dietrich 2007, p. 103; Goldingay 2003, p. 595; Strine 2021). While the biblical narrative connects Absalom’s rebellion to David’s moral failings, particularly adultery and murder (McKenzie 2000, p. 156), the political dynamics are equally significant. When Absalom’s revolt broke out, David immediately recognized the threat: “Come! We must flee, or none of us will escape from Absalom. We must leave immediately… (2 Sam. 15:14).” Once again, David was forced into refugee status, fleeing his capital and leaving behind his throne. Absalom sought not merely to depose him, but also to erase his legacy, publicly violating David’s concubines as a symbolic act of dominance (2 Sam. 16:22). In this case, David became the victim of rebellion within his own household (McKenzie 2000, p. 162).

In summary, while David is often remembered as the king who united Israel, his life was profoundly shaped by forced migration. First, he was an asylum seeker under Saul’s authoritarian regime, displaced by political persecution. Second, he became a refugee during Absalom’s rebellion, uprooted by internal political violence. Viewed through the lens of political violence and forced displacement, David’s story underscores the vulnerability of individuals caught between dictatorship and rebellion, and it resonates with the contemporary realities of asylum seekers and refugees.

6. Implication for Churches

Moses, Elijah, and David are not only central figures in the Old Testament and Christian tradition, but they also exemplify the condition of political asylum seekers and refugees. This theological re-reading may serve as a catalyst for bridging the conceptual and practical gap between nation-state-based rights and universal human rights concerning political asylum seekers and refugees. Due to structural limitations, state authorities often struggle to provide equal support to asylum seekers and refugees, particularly in comparison to citizens with political influence through voting rights. Consequently, there is a pressing need for alternative institutions and frameworks that operate beyond the jurisdiction and limitations of the nation-state.

The United Nations and its affiliated agencies play an essential role in advocating for the rights of displaced persons through policy recommendations and international cooperation. Nevertheless, such institutions often encounter challenges in engaging with the broader public, particularly those who are not involved in policymaking or organizational networks. By contrast, religious communities, especially churches, face less political constraint and have greater access to ordinary individuals. Worship services are typically open to all, creating inclusive spaces that can foster awareness and solidarity across social boundaries.

Given this unique position, churches have a significant role to play in raising ethical and theological consciousness regarding the plight of asylum seekers and refugees displaced by political violence. In Christian traditions, preaching constitutes the central element of worship alongside the reading of the Bible, making the sermon a powerful medium for addressing these themes. Biblical narratives such as those of Moses, Elijah, and David, as previously discussed, offer scriptural and theological resources for such engagement. When biblical stories are employed liturgically with imaginative interpretation, these texts can inspire hope among the oppressed and foster empathy and solidarity in others by revitalizing scripture in the context of contemporary struggles (Kirk-Duggan 2012, p. 9).

In alignment with this, churches may observe World Refugee Day, commemorated annually on 20 June by the United Nations, as an opportunity to affirm the human dignity of forced migrants. Many churches, particularly within the Catholic tradition, also mark the World Day of Migrants and Refugees, typically observed on the last Sunday of September. By intentionally incorporating these commemorations into worship, Christian communities can testify that the biblical tradition is deeply aligned with the experiences of political refugees. Moreover, they may affirm that Jesus stands in solidarity with those who are displaced and persecuted in contemporary contexts.

7. Conclusions

This study has re-examined the lives of Moses, Elijah, and David, three pivotal figures in the Old Testament, through the lens of forced migration, particularly focusing on their experiences as political asylum seekers and refugees. While traditionally remembered as a lawgiver, a prophet, and a king, these individuals also endured displacement, persecution, and existential threats from state or royal authorities. By recovering these narratives within the framework of political forced migration, this research offers a theological re-reading that not only enriches biblical interpretation, but also speaks prophetically into present-day crises concerning asylum seekers and refugees.

From Moses’s escape from Pharaoh’s genocidal policies to Elijah’s flight from Queen Jezebel’s political violence, and David’s repeated displacement under the threat of authoritarian rule and rebellion, each figure illustrates the vulnerabilities, struggles, and moral courage of those forced to flee oppressive regimes. These stories are not marginal episodes but core components of the biblical witness. By naming them as such, this article affirms that the Bible contains within it a theology of migration, which transcends the boundaries of modern nation-states and aligns with the universal principles of human dignity and justice.

Framing these narratives as refugee stories carries theological and ethical significance for contemporary Christian communities. It challenges the Church to move beyond spiritualized or decontextualized readings of scripture and to recognize the structural and political dimensions of the biblical text. Moreover, it positions the Church as a potential site of solidarity and advocacy in response to the global refugee crisis. As states increasingly tighten borders and implement policies that prioritize national interests over humanitarian obligations, religious communities must reclaim their prophetic voice and ethical responsibility.

The role of churches is particularly crucial because they possess unique capacities that transcend political systems. Unlike governmental or intergovernmental institutions, which may be constrained by policy and bureaucracy, churches have direct access to local communities through worship, education, and pastoral care. Sermons, liturgies, and communal practices provide opportunities to raise awareness, challenge xenophobic narratives, and embody a theology of welcome. Observances such as World Refugee Day and the World Day of Migrants and Refugees offer timely platforms for theological reflection and public witness.

In conclusion, reinterpreting Moses, Elijah, and David as political asylum seekers and refugees creates a bridge between biblical theology and contemporary concerns about displacement and human rights. This reading does not undermine their traditional roles, but rather complements and deepens them, by acknowledging the lived experiences of forced migration that shaped their missions and identities. Nevertheless, further research is needed to develop practical ways of engaging the theme of political refugees in the Bible, regardless of denominational or political preferences, since this article represents an initial step toward reinterpreting Moses, Elijah, and David as political migrants, even while recognizing the significant social contextual differences (national borders, legal settlement processes, welfare systems, and other structures) between the Old Testament world and the present.

Their stories echo the plight of millions today who are fleeing political violence, and they summon the Church to remember, reflect, and respond. The biblical narrative thus becomes not only a source of spiritual guidance, but also a call to action, urging faith communities to stand in solidarity with the displaced and to bear witness to a God who journeys with the marginalized, the oppressed, and the exiled.