2 Kings 2.1-12: Chariots of Fire

The story of Elijah being carried up into heaven is familiar as story and challenging as visual. The story marks the transition from Elijah's service as the prophet of God to Elisha's service in that position. The horses and chariot of fire swoop down (or, as the spiritual sings it "swings low") to gather Elijah and carry him up to heaven. (2 Kings 2:1-12). 

English poet William Blake used the phrase "chariot of fire" in his poem "Jerusalem," and from there it was included in William Parry's choral setting of the poem. You may have heard that hymn in the opening scene of the 1981 movie titled Chariots of Fire, which had to do with runners in the 1924 Olympics. The hymn is also often sung in England for its national connotations. 

The hymn does not encompass the entire poem but does include the lines:

Bring me my Bow of burning gold:
Bring me my Arrows of desire:
Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold:
Bring me my Chariot of fire!

Consider the two Blake images here that include elements of the chariots of fire. We tend to associate the phrase so much with Elijah. Are either of these Elijah?

There is another chariot of fire (which Blake knew) in the pseudopigraphical Book of Enoch: When the Holy One, blessed be He, desired to lift me up on high, He first sent 'Anaphiel H (H = Tetragrammaton) the Prince, and he took me from their midst in their sight and carried me in great glory upon a a fiery chariot with fiery horses, servants of glory. And he lifted me up to the high heavens together with the Shekina. (3 Enoch 6:1) It is reminiscent of Elijah's story: a faithful one lifted up and carried in glory in a fiery chariot.

Is either of these images depicting Elijah? Is either depicting Enoch? What does a chariot of fire mean if it doesn't mean Elijah or Olympic runners? In each of these images, Blake transforms that moment of completion and reward and returning to God for an entirely different purpose. In the upper image (which is from "Jerusalem"), the two defeated figures ride in a "chariot" whose wheels are serpents, with serpents at the front, pulled by creatures with ox-like bodies, faces of men, manes like lions, and single horns growing out of their heads like a unicorn horn but twisted in a spiral. This is not 2 Kings. 

The bottom image was long-believed to be an image of Elijah's chariot, but is this how you pictured the scene? The horse is not fire, the chariot is on the ground. Which figure is Elijah? The etching has more recently been associated with God's judgment of Adam for eating the forbidden fruit. 

When we see chariots and fire, we automatically think of Elijah and of God's gathering up this faithful prophet. Those elements - chariots and fire - aren't always "comin' for to carry us home." If a fiery chariot shows up in your driveway, take a second look before you hop on.  

Top image: William Blake. Jerusalem, Plate 46 ("Bath, mild physician..."). 1804-1820. New Haven: Yale Center for British Art. Bottom image: William Blake. God Judging Adam. c. 1795. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.

2 Kings 5.1-14: Something Easy

All Naaman has to do to be cured of leprosy is go wash in the river (2 Kings 5:1-14). You'd think he'd say, "Great! Five minutes and I'm done!" But, no. Naaman first expresses his offense at the sending of a messenger to deliver the cure. Surely Naaman was important enough for some kind of show by Elisha. Then Naaman expresses his disdain for the cure. Naaman needs to learn a lesson about looking a gift horse in the mouth.

And though he doesn't get that lesson, he does hear common sense from his servants. Not the first time servants have faciliated Naaman's cure. Remember it was an Israelite slave girl who first brings the prophet to Naaman's attention (5:2-3). The servants point out that Naaman was ready (eager, even) to do something big and involved to bring on the leprosy cure. Why would he complain about doing something simple?

It's a good question.

We often overcomplicate things. Rube Goldberg was a widely-known cartoonist in his day, popular enough that he was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for his cartoons and sought after as a spokesperson. Today we know him for his machines - wildly complicated inventions that used levers, pulleys, animals, balloons, and more to perform relatively simple tasks. His contraptions were so popular that his name has become synonymous with the idea of making something simple quite complicated. Like wiping your mouth with a napkin.

Rube Goldberg. Professor Butts and the Self-Operating Napkin. Originally published in Collier's, September 26, 1931. 

In the example above, Goldberg has developed a self-operating napkin. When the soup spoon (A) is raised to mouth, it pulls the string (B) and jerks the ladle (C), which throws the cracker (D) past the toucan (E). The toucan jumps after the cracker and the perch (F) tilts, upsetting the seeds (G) into the pail (H). Extra weight in the pail pulls the cord (I), which opens and ignites the lighter (J), setting off  a skyrocket (K), which causes the sickle (L) to cut the string (M), allowing the pendulum with the attached napkin to swing back and forth, thereby wiping the diner's chin. No effort at all.

Which of God's commands do we overcomplicate?

This week on Art&Faith Matters on Facebook, a three-river throwdown. Click here.
For thoughts on Luke 10:1-20, click here.

Each year there is a Rube Goldberg Machine contest. The task for 2019 was putting money in a piggy bank. The 2020 task is turning off a light. To see this year's winners, click here.