The Good and Evil Serpent (5 page)

2. Jesus was crucified by Roman soldiers in 30
CE
, during the prefecture of Pontius Pilate (26–36
CE
) whose name and title have been located on a stone found in Caesarea Maritima.

3. Jesus’ ministry was from approximately 26 to 30
CE
.

4. Jesus wrote nothing, but he was able to write if we take literally John 7:53–8:11.

5. Jesus focused his thoughts into well-crafted speech, designed to be heard and not read. His words were shaped by intensive and thoughtful preparation.

6. His words were often deeply metaphorical and pictorial. Rather than warning that piety should not be ostentatious, he stated that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter heaven (Lk 18:25).

7. There is absolutely no record that anyone who heard his speeches copied them; and—of course—there were no video or tape recorders two thousand years ago.

8. Jesus spoke Aramaic, and he knew Hebrew, some Greek (if he spoke to Pilate), and a little Latin (since he is shown to have related to Roman soldiers).

9. None of his disciples wrote a Gospel. Not one of the Gospels was written by or based on what a disciple had written. The titles to the Gospels may be second-century additions, and the earliest extant fragments of the Gospels date from the second century
CE
.

10. After Jesus’ death his message was remembered, and often by people with incredible memories, but those who passed on what he had said and done shaped their records based on the needs of communities different from those Jesus had known. His message was shaped by itinerant preachers, teachers, and prophets who carried his message to the East and the West. The most famous of these Jewish itinerant teachers was Paul, a recognized genius, who probably died in Rome, where Jesus’ message preceded him.

11. Within fifteen years of Jesus’ death a collection of his sayings was apparently put into written form. This Sayings Source, called Q, was quoted in an edited form by both Matthew and Luke. About the same time a Signs Source was composed and it was used by the Fourth Evangelist who retained some of the numbers of the signs (see Jn 2:11, 4:54). These are well-accepted “facts” that are taught in the leading seminaries and universities in the United States and abroad. Less well established is a probability to which I subscribe: The
Gospel of Thomas
seems to be another Sayings Source, but it was shaped by later Christians.

12. Mark, conceivably Peter’s secretary, most likely wrote the First Gospel. It was completed either just before or after the burning of Jerusalem by the Roman armies in 70
CE
, since chapter 13 knows either that this epochal event has already happened or is a foregone conclusion.

13. Matthew and Luke were probably composed in the eighties. They depended on Mark’s outline of Jesus’ life, as well as on the otherwise lost Sayings Source (Q), in addition to traditions that they alone inherited and shaped.

14. The Fourth Gospel also took shape very early. The author probably did not depend on Mark and utilized sources independent of the other intra-canonical gospels. A first edition may have appeared in the mid-sixties and a second edition in the late nineties. Some of the Fourth Evangelist’s sources derive ultimately from the forties, thirties, and, when freed from the Evangelist’s own theology, into the twenties when Jesus was teaching. Thus, behind the sayings of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel may be reworked sayings of Jesus or valid summaries of what he had intended to communicate to his fellow Jews.

15. All four Gospels are shaped by the Easter faith, the proclamation that Jesus did not end his life on the cross but was resurrected by God during the Passover festival in Jerusalem in 30
CE
. Thus, the Gospels are not so much histories as they are proclamations of the good news that God was present in Jesus, who is the Messiah (the Christ) promised to God’s people and the One who as Christ will return in glory, triumphantly bringing to fruition all the promises associated with the Messiah or Christ.

16. The Fourth Evangelist wrote his Gospel as his theological affirmation of Jesus. He was not interested in producing the first biography of Jesus. He shaped Jesus’ life and message for a time and a community that was appreciably different from the ones experienced by Jesus.

17. Each evangelist shaped Jesus’ message in terms of his own theology. The evangelists’ own thoughts are often subtly couched in their narratives, which reflect the myths and symbols that shaped first-century culture. If we want to know what the Fourth Evangelist intended to say to his own community and others who might have read his work, then we must immerse ourselves in the symbolisms of his time. That is indeed the task of the present work.

THE PROBLEM WITH COMMENTARIES ON JOHN 3:14

Brilliant and gifted commentators on the Fourth Gospel often tell the reader what any seminary student of this gospel knows: that “to raise up” is the Evangelist’s way of celebrating Jesus’ crucifixion as a triumph rather than a failure (see Jn 8:28, 12:32–34). This emphasis, most likely, is one of the major differences between the Synoptic gospels (Mt, Mk, and Lk, which relate Jesus’ life synoptically) and the Johannine Gospel. As J. Ashton states, “Where John differs from the Synoptics is chiefly in his reluctance to see the crucifixion as demeaning or degrading.”
¹⁴
Ashton then goes on to point to the Fourth Evangelist’s unique meaning given to
hupsod
, which he takes to denote not only “to exalt” but “to lift up” on the cross. Actually, if it were not for the Fourth Evangelist’s peculiar use of
hupsod
, we would assume that it meant, as it does prior to the Fourth Gospel, only “to exalt.”

Note how the commentators avoid any discussion of the Evangelist’s typological use of the symbol of a serpent for Jesus and their preoccupation with the verb “to lift up.” Note these representative samples, which are characteristically erudite and insightful for exegesis and exposition of John 3:14:

The central idea of this verse is that of the lifting up of the Messiah.… to the very fact of His suspension on the cross. [Godet, 1886, reprinted in 1978]
¹⁵
The allusion to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. xxi, 8.9) is very clear, and John never employs this word [i.e.,
] except to signify the exaltation of the Passion (viii, 28; xii, 32.34). [Lagrange, 1925]
¹⁶
…. and for those who are in the secret the “elevation” of the Son of man in iii.14–15 suggests the thought of the cross; but the suggestion is left undeveloped. [Dodd, 1960]
¹⁷
The event which is necessary in order that faith may receive eternal life is the exaltation of the “Son of Man.”… V. 14 mentions only the exaltation; this is the fulfillment of the Son’s mission, and by this alone is it made effective (cf. 13.31f.), for it is the exalted, glorified Lord who is the object of Christian faith. [Bultmann, 1964 (German), ET in 1971]
¹⁸
John exploits three points which he sees as intrinsically connected: the “exaltation,” its salvific power and the divine plan behind all. [Schnackenburg, 1965 (German), ET in 1987]
¹⁹
The phrase “to be lifted up” refers to Jesus’ death on the cross. This is clear not only from the comparison with the serpent on the pole in vs. 14, but also from the explanation in xii 33…. [I]n John “being lifted up” refers to one continuous action of ascent: Jesus begins his return to his Father as he approaches death (xiii 1) and completes it only with his ascension (xx 17). [Brown, 1966]
²⁰
The Lord clearly viewed His death as being in line with the purpose of God as foreshadowed in the Old Testament, wherein the sacrifice for sin takes on the character of sin and thereby provides the antidote to the death-bearing malady (cf. Jn 3:14 and Num. 21:6–9). [Cook, 1979]
²¹
The Son of Man must be “exalted,” crucified, “that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.” [Haenchen, 1980 (German), ET in 1984]
²²
Moses’ serpent of bronze, if looked upon with trust in God, preserved the Israelites from death (cf. Num. 21:9). The exalted Jesus, looked on believingly, gives the life of the final eon (“eternal life”) to those who believe (v. 15; cf. Dan. 12:2). [Sloyan, 1988]
²³
. … the deepest point of connection between the bronze snake and Jesus was in the act of being “lifted up.” [Carson, 1991]
²⁴
And, just as that serpent was “lifted up” in the wilderness, so, Jesus says, “the Son of Man must be lifted up.” This must refer to his being “lifted up” on the cross. [Morris, 1995]
²⁵

The consensus is that the Greek of John 3:14–15 means that the simile refers to Jesus, as the Son of Man, being lifted up (little is made of the simile of the serpent). None of these commentators discusses the symbology of Jesus as the serpent. In fact, they mention the serpent almost routinely and usually only when Numbers is quoted. The experts on John merely suggest that Jesus is like the serpent only in the parallel of being raised up. They fail to observe the symbolism and misrepresent the symbolic meaning of John 3:14–15. Perhaps they have been too influenced by previous commentators and have also resisted, or been oblivious of, any implication that Jesus may be like a serpent, which often symbolized life.

Far too often biblical experts harbor the presupposition that the serpent symbolized only evil in antiquity and, sad to report, this assumption continues unexamined. One may find a nuance of this penchant in T. L. Brodie’s work. He writes as if the narrative in Numbers 21 implies that the copper serpent is the same as the venomous ones: “It is by facing the thing which most terrifies—by putting the fiery serpent on a standard and looking straight at it (Num 21:8–9)—that greater life is achieved.”
²⁶
The fiery serpent is not put on a standard; Moses makes a metal serpent and places it on a stake.

Do any of the New Testament commentators consider the possibility that the serpent symbolically represents Jesus or that it is a typos of Jesus? Yes, in addition to the previous quotation from Schnackenburg, note his following comment: “The point of the comparison is neither the stake nor the serpent, but the ‘exaltation.’ “
²⁷
At least Schnackenburg pondered the possibility. Earlier, Bultmann noted in his masterful commentary on the Fourth Gospel the opinion that the Fourth Evangelist placed “no emphasis on the identification of Jesus with the serpent” (p. 152). This is correct, but Bultmann apparently perceived that John, without emphasis, identified Jesus with the serpent. Thus, it is worth exploring how and in what ways, if at all, the Fourth Evangelist thought of Moses’ upraised serpent as a typos of Jesus.

Some commentators come closer than Bultmann in seeing—as did Justin, Irenaeus, Augustine, and Calvin—that the Fourth Evangelist compared Christ, as the Son of Man, to the copper serpent. E. Ruckstuhl suggested that the actual comparison between the serpent and the Son of Man is to emphasize the lifting up of the Christ not only on the cross but up into heaven and to the right hand of God. But he also states that “as the serpent was lifted and placed on a standard, so (must be raised) the Son of Man on the cross.”
²⁸
The thought is not developed or expanded and is perhaps no more than a paraphrase of John 3:14. The commentators who seem closest to perceiving the simile of Jesus as a serpent are P. W. Comfort and W. C. Hawley. In their
Opening the Gospel of John
, they conclude that “Jesus was not comparing himself directly to the serpent—although the indirect simile cannot be excluded.”
²⁹
Does this statement not beg the question and prompt deep exploration into the symbology in the Fourth Gospel, especially a possible ophidian Christology?

The phenomena that plague the New Testament field are also reflected in works that point to the cultural setting of the New Testament documents. The valuable
Hellenistic Commentary to the New Testament
presents a history-of-religions parallel to help the exegete understand John 3:14,
³⁰
but the reader is told only of the importance of Pseudo-Callisthenes’
Life and Deeds of Alexander of Macedonia
2.21:7–11. The sole use of the long citation is to point up the double meaning of some words, especially “to lift up.” The reference is simply in line with that found in the commentaries; no information is provided to help the reader of the New Testament understand the possible portrayal of Jesus as a serpent.