The Good and Evil Serpent (103 page)

Our gaze is riveted by an unusual detail. A man, obviously a saint, holds a cup, but this is no ordinary depiction of the chalice. From it two small serpents ascend.
²¹⁰
Prominence is given to the two bifid tongues. Who is the man holding the chalice? What is the meaning of the two serpents? Why are two depicted?

As one stands before the painting, one sees a man on the left (not shown). He is John the Baptizer, who is revealed by the animal skin around his chest. The man on the right is John, perceived to be the Beloved Disciple. He is the one who holds the cup with the two serpents.
²¹¹

Two major questions arise: What is the meaning of the cup? What do the two serpents symbolize?

Alan Culpepper shared with me his impression that the cup with the serpents might signify the manner in which John the Evangelist died.
²¹²
According to some texts and legends, John was forced to drink poison or was killed by a deadly snake.
²¹³
This interpretation rightly grounds an interpretation with the Fourth Evangelist, but it focuses again only on the negative meaning of serpent symbolism.
²¹⁴
If the serpents represented death, then why are Mary and John the Evangelist portrayed oblivious of any danger? If the cup is a chalice, then it represented Jesus’ blood. It symbolized the source of eternal life, which—as we have seen—is first and foremost associated with the serpent in the first century
CE
.

The cup appears to represent the chalice in which the Eucharist contains the blood of Christ. The identification of John the Evangelist shows that the correct interpretation of the symbolism of this painting is to be found in the Fourth Gospel. And the only mention of the “serpent” in this Gospel is found at 3:14. While John the Baptizer points to the Virgin with his right hand, John the Evangelist lifts the chalice with two serpents in his right hand.
²¹⁵

The serpents do not seem to have negative meaning because they do not startle the baby, Virgin, or Evangelist. The serpent closest to the Virgin seems almost to touch her, but rather than threatening her with his deadly fangs, he seems to be communicating power and immortality through his tongue. The other serpent seems to be pointing the viewer’ eye toward heaven. The most arresting aspect of the painting is also its spark of creativity: the serpents lift themselves up from the chalice.

Two serpents are depicted, perhaps, to remind the observer of the caduceus (cf.
Fig. 5
). The bifid tongue indicates the power of the serpents, which are clearly poisonous (as indicated by the triangular head). An exegesis of Genesis 3 or Numbers 21, whereby a serpent brings death, seems “checkmated” by the serpent, Christ, who restores life and promises “eternal life” (Jn 3:14–15). As indicated by the caduceus and pointed out in our exegesis of Numbers 21, the serpent who brings death is bested by the serpent who brings life. As Moses lifted up a serpent, and Jesus, the Son of Man, was lifted up on a cross, the two serpents are lifted up out of the chalice.

The unknown artist depicts a pensive John the Evangelist holding his Gospel in the left hand and lifting up the chalice with two serpents in his right hand. The artist seems to be stressing that the cup of Christ’s blood brings immortality; the appropriate symbol for this thought is the serpent (Pos. 27). The artist knew the meaning of John 3:14–15: “the serpent” symbolizes that “the Son of Man” provides “eternal life” to all who look up to him and believe in him. The full symbolism breaks forth on observers when they realize what is on each side of the Virgin: John the Baptizer holds a wooden cross, John the Evangelist lifts up two serpents. Thus, she is framed by a cross and serpents. Our examination of serpent symbolism thus allows us to conclude that the symbolism in this painting is grounded in John 3:14–15.

We now turn to a painting in Hawaii; it is similar to the one in the Cappella del Noviziato. The painting shows a woman or man before a chalice with a serpent curled over it. The art is by Piero di Cosimo of the fifteenth century. It is now in the Samuel H. Kress Collection, Honolulu Academy of Arts, Honolulu, Hawaii.
²¹⁶
This painting is also an interpretation of John 3:14–15. The chalice contains an inexhaustible supply of Christ’s blood, the symbol of eternal life (Pos. 26, 27). The complexity of ophidian symbolism probably inspired Piero di Cosimo.

The serpents in the chalice that contains Christ’s blood are indicative of the immortality symbolized by the “serpent” imagery in John 3:14. One is reminded of the teaching of Ignatius of Antioch: The Eucharist is “the medicine of immortality.”
²¹⁷
A fourth-century amulet with Samaritan writing, a cross, and a serpent may also indicate an interpretation of Christ’s death as regeneration and eternal life.
²¹⁸

CONCLUSION

We have observed something remarkable and revealing. Modern scholars who work on the theology and Christology of the Fourth Gospel stress that 3:14 refers only to the “lifting up” of Jesus. Those who have focused on symbology and iconography perceive only that Jesus is symbolized as the serpent. In the present work, we have learned that each of these is only partially correct. The truth entails both: the typology entails both Jesus’ being lifted up
and
his portrayal as the serpent on the pole or cross.

J. Asurmendi explains how the serpent symbolism of Numbers 21 was transformed into a spiritual symbol by the Fourth Evangelist. He argues that the typological analogy is between the serpent and the Son of Man (“El famoso texto opera una analogia entre la serpiente y el Hijo del hombre”). Asurmendi contends that “the serpent has been transformed by the Fourth Evangelist into the Son of Man” (“la serpiente se convierte en del Hombre”).
²¹⁹
This seems to be a perception of many early readers of the Fourth Gospel and perhaps many in the Johannine circle, but it is not clearly developed by the Fourth Evangelist.

In
Le Tohu-bohu, le Serpent et le bon Dieu
, A. Houziaux points out that no animal receives such an important place in the Hebrew Bible as the serpent. Indeed, we have seen that serpent symbolism appears at the beginning of Genesis, reappears in Exodus with Moses’ magical staff, and explodes with symbolic significance in the wilderness with Moses uplifting a copper serpent on a pole. This famous and paradigmatic episode in the wilderness shapes the early centuries of worship in the Temple. Finally, Hezekiah destroys the copper serpent in the Jerusalem Temple. What about the Fourth Gospel? Houziaux, unlike other Johannine experts, contends that in John 3:14 the serpent became the symbol for Christ being lifted on a cross.
²²⁰
It seems clear from our research that as Moses’ bronze serpent represented God’s saving of those dying in the wilderness, so Jesus on the cross symbolized the saving of all humanity.
²²¹
As H. Lesêtre stated: “Jesus was raised on his cross like the serpent on his pole” (“Notre-Seigneur sera donc dressé sur sa croix comme le serpent sur son poteau”).
²²²

In his thirty-seventh homily on the Fourth Gospel, John Chrysostom explained why Jesus did not simply declare: “I am about to be crucified.” Jesus wanted his hearers to think about the analogy with the Old Testament, because “the old order was akin to the new.” Note that Chrysostom sees more than merely a parallel between the
lifting up
of the serpent and the
lifting up of Jesus
. The parallel is also between the serpent and Jesus:

In the former, the uplifted serpent healed the bites of serpents;

in the latter, the crucified Jesus healed the wounds inflicted by the spiritual dragon.

In the former, he who looked with these eyes of earth was healed;

in the latter, he who gazes with the eyes of his mind lays aside all his sins.

Chrysostom sees indeed a parallel between Jesus and the serpent: “In the former, there was the uplifted brass fashioned in the likeness of a serpent; in the latter, the Lord’s body formed by the Spirit.”
²²³

It should not be surprising to see Jesus (the Son of Man) as a serpent. According to the Fourth Evangelist, Jesus was the One-who-was-to-come. One of his favorite Scriptures was the Book of Isaiah. This eighth-century prophet claimed that the One-who-was-to-come would be a serpent. Recall, Isaiah’s prophecy:

Rejoice not, all you of Philistia,
Because the rod that struck you is broken;
For out of the serpent’s root shall come forth a pit viper,
And his offspring shall be a flying serpent. [Isa 14:29]

Clearly, the serpent in the wilderness is a symbol of the Son of Man, Jesus, the Christ, according to the Fourth Evangelist.
²²⁴

We have successfully fulfilled all six criteria established at the outset: (1) An abundance of evidence, iconographical and literary, has been amassed to prove that the serpent not only represented negative thoughts and concepts but also has often been a good symbol in world cultures. (2) The serpent was frequently admired in Old Testament times, not only in Near Eastern cultures but also within ancient Israel. The Yahwist in Genesis 3 portrays the Nachash as a beast of the field created by Yahweh God. He or she can talk and appears to represent the truth better than the Creator. The Brazen Serpent is created under God’s orders so that those who look up toward it and trust in God’s healing do not die but live. (3) The serpent was appreciated positively in the Greek and Roman periods. All the leading deities, especially Zeus, Apollo, Athena, Hermes, Asclepius, and Hygieia, were represented as serpents or are shown with serpents. (4) The serpent was sometimes a positive symbol in Judaism before and during the time of the Fourth Evangelist. (5) We found an exegesis of Numbers 21 by a Jew who lived in the same century as the Fourth Evangelist, and the Jewish expositor Philo stresses the positive symbolism of the Brazen Serpent (also see the
m. Rosh Hash
. and the
Mekilta
of Rabbi Yishmael).
¹
(6) The Fourth Evangelist does not cavalierly treat the symbolism of the serpent he inherits directly from the text of Numbers 21, and he is indebted to Jewish reflections on the formative and well-known upraised serpent of Moses. The Evangelist is most likely also significantly influenced by ophidian symbol-ogy in his environment. He appreciates the power and positive dimensions of serpent symbolism, reflecting the prevalent viewpoint that the serpent symbolizes life and eternal life.

Finally, we may summarize the high points of my six years spent exploring ancient serpent iconography and symbolism. We started with one focused question, which arose from studying John 3:14–15: “What did the serpent symbolize in antiquity?” This focal question led to many others; in fact, over sixty questions ultimately appeared from examining Genesis 3.

We learned that the serpent is the most multivalent of all symbols. We recognized that serpent symbology should be categorized; indeed, the serpent symbolized sixteen negative and twenty-nine positive meanings, concepts, or ideas. This taxonomy was often grounded in serpent physiology (and ophiology). We observed that in the first century
CE
the dominant meaning of serpent symbology was positive. One reason was the serpent’s association with the emperors (along with their quislings like Herod and Archelaus) and especially the healing god, Asclepius (see esp.
Figs. 1
,
58
–
60
).

We comprehended that the serpent appears significantly in creation myths in all known cultures. These extended from Mesopotamia to Egypt, and from the Middle East and Africa to Mexico and Australia. A study of shared serpent symbols led us to appreciate the commonality of the human, even if in the Levant, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and especially Canaanite symbolism influenced the great minds of ancient Israel, particularly the Yahwist, the author of Psalm 68 (David?), and Isaiah and his school.

We noted that Old Testament scholars often, and New Testament experts usually are insufficiently trained in iconography and symbology. The richest collection of books shaped by symbolism is clearly the Bible; yet Scripture is habitually read, even by the savants, without an informed perception of the world of symbols that stimulated the authors. Consistently, texts are studied without the requisite sensitivity to iconography and the meaning of symbols in the contexts that produced them. Most important, we saw that the biblical experts were often blind to the complex and rich serpent symbolism in Genesis 3, Numbers 21, and John 3.

We discovered that serpent symbolism in the Middle East absorbed many contradictory meanings—light and darkness, life and death, good and evil, Satan and God. The serpent ceased to be a dominantly positive symbol in our culture about the fourth century
CE
. Why? Perhaps serpent symbolism ceased (beginning with Eusebius) being widely perceived as multivalent because the image and symbol became so heavy with diverse meanings that it lacked clarity. Perhaps more so, the serpent became a predominantly negative symbol in Western culture (despite the serpents on medical notes and prescriptions) because of the leading minds in the triumphant Church. On the one hand, they were over-influenced by the negative serpent symbolism of “the final book of the Bible,” Revelation 12. On the other hand, they sought to establish Christianity against some powerful and well-established religions; that is, they developed Christological symbols that would replace Hermes’ caduceus and especially Asclepius’ and Hygieia’s serpent (see
Fig. 60
). Subsequently, in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the serpent ceased to be a multivalent symbol. In Western and Near Eastern cultures, the symbol of the serpent devolved until it became a synonym for Satan.