The Good and Evil Serpent (137 page)

Naassenes
. The noun “Naassene” derives from the Hebrew
ndhds
, “snake” or “serpent.” Hippolytus reported that this “sect” worshiped the snake. Note his words: “They worship nothing other than the
Naas
, whence they are called Naassenes.
Naas
is the snake, wherefore all the
naoi
[temples] under the heavens are so called after the
Naas” (Elenchos
5.9, 12 [italics mine]). Hippolytus does not explain the relation between the Ophites, discussed by Pseudo-Tertullian and Epiphanius, and the Naassenes. He does mention another word
(Peratae)
for a sect similar to or perhaps identical with the Naassenes.

Peratae
. In his
Refutation of All Heresies
(early third cent.), Hippolytus reported that the Peratae was an early Christian sect that understood John 3:14 in light of Numbers 21. This verse denoted the “perfect serpent” that delivered those who had been bitten. The Peratae held that the image of a serpent is in heaven and is constantly conspicuous in light. The beautiful image of the serpent becomes “an originating principle” of all life (Book 5, chap. 11).

Hippolytus continues to describe the doctrine of the Peratae, who clearly have focused their thoughts on an exegesis of John 3:14. Hippolytus claimed that “according to them, the universe is Father,
Son
(and) Matter. … Intermediate, then, between the Matter and the Father sits
the Son, the Word, the Serpent
, always being in motion towards the unmoved Father, and (towards) Matter itself in motion.”
⁴
In his
Elenchos
(5.17, 8), Hippolytus stated that the Peratae held that

The cosmos consists of Father,
Son
, and Matter. Each of these three principles contains infinitely many forces. Midway between the Father and Matter,
the Son, the Logos
, has his place,
the Serpent
that moves eternally toward the unmoved Father and moved Matter … no one can be saved and rise up again without
the Son
, who
is the Serpent
. For it was he who brought the paternal models down from above, and it is he who carries back up again those who have been awakened from sleep and have reassumed the features of the Father.
⁵

The Peratae, clearly, were developing their doctrines out of an exegesis of John 3:14–15.

The Peratae were defined by their interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. They were also imagining the cosmos under the influence of Aristotle, who conceived of God as “the Unmoved Mover.” Most important for our work is the recognition that the Peratae developed their theology by interpreting Jesus as the serpent, and their base text is John 3:14–15.

We must emphasize the basis for the Peratae’s concept of the Son as the Serpent: it is an exegesis of John 3:14 in light of Numbers 21. Equally impressive as the preceding quotation is the following summary by Hippolytus of the Peratae’s Christology: “No one, then, he says, can be saved or return [into heaven] without the Son, and
the Son is the Serpent.”
⁶
Anatomically, the brain, because it is unmov-able, symbolizes the Father, and the cerebellum, because of its motion and form of a serpent, represents the Son.
⁷

Hippolytus’ reference to the Peratae is so informative of serpent symbolism, especially in light of an exegesis of John 3:14–15, that it should be more fully quoted:

No one, then, he says, can be saved or return [into heaven] without
the Son
, and
the Son is the serpent
. For as he brought down from above the paternal marks, so again he carries up from thence those marks roused from a dormant condition and rendered paternal characteristics, substantial ones from the unsubstantial Being, transferring them hither from thence. This, he says, is what is spoken: “I am the door.” And he transfers [those marks], he says, to those who close the eyelid, as the naphtha drawing the fire in every direction towards itself; nay rather, as the magnet [attracting] the iron and not anything else, or just as the backbone of the sea falcon, the gold and nothing else, or as the chaff is led by the amber. In this manner, he says, is the portrayed, perfect, and con-substantial genus drawn again from the world by the serpent; nor does he [attract] anything else, as it has been sent down by him. For a proof of this, they adduce the anatomy of the brain, assimilating, from the fact of its immobility, the brain itself to the Father, and the cerebellum to
the Son
, because of its being moved and being of the form of [the head of]
a serpent
. And they allege that this [cerebellum], by an ineffable and inscrutable process, attracts through the pineal gland the spiritual and life-giving substance emanating from the vaulted chamber [in which the brain is embedded]. And on receiving this, the cerebellum in an ineffable manner imparts the ideas, just as the Son does, to matter; or, in other words, the seeds and the genera of the things produced according to the flesh flow along into the spinal marrow. Employing this exemplar, [the heretics] seem to adroitly introduce their secret mysteries, which are delivered in silence. Now it would be impious for us to declare these; yet it is easy to form an idea of them, by reason of the many statements that have been made.
⁸

Centuries later in his homilies on the Fourth Gospel, John Chrysostom (c. 347407) compared Jesus to the serpent. Here are the four most important aspects of his homiletical interpretations for our study of serpent symbolism. First, the Fourth Evangelist has chosen to compare Jesus with the serpent described in Numbers 21 to emphasize that “the old order was akin to the new.”
⁹

Second, and far more important, Chrysostom argued: “[I]f the Jews escaped death by looking upon the brazen image of a serpent, with much greater reason would those who believe in the Crucified One enjoy an even greater benefit.”
¹⁰

Third, the clearest example of Chrysostom’s comparison of Jesus and the serpent, following the lead of the Fourth Evangelist, follows: “[I]n the former, the uplifted serpent healed the bites of serpents; in the latter, the crucified Jesus healed the wounds inflicted by the spiritual dragon.”
¹¹

Fourth, the comparison between the serpent and Jesus is without any doubt: “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.”
¹²
Chrysostom can discuss how and in what ways the comparison between Jesus and the serpent is apt because of the rich positive symbolism given to the serpent in his time and culture.

Jesus and “the Serpent,” According to Justin, Irenaeus, and Augustine

While modern commentators miss the symbolic meaning of the Fourth Evangelist, ancient exegetes frequently perceive the meaning intended by the Evangelist. Only three representative examples will suffice to clarify this point. They are Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and St. Augustine.

Justin Martyr (c. 100-c. 165
CE)
, a Samaritan renowned for his apologies, was scourged and then beheaded because he refused to sacrifice to the emperor in Rome. After converting to Christianity, Justin taught in Ephesus, where he debated with a Jew named Trypho around the year 135. He then moved to Rome and published sometime after 155 his work titled
Dialogue with Trypho
. It is an anti-Jewish document; in it he argues that the Covenant God of the Old Testament is superseded, that the God of the Old Testament is the Logos, and that Gentiles replace Israel in the economy of salvation. In this work, Justin claims that Joshua and the Israelites were able to defeat the Amalekites because Moses stretched out his hands, and—most important for our understanding of John 3:14—Justin asserts that Moses had imitated the sign of the cross
(Dial
. 89). After this comment, Justin proceeds to discuss “the mystery of the cross.” It is at this point that he reveals his exegesis of John 3:14 and, of course, Numbers 21 in light of it. The cross was “the type and sign” that God devised for “the salvation of those who believe that death was declared to come thereafter on the serpent through Him that would be crucified.”
¹³

Justin seems to perceive that Jesus, according to the Fourth Evangelist, is symbolically the upraised serpent, but he cannot make this exegetical move because of his interpretation of Genesis 3. He affirms that the serpent “was cursed by God from the beginning”
(Dial
. 91). Justin may be contemplating that Jesus on the cross became sin for the sinner; that is, he became the evil serpent so he could defeat him. That is, he may be using a double entendre, thinking that Jesus as the life-giving serpent was able to conquer the Devil, the serpent (see Rev 20:2).

It is far from clear what Justin means in this passage. Is it a “clumsy exposition of St. John, iii.14,” as Coxe claimed?
¹⁴
I am persuaded that this judgment is possible only when one assumes that John 3:14 does not, and cannot, mean that Jesus is portrayed as Moses’ serpent that has been raised up so that all who look up to it, or believe in it, will live.

Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 200), the Bishop of Lyons in southern France, is important in establishing the time when the Church, at least in the areas he represents, accepted only four gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. In his major publication,
Adversus omnes Haereses
, which is a virulent attack against Gnosticism, he exhibits briefly his exegesis of John 3:14. He contends that humans “can be saved in no other way from the old wound of the serpent than by believing in Him who, in the likeness of sinful flesh, is lifted up from the earth upon the tree of martyrdom, and draws all things to Himself, and vivifies the dead.”
¹⁵
Irenaeus is emphasizing the importance of Numbers 21 for understanding John 3:14. The serpent raised up is the source of hope and life. Thus, according to Irenaeus, the Law (the Torah) was the pedagogue and the means for exhorting all to believe. Taken to its logical consequences, which Irenaeus almost succeeds in doing, it seems obvious that Moses’ serpent symbolizes Jesus. Thus, the old serpent’s wound is healed by the upraised serpent, who is none other than Jesus. Again, Irenaeus, as Justin before him, seems to equate the serpent only with evil, since he refers to Jesus who “in the likeness of sinful flesh” was raised up above the earth. The distance from the time of the Fourth Evangelist becomes impressive. Yet, in so doing, Irenaeus brings out one of the characteristics of Asclepius, the serpent god—that is, Jesus and Asclepius raise the dead to life or vivify the dead.

Augustine (354–430), the Bishop of Hippo in North Africa, was a gifted rhetorician. His understanding of Christian theology was so profound that he became the dominant force in Christian thought until the thirteenth century when Aquinas (c. 1225–1274) became the recognized master of Christian philosophy and theology. Skilled in rhetoric, grammar, and syntax, Augustine might have grasped the meaning of John 3:14. In addition to the numerous references to Augustine’s exegesis of Numbers 21 and John 3 noted in
Chapter 7
, we may now focus on his main perception of serpent symbolism.

Although Augustine’s exegesis is frequently marred by inappropriate allegorizing, he rightly knew that Numbers 21, according to Jesus’ words in the Fourth Gospel, was “a mysterious foreshadowing of what was to come.”
¹⁶
Augustine does not simply state that the comparison is between the lifting up of the serpent and the lifting up of the Son of Man. He knows that the Evangelist, through words attributed to Jesus, is comparing Jesus with the serpent. Augustine contends that “snakes” represent human sins that lead to death. He also perceives that the serpent “up on the post” symbolizes Jesus. Note Augustine’s exegesis of John 3:14: “What is meant by the snakes? They are the sins of men doomed to die. And the serpent lifted up on the post? The death of the master on the cross” (p. 75).

As the followers of Moses looked up to the serpent, so the followers of Jesus look up to the crucified one. The Hebrews “have to look at the snake in order to render the snake harmless.” So also “we must look up at Christ crucified, in order that we may be healed from sin. That is what the Master meant” in 3:14–16 (p. 75). Augustine continues: “As none of those who looked up to the serpent died of the bites, so none who look with faith on the death of Christ shall fail to be healed of the poison of sin” (p. 76). In light of the pejorative meaning of snake, which he often equates with Satan,
¹⁷
Augustine refrains from stating that the serpent is a typos of (typology for) Jesus Christ. He perceives that the serpent adumbrates Christ’s death on the cross, but he gives no impression that he knew the serpent could and did symbolize “life” and “resurrection.”

Why has Augustine missed a major theological point? It may perhaps be because of the threatening power of the Asclepian cult and the “heretical” views of such groups as the Ophites, but the context gives me the impression that Augustine is focused not on life and resurrection. He was focused on the human’s condemnation and sin.

The Rotas-Sator Square

A Latin cryptic word square of twenty-five letters has frustrated scholars’ attempts to comprehend it. This cryptograph has been discovered in many parts of the Roman Empire, from the West in Britain to the East in Dura-Europos. It was also discovered in Pompeii; hence, it clearly antedates 79
CE
when that Roman city was destroyed.
¹⁸
Here is the Latin cryptograph (note how
TENET
forms a cross pattern):