The Good and Evil Serpent (81 page)

Serpent Symbology and Exegesis

The author of Numbers 21:4–9 constructs a wordplay,
n
^e
has n
^e
hdset
, “a serpent of bronze;” this symbol is represented by Nechushtan, which is another paronomasia on “serpent” and “copper.”
²⁵⁷
As D. T. Olson states: “[The] serpent was a symbol of evil power and chaos from the underworld as well as a symbol of fertility, life, and healing.”
²⁵⁸
In Numbers 21 and 2 Kings 18, the serpent symbolized, most likely, power (Pos. 3), life (Pos. 20), healing (Pos. 23), and even rejuvenation (Pos. 26). All of these human ideals were possible because of the intervention of Yahweh in the lives of the people, Israel. That is, serpent symbology was subsumed under Yahwistic theology.

The author of Numbers 21:4–9 may have sought to emphasize that the serpent cult in the Temple was within Yahwism, and that it absorbed all the competing serpent deities and cults, such as those at Hazor and especially at Beth Shan. If this is an accurate assessment, then the Elohist sought to legitimize the serpent cult in the Temple. He anchored the cult traditionally by making it part of God’s saving action for his people during the time of Moses and in the wilderness, which was not the time or place of punishment but the time and place of preparation. We may now answer, seriatim, the questions raised by reading Numbers 21:4–9.

1. Our first question was “What is meant by
seraph;
that is, what kind of a snake did the author have in mind?” We can only guess.
²⁵⁹
As with the Yahwist in Genesis 3, the Elohist in Numbers 21:4–9 does not provide a detailed description of the snakes that bite the Israelites.

The Hebrew noun
seraph
, “a burning one [or fiery serpent],” is synonymous with
nachash
, “serpent,” in Numbers 21.
Seraph
denotes a serpent that burns; the noun signifies that the serpent kills by burning poison.
²⁶⁰
What kind of a snake could have been meant? The author uses this noun to signify a poisonous snake whose bite “burns.”
²⁶¹
The Greek of the Septuagint offers “deadly serpents”
;
²⁶²
and the Aramaic in
Targum Onkelos
signifies “burning or fiery serpents”
.
²⁶³
The Elohist clarifies only that the snakes are “fiery serpents” that are killing people; hence, they may have been any type of poisonous snake known in the lower Negev whose bite causes a fiery sensation. The
viper palestinensis
seems rather likely. Since the author depicts the Israelites leaving Egypt, he may have imagined that the “fiery serpents” were Egyptian asps.

Other possibilities are conceivable, including horned vipers, puffadders, and cobras;
²⁶⁴
in fact, these snakes were mentioned by T. E. Lawrence when he described an abundance of snakes that plagued him in Wadi Sirhan east of the Dead Sea.
²⁶⁵
Numbers 21:5–7 may represent an imagined retelling of an actual event, since Esarhaddon, in his
Annals
, refers to serpents on the ground as numerous as grasshoppers, and Alexander the Great, according to Strabo (15.2.7), lost many soldiers from snakebites.

Whether the account is basically historical or imagined on the basis of known experiences, we might err in assuming only one type of deadly snake was represented by
seraph;
that may be the reason the Elohist added that
seraph
was synonymous with
nachash
.

2. Our second question was “When the poisonous snakes bite the people, why do not all die?” Again, the Elohist has not provided an answer. It was not something that concerned him. The narrator first makes it clear that some “people” had died because of the food, lack of water, and hard ships of the journey from Egypt. The point the Elohist makes is that “many of the people of Israel died” (Num 21:6). The author does not say that every person was bitten. Those who lived after being bitten may have been considered people who had not, finally, been disobedient in murmuring against Moses and God. Perhaps some were thus assumed to have murmured only against Moses.

It is possible that one can be bitten by a poisonous snake and not die. As with Paul in Acts 28:4–6, sometimes it is assumed by those nearby that a person has been bitten when in fact the individual was not. We have pointed out that a poisonous snake can regulate the amount of poison administered, and that when a person is not threatening to an aroused snake, only a small portion of poison is injected. The snake saves venom to kill other animals, so that it can eat and survive.

3. Our third question was “Why does the Lord command Moses to make a
seraph
and place it on a standard?” God’s instructions to Moses immediately follow Moses’ prayer. He prayed to God on behalf of God’s people (Num 21:7). The murmuring against God is the first significant unfaithful action of the Israelites; now, they direct their complaints directly against God. Paul referred the Pharisee to Numbers 21:4–9 and stressed that this account revealed how people “tempted” God (1 Cor 10:9). This action is so exceptional and unthinkable that both the Targumists and the Greek translator change the meaning of the Hebrew to minimize the full force of the original text.

In the Hebrew, the preposition placed before “God” and Moses is the same:
b
(1; see Num 21:5, 7), so the people “spoke against God and against Moses.” The Greek translation, like some Targumim, has two different prepositions: “The people spoke to God and against Moses.” This translation misrepresents the Hebrew, and the Greek may be an attempt to remove the theologically unattractive point that the people of Israel directed attacks against God. I do not think it is wise to conclude that the Greek states basically the same thing as the Hebrew, and the difference can be explained by pointing out that the Greek language has far more prepositions than Hebrew.
²⁶⁶

The translators of the Targumim are most likely offended by Numbers 21:5. In a narrative about how Israel was saved from Egypt by God, it seems unacceptable that a narrator would report that God’s people would turn on their only benefactor. How did the Aramaic translators avoid such unthinkable actions? The translator in
Targum Onkelos
employed the customary circumlocution: “The people grumbled against the Memra of the Lord (
[A K]),
²⁶⁷
and contended with Moses.”
²⁶⁸
The translator of
Targum Neofiti
devised the following: “And the people spoke against the Memra of the Lord
²⁶⁹
and murmured against Moses.”
²⁷⁰
The expansive translator of
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
imagined that the Hebrew meant: “Then the people complained in their hearts and talked against the Lord’s Memra, and they quarreled with Moses.”
²⁷¹
In every case, the circumlocution seems an example of typical Targumic usage, yet it does appear that the Aramaic translators are trying to tone down the people’s quarreling against Yahweh. This exegesis seems valid since, while the Hebrew text uses one verb (“the people spoke against God and Moses”), the Targu-mists use different verbs for talking against God and quarreling with Moses.

This is the first time in the history of salvation, according to the Bible, that God will not do everything for his chosen people. Now, God requires some participation in the process of salvation. The Lord demands more than that one who is bitten merely look up at the serpent. The Elohist does not say it explicitly, but he assumes something more than looking up at the copper serpent is required. Surely, looking up entails obedience; that is, by looking up, “the people of Israel” were obeying God. God demands some obedience; hence, there is a theological and ideological link between Genesis 3 and Numbers 21. According to Genesis, the humans disobeyed God Yahweh and died; according to Numbers, those people who looked up obeyed God and obtained life (Num 21:9).

Thus, the individual Israelite must participate in his or her healing (or salvation); Moses must become involved in a unique way. He must make the copper serpent and place it on a standard. From henceforth, as the story of God and his people unfolds in the Bible, emphasis almost always will be placed on individual responsibility and on some personal response in the process of being helped or saved by God. As K. Sakenfeld states, God provides the means of healing: “Yet some level of personal human believing and initiative is required for its efficacy.”
²⁷²

4. Our fourth question was “What did the copper serpent look like or resemble?” The Elohist states only that Moses made some type of metal serpent; he does not tell us how Moses made it. G. Garbini argues that Moses’ historicity is confirmed because his portrayal in the pre-Deuteronomic sources is different from the “canonical Moses.” According to Garbini, these earlier sources portray Moses as from Egypt and as a craftsman who made a bronze snake.
²⁷³

It is likely that Moses made not a bronze serpent, as in many translations of Numbers 21, but “a copper serpent.” The Hebrew
denotes either a bronze or a copper serpent; the latter is more likely, since a gilded copper serpent was found in a cultic shrine at Timna’, which dates from the second millennium
BCE;
that is, roughly, 1550–1200
BCE
, which is near the time imagined by the Elohist when Moses made the copper serpent (see
Fig. 22
).