The Good and Evil Serpent (84 page)

Questions

Eleven key questions are raised by 2 Kings 18:4 as we seek to comprehend serpent symbolism in the Hebrew Bible. A reading of this one verse, focused on serpent symbolism, raises at least the following questions:

1. What is meant by “the high places” Hezekiah abolished?
   
2. What is the meaning of “the sacred pillars” Hezekiah broke?
   
3. What is meant by “the pole of Asherah” Hezekiah cut down?
   
4. What is meant by the statement that Hezekiah “smashed the bronze serpent”?
   
5. What is the relation among the high places, the sacred pillars, the pole of Asherah, and the copper (or bronze) serpent?
   
6. Why is the copper (or bronze) serpent placed last?
   
7. Was it really the copper (or bronze) serpent “Moses had made,” and why would this connection be indicated at this point?
   
8. If there were Israelites devoted to the copper (or bronze) serpent, and if they “knew” it had been made by Moses, then would they not have been outraged at the smashing of a sacred and long-cherished artifact from Moses’ own hand?
   
9. What is meant by “the Israelites were offering sacrifices to it,” and is that the only, and accurate, translation of the Hebrew?
   
10. Why does the author add that the serpent “was called Nechushtan
    
11. How does the study of serpent iconography and symbology help us comprehend this passage?
    

Before attempting to answer these questions, it is prima facie evident that such questions arise only after a detailed examination of serpent imagery and symbology in antiquity.

Scholars’ Reflections

It seems probable that as the Yahwist wrote Genesis 3 and the Elohist Numbers 21, the Deuteronomist has given us 2 Kings 18. In the following discussion, thus, I shall assume that the Deuteronomistic Historian (Dtr) is responsible for 2 Kings 18:4.
²⁹⁸

Did Moses make the serpent mentioned in 2 Kings 18:4? Some biblical experts claim that the answer is simply “yes.” Other specialists ponder the question, but do not attempt to answer it. They sometimes simply assume the reference is not to Moses but to Moses’ time; thus, Montgomery wrote that the serpent “was a surviving ancient fetich, coming down, as the annalist artlessly recorded from Moses’ day and authority.”
²⁹⁹
Many commentators do not perceive the question.

Cogan and Tadmor claim that the image of the serpent was within “Ju-dahite tradition identified with the standard fashioned by Moses in healing those attacked by the fiery serpents; cf. Num 21:9).”
³⁰⁰
Perhaps the tradition was not Judahite, but the Deuteronomist sought to make it so. Their claim also may be misleading if it excludes the possibility that the Nechushtan was not related to Moses’ copper serpent, but that it was a remnant of Canaanite or Jebusite serpent cults.

Some scholars claim that one should observe that, according to a late mi-drash, Yahweh becomes a large serpent and swallows Moses. They then assume that 2 Kings 18 reflects an ancient tradition “that Yahweh had at one time been identified with a Serpent-god.”
³⁰¹
Such speculation needs more foundation and attention to datable texts and archaeological artifacts.

Serpent Symbolism and Exegesis

Before discussing these eleven questions and attempting to answer them, we should first make some exegetical and historical observations. In the process, we shall be indebted, especially with 2 Kings 18:4, to the careful research of others. Comments, reflections, and a search for answers involve four related issues: (1) Hezekiah’s reform; (2) Hezekiah’s smashing a bronze serpent that was presumably in the Temple; (3) the evidence that Moses had made the bronze serpent; and (4) the offering of sacrifices by Israelites “to it.” Our desire to answer our questions will be frustrated by the paucity of historical data in these verses and our ignorance of worship in the Temple, in all its diverse forms from Solomon to Hezekiah. These brief verses provide rare glimpses into the creative diversity in the Jerusalem cult. Apparently before and at the beginning of Hezekiah’s reign, we must allow for the influence of non-Yahwistic worship (at least as presented by the Deuteronomist), and even possible remnants of Canaanite and Jebusite worship in the Temple cult.

1. Hezekiah’s reform was not an innovation. It was not capricious or dominated by political exigencies or opportunities. It was a conservative religious move to
restore
the worship of Yahweh, according to the tradition of his ancestor, David (cf. also 20:5), and to
purify
the worship in the Temple. Although preceded by the reforms of Asa, Jehu, Joash, and Jehoiada, Hezekiah’s effort at restoration was the first great reform of the cult within the history of Israel. It was followed by the even greater religious reform by Hezekiah’s grandson, King Josiah.

Hezekiah’s reform, doubtless undertaken by the pious king under the influence of the great prophets of the eighth century, should be understood as the preparation and prelude to the revolt against Assyrian domination of the whole area, and Hezekiah is rightly credited with being the leading figure in the coalition assembled and reorganized to overthrow the Assyrians. A major purpose of the reform was to unite the countries, Israel and Judah, around a common faith and a common practice, reflected in the Deutero-nomic Code, preserved in the biblical text. In the end, both undertakings failed—the reform was terminated and reversed by the worst king in Judah’s history: Manasseh. And the Assyrians overran the whole coalition, including Hezekiah, who barely survived his revolt. In other words, Hezekiah was smart enough to know that the country must be united to withstand the Assyrian invasion. His plan was to bring everyone under the banner of reform, and at the same time eliminate or suppress any dissent from the Deuteronomic Code.
³⁰²
In the beginning he was quite successful, as the Assyrian records show, but ultimately the greater power prevailed.
³⁰³

Hezekiah had the backing of the leading Yahwistic prophets, in particular Isaiah, and there is reason to contend that his reform was developed along with a revival of the prophetic spirit in Judah. For the first time in the history of Israel, one of the great prophets, as J. A. Montgomery stated long ago, “[a]ppears in the active politics of the state.”
³⁰⁴
There can be no doubt that the Deuteronomistic Historian wanted to portray Hezekiah as an exemplary reformer and one who marked a major turning point in the history of Israel. Hezekiah did what was “upright
in the eyes of Yahweh” (18:3).

2. There seems no reason to doubt that there was a metal serpent in the Temple, that sacrifices were being made to (or through) it by Israelites, and that King Hezekiah had it smashed. As many commentators point out, the same verb, “to smash,” or “crush fine
,” is used to denote both the smashing of the golden calf (Dt 9:21
and the copper (or bronze) serpent
.
³⁰⁵
Thus, as Cogan and Tadmor comment, “Like Moses before him, Hezekiah is depicted as ridding Israel of an idolatrous relic.”
³⁰⁶
As a Yahwist and in the mind of the Deuteronomistic Historian, Hezekiah’s reasons for this action are understandable. Only Yahweh should be worshipped; in the mind of Dtr, Israelites had been offering sacrifices to the serpent. The action of smashing the serpent also would have entailed the proscription against such practices and the banishing of any priests or followers devoted to serpent worship not only from the Temple but also from Jerusalem and the Land. According to Dtr, the people—and all priests—had now only two options: either be banished or follow the edict, customs, and beliefs of Hezekiah and his royal group.

3. Most interesting is the claim that Moses is the one who made, or actually commissioned the making of, the serpent. Moses’ making the serpent is the primary link with Numbers 21:4–9. The real question is whether the Nechushtan is the copper serpent Moses made, or whether Nechushtan represented a remnant of Canaanite or Jebusite serpent worship. According to the text of 2 Kings, it was accepted tradition in Judah that Moses had fashioned the copper serpent that was worshipped in the Temple. Hence, we dare not read Numbers 21:4–9 (the work of the Elohist) into 2 Kings 18:4 (the work of the Dtr). This issue cannot be fully discussed at this point.

4. Did the Israelites offer sacrifices to the Nechushtan? We must forgo a discussion of this question until later. Now, it is imperative to make clear that if the Israelites thought that the serpent was a symbol of healing, then the Deuteronomist has a different claim to set before them. According to him, the word of Yahweh came to Isaiah to announce to King Hezekiah: “I will heal you” (2 Kgs 20:5). Thus, Yahweh, and Yahweh alone, is the source of health and healing. If there were Israelites in the Temple worshipping the Nechushtan as the source of healing and health, as is possible in terms of serpent symbology of that period, then the oracle of Isaiah corrected such misinterpretations.