The Good and Evil Serpent (93 page)

The excerpt from Philo of Byblos, regardless of his sources, is of paradigmatic importance for us. First, it informs us of the mythology and symbolic theology of the contemporaries of the Fourth Evangelist. Second, there can be no doubt that this perspective of the serpent was thought to belong not only to the Greeks, Syrians, Egyptians, but also to the Phoenicians. Third, and most important, the serpent was lauded for its ability to symbolize life without end (Pos. 27), new life (Pos. 20), rejuvenation (Pos. 26), and immortality (Pos. 27).

The Fourth Evangelist and those in his circle, community, or school, were reminded almost daily that the serpent symbolized immortality, reincarnation, and perhaps resurrection (Pos. 27). Since John 3:14–15 does portray Jesus as a type of the serpent raised up by Moses, it is imperative to explore the possibility of a remnant of ophidian Christology in the Fourth Gospel. Is it unlikely that the Fourth Evangelist and those in the Johannine circle might have been influenced by ophidian symbolism? Surely serpent symbology may have been intended or seen in such words as the following: “I am the way, the truth and the life” (14:6). And also “I am the
resurrection
and the
life;
he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and believes in me shall
never die”
(11:25). The Fourth Evangelist’s favorite word for life is
. While Mark uses the noun four times, Matthew seven, and Luke five, he uses it thirty-six times.
⁷⁹
Since in the Evangelist’s time the serpent was the quintessential symbol for “life” (Pos. 20), is one to be blind to possible ophidian symbolism in this noun?

A study of the serpent at Pompeii helps us grasp the culture of the Fourth Evangelist.
⁸⁰
The serpent was extremely popular at Pompeii. It looms large in murals painted on the outside walls of houses. It appears within houses in small temples. It defines elegant gold rings, bracelets, and armlets. At Pompeii there was a cult of the serpent (see
Appendix III
). The serpent almost always symbolized life (Pos. 20), beauty (Pos. 4), and protection (Pos. 6) at Pompeii. In 79
CE
, Pompeii was destroyed; what remains helps us contemplate the world of serpent symbolism that shaped the Fourth Evangelist’s symbolism.

In light of what we have learned already about the concept and symbolism of the serpent in the first century
CE
, and along with the Fourth Evangelist’s accurate knowledge of the pools in and around Jerusalem, it is necessary to think about the possible meaning of “the Serpents’ Pool” in Jerusalem. This statement needs unpacking.

The Fourth Evangelist alone of all the ancient authors knows about a pool in Jerusalem with five porticoes. Not too long ago Johannine experts concluded that the Fourth Evangelist could not have known about Jerusalem since he describes a pool that no ancient historian mentions and one that was apparently five-sided.
⁸¹
That is significant since there were no pentagons in antiquity. Now, archaeologists have unearthed a pool that is exactly where the Fourth Evangelist places this monumental structure. It is “by the Sheep Gate” (Jn 5:2). The pool dates from the early Roman Period, and it antedates Hadrian. Its construction is according to the Fourth Evangelist’s description. It has four porticoes on each side of a rectangle and a portico between two pools; one of the pools is in the south and the other in the north. Thus, the area boasts five porticoes, but only four sides. The Fourth Evangelist knows about “the Pool of Bethzatha [Bethesda, or Bethsaida]” (Jn 5:2).

Did the Fourth Evangelist also know about “the Pool of the Serpents” that is mentioned by Josephus?
⁸²
Where was this purification pool?
⁸³
Why was it linked with “serpents”? What does the Pool of the Serpents inform us about serpents and cults in Jerusalem during the lifetime of Jesus and that of the Fourth Evangelist? These are questions that need deep examination; it is clear now that at Bethzatha there was a shrine to Asclepius. Was there a cult of the serpents near or in the Pool of the Serpents? How significant and influential was serpent symbolism in Jerusalem before 135/ 36, when it became a Roman city?

Before proceeding further to examine the theological symbolism of the key words in John 3:14–15—with our focus on the symbolism of the serpent—we should attend to the meaning poured into the grammar and the syntax by the Evangelist.

Grammar
. Both in English and in Greek grammar “as” (
) and “so” (
) indicate a comparison of a word (noun, adjective, or verb), phrase, or clause.
⁸⁴

If there is no discussion of the relation between Jesus and the serpent, it is irrelevant who or what was on the cross. That makes a travesty of the Fourth Evangelist’s theology. He is famous for the words: “The Word became flesh and tented among us” (1:14).

Docetic Christology may be reflected in the myopic focus only on the verb “to lift up.” The Fourth Evangelist also was interested in the “who” and “why” of the One lifted up on the cross. The One on the cross was the Son of Man, Jesus, the Son of the Father, who is moving back to where he originated: above. The full drama of sending (a clear Johannine motif) is climaxed as Jesus ascends from the earth on the cross. And the full story is one of salvation for all humankind. The moment of death is the moment of life; those who know ophidian symbology will find an echo of it here.

The leading commentators, as we have just seen, assume that “as” denotes only the verb. Grammatically, it can describe the verb, but it can also define a verb with a noun, or a clause. One must argue which of these was probably intended by the implied author or comprehended by the reader.

It seems unlikely that the stress is placed only on “as” lifted up. The Fourth Evangelist did not put the adverb “as” before the verb both times; in the second clause he changed the verb from the active to the passive voice. He did not write “as lifted up … so lifted up.” If he had, then the adverb would govern the verb. The Fourth Evangelists is a careful writer; he wrote: “And as Moses lifted up … so to be lifted up it is necessary.”

The Fourth Evangelist three times mentions Jesus’ being “lifted up” (3:14, 8:28, and 12:32–34). Too many commentators assume or even argue that the verb refers only to Jesus’ being lifted up on the cross. The argument is very impressive.
⁸⁵
In 8:28, Jesus tells “the Pharisees” that they “will lift up the Son of Man.” That cannot refer to God’s exaltation of Jesus as in Acts 2:33 and 5:31. In 12:32–34, Jesus states: “[W]hen I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all to myself.” The Evangelist adds: “He said this to show by what death he was about to die.” The meaning of the verb “lifted up” in 8:28 and in 12:32–34 clearly refers to Jesus’ death. Do they provide the only, or best, basis for understanding 3:14?

Should we read 8:28 and 12:32–34 back into 3:14? That method violates the integrity of
chapter 3
and misses the double entendre: Jesus was lifted up on the cross and thereby exalted on his way to heaven and back to his Father. As T. Zahn explained in 1921 in his
Das Evangelium des Johannes:
“[T]he lifting up is to be understood as the elevation into heaven, the return of Jesus from the earthly world to the otherworldly realm of God.”
⁸⁶
It must be stressed again, against the tide of recent research, that “to lift up” in the Fourth Gospel does not denote only lifting up on the cross; it is a lifting up on the cross that symbolizes Jesus’ exaltation and return to heaven. R. Schnackenburg stressed this point clearly: “The uplifted serpent in the wilderness appears typologically for the cross and throughout [for Jesus’] heavenly glory” (“[W]ie es die eherne Schlange in der Wiiste typologisch anzeigt, am Kreuz,
und dann und dadurch auch in der himmlischen Herrlichkeit”).
⁸⁷
A study of the ophidian symbolism in 3:14 helps protect the exegete from missing the full meaning of the verse.

Immediate context determines a text’s meaning. The context of 3:14 thus is shaped by 3:13. That verse clarified that the Son of Man, as R. Bultmann observed, is “the one who has come down from heaven and who must again be exalted. That is stated explicitly in vv. 14f.” Bultmann continued: “V. 14 mentions only the exaltation;
⁸⁸
this is the fulfilment of the Son’s mission, and by this alone is it made effective (cp. 13.31f.), for it is the exalted, glorified Lord who is the object of Christian faith. Yet the necessary condition of his exaltation is his humiliation, as v. 13 has already said.
⁸⁹
The saving event embraces both these elements.”
⁹⁰
As M. Hengel points out, the Fourth Evangelist makes more references to Jesus’ death as salvation than the other Gospels.
⁹¹
Beasley-Murray wisely discloses the “simple fact that the Evangelist views the death and resurrection of Christ as indissolubly one. The redemptive event is the crucifixion-resurrection of the Son.”
⁹²
H. Weder rightly saw that the “point de comparison” is not primarily to the “le
mode”
of this elevation; verse 15 indicates “le
sens”
of this elevation: the elevation of the Son of Man.
⁹³
Likewise, F. Hahn, in his
Theologie des Neuen Testaments
, stresses correctly that the Son of Man in Johannine Christology is revealed to be shaped by “lifting up” and “glorification.”
⁹⁴
Thus, certainly not crucifixion alone is meant by verse 14; both crucifixion and resurrection collapse into one event for the Fourth Evangelist: the rising up of the Son of Man as an antitype of Moses’ serpent.
⁹⁵

In
On the Spirit
, St. Basil “the Great” (c. 330–379) rightly perceived that the serpent in John 3 typified Christ. Note his reflections on typology: “The manna is a type of the living bread that came down from heaven; and the serpent on the standard of the passion of salvation accomplished by means of the cross, wherefore they who even looked thereon were pre-served.”
⁹⁶
Though Augustine missed the positive symbolism of the serpent, he did see the typology: the serpent lifted up signifies Jesus’ death on the cross. Augustine argues that as death came into the world through the serpent, its abolishment was fittingly symbolized by the image of a serpent on the cross (Augustine,
On the Gospel of St. John
12.11–13; cf. Augustine,
On the Psalms
74.4 and 119.122).

Some scholars have also seen the brilliant typology of the Fourth Evangelist; though it is missed by the mass of commentators who simply repeat the threefold claim that 3:14 denotes only Jesus’ crucifixion, that only “lifting up” is implied, and that there is no connection between the serpent and the Son of Man (in fact, most commentators tend to ignore the serpent symbolism). Note, however, these exceptions to the rule: E. Haenchen wisely pointed out that the Fourth Evangelist avoids mentioning the crucifixion, except in the Passion narrative. He refers rather to “its divine meaning, the exaltation.”
⁹⁷
Long ago in his commentary on the Fourth Gospel, B. F. Westcott astutely perceived that the words of 3:14 “imply an exaltation in appearance far different from that of the triumphant king, and yet in its true issue leading to a divine glory. This passage through the elevation on the cross to the elevation on the right hand of God was a necessity … arising out of the laws of the divine nature.”
⁹⁸
As R. J. Burns states, in “Jesus and the Bronze Serpent,” the Evangelist uses “lifting up” to refer “not only to Jesus’ death by crucifixion but to his resurrection as well.”
⁹⁹
Beasley-Murray correctly claims: “To the lifting up of the snake on a pole that all may live corresponds the lifting up of the Son of Man on a cross that all may have eternal life.”
¹⁰⁰