The Good and Evil Serpent (96 page)

Again the “serpent” and “the Son of Man” are parallel. In this context, the lifting up on the cross is the Evangelist’s method of presenting Jesus’ highest hour on earth. The unbelievers see only a dying man; the Sons of Light see the exaltation of Jesus, who is from above and returning again to his Father.
¹¹⁸

The issue, however, is more complex. The verb “be lifted up” may also have a literal meaning. But who would be those who literally lift Jesus up on the cross? That is the unique meaning given to this verb (
) by the Fourth Evangelist. It means “lift up” or “raise.” Only in the Fourth Gospel does the verb imply crucifixion. As we have seen, the verb is used twice in 3:14, first as an active verb and then as a passive verb.

Since the parallel is “Moses,” the most likely suggestion would be that those who crucify Jesus are those who belong to Moses or the followers of Moses. Does that possible interpretation make sense for Johannine theology? The name “Moses” appears more often in the Fourth Gospel than any other Gospel (7/8/10/12).
¹¹⁹
It is clear from 5:46 that Jesus’ antagonists are those who set their hope on Moses; quite significantly they are also those who refuse to come to Jesus that they “may have life” (5:40). It is easy to hear an echo from 3:15—specifically, all those who look to Jesus as the upraised one, like the serpent in the wilderness, “will have eternal life.”

Our search for the ones who, according to the Fourth Evangelist, lift Jesus up on the cross is rewarded by the Judeans’ declaration in 9:28: “We are disciples of Moses.”
¹²⁰
Here the Fourth Evangelist makes it unmistakably clear that Jesus’ opponents are “the disciples of Moses.” After this verse the name “Moses” never appears again in the Fourth Gospel. It is at least conceivable that this use of words is intentional by our gifted writer.

The antagonists in the Johannine drama are specified. The disciples of Jesus (9:27) are opposed by the disciples of Moses (9:28). Moreover, this clarification comes in the famous and pivotal passage in which the Judeans caustically interrogate the man born blind because Jesus healed him on the Sabbath. Observe that “the disciples of Moses” (9:28) claim: “We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he comes from” (9:29). The members of the Johannine circle or school and the one who comprehends the Fourth Gospel
know
where Jesus “comes from:” Jesus is “from above.”

The irony of 9:29 is simply another example of the author’s rhetorical skill. He has mastered the art of irony and misunderstanding.
¹²¹
These two aspects of the Fourth Evangelist’s narrative art are first presented in the Fourth Gospel in the dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus that ends in 3:15.
¹²²
Jesus speaks not only about
anôthen
, he also speaks about the Son of Man being a type of the serpent raised up by Moses.

How do we locate irony in a document? As G. R. O’Day points out: “ [S]ignals to irony are often difficult to detect, because the essence of irony is to be indirect. A straightforward ironic statement would be a contradiction in terms. The ironist’s challenge is to be clear without being evident, to say something without really saying it.”
¹²³
Herein lies the problem: the Fourth Gospel does contain narrative irony, but we cannot be certain where it is and where it is not.

How should we recognize irony in the Fourth Gospel? One of the best means is to feel the jar caused by a contradiction when the symbolic is taken literally. This happens in the narrative when one of the dramatis personae misses the symbolical meaning.
¹²⁴
Examples help clarify this point; here are the clearest examples of irony revealed through the narrative of the Fourth Gospel:

2:21–22 Jesus tells the Judeans that the Temple if destroyed will be raised; they understand him to mean the Temple. (In this first appearance of irony, the narrator tends to clarify what he means by the use of irony.)

3:4 Jesus tells Nicodemus he must be born “anew,”
anôthen;
Nicodemus thinks Jesus means to he must reenter the womb.

4:15 Jesus offers the Samaritan woman “living water;” she thinks she will not need to return to the well.

7:27 Some Jerusalemites claim Jesus may not be the Christ because they know his origins.

11:50 Caiaphas prophesies that it is expedient for one to die for the people
(laos)
.

Irony and misunderstanding help the Fourth Evangelist make several major theological points. Misunderstanding is an aspect of irony; it clarifies revelation.
¹²⁵
Along with the Evangelist and Jesus, only the reader who knows the “end” of the story and has received the enlightening insights of the Holy Spirit can understand the drama of salvation. The representative disciple seems to be Thomas, who provides the final and perfect confession. The evangelist links 20:29 with 1:1. As Moody Smith states: “[W]hat is said in 1:1 about the word is based on post-resurrection knowledge and confession of Jesus.”
¹²⁶
For the Evangelist, irony and misunderstanding are not primarily rhetorical techniques. They are chosen to reveal that only one who is born from above can comprehend why it is necessary for the Son of Man to be lifted up like Moses’ serpent.

Moses, who raised the serpent in the wilderness, cannot be contrasted with Jesus in the Fourth Gospel. Moses is the one through whom God gave the Torah (Law) according to 1:17 and 7:19. He is the one through whom God gave the manna (6:37).
¹²⁷
This verse is a significant link with 3:14–15; both interpret the Torah so that Moses is seen foreshadowing the ministry of Jesus.
¹²⁸
Most important, not only does Jesus refer to what Moses did, according to 3:14–15, but the Fourth Evangelist also stresses that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Philip announces to Nathanael: “We have found him of whom Moses in the Torah … wrote” (1:45). This episode precedes and helps frame the theologoumenon of 3:14–15.

Who then raises Jesus up onto the cross in the Fourth Gospel? In Mark we come across the clause: “And they crucified him” (15:24). To whom does this refer? It seems to refer back to “the soldiers” (15:16) who are emphasized in the Markan narrative because they are associated with “the whole battalion” (15:16). In the Fourth Gospel we also find the possibly ambiguous verbal clause: “They crucified him” (19:18). To whom does the pronoun “They” refer? It is remarkable to discover that the antecedent is “the Judeans” in 19:14. John has interpolated into an earlier story of the Passion, somewhat represented by Mark, an account of the Judeans and the chief priests who are explicitly mentioned in 19:15.

The Johannine addition to the Passion occupies two significant sections: the Judaeans’ altercation with Pilate in 19:12–16 and Jesus’ crucifixion in 19:17–22. In neither of these sections are the Roman “soldiers” mentioned.

According to John 19:16, Pilate hands Jesus over “to them to be crucified.” Who are these people? They are the “chief priests” mentioned in 19:15. According to 19:20, “They crucified him.” According to John 19:23, it is “the soldiers” who “crucified Jesus.” The “soldiers” are rein-troduced in this verse. They had not been mentioned since 19:2. But who are “they” in John 19:18? The context of this verse gives the impression that it is the “chief priests” and “the Judeans.” It is none other than “the chief priests and the officers” who, according to the Fourth Evangelist, cry out to Pilate: “Crucify him, crucify him!” (19:6).
¹²⁹

How do we explain this tension in the Johnanine account? Who crucified Jesus? The Evangelist again mentions “the soldiers;” it is they who are said to have crucified Jesus (19:23). The Johannine narrative implies that the disciples of Moses, the Judeans, are those who crucified Jesus (unfortunately, the noun for “Judeans” is usually translated simply, and incorrectly, as “Jews”). The point is not lost on all who have already grasped that Nicodemus is none other than “a ruler of the Judeans” (3:1). Hence, we see the thought implicit in the carefully structured sentence in 3:14: “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so it is necessary for the Son of Man to be lifted up.” The Fourth Evangelist has clarified through his narrative those who have lifted up the serpent, Jesus, on the cross. It is the Judean leaders. And he has implied who has “exalted” Jesus. It is his Father, God.

In summation, it seems shocking to imagine that the passive verb “be lifted up”—which refers, according to most commentators, only to Jesus’ crucifixion—can be a divine passive. In one sense, the verb “be lifted up” is a divine passive denoting the divine plan (“it is necessary”) and the exaltation by God. In another sense, the passive verb reflects the reason for the crucifixion. It was due to the Judeans.

Most important for our present research, a study of the poetry of John 3:14–15 establishes the parallel between
“the serpent”
and
“the Son of Man.”
Moreover, grammar also points out this fact. Both “serpent” and “the Son of Man” are clearly in the objective case (accusatives) and conclude the thought:

And as Moses lifted up	( ) the serpent in the wilderness,
So it is necessary to be lifted up	( ) the Son of Man.

Moreover, grammar, syntax, and poetic structure support the conclusion that the Fourth Evangelist has paralleled the serpent in thought and symbolism with the Son of Man.
¹³⁰

In his
Reply to Faustus the Manichaean
, Augustine perceived this insight: “Thus also, the serpent hung on the pole was intended to show that Christ did not feign death, but that the real death into which the serpent by his fatal counsel cast mankind was hung on the cross of Christ’s passion.”
¹³¹
What Augustine missed was the positive serpent symbolism: The uplifted serpent according to the authors of Numbers 21 and John 3 symbolized life.

According to the Fourth Evangelist, the Son of Man is Jesus. Recall John 9:35–37, in which Jesus tells the man born blind, who now not only sees, but perceives, that Jesus is the Son of Man. Thus, the serpent is a type of Jesus, the Christ according to the Fourth Evangelist. Ophidian symbolism helps ground the insight since the serpent symbolizes liberation from death and new life (Pos. 20),
¹³²
as well as rejuvenation (Pos. 26) and immortality and even resurrection (Pos. 27).