Raised Serpent In The Wilderness

Johannine Studies
IX. JOHN 3:14-15: THE RAISED SERPENT IN THE WILDERNESS:
THE JOHANNINE USE OF AN OLD TESTAMENT ACCOUNT¹

Subjects reviewed in this chapter:
Numbers 21:4-9 – John 3:14-15

“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.” (John 3:14-15)

This statement, set within the pericope of Jesus’s dialogue with Nicodemus, is replete with intrigue and unanswered questions. John 3:14-15 clearly alludes to an Old Testament event (Numbers 21:4-9). However, the issues surrounding this Old Testament passage and its New Testament citation are both manifold and complex. From the Old Testament perspective, there are multiple concerns. Issues raised concern the form and purpose of this short pericope in Numbers 21, the transmission and redaction of the account, and the larger issue of the place and function of serpents in the Old Testament (and in the ancient Near East). Significantly, explicit citations and/or implicit allusions to this passage are relatively numerous both in later Jewish (Old Testament to Intertestamental) and Christian (New Testament to Patristic) writings.² In the Gospel of John, this reference has direct bearing on numerous important and debated matters: Johannine Christology (especially the use of Son of man in John); the Ascent/Descent motif in John; Moses typology in John.

This article intends the following: 1) set and interpret (exegete) Numbers 21:49 in its immediate context (Numbers) and in its larger context (Old Testament and ancient Near East); 2) set and interpret John 3:14-15 in its immediate context (John 3) and in its larger context (Gospel of John); ³) draw appropriate conclusions regarding the theological significance of these two passages.

Numbers 21:4-9, “From Mount Hor they set out by the way to the Red Sea, to go around the land of Edom; and the people became impatient on the wav. And the people spoke against God and against Moses, ‘Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we loathe this worthless food.’ Then the Lord sent fiery serpents [hnhsym hsrpym] among the people, and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died. And the people came to Moses, and said, ‘We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord and against you; pray to the Lord, that he take away the serpents [hnhs] from us.’ So Moses prayed for the people. And the Lord said to Moses, ‘Make a fiery serpent [srp], and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it shall live.’ So Moses made a bronze serpent [nhs hnhst], and set it on a pole; and if a serpent [hnhs] bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent [nhs hnhst] and live.”

Numbers 21:4-9 is situated within a larger block of materials dealing with Israel’s successes and setbacks as she journeyed through the desert toward Canaan. Twin themes are the successes enjoyed through Yahweh’s sustaining guidance, and the setbacks experienced through the doubt and shortsightedness of the people. Their lack of faith is most clearly manifested in their habitual murmuring.3 Within the immediate context, there is a repeated interplay between movement (progress) of the Israelites through the sure guidance of Yahweh’s hand, and death and stalemate through the repeated grumbling of the people. In Num 20, Miriam dies (20:1) and the people complain about imminent death in a desert without water (20:2-9). Moses’ shortness of temper in providing water for the people (20:10-13) results in death coming near both to him and to Aaron. When the Israelites are denied passage through Edom (20:14-21), they journey to Mount Hor (where Aaron dies and his leadership is transferred to his son Eleazar [20:22-29]). Numbers 21 opens recounting the complete defeat and destruction of Arad (21:1-3).⁴ Numbers 21:4-9, picking up on 20:22-29, recounts another instance in which death entered the Israelite camp because of murmuring and shortsightedness. Several of the elements in these verses pick up or parallel earlier accounts. The people, as they set out to circumvent the land of Edom (see 20:14-21), once again grumble concerning the lack of water and the miserable dietary conditions. In response, Yahweh afflicts the camp with poisonous snakes. Strikingly, the people’s contention with Moses gives way to confession and request for intercession. In response to Moses’ prayer, the Lord instructs Moses to set a bronze snake on a pole so that those bitten may look at the bronze snake and be healed. Although quite brief, this perieope is filled with theological import and varies significantly from earlier accounts. Response to the people’s murmuring is swift and decisive; further, emphasis is placed on the people’s confession and the role of Moses as intercessor. Most noticeably, the poisonous snakes are not removed; rather, Yahweh provides deliverance through the gazing at an elevated bronze serpent. After this passage, we have another wilderness itinerary (21:10-20), followed by an account of the defeats of Sihon of Heshbon and Og of Bashan (21:21-35). Whereas the Israelites acceded to the refusal of the Edomites to allow passage, here the Israelites do not circumvent the land but defeat these kings and take control of their territories.

Interestingly, in Numbers 21:4-9 the people’s discontent with the frugal life of the desert does not lead (as previously) to an act of divine help, but to punishment.⁵ The punishing serpents sent by Yahweh have been understood in several ways. Although they are variously designated in the Hebrew (see above), most discussed is the nature of their “fiery” (srp) quality. Two interpretations have been most common: 1) srp refers to their appearance (they have a shiny, incandescent appearance); 2) srp refers to their stinging bite (its venomous quality produces a burning sensation). Although certainty is perhaps impossible, it seems not unlikely that both nuances may be intended. If these poisonous snakes are cobras (a most menacing and poisonous desert snake), both appearance and bite could aptly be described as fiery.⁶

Providing deliverance from the venomous snake bites is a bronze (or perhaps copper)⁷ serpent elevated on a pole (nes).⁸ Although some scholars have wanted to see here a case of sympathetic magic (or an act closely akin to such),⁹ the later rabbinic commentators were careful to let the reader know that it was the Lord, not the snake, who restored the bitten one to health.¹⁰ Significantly, Moses functions here solely as intermediary. He intercedes on behalf of the people; he elevates the bronze serpent on the pole.¹¹

To understand this passage its form and purpose must be determined.¹² Significantly, although some scholars have considered Numbers 21:4-9 an aetiology for 2 Kings 18:4 (Hezekiah’s removal of Nehushtan from the Jerusalem cult),¹³ M. Noth, a most forceful and eloquent proponent of aetiological analysis throughout the Pentateuch, denies that Numbers 21:4-9 is an aetiology.¹⁴ As a short narrative unit, 21:4-9 clearly is linked to the murmuring tradition. These verses seem to have two main purposes: 1) to state unequivocally that the outbreak of death from poisonous snakes in the Israelite camp was the direct result of Israel’s murmuring against the Lord and against Moses; 2) to recount another manifestation of Yahweh’s gracious intervention on behalf of his faithless followers. Two further aspects are worthy of note. Within the context of the murmuring tradition, this passage represents the final and most extensive response to the continual murmuring tradition. Punishment is not reserved for a few key instigators; death penetrates the whole camp. Further, whereas elsewhere Yahweh often responds to the cry of his people by removing the assumed danger (e.g., by providing food and water), here he allows the poisonous snakes to continue. Instead, he provides a way of deliverance and restoration within the context of danger and death.¹⁵

Finally, some attention should be given to the significance and multivalent nature of serpents in the ancient Near East and in the Old Testament. The ancients (like most moderns) were fascinated by serpents. We have ample evidence, both literary and artifactual, showing the ambivalent feelings of the ancients toward snakes. From the literary world, besides the obvious narrative texts in which snakes play a central or subordinate role, come snake omen texts¹⁶ and incantation texts against snakebites.¹⁷ This same fascination and fear is evidenced also in ancient Jewish literature.¹⁸ Significantly, snakes were often perceived ambivalently as aid or opponent, as bringing death or life, and were not infrequently related to fertility and marital rites.¹⁹ This fascination with serpents is also evidenced in the artifactual remains from the ancient Near East. Bronze serpents have been discovered at Megiddo,²⁰ Gezer,²¹ Hazor,²² and Shechem. Apart from Palestine, a bronze serpent figurine has been found in a Hittite shrine in North Syria,²³ and a pair of bronze serpents appear situated beside each of the four entrances of the Temple of Esagila.²⁴ Perhaps most important is the discovery of a copper snake at Timna. At Timna (c. 15 miles north of Eilat), at the foot of one of the pillars of Solomon was discovered a small copper snake. Here the excavator B. Rothenberg unearthed an Egyptian temple of Hathor (used in the thirteenth century B.C.). It is thought that this site was taken over by the Midianites when abandoned by the Egyptians, who covered it with curtains to construct a tent shrine. The little snake was found inside the tent.²⁵

These larger contexts are helpful, for they allow us to view again Num 21:4-9 from a somewhat different context. Although the ancient Israelites knew that the desert was a hostile environment, filled with dangers and potential harm (note especially Isa 14:29; 30:6), they were in need of constant reminder that her safety lay solely in Yahweh’s gracious and faithful protective guidance. Especially appropriate is Deut 8:14b-16: “. . . and you forget the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage, who led you through the great and terrible wilderness, with its fiery serpents [nhs srp] and scorpions and thirsty ground where there was no water, who brought you water out of the flinty rock, who fed you in the wilderness with manna which your fathers did not know, that he might humble you and test you, to do you good in the end.”

This brief passage is a reminder of the essence of the covenant relationship between God and his people. The poisonous snakes are not removed; rather, a means of deliverance is provided. The threat of death remains lest the people again suppose they can treat God disdainfully with no consequences. However, a way of life, available only through faith, is provided.²⁶ As Fretheim states so well: “Yet even in the wilderness God is responsive to the needs of these his complaining people. He provides what the context could not. The protests are answered, the cries are heard, quite undeservedly. There is a gift of healing where the pain experienced is the sharpest. Deliverance comes, not in being removed from the wilderness, but in the very presence of the enemy. The movement from death to life occurs within the very experience of godforsakenness. The death-dealing forces of chaos are nailed to the pole. God transforms death into a source of life. A sanctuary is provided in the wilderness.”²⁷

John 3:14-15 – When we turn to the citation of Num 21:4-9 in John 3:14-15, we are at once aware that John (and his audience) inherited not only the text of Num 21:4-9, but also (and perhaps more importantly) later interpretations and speculations that went with it. Thus, to understand fully and appreciate the use of this reference by Jesus (and John), we must have an awareness of various first century understandings of Num 21.²⁸ This information must then be related to John’s highly freighted and nuanced vocabulary and theology.

Verses 14-15 are an integral part of the tightly structured and crafted pericope of 3:1-21.²⁹ Cohesiveness and coherence are created through repetition of key terms and phrases. Partial inclusio appears in vv 2, 10-11:

Nicodemus: “we know [oidamen] that you are a teacher [didaskalos] come from God . . .”

Jesus: “Are you a teacher [ho didaskalos] of Israel and yet you do not understand [ou ginoskeis] this? . . . We speak of what we know [ho oidamen laloumen].”³⁰

Twice Nicodemus responds to statements by Jesus with “how can this be?” (pos dunatai [vv 4, 9]). The first responds to Jesus’s statement that “. . . unless one is born anew [ean me tis anothen], he cannot see the kingdom of God.” The second query follows Jesus’ enigmatic statements concerning the wind, introduced by “You must be born anew” (dei humas gennethenai anothen). Finally, vv 14-15 may echo implicitly v 8. In v 8, Jesus concludes his illustration of the wind: “so [houtos] it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” In some way Spirit birth is analogous to or can be elucidated by the activity of the wind. In vv 14-15, Jesus concludes his citation of Num 21:4-9: “so must [houtos dei] the Son of Man be lifted up.” Significantly, in vv 14-15, the complete grammatical framework of kathos . . . houtos appears. In some way, the lifting up of Jesus is analogous to or can be elucidated by the incident of Moses and the serpent (kathos Mouses hypsosen ton ophin . . . houtos dei hypsothenai . . .). The construction kathos . . . houtos occurs elsewhere in the NT to provide comparisons or analogies. Perhaps the most striking parallels are: Luke 11:30: “For as [kathos] Jonah became a sign to the men of Nineveh, so [houtos] will the Son of man be to this generation.” Luke 17:26: “As [kathos] it was in the days of Noah, so [houtos] will it be in the days of the Son of man.”³¹

In both instances comparisons are drawn from OT accounts; in both instances it is Jesus as Son of man that is compared.³²

This comparison raises several significant issues for interpretation and understanding. A primary issue involves the significance of the term hypsoo in v 14. Its importance encompasses a number of concerns. Central are the determination of its nuance(s) and background, and the recognition that it is Jesus as Son of man who is lifted up. Another key issue concerns the precise point of comparison between the citation of Num 21:4-9 and John 3:14-15, and its importance for both the immediate and the larger context.³³

The nuance and significance of the term hypsoo has been debated extensively.³⁴ Clearly in John (and elsewhere) it can have and has a meaning referencing death on the cross (see John 8:28; 12:32-34). However, numerous scholars are convinced that the primary meaning of hypsoo is that of exaltation (and thus the ascension is the primary focus [see e.g., Acts 2:33; 5:31]). At issue is which of these meanings is intended in John 3:14 (or whether both).³⁵ If Jesus were speaking Aramaic, it is quite plausible that he would have used the Aramaic verb zqp, a term that has the dual nuances of crucifixion and exaltation.³⁶ Thus, a dual nuance for hypsoo in this passage is quite plausible. However, its significance is variously interpreted. John may understand the crucifixion – resurrection – ascension as one continuous action. That is, Jesus inaugurates his return to the Father in his crucifixion which culminates in the ascension. This is the “upward swing of the great pendulum of the Incarnation corresponding to the descent of the Word which became flesh.”³⁷ Expanding upon this issue, the exposition of B. Lindars is most suggestive. He argues that “the term hypsoo is a most inappropriate term for crucifixion. (It simply means ‘lift up,’ which is not the same as ‘set on a pole’ or ‘fix to a cross.’)”³⁸ The linkage with the crucifixion resulted from an implicit association with Isa 52:13. There the Servant of the Lord is “exalted and lifted up.”

The introduction of Isa 52:13 into the discussion brings us to a central issue: the larger backdrop against which these lines should be read. Numerous scholars have noted that the three hypsoo sayings in John’s Gospel (3:14f.; 8:28; 12:32-34) correspond to the Passion predictions in the Synoptic Gospels (e.g., Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:32f.).³⁹ Such a recognition is crucial, since it further elucidates the point of John’s choice of this particular OT analogy and his use of terminology. Not insignificantly, just as the suffering servant of Isa 53 serves as a backdrop for the Synoptic Passion predictions, so John 3:14 strikingly echoes Isa 52:13 (LXX): “Idou sunesei ho pais mou kai hypsothesetai kai doxasthesetai sphodra.”⁴⁰

Viewing John 3:14 from such a perspective suggests that John intends the reader not only to look to Num 21:4-9 as a backdrop, but also to be reminded of the life and death of the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah.⁴¹

Thus, it is not surprising that it is Jesus as Son of man who is exalted. Such a motif accords well with the aforementioned backdrops.⁴² From this context, four passages seem especially germane to a proper understanding of John 3:14-15: “Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man” (1:51). “For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself, and has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man” (5:26-27). “So Jesus said, ‘When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority but speak thus as the Father taught me’” (8:28). “. . . ‘and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw men to myself. He said this to show by what death he was to die. The crowd answered him,’ We have heard from the law that the Christ remains for ever. How can you say that the Son of man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of man?’” (12:32-34).

Two things seem worthy of note in these verses. First, there is movement connected with the Son of man. This movement is depicted variously as “ascending/descending”⁴³ and otherwise as being “lifted up.” Second, this movement in some way expresses the purpose of Jesus as Son of man. Not insignificantly, Jesus as Son of man demands that onlookers acknowledge his authority from the Father (8:28), Further, the lifted up Son of man “draws men to himself” (12:32).

In these four passages, the Son of man theology in the Gospel of John is presented forcefully. Viewed from one angle, Jesus as Son of man is exalted before the eyes of the world. However, this exaltation occurs ironically in the event of the crucifixion. Further, in the cross, Jesus as heavenly revealer reveals the quintessence of his heavenly revelation – his own identity! Jesus as exalted Son of man is revealed most clearly when he is lifted up on a cross! Viewed from another angle, when Jesus is viewed as the exalted Son of man lifted up on the cross, judgment takes place (vv 16-21). However, for those who view this exaltation properly (i.e., through the eyes of faith), the place of judgment becomes a place where life is granted rather than condemnation (v 15). The reversal is complete: the judged and condemned receive eternal life through faith! As F. Moloney states: “The elevated Son of Man will always be the place where man can find God’s revelation to men and judge himself by accepting or refusing it . . . . It is sufficient to recognize what this title meant in the Johannine Church: Jesus as the place where men will judge themselves.”⁴⁴

Notice of the above aspects allows us to consider now the point of comparison intended between Num 21:4-9 and John 3:14-15. Most striking perhaps are the potential elements for comparison left unexploited by the Gospel of John. In the LXX, the stake upon which the bronze serpent is placed is translated with semeion (John’s term for the miracles of Jesus). Further, no analogy is drawn between the necessity for the OT people to “look upon” the serpent (and consequently the necessity to “look upon” Jesus for salvation).⁴⁵ Clearly the point of comparison is not between Moses and Jesus, since Moses is the lifter of the serpent, while Jesus is the one lifted.⁴⁶ The immediate point of comparison seems simply the lifting up that occurs in both scenes.⁴⁷

Thus, again it appears that John 3:14-15 is dependent not only upon Num 21:4-9, but also is drawing upon Isa 52:13.

Although clearly the precise point of comparison is the lifting up that occurs in both passages, it may be suggested that John also knew well the language of Num 21 and stated his passage accordingly: Num 21:8 (LXX): “pas ho dedegmenos idon auton zesetai.” John 3:15: “pas ho pisteuon eche zoen aionion.”

If the similarity is intentional, then the motif of life occurring in the place of expected death may be implicitly at the heart of John 3:13-15. Whereas gazing upon the uplifted bronze serpent restored one to health, the uplifted Son of man grants eternal life. The Johannine paradoxes of death/life and judgment/salvation are brought together in these few verses. Just as the desert serpent brought both death and life to the Israelites, so the cross of the Son of man transmitted both death and life. What begins as a discourse of confusion for Nicodemus becomes an entrance into the depth of the meaning and significance of Jesus as the Son of man. Jesus, the Son of man whose origin is heaven, comes as judge (5:27). However, precisely at the point of judgment, salvation (eternal life) is meted out to those who respond in faith to the exalted Son of man. Paradoxically though, the realization of Jesus’s exaltation occurs and is demonstrated unequivocally in the crucifixion. Ironically, life comes through the death of the Son of man. The consistency and faithfulness of the Father is seen both in the deliverance from death in the wilderness and the redemption from death in the life-giving death of the Son. As Mays correctly states: “In both cases the punishment for sin is the instrument for its healing. Men who look in faith behold in the Cross simultaneously the reality of their sin and the means of their redemption from it.”⁴⁸

Footnotes:
¹We are pleased to dedicate this essay to Dr. Frank Pack. Over the years, through his teaching and preaching, Dr. Pack served as a constant mentor and role model for younger scholars. He was a noteworthy reminder of the importance of utilizing scholarship in serving the Lord. It is hoped that in some small way this essay will exhibit our appreciation.
²A full discussion of the use of Num 21:4-9 in later Judaism is beyond the scope of this essay. For a full discussion, see: H. Maneschg, “Gott, Erzieher, Retter und Heiland seines Volkes,” BZ 28 (1984), 214-29; A, del Agua Perez, “A proposito de la obra de Maneschg sobre la tradicion derasica de la serpiente de bronce (Nm 21),” EstBib 42 (1984), 203-16.
³For a fuller discussion of these themes in the book of Numbers, see P. Buis, “Les conflits entre Moïe et Israel dans Exode et Nombres,” VT 28 (1978), 257-70; G. Coats, “The Wilderness Itinerary,” CBQ 34 (1972), 135-52; idem., Rebellion in the Wilderness (Nashville: Abingdon, 1968); S. de Vries, “The Origin of the Murmuring Tradition,” JBL 87 (1968), 51-58; T. Fretheim, “Life in the Wilderness,” Dialog 17 (1978), 266-72; W. Harrelson, “Guidance in the Wilderness,” In 13 (1959), 24-36.
⁴The placement and appropriateness of Num 21:1-3 is variously interpreted. See the commentaries for discussion of the passage and proposed relocations of the material.
⁵M. Noth, Numbers (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), 157. J. Mays (The Books of Leviticus and Numbers [LBC 4; Atlanta: John Knox, 1963] 114) notes that Israel was supposed to recite: “the Lord brought us out . . .” (Deuteronomy 6:20-25; 26:5-9); here the confession of faith has been turned into lamenting doubt (“why have you brought us out? . . .”).
⁶For a fuller discussion, see the various commentaries. Conversely, G. Coats (Rebellion, 117), following a suggestion by Holzinger, considers these creatures mythical. Thus, srp is a borrowed name with no connection to the Hebrew root srp. Similarly, N. Snaith (“Numbers.” PCB [Berkshire, Eng.: Von Nostrand Reinhold, 1982] 264) considers these serpent demons jinn of the desert appearing in snake form. Given the geographical locale of this incident, we see no reason to doubt the reality of a life threatening snakebite epidemic.
⁷A snake of bronze (an alloy of copper and tin) or of copper (nhst can refer to pure metal, see Deut 8:9) seems most appropriate here. This would strikingly resemble the copper color of the cobra. Further, archaeological excavations have unearthed copper snakes at several sites in the Negeb (see below).
⁸Interestingly, this term is translated by semeion (“sign”) in the LXX.
⁹For a lucid presentation of this approach, see K. Joines, “The Bronze Serpent in the Israelite Cult,” JBL 87 (1968), 245-56; R. Boraas, “Of Serpents and Gods,” Dialog 17 (1978), 275-77.
¹⁰The Aramaic Targums provide elaboration and clarification concerning the precise nature of the restoration of the one bitten: “. . . and it shall be that when a serpent hath bitten any one, if he behold it, then he shall live, if his heart be directed to the Name of the Word of the Lord. And Mosheh made a serpent of brass, and set it upon a place aloft; and it was, when a serpent had bitten a man, and the serpent of brass was gazed at, and his heart was intent upon the Name of the Word of the Lord, he lived” (Tg. Onq.). “And Mosheh made a serpent of brass, and set it upon a high place; and it was that when any one had been bitten by a serpent, and his face was uplifted in prayer unto his Father who is in heaven. and he looked upon the brasen serpent, he lived” (Tg. Jon). Cf. also the rabbinic statement in Mish. Ros. Has. iii.8: “but could the serpent slay or the serpent keep alive! – it is rather, to teach thee that such time as the Israelites directed their thoughts on high and kept their hearts in subjection to their Father in heaven, they were healed; otherwise they pined away.” (Targumic and rabbinic citations are from J. Etheridge, The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch [NY: KTAV, 1968] 411)
¹¹Some scholars have suggested that the bronze snake was none other than a metal serpent entwined about Moses’s rod (so W. Eichrodt, Old Testament Theology [II,; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967] 112). However, for Eichrodt, in Num 21 the importance of the pole as the leader’s rod has been omitted; prominence has been given rather to the pole and serpent as an apotropaic sacred object.
¹²Determining the form and purpose of this unit is integrally related to elucidating its literary history. In this matter there is little agreement. Although vocabulary variations exist within the verses (e.g., Elohim/Yahweh; nhs/nhs srp), few scholars are inclined to see 21:4-9 as a compilation of multiple sources (however, see J. de Vaulx, Les Nombres [SB; Paris, 1972] 236-37). Since the narrative progresses smoothly, 21:4-9 is usually considered a single, unified pericope. However, assignation to a particular source is disputed. Numerous scholars derive these verses from E (e.g., Gray; Gressmann; Noth): others find here the J writer (e.g. Rudolph; Fritz; Coats); finally, several simply see a JE combination. Not surprisingly, those who argue for J authorship point to the affinities between 21:4-9 and Numbers 11:10-33a; 11:1-3 and the Act-Consequence schema of J. Those positing E authorship point to the affinities of 21:4-9 and 20:14-21 and the ethical sensitivities present in the text). Fortunately. our interest in the passage is largely unaffected by its presumed literary history. For a clear summary of the different approaches to this text, see R. Boraas, “Of Serpents and Gods,” 275-77.
¹³The relation of Num 21:4-9 and 2 Kgs 18:4 is beyond the scope of this essay. Clearly a relationship is evident; less clear is the nature of that relationship. Although many scholars consider Num 21:4-9 an aetiological narrative providing legitimacy and theological rationale for the presence of the bronze serpent in the Jerusalem temple in the days of Hezekiah, this conclusion is neither self-evident nor necessary. Further, the thesis that the bronze serpent was originally a Canaanite cult symbol transferred into the Jerusalem cult by David, which eventually became an idolatrous cult symbol, is lacking in substantial proof. For detailed discussions of these matters, see H. Rowley, “Zadok and Nehushtan,” JBL 58 (1939), 113-41; G. Coats, Rebellion, 118-127; G. Gray, Numbers (ICC; Seribners, 1903), 275; P. Budd, Numbers (WBC; Waco: Word, 1984), 233f.; V. Fritz, Israel in der Wuste (Marburg: N.G. Elwert, 1970), 94f.; J. Fichtner, “ophis,” TDNT 5 (1967), 576 n. 3; J. Gray, Numbers (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964), 670f.; K. Joines, Serpent Symbolism in the Old Testament (N.J.: Haddonfield, 1974), 61-63. J. Tabick (“The Snake in the Grass: The Problems of Interpreting a Symbol in the Hebrew Bible and Rabbinic Writings,” Religion 16 [1986] 158) notes interestingly that most modern scholars have concerned themselves with attempting to elucidate the identity of the bronze serpent, while the ancient rabbis were concerned with determining why God chose serpents for the original attack.
¹⁴Although Noth (“Num. 21 als Glied der 'Hexateuch'-Erzahlung,” ZAW 58 [1940/41] 178-80) denies that 2I:4-9 is formally an aetiology, he does consider that the reason for this story being told is the later existence of the bronze serpent in the Israelite cult. The purpose of Num 21:4-9 was not to legitimize the snake as a Mosaic relic, but to remind the people that if the bronze serpent did heal, it did so only at God’s behest. Similarly, G. Coats (Rebellion., 118) denies that 21:4-9 in form represents an aetiology, but thinks it clear that an aetiological purpose undergirds the tradition.
¹⁵The prominence given to the people’s repentance is noteworthy. In the murmuring traditions, Yahweh’s aid more typically comes in response to complaint by the people.
¹⁶See, e.g., R. Whiting, “Six Snake Omens in New Babylonian Script,” JCS 36 (1984), 206-10.
¹⁷The most famous snakebite incantation text comes from Ugarit (RS 24.244). For a discussion of this text and fuller bibliographic information, see: J. Nougayrol (ed.), Ugaritica V (Paris, 1968), 564-74; A. Rainey, “Ugaritic Texts in Ugaritica V," JAOS 94 (1974), 194 [bibliography]; T. Gaster, "Sharper than a Serpent’s Tooth: A Canaanite Charm against Snakebite,” JANES 7 (1975), 33-51; idem., “The Ugaritic Charm against Snakebite: An Additional Note,” JANES 12 (1980), 43-44; M. Dietrich, et al., “Bemerkungen zur Schlangenbeschwörung,” UF 7 (1975), 121-25; C. Bowman and R. Coote, “A Narrative Incantation for Snake Bite,” UF 12 (1980), 135-39; J. de Moor, “Some Remarks on U 5 V, No. 7 and 8 (KTU 1.100 and 1.107),” UF 9 (1977), 366-67; I. Kottsieper, “KTU 1.100 – Versuch einer Deutung,” UF 16 (1984), 97-110.
¹⁸See especially J. Tabick, “Snake in the Grass,” 155-67; B. Bokser, “Wonderworking and the Rabbinic Tradition: The Case of Hanina ben Dosa,” JSJ 16 (1985), 42-92. Tabick finds the reoccurrence of three major themes: the snake as a servant of God; the snake as a symbol of rebellion against God; the snake as a creature independent of God.
¹⁹For a discussion of the role of serpents in some marriage dramas or in fertility/ sexual rituals, see D. Young, “With Snakes and Dates: A Sacred Marriage Drama at Ugarit,” UF 9 (1977), 291-314; R. Coote, “The Serpent and Sacred Marriage in Northwest Semitic Tradition,” HTR 65 (1972), 594-5 [dissertation abstract]; K. Joines, Serpent Symbolism, 64-66.
²⁰Two have been discovered here: one from Stratum X (c. 1650-1550 B.C.); one from Stratum VIIIB (c. 1250-1150 B.C.).
²¹A bronze snake with an upraised head was found at the high place.
²²Two serpents were discovered here in the Holy of Holies of Temple Area H (Stratum I [LB II]).
²³Here a bronze statue (c. 1460-1190 B.C.) of a god holding a serpent in one hand and a staff in the other appears.
²⁴These were placed by King Neriglissar (c. 559-56 BC). From a much earlier period, Naram-suen of Esnunna places a pair of metal serpents on the Temple gates at the completion of construction. This event may be recorded both in a year formula and in a royal inscription (see D. Frayne, “Naram-Suen and the Mushussu Serpents,” JAOS 102 [1982] 511-13).
²⁵According to B. Rothenberg (Timna. Valley of the Biblical Copper Mines [London: Thames and Hudson, 1972)) Midianite sherds are present, as are holes for tent poles. Rothenberg considers this evidence striking elucidation of the materials in Num 21:4-9. G. Wenham (Numbers [TOTC; Intervarsity, 1981] 156f.), like Rothenberg, utilizes this evidence to draw close links between Moses and the Midianite clans (e.g., Moses may have gotten the idea for the tabernacle and the copper snake from his Midianite relatives). Wenham then attempts to understand the underlying significance of the elevated serpent in Num 21:8-9. He considers the clue to lie in the general principles underlying sacrificial and purificatory rites in the Old Testament. Just as in the sacrificial system animals die so that sinful men may live, and polluting blood sanctifies men and articles, so here those inflamed and dying through the bite of living snakes are restored to health through a dead snake. For him, the red symbolizes first the inflammation, then the atonement and purification. For a rather different analysis, see K. Joines, Serpent Symbolism, 91-93.
²⁶Mays, Numbers, 115.
²⁷“Life in the Wilderness,” 270.
²⁸In Wis 16:5-7 we find a midrash on Num 21:4-9: “Even when the terrible fury of beasts came upon them, and they were perishing through the bites of tortuous serpents, your anger did not abide to the end; only for a while were they thrown into disarray as a warning, possessing as they did a symbol of your salvation to remind them of the commandment of your law. For whoever turned towards it was saved not by the sight beheld, but through you, the savior of all” (Translation of D. Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon [AB 43; N.J.: Doubleday, 1979]). The citation of Num 21:4-9 in Wis occurs as a third example (antithesis) contrasting Yahweh’s treatment of the Israelites with that of the Egyptians (see Wis 11-19). In the Targums, the significance of looking on the serpent is addressed: “It means turning one’s heart toward the name of the memra of God” (Tg. Ps.-J.). (Note that Ps.-J. mentions the name of the memra, just as John 3:18 mentions the name of God’s only son.) For further discussion of the Targumic readings of these verses, see above, n. 10. Not insignificantly, T.W. Manson (“The Argument from Prophecy,” JTS 46 [1945] 129-133) considers John 3:14 evidence of an ongoing debate between Palestinian Christianity and Judaism. John 3:14 represents Palestinian Christian proofs; m. Res. Has. iii.8 represents Palestinian Jewish rebuttals (for m. Ros. Has. iii.8, see n. 10).
²⁹The literary structure, development, and origin of John 3 has been hotly debated. A literary analysis and discussion of possible source(s) behind the materials and the unity/disunity of this chapter is beyond the scope of this paper. For a thorough discussion of these topics, see R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971). (Bultmann’s views on the larger context are well known: the primary element in this section is discourse; this chapter reflects the editorial work of the Evangelist; this material was derived from the “revelation-discourses.”) Specifically, Bultmann thinks vv 14f. may have been composed by the Evangelist himself, since his source was uninterested in establishing a positive connection with the OT. He thinks it probable that vv 14f. replaced a sentence in the source, which spoke of the necessity of the Son of man’s exaltation. For more balanced discussions, see E. Haenchen, John 1 (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984); R. Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XII (AB 29; NY: Doubleday, 1966); C. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: University Press, 1963); R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St. John (I; NY: Herder and Herder, 1968), 361-2. Schnackenburg considers vv 13-21 part of a kerygmatic exposition originally independent of the gospel narrative. Further, these verses were not the beginning of this “kerygmatic discourse,” but were preceded by vv 31-36 (which contrast “who comes from above” with “who is from the earth” and speak of his heavenly “testimony”). Vv 13-21 suitably follow these verses. All this unmistakable Johannine style and content must come from the evangelist himself. He considers it probable that a dialogue with Nicodemus occasioned the composition of this “kerygmatic discourse.” Sehnackenburg explains the present arrangement thusly: vv 13ff. were linked to v 12 on account of the epourania of v 12; vv 31-36 were attached to the words of the Baptist because “he who is from earth” was interpreted as the humble speaker of v 30). Conversely, F. Moloney (“The Johannine Son of Man,” BTB 6 [1976] 180) sees these verses as part of a larger pericope (2:23-3:36) dealing with the problem of various types of faith. Chapter 3 consists of two “reasonably credible narratives” (vv 1-10, 22-30) divided by two mini-discourses (vv 11-21, 31-36) in parallel.
³⁰Another inclusio may be intended with the reference to Nicodemus coming to Jesus at night (v 2). In vv 19-21, Jesus states that the Light has entered into the world, and those who would be followers must opt for the Light and come out of the darkness into that Light. For further structural links, see J. Neyrey, “John III – A Debate over Johannine Epistemology and Christology,” NT 23 (1981), 115-127.
³¹Cf. the similar structure in v 24: “For as (hosper) the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so (houtos) will the Son of man be in his day.” Kathos is a standard part of introductory formulae for OT quotations in the NT. For a fuller discussion of NT citations of OT passages, see J. Fitzmyer, “The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and the New Testament,” NTS 7 (1961), 297-333 (reprinted in: Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament [Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1971] 3-58).
³²Of some interest is the change of subject in 3:14. At issue is the specific point of the comparison. The Son of man is not the counter to Moses, but apparently to the serpent that was lifted on the pole. (For a similar grammatical change using kathos . . . houtos, see 2 Cor 1:5.)
³³Important ancillary issues within this context are the motif of ascent and descent and the apparent Moses typology in the Gospel of John (and its possible influence in this passage).
³⁴For a full discussion of hypsoo in Judaism and early Christianity, see G. Bertram, “hypsoo,” TDNT 8 (1972), 602-20. For further discussion, see below, n. 40.
³⁵The issue is quite complex, since it involves not only the nuance of the particular verb, but also is closely related to the immediately preceding statement in v 13 (“No one has ascended [perf: anabebeken] into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man”). The use of the perfect tense in this case is quite striking. Opinions and proposed solutions are varied. Some scholars consider this use a clear indication of the post-Easter Evangelist reflecting back on Jesus’s past ascension; other scholars argue that the past tense is utilized to deny that up to that point in time anyone had gone up to heaven to inquire and gain knowledge of heavenly things (see v 12). (For further elaboration of this interpretation, see below, n. 43.) R. Brown (John, 132) thinks this latter interpretation was perhaps the original meaning of the verse, but that with the passage of time the clause came to refer to the ascension. In a decidedly different direction, J.L. Martyn (History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel [NY: Harper and Row, 1968] 137) links this verse to the Paraclete. For Martyn, the Paraclete makes effective the presence of Jesus as the awesome Son of man. The Son of man ascends to heaven on a cross, but in some sense returns to earth in the person of the Paraclete and can therefore enter into conversation with “Nicodemus” as he who “has ascended” to heaven. The Paraclete makes Jesus present on earth as the Son of man who binds together heaven and earth (1:51).
³⁶Conversely, M. McNamara (The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch [AB 27; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. 1966] 145-49) sees behind hypsoo the Aramaic term slg. For McNamara, the dual nuance involves exaltation/death rather than exaltation/crucifixion. (Interestingly, the Hebrew term ns also can convey this twofold sense of death and exaltation (see Gen 40:13, 19).
³⁷R. Brown, John, 146. For Brown, this understanding elucidates John 8:28: “When you lift up the Son of man, you will realize that I AM.”
³⁸B. Lindars (The Gospel of John [NCB; Greenwood, SC: Attic, 1972) is neither the first nor the only scholar to note this. His exposition is cited rather as representative. G. Nicholson (Death as Departure. The Johannine Descent-Ascent Schema [SBL. Diss. Ser. 63; Chico, CA: Scholars, 1983] 75, 103) articulates clearly the notion that hypsoo referred primarily to exaltation rather than execution. He downplays the centrality of the crucifixion in this passage, arguing that of central importance is the exaltation of the Son of man to heaven; this lifting up of the Son to the Father takes place through the medium of the crucifixion. P. Duke (Irony in the Fourth Gospel [Atlanta: John Knox, 1985] 113-4) finds powerful irony in John’s use of hypsoo in this context (“. . . the scandalous irony of history is ironized”). As G. MacRae (“Theology and Irony in the Fourth Gospel,” in The Word in the World: Essays in Honor of F.L. Moriarty [ed. R. Clifford; G. MacRae; Cambridge: Weston, 1973]) states: “His interpretation of the death of Jesus as exaltation and return to the Father, the ‘lifting up of the Son.’ is his unique and crowning irony.” Conversely, F. Moloney (The Johannine Son of Man [Rome: LAS, 1976] 62) finds here only a reference to the cross. His argument centers primarily on the analogy with the snake. Since the snake in Num 21 did not ascend to heaven, no suggestion of the ascension of Jesus should be imported into the Johannine text. Such reasoning fails to take seriously the elaboration and expansion of OT themes and motifs, and reads OT analogies far more tightly than the ancient evidence would suggest.
³⁹Parallel terms occur (e.g., dei; huios tou anthropou). Significantly, some scholars have attempted to show that John’s use of hypsoo and doxazo is the thematic equivalent of the Synoptic use of anistemi, paradidomi, et al. For a full discussion, see F. Borsch, The Son of Man in Myth and History (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967), 283-91. He concludes: “It is clear from these examples that strong overtones of vindication and even of exaltation and glory are not missing in the use of the verbs qum and anistemi and that in these senses they can be related to the verbs hypsoo and doxazo found in John” (p. 287).
⁴⁰The MT uses the verbs rwm and ns. Cf. similar uses of ns in Isa 5:26; 13:2; 11:12; 18:3; 62:10. Hypsoo in the LXX manifests a variety of uses (see Bertram, “hypsoo,” 602-20). It can refer to the exaltation of God, who alone as the exalted one is able to exalt and elevate men. In the OT, Israel’s deliverance is almost equivalent to exaltation. To be exalted means to be drawn nearer to God (this is especially true of the Servant of the Lord). Most striking is the linkage of exaltation and abasement. Abasement is often the presupposition of the exaltation of the righteous. “To turn abasement into exaltation and lowliness into loftiness is the affair of God alone and it will be a sign of the time of salvation” (ibid., 607).
⁴¹P.Borgen (Philo, John and Paul. New Perspectives on Judaism and Early Christianity [BJS 131; Atlanta: Scholars, 1987] 110-112) understands the use of hypsoo as pivotal. He argues that both Isa 52:13 and Dan 7:13 are the context from which John 3:14 must be read. For him, both these OT passages depict installation in a royal office. Thus, the context is enthronement. The thematic ties he sees are extensive. “It is thus probable that John 3:13 combines elements from Dan 7:13 and from Exod 19:20, 23; 24:1-2, 9, 13; 34:2-4 in a way which corresponds to the fusion of elements from Dan 7:13 and Ps 110:1 in Acts 7:56. In a corresponding way John 3:14 weaves together elements from Dan 7:13f; Is 52:13 and Num 21:9 . . . to the paraphrase of John 3:13-14 previously given (no person, not even Moses on Mt Sinai, has ascended into heaven) the following can be added: only he who descended from heaven to execute his office, the divine being, the Son of Man, has ascended to heaven for the installing in office prior to his descent. The subsequent return of the Son of Man to his prior place of glory (John 6:46; 17:5, 24) must take place as an exaltation through the death on the cross, to mediate life to those who believe” (112).
⁴²A detailed discussion of the Son of man theology in the Gospel of John is beyond the scope of this essay. The literature on this topic is vast. For a good overview of the issues and a sampling of various approaches and interpretations, see: F. Moloney, “Johannine Son of Man,” 180ff.; idem., Johannine Son of Man, 56f.; R. Kvsar, John, the Maverick Gospel (Atlanta: John Knox, 1976), 35-40; M. Black, “The ‘Son of Man’ Passion Sayings in the Gospel Tradition,” ZNW 60 (1969), 5-7; S. Schulz, Untersuchungen zur Menschensohn-Christologie im Johannesevangelium (Gottingen; 1957); F. Borsch, Son of Man, 272-73; E. Sidebottom, “The Ascent and Descent of the Son of Man in the Gospel of St. John,” ATR 115-22; W. Meeks, The Prophet-King. Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (SNT 14; Leiden: Brill, 1967); idem., “The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism,” JBL 91 (1972), 57: S. Smalley, “The Johannine Son of Man Sayings,” NTS 15 (1968/9), 298-9; P. Borgen, Philo, John and Paul, 110; J. Coppens, “Le fils de l'homme dans l'Evangile Johannique,” ETL 52 (1976), 28-81. In some ways. John 5:27 may be the most “traditional” Son of man saying in the whole NT. However, in the other eleven references to the Son of man in the Gospel of John, some surprises appear. The Son of man is linked to OT figures (e.g.; Jacob [1:51] and Moses [3:14]); he is depicted as a descending/ascending Redeemer (3:13; 6:62); he uses the language of sacramental mystery (6:27, 53); key verbs associated with the Son of man are hypsoo and doxazo (3:14; 8:28; 12:23, 34; 13:31); finally, he is the object of the blind man's confession (9:35ff). (For a fuller discussion, see J. Martyn, History and Theology, 131ff.). Especially debated are the provenance of the Son of man passages and their significance within the larger context of Johannine theology. Although several scholars still consider the Gnostic Redeemer myth a plausible backdrop for much of the Son of man thinking, this position has been decidedly undermined in recent years. For a significant rebuttal to this interpretation, see R. Schnackenburg, John, Excursus VI: “The Gnostic Myth of the Redeemer and the Johannine Christology.” Also P. Borgen (Philo, John and Paul, 103-20) provides evidence demonstrating that much of the supposed Gnostic motifs (especially the ascent/descent motif) were known throughout the Mediterranean basin, especially within the Jewish tradition.
⁴³The motif of ascending/descending in the Gospel of John is beyond the scope of this essay. Three aspects of this motif merit brief comment: 1) the background and origin of this motif; 2) the use of the perfect tense of anabaino (v 13); 3) the sequential order (ascent/descent vs. descent/ascent). Although some scholars have suggested Gnostic origins (e.g., Bultmann) or a Johannine apologetic against Mandaean or Hermetic literature (so H. Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel [Amsterdam: B.R. Gruner, 1929]), most scholars now assume that this passage more likely reflects an apologetic against a current stream of Jewish piety which claimed that ancient greats (such as Elijah, Isaiah, and especially Moses) had been allowed to ascend into heaven to receive their knowledge of God. Such ideology can be seen in several places in later Jewish literature (see e.g., the Targums on Deut 30:11-14 and Ps 68:19; the Mart. Isa. 2:9; 3:7-10; 1 Enoch 71; 4 Bar. 2:1-8; T. Abr., Recension A:10-15; Recension B:8-12). This motif may be further elucidated with reference to Prov 30:4: “Who has ascended into heaven and come down?” (An answer of “no one” seems implicit [cf. also Wis 9:16-18; Bar. 3:29.) Especially helpful is the tannaitic Midr. Mek. on Exod 19:20: l lh msh w lyhw lm lh, wl yrd hkbwd lmth, ouk anebe Mouses kai Elias ano, kai ou katebe he doxa kato. “Neither Moses nor Elijah ascended above nor did the Glory descend below.” If the backdrop for the ascent/descent motif in John is the Jewish speculation of the ascent of certain privileged ancients into heaven for revelations, then John’s use increases in significance. The use of the perfect continues to be understood variously (see above, n. 35). As mentioned earlier, numerous scholars consider it simply a reflection of the stance of the final editor and addressed community. I.e., at the time of the writing, Jesus as Son of man has ascended and is enjoying exalted status in heaven. However, such a comment remains enigmatic placed on the lips of Jesus. In striking contrast, P. Borgen (Philo, John and Paul, 103ff.) argues that v 13 refers to the pre-existent installation of Jesus into office. Once the installation is accomplished (“ascent”), the agent (i.e., Son of man) is discharged to execute his function (“descent”). Borgen concludes: “These words about God’s ascent in the Old Testament and in Jewish exegesis show that the ‘spatial’ movement of ascent expresses a change in role and office and not a change in degree of divinity nor a change of a being’s nature from an existence that is not divine into that of divinity.” He paraphrases 3:13: “. . . No person, not even Moses on Mt. Sinai, has ascended into heaven, except the heavenly being who descended to execute his office; by his ascent into heaven he was installed and empowered for his descent.” (For a rebuttal to Borgen, see Nicholson, Death as Departure, 96-7). Perhaps most significant is the order of the terminology. Strikingly, within the Jewish literature the sequence is consistently ascent/descent. I.e., a human agent is allowed access to the heavenly realm (ascent) and then commissioned to return with revelatory material to earth (descent). In the Gospel of John, the ascent/descent motif only occurs in discourse (not narrative) and typically is introduced into the middle of something (i.e., as an explanation of another issue). However, most striking is that the Johannine sequence is always descent/ascent. I.e., Jesus as Son of man originates in the heavenly realm and then descends to enter the human arena. W. Meeks (“Man from Heaven,” 50) has shown in a compelling fashion that a key point of this motif is to demonstrate that the story of Jesus is played out on earth, even though he belongs elsewhere. I.e., Jesus as the descending/ ascending Son of man is the stranger par excellence on earth. In contrast to the ancient greats who supposedly ascended into heaven, the Son of man originated in heaven and brought God’s revelation in his descent. Not insignificantly, in 1:51 Nathanael is promised a vision of “greater things;” in 3:12 Nicodemus (a teacher of Israel) is told he will not see (believe) heavenly things! Wherever the motif of ascent/descent occurs, there is a primary emphasis on the inability of men of “this world” to understand and accept Jesus (note especially the discourse on bread from heaven in John 6 [see ibid., 58]).
⁴⁴“Johannine Son of Man,” 185f.
⁴⁵Seeing is often a metaphor (both in the OT and the NT) for (coming to) faith. These possible points of interpretation of utilization were not left unattended by the early church Fathers. For a full discussion of the use of Numbers 21 and John 3 among the early church Fathers, see C. Lee, “Moses’ Serpent as a Patristic ‘Type,’” Dialog 17 (1978), 251-60; J. Bowman, The Fourth Gospel and the Jews (PTM 8; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1975), 358, n. 136; L. Goppelt, Typos. The Typological Interpretation of the OT in the New (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 18, n. 55.
⁴⁶For an extensive discussion of the importance of Moses in the Gospel of John, see: R. Kysar, The Fourth Evangelist and his Gospel (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1975), 141-44; T. Glasson, Moses in the Fourth Gospel (SBT 40; Naperville, IL.: Allenson, 1963), 33-39; J. Martyn, History and Theology, 93-109; W. Meeks, “Moses as God and King,” in Religions in Antiquity (ed. J. Neusner; Leiden: Brill, 1968), 354-68.
⁴⁷Not all scholars conclude that John only intended the lifting up for comparison. F. Moloney (“Johannine Son of Man,” 60) understands three points of comparison: the lifting up; the gazing upon; the gaining of faith. Alternatively, R. Schnackenburg (John, 395-96) comments: “John exploits three points which he sees as intrinsically connected: the ‘exaltation,’ its salvific power and the divine plan behind all (dei). The other features should not be allegorically interpreted. The point of the comparison is neither the stake nor the serpent, but ‘exaltation.’ Even the fact that the mortally wounded ‘look upon’ the stake is not mentioned, and hence can hardly be exploited in favour of a theory of the meaning of ‘faith.’ (At most, one could compare the ‘looking upon’ the pierced body of Jesus in 19:37.) Rabbis and Jewish mystics speculated on this ‘looking.’ John does not do so . . .”
⁴⁸Numbers, 115.