Voiceover Voice:
Christ conquering that sin on the cross then becomes the cure.
Helena Martin:
This is Chapter, Verse, and Season: a lectionary podcast from Yale Bible Study. Join us each week as two Yale Divinity School professors look at an upcoming text from the Revised Common Lectionary.
This episode, we have Awet Andemicael, Associate Dean for Marquand Chapel and Lecturer in Theology, and Adam Eitel, Assistant Professor of Religious Ethics.
They’re discussing Numbers 21:4-9, read by me, and John 3:13-17, read by our Production Manager Kelly Morrissey. The texts are appointed for the Fourth Sunday in Lent in Year B.
[Numbers 21:4-9]
From Mount Hor they set out by the way to the Red Sea, to go around the land of Edom, but the people became discouraged on the way. 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 detest this miserable food.” Then the Lord sent poisonous serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many Israelites died. The people came to Moses and said, “We have sinned by speaking against the Lord and against you; pray to the Lord to take away the serpents from us.” So Moses prayed for the people. And the Lord said to Moses, “Make a poisonous[c] serpent, and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten shall look at it and live.” So Moses made a serpent of bronze and put it upon a pole, and whenever a serpent bit someone, that person would look at the serpent of bronze and live.
Kelly Morrissey:
[John 3:13-17]
No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. And just 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.
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.
“Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Adam Eitel:
The first thing that jumps out at me, it’s right here in verse four. It says, “the people became impatient on the way.” That word impatient, and it’s correlative patience, is something I’ve been thinking a lot about lately. Nowadays we think of patience as being this quality of character–you might call it a virtue–that you need to endure a delay or things that are frustrating. But a lot of the thinkers that I spend my time reading from the ancient and medieval world, they thought of patience as this gift–well, a virtue might be a gift given by God–nevertheless, a virtue that you need, not just to endure delay, but to endure sorrow, to endure difficulty, to endure not simply long stretches of time, where we’re waiting on something that we dearly long for, but it’s something you need to endure difficulty. And I’m just thinking here about the real difficulty of life in the wilderness. And there’s clearly something that the people of God need, and they currently lack. Does that resonate with you at all?
Awet Andemicael:
Yeah, it does. I think the thing for me is that I can relate so well to the people of Israel in this context. I mean, there are so many times I’ve experienced a long-haul experience or a long-haul challenge. I won’t name them all, but there are many that come to mind. And I myself doubt myself along the way. And ultimately that self-doubt is really built on a kind of doubt and a lack of faith in God; at least for me, that’s the case. So, I don’t come out and say, “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt?” I genuinely don’t. I’m not quite that obvious about it. I’m much more passive aggressive. [Laughs] I used to blame it on myself, but really deep down, I get frustrated. “Why am I in this situation? Why did I get myself in this situation?” Sometimes, “Did I misunderstand what God wanted me to do?” That sort of thing. So, in their general sense of a lack of patience, a lack of a sense of trust in God that the path that I’m on is actually the path that God intended for me. And so, I can really relate to them. I guess part of the issue here is that not only are they doubting themselves and second guessing whether this was the right move, but they’re very explicitly blaming not just God, but specifically God’s chosen servant. So do you think that what God is providing for them–is the punishment itself a mode for the people to learn patience or is it that the cure–the fact that God shows God’s power both by the punishment and the cure, that that is kind of pedagogical move that God makes in this context?
Adam Eitel:
That’s a good question. As you were asking the question, I was jumping ahead in my mind to those fiery serpents and thinking about them with respect to a juror as you put it, you know, that’s quite a furor. But it does remind me of something that–well, I was reading up on this passage and it’s something that Bede, and then many others following Bede, say in the Middle Ages about what these fiery serpents designate allegorically, or according to the moral interpretation, depending on how you understand the senses of scripture, those fiery serpents stand as the enticement of the vices, which afflict the soul and bring about spiritual death. That’s what he says. So in that respect, as Bede understands it, what the Lord does do in every age is hand people over to the entropy of their own moral weaknesses in order to come to a point where they can recognize how dearly they need help, help not just from God, but help from those who got appoints to lead the people of God. But that’s the interesting thing. If you really look at this passage, the first thing you said, Awet, is: I think you said something with respect to your own path. And the people here, they’re on a path. It’s not as though they’re meandering. They’re not lost, per se. They’re going somewhere. They’re on a route or on a destination. It’s a long one. It’s not the one they’d choose. And it’s not as though they have nothing. They just don’t like what they’re given. It’s nourishing, perhaps, but maybe just enough for each day. But we’re not really told here what the source of the people’s impatience is. Why are they grumbling? What do they want that they don’t have?
Awet Andemicael:
First of all, I think what’s tricky for me in reading this passage is part of a larger question about how Christians are to read the Hebrew Bible, especially situations where the people of Israel come across in a bad light or people get punished for something. And even if this is long after God has shown God’s power in an amazing, sometimes even miraculous, way, or a way that I can understand miraculously, the glory and the glow of that experience fades over time. And then you’re just caught in the middle of the valley. You’re just saying, “Yeah, that was fine then, but I’m over that. We’re moving on.” So, with all of that, I often identify with them. And then when we see God punishing them in a way that, at least to me when I’m reading, seems really harsh, if we just think of a large group of people making a very long trip in a time when you didn’t necessarily have a place to stay along the way, it would take a lot of discipline, almost like a military-type precision and a military-type respect for the leadership, just to make sure things don’t devolve into chaos. You can see how just practically speaking it would be difficult for that many people to make that trip if they didn’t have some kind of discipline, but it also seems like a really harsh response.
So, traditionally, what a lot of Christians have done—a lot of Christians will immediately go and say, “This is a type of something else.” So, whether it literally happened or not, the point is we’re supposed to learn something from this. So, we kind of skate over the challenges in the actual text or the ways in which it presents a picture of God that is hard for us, as contemporary Christians, to grapple with, so we kind of skip over that discomfort, and say, “Well, okay. This is actually meant to teach us a lesson, to show whatever it is.” It’s a way of kind of getting God off the hook for coming across as being overly harsh. I was checking Irenaeus of Lyons, who’s the person I study and one the main figures that has been influencing me lately. And he has this whole conversation, not about this specific passage, but generally speaking, he quotes the person who calls the presbyter, who a lot of scholars think is likely—what’s his name?—Polycarp! Polycarp. So he quotes this whole thing, and one of the things he says that we learned from the presbyter is how important it is for us, when we’re reading about the people of Israel doing something that was wrong, it’s important for us to recognize, to not be judgmental, if they do something that God condemns in the Bible, in what he called the Scriptures, which is what we would call the Hebrew Bible now, or the old Testament, depending on the terminology you use, that we should really extend a lot of grace toward people in that context, not be judgmental, not think that we’re better than they are, but just to recognize that what they did was something that God forgives and that God has forgiven in Christ. And more broadly, he makes the same move that many Christians in later centuries would make, it’s that the most important thing for us to learn from these situations is what it represents in a typological way, you know, how it is a reflection of things to come.
So, in this particular passage, we definitely have that spelled out for us. There’s, there’s kind of a biblical precedent for making the leap to the sort of spiritual or more metaphorical or more allegorical reading, rather than the literal reading, because the second passage we’re looking at this paired with it in the lectionary readings is from John 3, where Jesus is reported to be referring directly to this passage and saying, “Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up.” And when Jesus refers back to this, he’s not talking about what they did was wrong and God punished them and it was appropriate. He’s kind of skipping over all of those kinds of questions we might have. And he’s going directly to what’s the significance of a symbolism of Moses actually putting up a serpent. The thing that caused the problem, that was the danger, becomes itself a version of the cure, at least the serpent of bronze being put up on the pole. And then he says is so just as Moses had to lift up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, speaking about his own being lifted up, which we have to kind of read very carefully because we don’t want to say then that Christ is the cause of the problem and the cure. It doesn’t quite map on directly. But the sin that Christ bore when he was lifted up on the cross was the problem. And then Christ, bearing that sin on him, is then lifted up on the cross. And then that becomes, looking to him, we have eternal life, because in being lifted up, in being crucified, Christ bears the penalty for our sin. And depending again on your theology of atonement, in some sense Christ therefore frees us from the penalty and from the wages of sin. And we’re brought to eternal life because of that. It’s the sin that is the problem. And that Christ conquering that sin on the cross then becomes the cure. So, it lines up, but not precisely. It’s kind of a broad analogy, but Christ Jesus himself makes it. [Laughs] So, I’m not going to criticize Christ for using a kind of a broad—you know, not lining up all of the details of the metaphor, the way a person might like.
Adam Eitel:
Well, what is it that we’re looking at when we’re looking at Christ on the cross? In part, what the people of God are being asked to look at in the wilderness is something that resembles in some way the source of the problem. And so too, when we look at Christ on the cross, we’re looking at our humanity. I guess I’m thinking about this from a post-Chalcedonian Christological perspective where what you’re looking at when you’re looking at Christ is his human flesh, which is real human flesh. But not just that. He’s fully divine, fully human. When you’re looking at Christ’s flesh on the cross, you are looking at our own flesh, our own humanity, the difficulties that emerge out of it in our finitude and our fallenness. In looking at him we’re also looking at the one by whom we’re redeemed. We’re looking at God made man.
Awet Andemicael:
Yeah. That’s a very good question. I mean, if I’m kind of going back to Irenaeus, there’s one place in Irenaeus, his book Against Heresies, in Book IV, Chapter 2, Section 7, he makes a reference to the passage in Numbers and the passage that quotes it in John, and his purpose there is to explain that the law (and there he means kind of broadly the Pentateuch, the books of the law, not necessarily that the legal code), that the law had a pedagogical function leading to Christ, that it wasn’t a hindrance from coming to know Christ, but it’s a pedagogue leading to Christ, “since the law exhorted people to believe in the son of God,” he says, “seeing that men can be saved by no other way from the old wound of the serpent.” And here he uses the term serpent generally to refer to the Devil. “Men can be saved by no other way from the old wound of the serpent than by believing in him, in Christ, who in the likeness of sinful flesh, is lifted up from the earth upon the tree of martyrdom and draws all things to himself, and vivifies the dead.”
So, when he’s talking about this vivifying the dead and this broader context, at least for Irenaeus, the big way he thinks about what Christ does: He thinks about a kind of conquering death, conquering Satan, and kind of battling with Satan, but the broader or metaphysical way he thinks about what Christ does is through this concept of “recapitulation.” At least what Christ does with our humanity: he puts humanity under a new head. And he’s drawn this whole idea of the “second Adam” that he’s taking that from Paul, of course, but he builds on it further. So, the things that Adam and Eve did that were wrong, had to be undone and kind of redone, but in the right way, so that in doing that Christ inaugurates a new version of humanity,
So, in doing this Christ, re-does humanity for us, in a sense, even though Irenaeus doesn’t go into a whole lot of detail here, Christ takes on the likeness of sinful flesh and what is being lifted up on that tree of martyrdom is actually this renewed humanity. And it’s in looking at that humanity and following Christ in being in the presence of the glory of God, that is the way in which we are a redone and remade; that Christ has redone this humanity, and we’re able to be drawn in by the power of the Holy Spirit, to the glory of God. And we experience the redemption, but also that kind of vivifying quality of this new human, this new version of humanity, that Christ inaugurates.
Helena Martin:
Thanks for listening. For a transcript of today’s episode and lots more, check out YaleBibleStudy.org.
Chapter, Verse, and Season is a production of the Center for Continuing Education at Yale Divinity School. It’s produced by: Creator and Managing Editor, Joel Baden; Production Manager, Kelly Morrissey; Associate Producer, Aidan Stoddart; and I’m your Host and Executive Producer, Helena Martin. And our theme music is by Calvin Linderman.
We’ll be back with another conversation from Chapter, Verse, and Season.