In Zechariah 12:10 we find this well-known prophetic statement, "And they shall look upon Me whom they have pierced" (King James Version). The apostle John quotes this statement (John 19:37) and connects it with the act of the soldier at the cross who pierced the side of Jesus with a spear (John 19:34). Almost all biblical scholars concur with John that the ultimate fulfillment of that prophecy was at the cross. "The historical fulfillment of this prophecy commenced with the crucifixion of the Son of God, who had come in the flesh, ... by the fact that a soldier pierced His side with a lance as He was hanging upon the cross" [Drs. Keil & Delitzsch, Commentary on the OT, vol. 10, p. 388]. Notice that statement from Zechariah in its fuller context: "I, the Lord, will make the descendants of David and the people of Jerusalem feel deep sorrow and pray when they see the One they pierced with a spear. They will mourn and weep for Him, as parents weep over the death of their only child or their first-born" (Zechariah 12:10, Contemporary English Version). The text literally states that the Lord would "pour out a spirit of grace and supplication" upon the Israelites in Jerusalem, causing them to perceive the true nature of the One whom they had pierced - in other words, they would come to realize it was their Messiah whom they had murdered! This horrific awareness (cf. - Revelation 1:7) is evidenced in Acts 2:37 - "Now when they heard this, they were pierced in the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, 'Brethren, what shall we do?!'" (NASB). The prophecy we find in Zechariah 12:10, therefore, not only points to the piercing of the side of Jesus, but also to the hearts of the people who had rejected Him: a change of heart that resulted from God's merciful outpouring upon them of the Divine blessing of His unmerited favor! A blessing which you and I too, I might add, have experienced, and for which we should continually give unto Him our heartfelt thanksgiving and praise!

Returning to John's account of the crucifixion scene, we find a piece of information that is provided by none of the other gospel records. The breaking of the legs (crurifragium) of the other two men crucified that day, and the piercing of the side of Jesus, is "a detail recorded only by John" [Dr. Marvin Vincent, Word Studies in the NT, vol. 2, p. 286]. The apostle writes, "But coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out" (John 19:33-34, NASB). John then makes a statement attesting to the truthfulness of what he has just written: "And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe" (John 19:35, NKJV). Although written in the third person, there is no doubt in the minds of scholars that John is speaking of himself as the witness to this event, and that "What he saw establishes the actual death of Christ; his testimony killing the argument of modern skepticism that Jesus merely fainted and was taken from the cross and restored by His disciples" [David Lipscomb, A Commentary on the Gospel of John, p. 304]. All of "these things came to pass" not only to fulfill the ancient prophecies of Scripture (John 19:36), but also "to lend abiding support to our faith" [Dr. R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John's Gospel, p. 1320] by "removing all doubt that Jesus was merely unconscious, that life could still remain in His body, and that He did not actually and truly arise from the dead on Sunday morning. Jesus was dead beyond question!" [ibid, p. 1316]. Thus, John affirms his testimony "so that you also may believe" (John 19:35). In the next couple of chapters of this gospel account, John would echo this same thought: "Many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name" (John 20:30-31; cf., 1 John 1:1-4; 5:11-13). Then, once more speaking of himself in the third person, John writes, "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true" (John 21:24).

• Guy N. Woods, a beloved scholar and writer within the Stone-Campbell Movement, sums it up well in his following comment: "Of the facts involved, the writer (John) made it clear that there could be no question since he was an eyewitness of the events described - events carefully recorded in order to produce faith in Christ on the part of those who would later read his report (John 20:30-31). His statement to this end is remarkable: (1) he had seen the events occur of which he writes; (2) of them he bore witness; (3) they occurred exactly as described; (4) this he knew from personal observation, and (5) those who read it might confidently believe. It is apparent that the writer's real purpose was to show, beyond any possible doubt, that Jesus was in a physical human body and that He actually died on the cross. On this the truth of Christianity depends. These facts are incontrovertible: (1) the authorities believed He was dead; (2) the soldiers believed He was dead; (3) the soldier who stabbed Him assured that He was dead; (4) those who loved Him most knew He was dead and they buried His body. Thus, the fact of death was established both by friends and by enemies" [A Commentary on the Gospel According to John, p. 411].

Although the above information and insights aid us in establishing the immediate context of this event, I want to narrow our focus to the following observation of John that day: "One of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out" (John 19:34). There are several things stated in this one brief sentence that require further reflection. Perhaps one of the first things that might come to one's mind is: Why would this soldier thrust a spear into the side of Jesus? He didn't do it to the other two men being crucified that day. So, why did Jesus receive this wound?! Did this soldier have some personal grudge against Jesus? Was this an evil, mean-spirited man who found some perverse pleasure in inflicting even greater injury and indignity upon this dying individual? John tells us that this soldier's act was a fulfillment of Scripture (John 19:36-37), but it is highly unlikely that this was what motivated this Roman soldier that day (it is probably safe to say he did not even know such a prophesy in the OT writings even existed). Although various speculations have arisen over the centuries as to what may have motivated this solder's action, the most likely reason is given in John 19:31 - the Jews wanted these three men dead by sundown, for a "high holy day" was fast approaching, thus they asked Pilate to expedite the executions, rather than allowing them to drag on for days (as sometimes happened). Thus, the legs of the first two condemned men were broken to hasten their death, but when they came to break the legs of Jesus, He appeared to be already deceased. Was He really dead, or had He just passed out? "One of the soldiers, apparently not sure that Jesus was dead, and, perhaps to ensure His death, pierced His side with a spear. The view, sometimes advanced that this was no more than a pricking action to determine whether He was dead or not, does not meet the demands of the case. The word 'pierce' translates a Greek term meaning to gash, to stab. It was a violent thrust intended to produce instant death if such had not already occurred. Thus, this soldier, himself an unbeliever, unintentionally provided irrefutable proof of the falsity of the claim of unbelievers that Jesus merely swooned on the cross and was taken down and revived by His followers" [Guy N. Woods, p. 410-411].

As one might imagine, many legends have arisen over the centuries with respect to this soldier and his act that day. "Which side of Jesus did he pierce?", some have asked. If the soldier was right-handed, as most people tend to be, and if he was standing before Jesus, facing Him, it would be most natural for him to have pierced the left side of the Lord. This would also tend to make sense, since the heart is located just to the left of center within one's chest. Soldiers were, and still are, taught to aim for that side of the chest when seeking to inflict a fatal wound. "What was the name of this soldier?", others ask. The Bible doesn't tell us, but that hasn't stopped the speculation. "Tradition says that this soldier's name was 'Longinus,' and that, having some distemper in his eyes, he was immediately cured of it by some drops of blood that flowed out of Christ's side falling on them" [Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, e-Sword]. More likely is that this name was derived from the Greek word "longche" in verse 34 (the only time this word appears in the NT writings), which means "the head of a javelin; a spear, lance" [The Analytical Greek Lexicon, p. 253]. "The soldier who pierced our Lord's side has been called by the Roman Catholic writers 'Longinus,' which seems to be a corruption of 'longche,' a spear, the word used in the text. They moreover tell us that this man converted, that it was he who said, 'Truly this was the Son of God,' that he travelled into Cappadocia, and there preached the gospel of Christ, and received the crown of martyrdom. But this deserves the same credit as the other legends of the Popish Church" [Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Bible, vol. 5, p. 653].

In John 19:34 we are also told that this soldier, whoever he was, used his spear to "pierce" the side of Jesus. This is the Greek word "nusso," which appears only here in the NT writings (the word "pierced" in verse 37 is a different word, although both signify a deadly stabbing). "The verb used here (nusso) is used to describe severe and deadly wounds. ... The soldier inflicted a deep thrust on the side of Jesus" [Dr. Marvin Vincent, Word Studies in the NT, vol. 2, p. 287]. That this was such a massive wound is seen in the fact that Jesus told Thomas, "Reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into My side" (John 20:27, KJV). "As the wound inflicted by this spear thrust seems to have been a handbreadth wide (John 20:25, 27), it may be presumed the soldier meant to make sure that Jesus was dead by giving Him a thrust which itself would have been fatal" [Dr. W. Robertson Nicoll, The Expositor's Greek Testament, vol. 1, p. 859]. "It is certain, from chapter 20:27, that the act caused a deep wound, and that the point of the lance therefore penetrated to the interior organs of the body" [Dr. Charles Ellicott, Commentary on the Whole Bible, vol. 6, p. 538].

Another question that has occupied the minds of scholars over the centuries is this: Was Jesus actually dead at the time this soldier pierced His side, or was He merely unconscious? Or, to put it another way, was the thrust of this spear by this soldier the actual cause of the death of Jesus, rather than the specific agonizing injuries of the cross itself? This has led to enormous debate, for it causes some to suggest Jesus did NOT truly die by crucifixion itself, but at the hands of a mere soldier who "took it on himself" to "finish Jesus off." Some point out that Jesus could not have been dead, for "ordinarily dead bodies do not bleed, because there is no action of the heart to produce arterial pressure" [The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 9, p. 185]. Thus, the flow of "blood and water" from the side of Jesus (John 19:34) would seem, in their view, to suggest He had not yet fully expired. David Lipscomb (1831-1917), one of the noted leaders of the American Restoration Movement, seems to hint at such, writing that the flow of blood and water "is the natural result of piercing the side at this state of a dying body" [A Commentary on the Gospel by John, p. 303]. On the other hand, if the heart had ruptured prior to this stabbing, as a number of scholars believe, with the blood filling the pericardium, then "this blood, separated into its thicker and more liquid parts," would naturally "flow forth when the pericardium was pierced by the spear" [Dr. Marvin Vincent, Word Studies in the NT, vol. 2, p. 288]. "Since the body was erect, the flow was due to gravity" [The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 9, p. 185]. "The water, with clots of blood, can be accounted for only by the previous rupture of the heart and the flow of blood into the pericardium, or outer sack of the heart, where it would separate very rapidly into water (serum) and clots of blood. Hence, it seems certain that the immediate physical cause of the death of Christ was rupture of the heart" [Dr. B. W. Johnson, The People's NT with Explanatory Notes, vol. 1, p. 405]. Although there is no way for us today to know for sure the precise moment Jesus died, yet the text seems to suggest rather strongly, in the view of most scholars, and I would agree with them, that when the soldier pierced the side of Jesus, our Lord was already dead.

Clearly, John, as an eyewitness, is impressed by the fact that when the soldier pierced the side of Jesus, it brought forth "a sudden flow of blood and water" (John 19:34, NIV). "The history of the exegesis of this brief statement would fill many pages. Blood and water afford an opportunity for bringing in symbolism of one kind or the other, and the opportunity has been used to the full" [Dr. R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John's Gospel, p. 1316]. Some believe John had this flow of blood and water from the side of Jesus in mind when he wrote the following: "This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement" (1 John 5:6-8, NASB ... NOTE: the KJV adds to this text in order to promote the doctrine of the Trinity; I have dealt with this error in Reflections #379 - "The Comma Johanneum: Telling Tale of a Trinitarian Text"). That this event "had a symbolic meaning to the Evangelist is evident from 1 John 5:6f" [Dr. Marvin Vincent, Word Studies in the NT, vol. 2, p. 288]. Guy N. Woods concurs: "There is very evidently symbolism involved in the issuing of blood and water in view of the affirmations of 1 John 5:6f, to which the reader is referred" [A Commentary on the Gospel According to John, p. 411]. Neither author, however, suggests what that symbolic meaning might have been.

Other commentators, however, are not so reluctant, and "the symbolical and allegorical explanations are numerous" [The Pulpit Commentary, vol. 17, pt. 3, p. 433]. "From Jesus' opened side flows the blood of forgiveness and the water of His Spirit" [Dr. Roger L. Fredrikson, The Communicator's Commentary - John, p. 278]. "The sacrifice is complete, and now life is offered. Jesus' blood has been shed and now gushes forth a cleansing stream of forgiveness. Likewise, the water of the Spirit flows forth as a river of life. The Spirit will now come forth from the depths of Jesus, 'rivers of water,' as He had earlier promised in John 7:37-38" [ibid]. Martin Luther (1483-1546) wrote, "The blood and the water which flowed from the side of our dear Lord Jesus Christ on the cross is our highest comfort. For therein consists our soul's salvation: in the blood is our redemption and satisfaction for our sins; in the water there is our daily cleansing and purging from sins. This we should learn well and thank God, our dear Lord, for His boundless love and goodness, and our faithful Savior Jesus Christ for His suffering and death, with all our hearts" [quoted by Dr. Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible - The NT, vol. 1, p. 520]. Augustus Montague Toplady [1740-1778], in his hymn "Rock of Ages," deals with this very poetically, speaking of the "double cure" of this flow of blood and water. About this phrase by Toplady, and its meaning, one writer stated, "The original speaks of the double nature of Christ’s propitiatory atonement, whereby He receives our sins and we receive His righteousness; the later version makes a quite different (more Wesleyan) point about the power of sin in the life of the believer." There is actually a fascinating, and somewhat dark story behind the writing of this hymn, and I have dealt with that in my article titled, "A Hymn Born of Discord: Augustus Toplady vs. John Wesley - 'Rock of Ages, Cleft for Me'" (Reflections #517). The "Rock of Ages," of course, is Jesus, and the fact that it was "cleft for me," refers to the cleaving/piercing of our Lord's side by the spear. That cleaving brought about the double cure from both sin and from death. We are not only forever cleansed, but we are also forever redeemed; a purifying and a purchasing!

"We can scarcely be wrong in supposing that the blood and water are symbolical. The order confirms this. Blood symbolizes the work of redemption which had just been completed by His death; and water symbolizes the 'birth from above,' with its cleansing from sin, which was the result of His death, and is the means by which we appropriate it. Thus the two great Sacraments are represented" [The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, e-Sword]. As one can quickly see, it didn't take long for theologians to impose sacramentalism upon this flow from the side of Jesus. The blood, according to this doctrine, points to the Lord's Supper (the Mass, Eucharist) and the water points to baptism. This was the view of such religious notables as Ambrose (339-397 A.D.), Augustine (354-430 A.D.), and Chrysostom (347-407 A.D.), just to name a few. "Others represent them as the emblems of the old and new covenants. Protestants have thought them the emblems of justification, which is through the blood of the Lamb, and sanctification, which is through the washing of regeneration; and it is in reference to the first notion that they mingle the wine with water in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper" [Dr. Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Bible, vol. 5, p. 654]. Macarius Magnes, a 5th century Eastern Orthodox bishop, and Apollinarius, the bishop of Laodicea in Syria (died: 390 A.D.), "saw an allusion to the side of Adam, from which Eve, the source of evil, was taken; and that now the side of the second Adam should give forth the means of salvation and deliverance" [The Pulpit Commentary, vol. 17, pt. 3, p. 433].

I will close this study with the thoughts of Matthew Henry (1662-1714), a nonconformist theologian, pastor, and author from Wales, perhaps best known for his extensive six-volume Commentary on the Whole Bible, in which he made this observation on the blood and water that flowed from the side of Jesus (and in which we see the "double cure" spoken of later by Toplady): "They signified the two great benefits which all believers partake of through Christ: justification and sanctification; blood for remission, water for regeneration; blood for atonement, water for purification. ... Guilt contracted must be expiated by blood; stains contracted must be done away by the water of purification. These two must always go together. You are sanctified, you are justified (1 Corinthians 6:11). Christ has joined them together, and we must not think to put them asunder. They both flowed from the pierced side of our Redeemer. To Christ crucified we owe both merit for our justification, and Spirit and grace for our sanctification; and we have as much need of the latter as of the former (1 Corinthians 1:30). ... It is not the water in the font that will be to us the washing of regeneration, but the water out of the side of Christ; not the blood of the grape that will pacify the conscience and refresh the soul, but the blood out of the side of Christ. Now was the rock smitten (1 Corinthians 10:4), now was the fountain opened (Zechariah 13:1), now were the wells of salvation digged (Isaiah 12:3). Here is the river, the streams whereof make glad the city of our God" [e-Sword].

From a Reader in Georgia:

Al, I just finished reading your article titled "The Honey Bee of Israel: Deborah - Prophet, Poet, Patriot" (Reflections #872). I thought I knew everything there was to know about Deborah. She's been one of my favorite Old Testament biblical figures for a long time. Then I find out that she was a "fiery spirit" rather than the "wife" of some guy. I cannot recommend your work enough to people who enjoy getting into the weeds of theology. Thank you for another informative Reflections.

From a Reader in Barbados:

Brother Al, Thank you so much for sharing with us your article on Deborah.

From a Reader in Arkansas:

Al, I have decided in my own mind that the "Church of Christ" denomination is like a trapdoor spider just waiting inside the "church building" for someone to open the door. That, and also criticizing everyone else, just might be the reason our assembly attendance is bereft of young people. I remember the days when it was just a building where people (the church) gathered to hear someone teach the Bible. It didn't even have a name over the door! Oh, by the way, that was a great article on Deborah!! Al, keep speaking; keep teaching; don't ever be quiet, brother!

From a Reader in Unknown:

Al, Thank you so much for sending us your Reflections articles, and we want to especially thank you for the in-depth way in which you prepare and present your lessons! God bless you!

From a Reader in Wyoming:

Al, your Reflections are always so encouraging and enlightening! May your quarter horse of achievement get a second wind as a thoroughbred in the aging process of serving the Lord. Our prayer for you: longevity and prosperity!

From a D.Min. in Oklahoma:

Al, Thank you for your hard work and your continued dedication to sharing your Reflections. You are truly an inspiration and an encouragement to us all.

From a Reader in South Carolina:

Al, your article on Deborah, "The Honey Bee of Israel," was outstanding! It's a shame that people don't study the women of the Bible more often. So many people take two passages in the NT scriptures, that were dealing with situational issues, completely out of context, and then they claim that women can't serve in worship. I am so happy that the congregation we attend sees the worth of women, and therefore they allow them to serve in worship. More and more congregations of the Churches of Christ are now using women in worship! If a particular congregation doesn't choose to use women, that is fine for them, but it doesn't give them the right to condemn congregations that do allow women to serve. Al, we appreciate all that you do!!

From a Reader in Oklahoma:

Thank you, Al, for sending me all the materials you had written on the topic I had asked you about. I am very impressed, and I can see that I will be spending hours studying this material. Again, thank you for your help. I continue to remember fondly our time in Honolulu about three decades ago when we visited the congregation where you were preaching. I can't believe how much my beliefs have changed over those years.

********************
If you would like to be added to or removed from this
mailing list, Contact Me and I'll immediately comply.
If you are challenged by these Reflections, feel free to
send them on to others and encourage them to write for
a free subscription. These studies are also offered on a
special thumb drive. Check the link below for the
details, and for all past issues of these Reflections:
https://www.zianet.com/maxey/Reflect2.htm