The piercing of the side of Jesus (Notes)

Saint John - Chapter 19

The piercing of the side of Jesus. J-J Tissot

[33] Ad Jesum autem cum venissent, ut viderunt eum jam mortuum, non fregerunt ejus crura,
But after they were come to Jesus, when they saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.

But when they came to Jesus (evidently to break His legs. Euthymius says, “They came to Him last, as wishing to please the Jews by treating Him with greater insult) and saw that He was dead already, they brake not His legs. He did not wish His legs to be broken, for He wished to rise again with an unmutilated body. As Lactantius says (iv. 26), “His body is taken down from the cross entire, and carefully laid in the tomb, lest by the loss of any limb it might be rendered less seemly for resurrection.”

Instead, then, of His legs being broken, His side was pierced with the spear. This was after He was dead, not while He was alive, as some have thought. This error was condemned in the Council of Vienne. For as Christ, while alive, gave up His whole Body for us, so did He in His death wish to give us His heart. For this it was that was pierced by the spear, and blood and water flowed forth from it, so that He gave Himself entirely to us.

You will say that Christ was already dead, and that therefore He merited nothing by this piercing of His heart. But I reply that when alive He knew this wound would be inflicted, and that He offered it to the Father for us, and thus merited and effected our salvation. Thou wilt say next, We see that blood flows from the body of a slain person, if the murderer is present. This then is a natural effect. I say that it is not natural, but very nearly miraculous; to point out and confound the murderer. And much more was it miraculous in the case of Christ, as I will presently show.

[34] sed unus militum lancea latus ejus aperuit, et continuo exivit sanguis et aqua.
But one of the soldiers with a spear opened his side, and immediately there came out blood and water.

But one of the soldiers opened His side. As somewhat doubting, says S. Cyril, whether He were really dead; and if He were not, to hasten His death. For it was the duty of these soldiers to carry out the sentence, and to see that criminals were not taken away before it was certain that they were dead. S. Chrysostom adds, “To please the Jews, they lay open His side and insult Him when dead. O most evil and most atrocious wish.” Some suppose that this soldier was the centurion, who cried out “Truly this was the Son of God!” (Matthew 27:54) But it is not likely that he who so cried out would dare to commit such an act. Nazianzen in his “Christus Patiens” suggests that he was blind, and that he then regained his sight. Many stories on this matter were collected by Barradius, which Baronius rejects as apocryphal. Here note—
1. That the soldier was one of the guard who brake the legs of the two malefactors, and would have broken Christ’s also had he been alive. But they pierced His side, to show that He was dead, and this was why they brake not His legs. 
2. Some say it was a spear, others a sword which was used. 
3. The Vulgate seems to have read, ἤνοιξε, but the Greek is ἔνυξε. 
4. This wound was so large that a hand could have been thrust into it. See John 20:27. 
5. It was on the right side, as represented by painters. Some think it was so foretold by Ezekiel 17:2 S. Francis also received his wound on the right side. See S. Bonaventura, Ribadeaeira, &c. 6. Christ therefore received six wounds. 
7. This wound seems to have pierced through both sides, as Prudentius says in several passages. As, e.g.,

As struck the cruel spear through either side,
Water and Blood poured forth in mingled tide:
For victory this, and that to cleanse applied.

De Pass. Christi [apud Diptych, num. 42.]; Peristeph. Hymn viii. [15]; and Cathomer, Hymn ix. [85]; [Pseudo]-Cyprian also (de Pass.) says the same. Theophylaet speaks of this wound in the plural number, Prudentius seems to imply that the larger wound emitted blood, and the smaller wound on the left side water. But this wound on the left side was so small as not to be taken into account. Hence there were only five wounds. S. Bridget’s Revel. iv. 40, vii. 15, and ii. 21, are also referred to.

And forthwith came thereout blood and water. Both together (not separately, as Nonnus paraphrases), but yet not mixed, but so that they could be distinguished from each other. But this could not be the case naturally, because the blood of a dead body congeals, and pure blood cannot flow from it. And this was pure blood, not serum, as Innoc. III. lays it down (Lib. iii. Decret. tit. 41, de Celebr. Miss. cap. viii.) Calvin is therefore wrong in saying that water is contained in the pericardium. Therefore this flowing forth of blood and water was miraculous, as S. Ambrose on Luke 23, Euthymius, and Theophylact say. The latter remarks, “The contumely is changed into a miracle, and wonderful it was that blood flowed forth from a dead body. But a caviller might say that some vital force might probably remain in the body. But the water which flowed forth puts the matter beyond all dispute.” He says afterwards, “Confounded be the Armenians, who in the Mysteries mix not water with the wine. For, as it seems, they do not believe that water flowed forth from the side (which would be more wonderful), but blood only. And in this passage they do away with a mighty miracle. The blood then is the symbol of a crucified man, but the water of one who is above man, that is, of God.” See Adam Coutzen and Francis Lucas on this passage.

But this took place by way of mystery. But what mystery? 
(1.) To show the reality of Christ’s human nature. See 1 John 5:7. 
(2.) To signify that the Church was formed as the Spouse of Christ out of the side of the second Adam dying on the Cross. Symbolically, i.e. and figuratively, as meaning that the Church was purchased, founded, and sanctified by the Blood of Christ. As S. Ambrose (on Luke 23) says, “Life flowed forth from that dead body. For water and blood flowed forth, the one to cleanse, the other to redeem;” and as S. Cyril and Chrysostom say, that the water signifies baptism, which is the first beginning of the Church and the other sacraments, and the blood represents the Eucharist, which is the end and completion of the sacraments, to which they all refer as to their beginning and their end. Whence S. Augustine says (in loc.), that all sacraments flowed forth from the side of Christ, in mystery, as I said. His words are, “It is not said that he ‘struck’ or ‘wounded,’ but that he ‘opened’ the side of Christ, that the door of life might thus, as it were, be opened, from whence the sacraments of the Church flowed forth, without which there is no entrance to true life.” And S. Chrysostom: “Because the sacred mysteries take their rise from thence, when thou approachest the awful Chalice, thou shouldest approach it as if thou wert about to drink from the very side of Christ;” and the reason is, as S. Chrysostom and Theophylact say, “The Church exists and consists by means of the sacraments.” For it is born by Baptism, strengthened by Confirmation, fed and perfected by the Eucharist, healed by Penance, fortified by Extreme Unction, governed by Holy Orders, and continued and extended by Matrimony.

As a symbol of this, Cyprian and others say that water must be mixed with the wine in the consecration of the Chalice.

Tropologically. Tertullian says (de Baptismo), that Christ by this effusion of Blood and Water indicated the two kinds of Baptism, by water and by martyrdom.

Anagogically. This opening of Christ’s side shadowed forth that heaven, which had been closed for 4000 years, was opened by His death. Ruffinus adds, In Expos. Symb., “He poured forth water to cleanse believers, and blood to condemn unbelievers.” See Suarez, Par. iii. Quæst. li. Disput. xli. § 1, where, however, he thinks that only the left side of Christ was pierced, and that the blood first ran forth, and afterwards the water, both which are equally probable.

[35] Et qui vidit, testimonium perhibuit : et verum est testimonium ejus. Et ille scit quia vera dicit : ut et vos credatis.
And he that saw it, hath given testimony, and his testimony is true. And he knoweth that he saith true; that you also may believe.

And he that saw it bare record. Probably John himself, who speaks of himself unassumingly in the third person.

[36] Facta sunt enim haec ut Scriptura impleretur : Os non comminuetis ex eo.
For these things were done, that the scripture might be fulfilled: You shall not break a bone of him.

For these things were done that the scripture should be fulfilled (allegorically, not literally), A bone of Him shall not be broken. A bone, i.e. of the Paschal Lamb (Ex. 12:46). The literal reason was, that they had to eat it in haste, and had not time to break the bones and extract the marrow. The allegorical reason was, because that lamb was a type of Christ, and God willed that a bone of Him should not be broken, in order that His sacred Body, which was to rise again, should remain complete in every limb. Symbolically, it signified—

(1.) That the Godhead of Christ, which was (as it were) the bone which supported His Body, remained entire and uninjured in His Passion (see Rupertus on Ex. 12.)

(2.) That the strength and vigour of Christ as man (of which the bones were a symbol) were not diminished, but rather increased, by His Passion. For His mind was steadfastly fixed on God, and His will remained firmly and constantly united to the Divine Will. So the Martyr Hippolytus says. See Theodoret, Dialog. iii.

Allegorically, This signifies that the Holy Apostles, who were the bones of the Church, were not to be broken. (See S. Augustine on Ps. xxxiv.; S. Jerome on Ps. 21; and S. Gregory, Mor. xxiv. 30.)

And S. Hilary, on Ps. 40, says, the bones of Christ were not broken, because the Church, which was formed of His bones, ought not to be weakened by their being broken.

Tropologically. See S. Bernard (Serm. de cute, &c. aminœ). He says that the skin is good thoughts, the flesh pious affections, the bones holy intentions, which, even when godly thoughts and affections fail, must still be kept unbroken and strong or else a man bursts asunder, and falls to pieces.

[37] Et iterum alia Scriptura dicit : Videbunt in quem transfixerunt.
And again another scripture saith: They shall look on him whom they pierced.

And again another scripture saith, They shall look on Him whom they pierced. See Zech. 12:10.

From The Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ, by J-J Tissot (1897)

After having broken the legs of the thieves, the soldiers approached the Saviour.  To their great astonishment they found that He was already dead, so that the brutal operation of the crucifragium was quite unnecessary, for, as we have already said, its aim was merely to hasten death.  The soldiers did not, therefore, dream of inflicting this indignity upon the body of the divine Master, and the Apostle Saint John sees in their refraining to do so the fulfilment of the Scriptures.  He probably alludes to the passages in Exodus and Numbers referring to the Paschal lamb, which was a type of the Messiah.  Those offering sacrifices were strictly enjoined to respect the bones of the victims, and the greatest precautions were taken to avoid breaking them, lest the Almighty should be insulted by the mutilation of a sacrifice offered up in His honour.  The Talmud tells us of severe penalties inflicted on those who transgress this law, including the bastinado. 

In order, however, to make quite sure of the death of Jesus the centurion pierced His side with a spear and "forthwith" says the sacred text, "came there out blood and water".  Though Saint John insists on this fact he does not appear to consider it anything extraordinary.  By the water which flowed from the sacred side we are probably intended to understand the pericardial lymph or the colourless fluid which contains a large proportion of water and not the serum of the blood, which is inseparable from the corpuscles.  According to doctors of medicine who have studied the question at issue this detail implies that the pericardium or the membraneous sac inclosing the heart was pierced by the spear of Longinus.  The Fathers of the Church see in this incident of the sacred drama the image of many very touching mysteries.  "Even as Eve", they say, " was taken from the rib of Adam, so did the rib of Christ give birth to the second Eve who is the Church".  As a matter of fact, the life of the Church is, so to speak, bound up with two fundamental rites which make of it one homogeneous whole.  These two rites are  Baptism, or the Sacrament of Regeneration, and the Eucharist, or the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ.  Now, water and blood are the fundamental elements of these to rites, and this is why, say of Fathers of the Church, they both flowed from the side of Jesus when He hung upon by Cross.

Totus tuus ego sum 

Et omnia mea tua sunt;

Tecum semper tutus sum:
Ad Jesum per Mariam