How did Jesus die? This question seems like an obvious question, after all, Jesus was crucified and will have died of His wounds. Or more precisely, when that moment came, it said: He let go of the spirit (Matt. 27:50), saying: Father, into your hands I commit my spirit (Luke 23:46). And after His death, a Roman soldier stabbed Him with a spear, is the common explanation. But is that so? The reading that He was pierced with a spear after His death is based on the account in the Gospel of John, but raises a number of questions for the critical reader.
John 19
32 Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with Him.
33 But when they came to Jesus, and seeing that he was already dead, they brake not his legs.
34 But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a lance, and immediately blood and water came out.
incongruous
The legs of the crucified were broken, so that they could no longer raise themselves up and would therefore soon die. That had to happen, because the day that dawned was a Sabbath and the bodies had to be removed (John 19:31).
But if the explanation is that the soldiers did not break Jesus’ legs because He was already dead, then why did they thrust a spear into His side? If they were convinced that He was already dead, and they were, why stick a spear in His side?
Pilate amazed
Another point is that when Joseph of Arimathea turns to Pilate to request the body of Jesus, Pilate is surprised that Jesus had already died. Pilate even asks a centurion how long ago Jesus died (Mark 15:44). People knew approximately how long it took for a crucified person to die. Apparently Jesus had died much earlier than usual.
water and blood
We also read that at the thrust of the spear, water and blood immediately came from His side. How is that possible if He had already died and the heart had stopped beating? Then by inflicting a wound, blood will also come out, but it immediately suggests that it came out with force and that is only possible if His heart was still beating.
another witness
In current translations, John 19 is the only one that mentions the piercing with a spear. But almost all the old important manuscripts (Nestle, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Codex Ephraemi, etc.) of the New Testament still have a witness to this event.
Matthew 27
48 And immediately one of them ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with sour wine, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink.
49 But the rest said, Let us go, and let us see whether Elijah will come to save him.
And another took the point of a lance, and pierced him in the side, and there came out water and blood.
50 And Jesus cried again with a loud voice, and he released the spirit.
omitted
The bold sentence has been omitted in most translations, but is indeed in the original text. Translations such as Schriftwoord (a Dutch concordant translation), the Dutch Concordant Translation (NCV), but also the English Concordant Literal Version (CLV), Moffatt Translation and the Fenton Bible do reflect the sentence. One can guess why many translations left it out. According to them, it is not in accordance with John 19. But of course that should not be a reason to leave it unmentioned.
Matthew states undeniably that Jesus was first pierced with a lance and John seems to say that Jesus was pierced after His death. But of course the translators should never have “solved” this supposed problem for us, that is not their job. They would translate the text, as literally and as best as possible. But leaving things out has nothing to do with that.
agreement
Can the passage in John be reconciled with the passage in Matthew? Should we perhaps read it differently than we have always been used to, now that we know that Matthew places the spear thrust before the death of Jesus?
John 19
32 Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with Him.
33 But when they came to Jesus, and seeing that he was already dead, they brake not his legs.
34 But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a lance, and immediately blood and water came out.
no chronological record
If we read verse 34 as a subsequent event to what is mentioned in verse 33, it does indeed appear that Jesus was pierced after His death. But is it a chronological account? If we read verse 34 as the explanation of verse 33, namely why the soldiers did not break Jesus’ legs, then it is completely consistent with what Matthew says about it. Jesus had already died and that is why they did not break His legs. The explanation in verse 34 is that He died because a soldier stabbed Him in the side with a spear
timeless fact
The word pierced or pricked has a timeless form in the Greek text. It is not stated whether it had happened in the past, or whether it was happening at that moment. The fact is stated, it is the explanation that it had happened and that Jesus had died as a result. We might say:
But when they came to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs, for one of the soldiers had stabbed His side with a lance…
the true Passover
Jesus came as the true Passover lamb and was actually slaughtered. The sacrificial service under the old covenant involves the slaughter of an animal: killing by bleeding. On Nisan 14 the Passover lamb was slain (Ex.12:6; Lev.23:5) and the Lord who is the fulfillment of this ordinance died on the cross on that same day (John 18:28,39; 19:31) . He too was slain and died by bleeding, for He is the true Passover.
1 Corinthians 5
7 (…) For our Passover, Christ, was also sacrificed for us.
Because the Lord died by bleeding, many prophecies and foreshadows were fulfilled. Zechariah also foretold that He would be pierced.
Zechariah 12
10 …and they shall see Me whom they have pierced (…)
And the fact that His legs were not broken is in accordance with the ordinances for the Passover:
Exodus 12
43 And YAHWEH said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the Passover:
(…)
46 …You shall not bring anything out of the house of the flesh,
and you must not break a bone.
And that is exactly the commentary that John himself gives on the event of Jesus being stabbed with the spear and not breaking His legs! He points out that it is in accordance with the prophecy!
John 19
36 For this happened that the scripture might be fulfilled: Not a bone of His shall be bruised.
37 And another scripture says, They shall see Him whom they have pierced.
water and blood
Immediately water and blood came out of the wound caused by Jesus being pierced. The blood can be explained logically. His heart was still beating and blood came out with force, as happens when a lamb or goat is slaughtered. The water will have flowed from His side because the bladder or a kidney was pierced. That is what actually happened, but does water and blood also speak of something else? Does it have a deeper meaning? What is remarkable is what John follows up in His Gospel with the mention of water and blood that came from Jesus’ side.
John 19
35 And he who saw it has borne witness, and his testimony is true, and he knows that he speaks the truth, that you also may believe.
to give evidence
John testifies of what he saw. We know this is true of most of what he wrote, but mentioning it here adds emphasis. If we compare this with what he says in his first letter, it becomes clearer.
1 John 5
7 For there are three who testify:
8 the spirit, and the water, and the blood; and the three become one.
these three are one
We all also find these three witnesses in John’s Gospel at the crucifixion. Of course there are differences between spirit, water and blood, but John points out the similarity: the three are one. All three speak of life. Spirit is a synonym for life. Water is generally a representation of the word of God. It is the word of God that made everything happen: in it was life (John 1:4). Christ is the word of God made flesh (John 1:14; Rev. 19:13).
Blood also speaks of life, but in a special way. For a sacrifice died, and its blood was brought into the sanctuary. As a representation of Him who died, rose (lives) and entered the true sanctuary: heaven (Heb.9:24).