Jesus Fact #2 – The piercing of Jesus’ side & medical science.

Screen Shot 2015-11-17 at 8.36.44 PM.png

John’s author informs us that once Jesus had expired on the cross “one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out” (19:34). John is the only gospel author to inform us of such a detail as the piercing of Jesus’ side. As we saw previously in Luke’s account (#1 – Jesus’ sweating of blood & medical science) we likewise have a very similar instance whereby a medical detail is mentioned that was certainly not known  at the time when the gospel authors were writing. It is therefore almost certainly not invented hence historical.

What we now know from medical science is that the combination of shock, a rapid heart rate, and heart failure results in a collection of clear, watery fluid around the heart and lungs. An incision through the lung and heart would release that fluid as well as blood. This is undoubtedly what John’s author is referring to in his account based on a reliable eyewitness detail that he received – such as the exiting of pericardial fluid from Jesus’ insides. According to Dr. William Edwards, writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association, in his analysis of Jesus’ crucifixion:

“Clearly the weight of the historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound to his side was inflicted. . . . The assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appears to be at odds with modern medical knowledge.” (1)

This little detail is significant for it affirms several details, namely that Jesus died on the cross, that Jesus was actually crucified on a cross, and that Roman soldiers stood at the foot of the cross. Little details like these certainly increases the reliability of some of the events mentioned by our gospel authors.


1. Edwards, W. 1986. Journal of the American Medical Association. p. 1463.

8 responses to “Jesus Fact #2 – The piercing of Jesus’ side & medical science.

  1. Why would this not have been known at the time of writing? Crucifixions were plentiful, so it seems that it would have been well known that, if you run a spear through someone who was already dead, blood and water would come out.

    While this may prove that the author was vaguely familiar with crucifixions, does it really tells us anything about whether or not Jesus, died or was even crucified?

    • Simple answer: piercing the side with a spear was an unusual procedure required only when they weren’t sure the subject was dead. Here, because sundown was approaching and the Sabbath was at hand, the soldiers broke the legs of the other two victims. But Jesus was no longer moving and was already apparently dead — and they needed to make sure.

      If piercing the side with a spear were so common, we would expect to hear something about it in the records of crucifixions, which are very numerous. So far as I know, we do not. Please inform me if you have evidence for what you say.

      • Why would they not break Jesus’ legs also to be sure? Without John’s account of the spear, which surprisingly is missed in the other Gospels if it did happen, the possibility of Jesus’ survival is significant. That combined with evidence that the Gospel of John was written after the other Gospels suggests that it could very well have been added in, just as John’s Gospel adds in Jesus outright and clearly proclaiming his Godliness, which is rather absent from the other Gospels as well.

        Plenty of evidence for you there of this possibility.

      • I will grant that this would have been an uncommon finale to a crucifixion; however, this would have hardly been the only means by which a person would succumb to the combination of shock, a rapid heart rate, and heart failure. I still contend that it would have been fairly common knowledge: if you beat and torture someone (by crucifixion or otherwise), this is what happens when you run a spear through their side.

        Also, the rush to get him off the cross would seem to raise more questions than it answers. Why the concern about the Sabbath, given that the execution was carried out by Romans and not Jews? Why execute him with a method that is designed to prolong death if they knew they would have to take him down within a few hours? You can cite a fear of uprising as your explanation, but of course these same questions would apply to the two thieves–and no one was concerned about public response to their deaths.

  2. Pingback: Bishop vs. The Dutch Atheist, “Is there evidence for a god?”[Opening Speech] | James Bishop's Theology & Apologetics.·

  3. Pingback: The Argument from Jesus’ Resurrection. | James Bishop's Theology & Apologetics.·

Let me know your thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s