The Pierced Side of Jesus

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wm777
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Wm777

Guest
I was just watching some stuff on the Shroud of Turin, and it brought up a question I have been pondering… I found an answer to it on Catholic.com’s Q&A, but it needs clarification… Here’s the article…


The author seems scripturally and artistically correct, and the Shroud seems to verify the claim that Christ’s right side was pierced… The problem is she missed what seems to be the questioner’s main concern - that the heart is on the left side…

In so far as art is concerned, I dont worry so much about historical accuracy, since I know art is art… An artistic image is just a sort of interpretation to remind us of something… If, however, the artwork is supposed to be informative, then I would probably question it…

What’s more disconcerting is - so many prayers speak of the sword that pierced Jesus’ heart… when I get to the level of prayer, and I hear specific terms, like “sword” and “heart” alongside the Bible’s more general account of Longinus’ simply piercing Christ’s side - it’s hard to realize it, but there is a leap in logic the prayers make when they say the sword pierced Christ’s heart, when the Bible only says Christ was simply pierced… The prayers seem to override the Bible, which seems kind of strange as to how the prayers came to the conclusion that Jesus was pierced to the heart…

The question is whether to take the prayers (not really the Bible) literally or figuratively… I guess - if one wanted to really take the prayers as truth - one could say the blade was shoved so far in it reached Jesus’ heart… But it seems more like the prayers form a figurative or spiritual interpretation… Similarly - with respect to Mary, who wasn’t crucified, her heart was “pierced” by seven swords - in a figurative or spiritual way… I think that is how I take it with respect to Jesus being pierced to the heart…

In a way, while I often thank God they didn’t break Jesus’ legs, I am somewhat perplexed as to why Longinus stabbed Jesus at all… Jesus was already dead… There was no need to stab him… Maybe it was an assurance measure to make sure he was really dead? But, still, the Bible says Jesus was already dead, so it just seems like Longinus’ action was nothing but overkill… There is, however, the prophecy to be fulfilled “They shall look upon him whom they have pierced”, but that could also just refer to the nails, as some other prayers indicate (They have pierced my hands and feet - they have numbered all my bones)…

Anyway, I am just wondering how others perceive this passage, as well as the prayers that seem to pertain to it…

God Bless,

Wm
 
Last edited:
What was explained to me was the Sabbath was approaching so Pilate ordered the other two men’s legs be broken to hasten their demise. Jesus was dead but the soldier pierced his side just to be sure. This action also fulfilled a prophesy. God bless.
 
Wm777 said:
The problem is she missed what seems to be the questioner’s main concern - that the heart is on the left side…
Click to expand...
Have you ever thought that the spear is long enough that it went through the right and pierce into the left heart?
 
The pilum (aka spear, javelin, lance) was used by Roman soldiers on guard duty; and it had an extremely long spearhead designed to go right through people, as opposed to just poking at them. Take a look!

Given the statistically small possibility that a man’s heart can be on either side of the chest, and given the fact that a Roman soldier would not want to mess up his execution duty, it would seem likely that they would want to cover a lot of chest territory. Transfixing a body from the side would be one way to do it.

The real question is how much skill would it take to get through the ribcage into the heart, or under the ribcage and up to the heart – plenty, I’d guess. But I suppose you would have every incentive to learn, since my understanding is that it’s not fun to be holding any kind of knife that stabs into bone (as opposed to cutting through it on purpose). Also, if you hit bone with your spear instead of going through the gaps, you might lose your weapon in battle.

So with nobody fighting them to throw off their aim, and with every desire to get done quickly so that they could get back to the barracks and relax, the soldiers had no reason to mess up something that they’d practiced many times. The thieves on either side were probably transfixed for a clean kill, and the same thing was done to the already-deceased body of Jesus.

(The weighted pilum would probably not be carried on guard duty, because it was for battlefield-type battles. The idea was that you gave them to the front ranks of Roman soldiers, who threw them at the enemy. The weights gave them more oomph. The soft, bendy pilum points broke off, so that the enemy could not throw them back at the Romans. Then the Romans drew their shortswords, advanced toward the enemy, and proceeded to fight the rest of the battle. After they won, they collected the pilums, and the armorers traveling with the Roman army gave them new/recycled points. Basically, it was a way to give infantry a chance to double as a ranged weapons unit.)
 
Last edited:
Actually, though, the word used by St. Jerome in the Vulgate was “lancea” (spear, lance), which was a specific type of weapon that was usually carried by Roman auxiliaries, rather than by Roman legionaries. It was lighter and easier to wield than the pilum, which made it popular with soldiers; and it was used by Greek cavalry before the Romans took it up.

(The Greek word in John is “lonche” or “longche,” depending on how you spell it – and that is the same thing as a “lancea.”)

Roman legionaries did sometimes carry the lancea. The best-known example was a campaign commanded by Arrian in the second century (he was born around AD 90). The lancea was good against heavy cavalry, whereas the pilum was mostly for use against other footsoldiers or light cavalry. It could be thrown or used as a thrusting weapon, and you could also use it to get around or pry apart shieldwalls.

Apparently there’s a lot of modern dispute about the exact appearance of the Roman lancea, because we don’t have any clear depiction of the difference between various spear-type weapons. St. Isidore of Seville said that it was distinguished by having an amentum (a sort of leather strap used as an atlatl) attached to its middle, but folks don’t know if he was right about that. (Because some lanceas seem to have been used without the amentum strap.) Best guess is that the lancea head was long and flat and pointy, but not nearly as long and pointy as that of the pilum!

The short spearhead that we think of, when we say “spear,” would have only been found on the “hasta,” which was used by early Roman Republic legionaries and auxiliaries (by soldiers called “hastati”). But it was obsolete as a Roman military weapon in Jesus’ time. But it was still considered good luck to part the bride’s hair with a hasta spearhead, when you were getting her dressed for her wedding.
 
Last edited:
The spear, lancea etc, may have come from the right but this does not mean that it didn’t reach His heart because it could if it came diagonally enough.
Prayers are also composed based on revelations, please bear this in mind. Through the gift of the Holy Spirit Saints could see the events that took place even if the Biblical text does not present everything. We believe in the Communion of Saints also, not just the Bible.
 
Well, if you’re using a thrusting weapon and standing close to someone suspended up a few feet, you’d probably end up with an entrance wound on the side, under the ribcage, and then go up diagonally into the heart. Most of the other possibilities would require being next to the person or above him.

Also, you wouldn’t want to spear the cross itself, or any of the cross accessories. (Don’t want to break the lancea, right?) So working sideways and up, rather than from in front and up, would make sense. (And there’d be no reason to work from behind the cross.)
 
Rutherford2 said:
40.png
Wm777:
The problem is she missed what seems to be the questioner’s main concern - that the heart is on the left side…
Click to expand...
Have you ever thought that the spear is long enough that it went through the right and pierce into the left heart?
Click to expand...
Please review the second sentence of paragraph five of the OP. 🙂
Wm777 said:
The question is whether to take the prayers (not really the Bible) literally or figuratively… I guess - if one wanted to really take the prayers as truth - one could say the blade was shoved so far in it reached Jesus’ heart… But it seems more like the prayers form a figurative or spiritual interpretation…
Click to expand...
 
Your response helps clarify the matter. It’s not absolute proof, of course, but it does help.

To us - we probably underestimate the brutality of the Romans - likely because we dont want to see Jesus hurt at all.

I still think what they did was (and is definitively) overkill, but then they simply didnt care. In one movie - although an artistic representation - when Jesus is scourged and brought back to Pilate, he was scourged so badly Pilate scolded the soldiers for nearly killing him with the beating.

When it comes to the “coup de gras”, however, we probably see a lot of mysticism coming into play.

For instance, why would they break the criminals legs, but not Jesus? It’s fine for us to say “because it fulfills a prophecy”. But the Romans probably didnt even know of the prophecy. So how they came to the decision to stab Jesus, as opposed to break his legs, seems a bit nebulous (and, therefore, mysterious). Maybe it just took more effort to break legs than stab him, and Jesus was so far gone they didn’t see much point in wasting any effort on it; but we can only speculate. In that respect, the question wont really find a definite answer, but - since it does fulfill a prophecy - we can only speculate it falls to mystery in fulfilling the prophecy, especially since it was enacted by 3rd party Romans - who didnt believe in or really care about Jewish law at all.

On a final note - I realize this question and thread might be a bit too graphic for many, but one thing Saint Faustina says about Jesus is - he likes it when we contemplate his Passion. We dont want to hurt Jesus, but I do think it is important to try to understand what he endured and why. So that’s why I asked…
  • Wm
 
Wm777 said:
For instance, why would they break the criminals legs, but not Jesus? It’s fine for us to say “because it fulfills a prophecy”. But the Romans probably didnt even know of the prophecy
Click to expand...
The Bible says that one of the soldiers pierced his side, and at once blood and water came out. Traditionally this soldier is named St Longinus who converted to Christianity. So God may have moved him to do this, for fulfillment of the prophecy.
 
Was there a strong distinction between soldiers and police at the time? (Police as we know them are way more recent than Roman times.)
 
Last edited:
Well, we do know the crusades “historically” throw the slightly educated mind into a tailspin while we convince ourselves a Great War was occurring at some time near Jerusalem. But the strongly educated persons know these were two separate times.

When we “rewind” into the Far East with our brains we often tie things together which are not. Specificity is key.
 
Last edited:
That’s extremely interesting.

I just looked up the definition of soldier because the USCCB NAB translation refers to them as “soldiers”. The term “soldier” seems to have gone through various idioms, but the definition generally seems to indicate “one who is paid”. The idea of a soldier would seem consistent with many important NT themes, such as rendering unto Ceasar, turning over the money changers tables, Judas’ 30 piece of silver, using those same 30 pieces to buy the field of blood, etc…

And, interestingly, if that definition holds, I dont think the term is necessarily just used with respect to the Romans, but also to Jewish “soldiers”, perhaps like Malchus and others who went to arrest Jesus at Gethsemane. If Judas was essentially contracted to help turn Jesus over for thirty pieces of silver, then there is little doubt they would pay off others (who perhaps didnt even know Jesus) to do the same.

I’m not sure if that means Jesus hated money altogether, but there definitely is the distinction he draws between “Rendering unto Ceasar… but render unto God what is God’s”. The Jewish folks were mixing Roman money within the temple, which was forbidden, and is probably what set Christ off when he turned over the money changers tables. And, consequently, the turning over of the money changers tables was probably like the last straw as far as the Sanhedrin was concerned.

The problem seems to be there was this odd mixture of who’s paying off who to do whatever… when, in fact, none of it necessarily constituted a legitimate sacrifice before God because - whoever doesn’t enter through the sheepgate is a thief and a robber, including the sheperd (who is paid)".

Sorry if I am straying from my original question, but this definition of soldier - while an accidental discovery - seems to be an important one, if I am correct here. I’m not exactly sure of all its consequences, but - if it is correct - it sheds a whole new light on how people were being motivated back then, as well as many of Christ’s responses and statements.

Thank you!
 
Last edited:
CatholicSpirit said:
I disagree with the use of the term “Roman soldier” quite often, as Pilate was a governor and a governors employees are police officers, not soldiers.
Click to expand...
It’s not really inaccurate (there’s really no clear distinction between the two back then, since soldiers could double as a kind of police force), though if you want to be specific a prefect like Pontius Pilate would have commanded auxiliary troops rather than legionaries. The auxiliaries were mainly peregrini, subjects of the Empire who were not Roman citizens. In Pilate’s case, it’s possible that the bulk of his soldiers were Syrian and Samaritan recruits (Jews were granted a special exemption from serving in the Roman Army).

That being said, there was a kind of local police force in Jerusalem and that was the Temple guards.
 
Physiologically the heart is almost dead center of the thoracic cavity.
 
Usagi said:
Was there a strong distinction between soldiers and police at the time? (Police as we know them are way more recent than Roman times.)
Click to expand...
Again, very interesting comments…

I’m not sure what terms I do and dont agree with here… I am just trying to understand who was being motivated by what…

As for the term police… The term police comes from the Greek word for city, which is “polis”… It seems to be more about governance and a “state of affairs” than one of spatial territory… So the term polis would have existed back then, and it might have referred to the government, but it wouldnt be a sort of organization like today… My thought is, they probably had some form of martial law in effect, but I dont know how they would have divided it up… Although everyone was subject to the Emperor…
 
The pleasure is mine Wm777, I can tell you that in the very first line of Britannica’s article for Pontius Pilate, it indicates that he was a “prefect” and in parenthesis (Governor). While this is likely a valid source, I requested attention be placed on him to detect their true occupation.

We must also note that all New Testament writings of the gospels were written by followers of Jesus, and were common people. They likely did their best to inform followers of Jesus as to what they had seen. A person wearing centurion-looking fatigues would have appeared to them most honestly a soldier. However, I often do not believe this was the occupation from a Roman point of view at that time. (Based on Pilate)
 
Last edited:
Wm777 said:
The question is whether to take the prayers (not really the Bible) literally or figuratively… I guess - if one wanted to really take the prayers as truth - one could say the blade was shoved so far in it reached Jesus’ heart… But it seems more like the prayers form a figurative or spiritual interpretation…
Click to expand...
Well, you have to remember that many prayers aren’t really composed with historical or scientific accuracy in mind. This is especially true for those prayers from the late Middle Ages onwards that could be (to be honest) quite flowery or dramatic in their descriptions - which are themselves more likely to be products of pious imagination.
In a way, while I often thank God they didn’t break Jesus’ legs, I am somewhat perplexed as to why Longinus stabbed Jesus at all… Jesus was already dead… There was no need to stab him… Maybe it was an assurance measure to make sure he was really dead?
Click to expand...
Yes. Leaving a dead body unburied was taboo. In Deuteronomy (21:22-23) it’s written that
“And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is cursed by God. You shall not defile your land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance.”
Click to expand...
At the time of Jesus this law was also applied to crucifixion victims. Which is why unlike in other parts of the Roman Empire (where people are left on their crosses to rot), Jews in Judaea made it a point to bury crucifixion victims as soon as they were dead.

From the perspective of the Jewish authorities, you can’t risk these three men dying during the high sabbath and defile the holiday, that’s why they petitioned that they just be killed and taken off their crosses as soon as possible. Unlike the other two guys, Jesus looked dead enough, but as you said, they had to make sure that He was dead dead - not just in a coma or pretending to be dead.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the temple guards, would my assumption not have merit based on the fact that the first judicial wrongdoing in this capital murder trail gone completely wrong (Jesus of Nazareth) was performed by the Sanhedrin?

I believe those specific details are also necessary to determine this occupation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top