The Pierced Side of Jesus

[patrick457]

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.

The thing to keep in mind is, Rome actually preferred indirect rule. Officially, the Roman governor (the prefect - in this case Pilate) is in charge, but in reality, native (Jewish and Samaritan) magistrates, acting as the middlemen, ran the government on his behalf. In Jerusalem, this middleman was the high priest and his council (synedrion - hence our ‘sanhedrin’) of advisors. The Roman official would only take direct action when the local authorities couldn’t contain any trouble by themselves.

There were a few Romans in garrisons acting as token lookouts for trouble, but otherwise, cities, Jewish towns and villages were run by Jewish magistrates and elders, according to Jewish law. The prefect only showed up in Jerusalem during the major pilgrimage festivals to check for any potential unrest (which is why Pilate was in Jerusalem during Good Friday). During the rest of the year, however, he and most of his men are in Caesarea Maritima (the capital of Judaea Province) with other gentiles.

That’s the reason why it was the chief priests, the aristocracy and the Temple police that arrested Jesus. It was technically their job to do so on behalf of the prefect, since they were the ones responsible for keeping law and order in the city of Jerusalem. They would arrest Jesus, examine Him, then hand Him over to Pilate to be sentenced, since he was the one that had the right to execute.

 

[rom]

The problem is she missed what seems to be the questioner’s main concern - that the heart is on the left side…

The heart leans to the left, but is actually near the center. The spear can reach the heart from either side. See this picture: Human Body With Heart System vector illustration © Illus_man (#137919) | Stockfresh.

 

[Wm777]

All that makes good sense, then, except for one thing - why not break his legs?

I believe, the answer is it was ultimately the work of God, since it was to fulfill a prophecy.

However, if you look at the piercing from a human perspective, they must have had (what seemed to them anyway) their own reasons for not breaking his legs. And, of course, we’ll never really know. But I’m guessing they might have thought it just more convenient to stab him rather than break his legs, or maybe it was a timing issue, or possibly even something to do with the elevation of the cross; meaning we don’t know how high up he was, but Jesus cross is often depicted higher than the others, which might have made it somehow more difficult to do whatever they would have had to do.

 

[modestobruce]

So God may have moved him to do this, for fulfillment of the prophecy.

In response to a question I had posed whether Mary was predestined to be the mother of Jesus and had the option of saying “thanks, but, no thanks”’ to angel Gabriel, I was told she had the free will to say no and that God does not predestine people in that way. No question here, just a comment.

 

[Wm777]

CatholicSpirit:

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.

The thing to keep in mind is, Rome actually preferred indirect rule. Officially, the Roman governor (the prefect - in this case Pilate) is in charge, but in reality, native (Jewish and Samaritan) magistrates, acting as the middlemen, ran the government on his behalf. In Jerusalem, this middleman was the high priest and his council (synedrion - hence our ‘sanhedrin’) of advisors. The Roman official would only take direct action when the local authorities couldn’t contain any trouble by themselves.

There were a few Romans in garrisons acting as token lookouts for trouble, but otherwise, cities, Jewish towns and villages were run by Jewish magistrates and elders, according to Jewish law. The prefect only showed up in Jerusalem during the major pilgrimage festivals to check for any potential unrest (which is why Pilate was in Jerusalem during Good Friday). During the rest of the year, however, he and most of his men are in Caesarea Maritima (the capital of Judaea Province) with other gentiles.

That’s the reason why it was the chief priests, the aristocracy and the Temple police that arrested Jesus. It was technically their job to do so on behalf of the prefect, since they were the ones responsible for keeping law and order in the city of Jerusalem. They would arrest Jesus, examine Him, then hand Him over to Pilate to be sentenced, since he was the one that had the right to execute.

Where did you guys learn all this contemporaneous-to-the-crucifion secular stuff?

It’s really interesting when you can set an event in relief as such…

An adjacent example would be like Saint Francis of Assisi… I’ve read tons of stuff about Saint Francis (virtually everything in the Omnibus of Sources) several times over… But I’ve only read a few pieces about his secular contemporaries - probably for lack of knowing what to read… In any case - of the few medieval pieces I have seen on the state of affairs in 12th and 13th century Italy - they really did help to lend insight into the life of Saint Francis by giving his life a timely context.

Would be nice to do the same with Jesus’ life. I mean, Jesus actually lived a somewhat obscure life, so he wasn’t the Sanherin’s main concern for most of his life. As for the Romans, they had never heard of Jesus, and I’m sure they thought that had bigger fish to fry (even beyond the Jewish folks). They both probably saw Jesus as just a nuisance who was distracting everyone from their individual agendas. Having said all of that - it would be kind of interesting to know who the Jewish and Roman authorities were at the time, and what their agenda was, i.e. what they found significant and most relevant at the time. What were the “real” problems they were all trying to own.

 

[rom]

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 Bible did not merely say that Christ was pierced by a lance, but that immediately there came out blood and water. Now, the part of a dead body that would have a good amount of liquid blood is the right auricle of the heart. Since the Bible said that blood came out right after Christ was pierced, whoever composed the prayer must have connected the dots and concluded that the lance reached the heart. Not a bad conclusion actually. The “water” was really pericardial fluid.

My disclosure: I am not an M.D. But I read these from A Doctor at Calvary by Dr. Pierre Barbet. It is an old book but a good one. The matter about the blood and water is in Chapter 7.

 

[rom]

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…

Not exactly an overkill. There was a reason Christ was stabbed - a legal reason. The executioners could not legally deliver the body to the family unless they made sure that the crucified was dead. The executioners saw that Christ was already dead, but they still had to ensure that He was dead, and this they did by a lance.

I think that there is another reason why God permitted this to happen. Because Christ was going to rise again on the third day. If the executioners did not actually stab Christ, then there would be naysayers there who would say that Christ did not really die, and that He only passed out. Since the executioners made sure that Christ died, there was no longer any excuse that He accomplished our Redemption.

 

[Wm777]

Wm777:

What’s more disconcerting is - so many prayers speak…Jesus was pierced to the heart…

The Bible did not merely say that Christ was pierced by a lance, but that immediately there came out blood and water. Now, the part of a dead body that would have a good amount of liquid blood is the right auricle of the heart. Since the Bible said that blood came out right after Christ was pierced, whoever composed the prayer must have connected the dots and concluded that the lance reached the heart. Not a bad conclusion actually. The “water” was really pericardial fluid.

My disclosure: I am not an M.D. But I read these from A Doctor at Calvary by Dr. Pierre Barbet. It is an old book but a good one. The matter about the blood and water is in Chapter 7.

I know this is going to sound very unscientific, but - when I was a young kid - I used to think the water that flowed from Christ’s side was holy water, like you’d find in an ordinary church.

Perhaps it sounds a bit silly, but I actually prefer my original notion to the scientific one.

The scientific explanation for the water is that the lungs filled up with some kind of pneumatic fluid, and, when the lungs were punctured, the fluid flowed out like water. Of course, since the skin had also been punctured, blood had to flow out, too. I’m not intending to criticize the validity of those very realistic arguments, which set the human Jesus in a very human light. But those arguments appeal to the rational mind.

I guess this is where maybe I adhere to the same prayers I have called into question. If God wanted water to flow from Christ’s side. He could do it - miraculously.

What would amount to biological waste certainly wouldn’t clean anything.

But - if what flowed from Christ’s side was essentially pure - then, yes, it would definitely be cleaner than our own corporeal bodies. Such would be “rivers of living water”, and a baptism by fire - although Christ was the one burning.

It’s definitely a spiritual interpretation, but my question then becomes - is it possible that in making such a spiritual interpretation - the water was really somehow pure water (and not biowaste)?

The Shroud of Turin video, which gave rise to this question, shows flourescent UV light cast upon the Shroud, and it reveals serum trails around the blood, which STRP Researcher Barry Swartz uses to completely disclaim the idea of a forgery. Not only did the visible blood trails dissolve into bilirubin (the result of a beating) but the serum which isnt visible except under a flourescent UV light appears… Swartz’s point is, no 12th century artist would have faked that detail…

But, then, is that really the “water” from his side? Yes, the bilirubin is from the breakdown of the hemoglobin in the blood, but the water… somehow… when it comes to the water… I think I kind of lean toward the mystical side on the water…

 

[rom]

But, then, is that really the “water” from his side? Yes, the bilirubin is from the breakdown of the hemoglobin in the blood, but the water… somehow… when it comes to the water… I think I kind of lean toward the mystical side on the water…

St. John, who described the piercing of Christ, was not a physician like St. Luke. He wouldn’t know the difference. He described it as an ordinary person would describe it. As for you and me, we can also think of it as “water.” No harm done.

 

[patrick457]

All that makes good sense, then, except for one thing - why not break his legs?

I believe, the answer is it was ultimately the work of God, since it was to fulfill a prophecy.

It’s right there in the gospel and in your query: Jesus apparently looked unconscious enough, so to make sure that He is dead for real (and not just fainted or pretending), the executioners delivered a killing blow. Which is a win-win, because if He’s already dead then it won’t really do anything, but if He isn’t then that will seal the deal.

Of course John would connect the event to Old Testament prophecies, but from a practical viewpoint, you’d be much more confident that someone is dead if you ran a spear through their chest rather than just hit their legs until they break.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Note that I said ‘moved’ not ‘forced’. Nobody is implying he lost his free will. God always seeks our cooperation in his plan.