by Tony Badillo

The blood and water of Jesus crucified, what does it mean? John19:34 in the World English Bible reads: "However one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out”.

For centuries this odd but striking verse has mystified the Christian church, but has the answer been in plain sight all along? The question is not, how was this enigma explained by a church that arose later but, rather, what caused John to record it? – and does the answer involve his Jewishness or the Temple, somehow?

Solutions Past and Present

John 19:34 has spawned various interpretations; here are the three major ones:

Fourth century church fathers saw the blood and water as symbolizing the Eucharist and baptism, while others viewed it as depicting the Mosaic Sinai Covenant and the New Covenant; and still later, justification and regeneration.

However, some today see both fluids as an effect of natural bodily processes, proving only that Jesus' death was genuine and refuting Docetism, the idea that Jesus' death was not real because he himself was not a real human being.

But the most popular by far is the medical opinion written by Dr. Wm. Stroud in 1847, London (On the Physiological Cause of the Death of Christ), that Jesus died of a ruptured heart due to emotional stress. As a result, blood and an aqueous fluid accrued in the pericardium, a sac surrounding the heart, then when a Roman spear ripped through this sac, a small amount of blood and water was released. But one possible objection is that dead bodies do not bleed because blood coagulates quickly once the heart stops pumping, and since Jesus was already dead according to John 19:33, the outrush of fluids required a miracle. In 1915 the International Bible Encyclopedia supported Dr. Stroud's views, but the 1979 edition, vol. one, p. 527, rejects them, saying they have fallen out of favor. It offers, instead, a medical explanation by A. F. Sava which - from the reader‘s viewpoint - differs little from Stroud's. The most significant difference, it seems, is that rupture of the heart cannot be caused by emotional stress or mental duress alone, as Stroud seemingly claims or implies. And still others reject both views, saying John 19:34 involves biblical symbolism, not medical analysis.

In the end, New Testament (NT) readers are left with the same question: What does this curious outrush of blood and water mean or prove, if anything? To John the writer it proved a great deal, but what?

John's Missing "Fulfillment" Verse

What you are about to read does not necessarily contradict traditional views, for these will always have a place within Christianity; but that said, let us reexamine John 19:34 from a new perspective.

Beginning with John 19:24 and continuing with verses 33 -37, the writer attempts proving that Jesus was someone whose appearance was predicted in the Tanach ( Old Testament, OT ) and he cites four incidents:

They cast lots for his garments .................... Fulfillment of Psalm 22:18
His legs were not broken .............  Passover fulfillment of Exodus 12:46
He was pierced ........................................Fulfillment of Zechariah 12:10
The blood and water issue .................................. Fulfillment of what???

As shown above, John offers no OT verse citation for the fourth incident. Why? To find out, let us review two of his examples. Jesus not having his legs broken by the Roman soldiers, v. 19:33, corresponds to the Passover lamb not having its bones broken in Exodus 12:46, implying to John that Jesus must be the new Passover "lamb of God”. This is followed by Jesus having his side pierced by a Roman lance and blood and water issuing forth, 34 -37, which John links to Zechariah 12:10¹ (latter half), rendered in most Christian bibles as, "... and they shall look to me (or him) whom they have pierced ... ." But notice that the Zechariah verse says nothing of a resultant blood and water outflow, this occurs only in John 19:34.

John the writer wants NT readers to believe Jesus symbolizes the Passover lamb that was slain in the Exodus account. But in the original Passover event water plays no role (Exodus 12:1-28); it’s not even mentioned. On the other hand, this could be of little import because the Passover lamb relates mostly to slaying and blood, whereas water relates to spirit, and for that John would refer us to his Zechariah verses. For example, the people begin seeing "whom they have pierced," but only after the "spirit of grace" (first half of Zechariah 12:10) is "poured" out; and here poured suggests water, linking it to 13:1 where a "fountain is opened" for cleansing and where "living waters" flow, 14:8.

And in the NT, the Divine spirit is also symbolized by water, for Jesus said: "He who believes in me, as the Scripture has said, from within him will flow rivers of living water," and then John adds, "But he said this about the Spirit ... (that) was not yet given, because Jesus wasn't yet glorified," John 7:38, 39 (in this verse glorified means crucified ).

Is Something Missing?

Therefore, although we may find slain lambs and their blood in Exodus and a spirit-water analogy in Zechariah – two very distinct and widely separated OT books – we do not find lamb’s blood and water flowing together in either. Something is missing, because the writer says in John 19:34 “... and immediately blood and water came out,” and then adds that he saw it, has testified to it, and is telling the truth, “that you may believe,” v. 35. Let us be clear, objective and truthful: John recorded this blood and water issue as a proof of who Jesus was by what he fulfilled. Is this not so? But there is no OT verse referring to lamb’s blood and water streaming in unison. Are we missing something, then?Yes! And it is this missing key that unlocks the mystery by revealing a new aspect of John 19:34, as I will demonstrate shortly.

The Passover in Egypt and in John's Day

John was also thinking of the Passover in his day, not the Egyptian Passover only. What is the difference? In the first Passover there was no temple. Even its predecessor, the tabernacle, had not been set up; this did not occur until the Israelites crossed the Red Sea and encamped at the foot of Mount Sinai where they received Torah, the Law. At the first Passover the lambs were slain at home and eaten at home, Exodus 12:1-8. Since there was no tabernacle or temple, there was also no central sacrificial altar for the slaying of such animals. However, by John's and Jesus' time centuries later, there was a resplendent white limestone temple atop Mount Moriah (today's Temple Mount in Jerusalem) where hundreds of lambs were slain.

Temple Sacrifices, Water, and the Blood Drains

As a result, thousands of gallons or liters of lambs’ blood had to be disposed of. But how? By being poured out at the "base of the altar" (Leviticus 4:7, 18, 25, 29; 34), a rule that applied to both tabernacle and temple. For instance, the First Temple (i.e., Solomon's) required ten lavers of water for rinsing blood from sacrificial meats, II Chronicles 4:6. Therefore in the Second Temple of John’s day, voluminous amounts of water were poured into the altar's drainage system to flush away the blood of lambs. Since the Temple Mount was a hill with a flat limestone surface, where did the drains empty? The concoction rushed down the drains and gushed into the Kidron Valley below. The Temple's drains are referred to in various sources such as the Jewish Talmud and in archaeologist Leen Ritmeyer's The Temple and the Rock, p. 57.²

The Temple faced east, toward the rising sun and the Mount of Olives. The depressed area between these two hills is called the Kidron Valley or Brook (The valley is normally dry, becoming a brook only during the Passover spring rains). Jesus' choice place for schooling his followers was the Mount of Olives, and from there he would descend and pass by the Kidron, and then walk upwards to the Temple Mount where he preached publicly. Since sacrifices were offered morning and evening daily, with more on high holy days such as Passover, every Jew knew that blood and water routinely spilled into the Kidron Valley  below;  and  evidently  the
Temple drains made such a profound impression on John that when he saw the blood and water streaming from Jesus' side he concluded Jesus’ be must be the new Passover lamb. In his mind, the outflow from Jesus’ side mirrored the copious discharge from the Temple’s drains. After all, Jesus – like the lambs ­­– was also slain during the Passover festival.

Moreover, John's book is the only one which mentions the Kidron, John 18:1. Otherwise the Kidron is nowhere else found in the entire New Testament.  And it is only John who records John the Baptist as saying of Jesus, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" 1:29, clearly associating Jesus with the expiatory blood of  lambs. And again, it is John alone who records that Jesus compared his own body to the Temple, 2:19, 21: "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up," said Jesus, "But he spoke of the temple of his body," explains John. Therefore, Jesus became forever linked to  the blood of lambs, expiation of sins, the Temple, and – consequently – the flushing water of the Temple’s altar.
 
This is the missing key in John’s explanation: the riveting image of the temple drains spewing their torrent of blood and water into the Kidron; and because he assumed his readers already knew this fact, no biblical proof text was needed. The undeniable and well known fact substituted for the text. What did this mean to John? That in "fulfilling" the Passover scriptures, Jesus became the new temple and new atoning Lamb of God through whom the Divine spirit – symbolized by water – could now flow to the masses, as had been depicted by the gushing drains of  King Solomon’s Temple, and lastly King Herod’s Temple. In essence – to John – the blood and water was proof enough that the Temple building and its sacrifices corresponded to Jesus’ body and his crucifixion (John. 2:19-21). Therefore, the “missing” fulfillment verse is not an Old Testament one but, rather, one spoken earlier in the New Testament by Jesus himself, and John is the only one who recorded it.

The blood and water issue ............................ Fulfillment of John 2:19-21³

In the above, Jesus likens his physical body to a temple that’s about to be “destroyed” so that a new one may arise in its place in “three days,” John 2:21, 22. And John was a personal witness to the slow-motion destruction of Jesus’ body on the cross which – with respect to Christianity – introduced a new covenant, Hebrews 9:16 - 28. But because the Church remained on earth, it became the visible representation of the new temple (I Corinthians 3:16, 17; 6:19), i.e., the new body of Jesus (Ephesians 5:30, 32; Romans 12:4, 5) after his resurrection and ascension, Acts 1:9-11. Saying it differently, since the sacrifices and their consequent blood and water were essential to the Temple’s existence, Jesus – as the new temple – had to
come by the same means; and since he did so on the cross, the water and blood became a key proof of his messianship, I John 5:6-8⁴;  John 19:34, in contrast to the false messiah(s) who are called “antichrist(s)” in v.v. 2:18, 24; 4:3 and 2 John 7.

Could Blood and Water have Issued from a Dead Jesus?

But some object that any fluids could have issued from Jesus because he was already dead when his side was pierced, John 19:33; because once death occurs and the heart stops pumping, the body grows cold and the blood does not flow well.. Yet the blood had to flow as a visible sign of his expiatory (atoning) death, because Leviticus 17:11 says: “... the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life”. Hence, a miracle probably was required to confirm that his expiatory work was now  finished, as Jesus himself says in John 19:30. Since the new “Lamb of God,” was now dead, God may have had to intervene with a miracle and cause the two fluids to momentarily and visibly flow from him “that you may believe,” 19:35, writes John.

While alive, Jesus was criticized for healing a man and then having him carry his bed on the Sabbath day, John 5:8-10; to which he replied that God worked on the Sabbath and so did he, v. 17, and then added that he of “himself could do nothing,” v. 19, implying that miracles were signs of God working through him; while in Matthew 21:21 he says that miracles depend on prayer, faith, and avoidance of any doubts. Jesus himself died in faith, believing he would be raised from the dead in three days. Whatever one may think of Jesus’ body-temple remarks or the meaning of the blood and water, his resurrection from the dead is asserted at least six times in the Book of Acts alone: 4:10, 10:40, 13:30, 34, 37 and 17:31.

Was Solomon’s Temple constructed in the
hidden form of a human being? See link below.

1. Zechariah 12:10 reads in Christian bibles “they shall see me (or him) whom they have pierced,” but Jewish bibles read differently, preferring instead the plural case: They shall look toward God concerning “those” who have been slain, stabbed or thrust through. See the Jerusalem (Jewish) Bible; the Stone Edition of the Tanach, or Tanakh - the Holy Scriptures. However, the old 1917 JPS Tanakh uses the singular pronoun, him, referring to one, sole unidentified individual who is slain. No plural case here. See at: http://www.hareidi.org/bible/Zechariah12.htm#12 (URL was valid as of October, 2009). 

2. On the Temple drains, also see Hastings, A Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 5, p. 696, and the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Middoth, Chapter III, Mishnah 2 Soncino 1961 Edition, page 12; and Babylonian Talmud: Tractate ‘Abodah Zarah, Folio 44a.

3. The Church does not appear to understand John’s reasoning in John 2:19 - 21, “Destroy this temple and in ...” etc.; and this is likely because of its anti-temple bias expressed to me once rather tartly as, we don’t need the temple, we have Jesus. But contrarily, Jesus saw himself as the incarnation of the Jewish temple, which raises an interesting question for the Church: How does the stone temple depict the form of Jesus’ body? Or for that matter, the form of any human body? Most Christian authorities will likely say that v. 2:21 should not to be read in such a literal manner. And apparently Jesus’ followers would have agreed because they too did not believe his body-temple words until  he rose bodily from the dead, according to v. 2:22. But something more directly relevant is the outflow of blood and water, because it closely links the temple with Jesus’ physical body, which implies that while he was in the flesh he was the body templeincarnated, but through the resurrection he became the body temple spiritualized.

4. I John 5:6-8 contains an interpolation footnoted and identified in various New Testament versions.

http://www.templesecrets.info/ Did the Temple have a hidden human form? Solomon’s Astonishing Temple Secrets

Visitors Since 11/15/09

Copyright © 2009 by Tony Badillo
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
No part of this web site may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or
computer, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise (brief quotations used in magazines or
newspaper reviews excepted) without permission of the copyright holder.