An eyewitness account of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, as given by Saint John, records that when the spear was thrust into his heart, there was a flow of water and blood, medically that is understood to mean that there had been a rupture of the heart and almost certainly indicating death. And I understand that you believe that Jesus Christ did not die on the cross. What is your interpretation of this? Yes, there is a contradiction which you have just referred to inadvertently.
If you go by the eyewitnesses account, Jesus was already dead. When the side of Jesus was pierced, he should have been already dead. So if he was already dead, there shouldn’t have been any spurting of blood at all. So there is a self-contradiction. I don’t think so. It has to be, because according to that eyewitness account, Jesus had given up the ghost, these are the very words of Bible, before he was pierced on the side. And according to the customs too, this lance was not used on the live body. After somebody had given up the ghost, or was finished, then his legs were broken or his side was pierced. But apart from that, whatever the custom may be, let’s confine ourselves to the statement of the Bible to which you are referring.
So if it was an eyewitness’s account, and if it was a reliable account, then you must go step by step. First you must establish that the body of Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, was already lifeless when the spear was thrust into his side. In that case, if the blood spurted out, either of the two statements are wrong. The eyewitness account does not record the spurting of blood. It says gushed out. Gushed out? Yes, that is spurting. But that is not as if the heart is pumping. Two expressions are used. In some versions it says rushed out, and in some gushed out.
In both cases, this is my second point please, in both cases to infer positively that the heart was pierced is wrong. In fact, one of the leading surgeons of today spoke on this subject on the conference which we held under the title Deliverance of Christ from the Cross. And he established it by mapping out the body and the position. And he said that when somebody is hanging like this, his heart is raised in a position that if he is pierced from below, the spear would miss the heart. Then why blood and water? And why gushing? The fact is that if somebody is made to go through that suffering, which is concomitant of crucifixion, then there are two probabilities.
Number one, that dry pleurisy has set in. And number two, wet pleurisy has set in. Because pleurisy is most probably a natural consequence of this suffering. Now, if wet pleurisy has also set in, and the body is pierced, or some vein or some artery is also severed in that piercing movement, and the person is alive, then this phenomena is to be witnessed. Any artery, not only heart, any artery or any vein, if it is severed while the heart is still beating, then an observant would notice this thing, that water has spurted out and blood has spurted out. So that only proves that the person was living and not dead.
Now, in this respect, if you observe this from our point of view, then there is no contradiction in the eyewitness’s account, in fact, in reality. Because he has observed him as if he had given up the ghost. This is an objective phenomena in which there is always a possibility of error of judgment. Because from that distance, an observation is no definite conclusion, because even the experts can’t decide about death of a person without examining him more closely. So he must have been alright in his statement, he was not a liar. But there is every possibility that Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, sooned, or went into a coma.
And an observer from some distance might have inferred that he was dead. But he was very true and honest about his observations. When he observed that his side was pierced and he saw blood spurting out, despite the fact that his own previous statement seemed to have been contradicted, he was very true in recording that statement. And he said, well, after that I saw this as well. So reading them together, the only reasonable conclusion one can draw is that Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, was not dead when his side was pierced. And there are two possibilities.
Either his heart was pierced, and the spurting of blood was a phenomena confirming to the piercing of heart. And the second heart was not pierced, but some artery was severed, minor artery for instance, and because of the pleurisy which had already set in, both water and blood came out. So these two possibilities are open. I mean, you can’t definitely say one is definitely there. So we’ll have to pursue the course of events further to find out whether the following events go in the favor of piercing of heart or just piercing of some artery or blood vessel.
