BLOOD AND WATER (John xix. 34) are said to have issued from our Lord's side when the soldier pierced him on the cross. The only natural explanation that can be offered of the fact is to suppose that some effusion had taken place in the cavity of the chest, and that the spear penetrated below the level of the fluid. Supposing this to have happened, and the wound to have been in flicted shortly after death, then, in addition to the water, blood would also have trickled down, or, at any rate, have made its appearance at the mouth of the wound, even though none of the large vessels had been wounded. It is not necessary to suppose that the pericardium was pierced ; for, if effusion had taken place there, it might also have taken place in the cavities of the pleura ; and, during health, neither the pericardium nor the pleura con tains fluid, but are merely lubricated with moisture on their internal or opposing surfaces, so as to allow of free motion to the heart and lungs.
It may be objected to this view of the question, that, according to the longest computation, our Lord died in six hours, and that this is too short a time to occasion effusion. Indeed, reasoning from experience alone, it is very difficult to under stand the cause of our Lord's death. The crucifixion is quite inadequate to account for it ; for, even if the impression produced by this torture on a weak nervous system was sufficient to anni hilate consciousness and sensibility, the death of the body, or what physiologists have termed organic death, could not have taken place in so short a time, as long as the brain, lungs, and circulation, the so-called atria mortis, had sustained no material injury. In other words, the functions of respira tion, circulation, secretion, and nutrition must have continued for a far longer time. In fact, we learn from Eusebius (Hi st. Eccles. viii. 8) that many of the Egyptian martyrs perished from hunger on the cross, although they were crucified with their heads downwards. According to Richter, some survive on the cross for three, four, and even for nine days (Winer's Bill. RealwrYrl. s. v . 7eszes). Our Lord's death could not have been occasioned by tetanus, or else it would have been mentioned ; and even this disease, though the sufferer be racked with the most frightful convulsions without intermis sion, most rarely puts an end to life in less than twelve hours. Nor can we attribute it to the wound inflicted by the soldier ; for although, when it is said he ` expired, and the soldiers saw that he was dead,' our Lord might have merely fainted, yet it is impossible to suppose that the soldier would not have perceived his error the moment he inflict ed the wound, provided it was mortal; for then would have commenced the death struggle, which, in cases of death by asphyxia and hemorrhage, is very severe, and would have struck the most care less spectator.
Schuster (in Eichhorn's Bill. Biblioth. ix. 1038) is of opinion that, as blood is known to separate into a red coagulum and a watery fluid, the ex pression `blood and water' is to be understood as an hendiadys, meaning nothing more than blood.
To this it must be objected that blood is only observed to separate in that way when it is al lowed to coagulate in a vessel, and that therefore the opportunities for observing it must have been a great deal too rare to allow of such figurative language being employed and understood. That it certainly was not so understood is clear ; for some of the fathers (Orig. Contr. Cels. ii. 82) in terpreted the expression literally, and looked upon the fact as a miracle, and a proof of our Lord's divine nature. According to Strauss (Leben ii. 371), the evangelist recollected that dead blood separates in the manner just mentioned, and, as he wished to bring forward the strongest proof of I our Lord's death, he asserted that blood and water issued from the wound, meaning thereby that our Lord's blood had already undergone that change which is only observed when it is removed from the body and deprived of its vitality. This hypothesis is wholly untenable ; for, if we suppose the evangelist so well acquainted with the separation of blood, he would have known that the coagulum, which, according to the hypothesis, is designated by the term blood, could not, on account of its solidity, have issued from the wound. More over, St. John must have known, what every one knows, that the fact of no blood at all being seen would have been a far better proof of our Lord's death. Indeed, the appearance of blood and water could not have been regarded as a proof of death, but rather as something wonderful and inexplicable ; for the words of Origen, rE2w ciXXL2w CrWildTWV rL arkta Irian/Tat, Kal Buy) Ka0apdp obic lorobki (I. c.), express a fact which every one in those days must have known from personal experience. St. John then must have entirely failed in his object, and merely from his ignorance of the most vulgar opinions.
It has been asserted by some (as by Winer) that, when deep incisions are made in the body after death, the blood will be found separated into cruor and serum. This is incorrect. Even in the heart and large vessels the serum cannot be dis tinguished, because it readily transudes, and is imbibed by the surrounding tissues. In many cases coagulation takes place very imperfectly after death.
It must not be supposed that the fact of blood coming from the wound at all militates against the idea that our Lord was dead at the moment he was pierced. This argument is, indeed, made use of by Strauss (I. c.); but it can be refuted by the most ordinary experience. It is well known that, even many days after death, blood will trickle from deep incisions, especially where any of the large veins have been wounded. The po pular opinion that blood will not flow from a corpse, must be taken in a relative, and not ab solute sense. It certainly will not flow as it does from a living body ; and, when the wound is small and superficial, sometimes not a drop will be seen.
The three other evangelists do not mention the circumstance.—W. A. N. [Comp. Stroud, Physi cal Cause of the Death of Christ, Loud. 1847.]