New Thoughts (02/03/13-02/04/13)
One of the questions that arose for me in reading this passage really applies to the whole of this last day. Given the coming Passover, a matter whose schedule was well known to both Roman and Jew, I find myself wondering if this had been a day already scheduled for Roman justice. Consider how the Jews had brought Jesus over to the Pavement first thing in the morning. That would seem to imply that Pilate was expected to be present and that he was expected to be handing down sentences on this day. But, that would require that he purposefully, intentionally set this day of judgment on the day of preparation, assuming John’s statements that set this day as the day of preparation for the Passover.
If this is indeed the case, one has to marvel at Pilate’s antagonistic approach to governing. Of course, he was also setting himself up for some degree of consternation. He could not, for instance, have been unaware that a crucifixion done this day would lead to demands of it being cut short to avoid the Sabbath. It’s not as though he’s new to the job. He knows. Add that to the mix and it becomes somehow cruelly amusing that he doesn’t simply make the arrangements out of hand, but rather requires these aggravating peasants to come to him and make special request.
The opposite conjecture would be that he did not have a predetermined intention of holding court this morning, that the mob arriving at the pavement had sufficed to call him out of bed, or away from whatever other activities might have occupied him at so early an hour of the day. While we do have a tendency to view Pilate as rather a weak character, it seems to me that had he so easily acquiesced to the demands of that crowd, it would have been the end of his ability to rule with any sort of effectiveness. If he could be pushed around that easily, then frankly, the legions that had his back were of no account. The mob would know full well that they ruled.
That being the case, I am inclined to return to the first supposition: that Pilate had indeed intentionally set this as his day to hold court, knowing it would almost certainly involve crucifixion as its outcome. Indeed, on this particular day, even had Jesus not been brought to him, that would have been a certainty. Three criminals on the docks, and his tradition only allowed for the pardon of one. There would be at least two crosses out there on the hill. Jesus may have come as a surprise. Usually, it would seem, the ones to be sentenced had already been imprisoned for some time. But, given Pilate’s apparent tendency to tweak the Jews, perhaps it ought not surprise that he would knowingly set the execution day here on the eve of Passover. It would annoy them no end, and that offered him, if not entertainment, at least a small bit of satisfaction.
Now, then: It is clear enough where John is focused in this part of the narrative, and that is on certain key elements of the Savior’s death. Arguably, from his perspective, it is the matter of His legs not having been broken that is the more significant point he is making.
Bear in mind that his thoughts are very much upon the Passover that coincides with the Crucifixion. It is tempting, reading this introduction, to try and make this day of preparation not for the Passover but simply for the Sabbath, because that would make it a bit easier to coordinate John’s account with that of the other Gospels. But, I am reminded that back in John 19:14, as that scene on the Pavement was playing out, John marks the day more specifically as the “day of preparation for the Passover”. The only way that day can be other than the day we are now considering is if there is a sudden passage of time between John 19:16, where He is delivered for crucifixion, and John 19:17 where He is taken out to Golgatha. It might be tempting to read it thus, but many other points from John’s coverage make it exceedingly difficult to construe this day as any other than the day prior to the Passover feast.
Returning, then, to these soldiers come to speed the process, John’s larger point is that they did not break Jesus’ legs. This is the important part. Why? Because it fits the whole Passover image. The Paschal lamb, which was to be eaten in the house amongst the family, was to have no bone broken. To take from Numbers 9:12, “according to all the statue of the Passover” as they were to observe it. Let it be granted that John might also be thinking of Psalm 34:20, but the preceding verse of that Psalm would seem to make it unlikely. “Many are the afflictions of the righteous; but the Lord delivers him out of them all. He keeps all his bones; not one of them is broken.” That last might fit, but there is little in this to hint of the Lord delivering Jesus out of all afflictions. But, the Lamb of God, sacrificed in a fashion not unlike that of the Paschal lamb, and satisfying those requirements for said lamb which had played type to His antitype? Yes, it’s easy to see how this would be at the forefront of John’s thinking, particularly if we take this Gospel as having been written at a later date than the Revelation.
Now, I have to say that for my own part, it is the second part of this scene that more captures my attention. There came out blood and water, when that soldier pierced Jesus’ side. Surely, there is some deep significance to this! And, it must be more than simply that quote from Zechariah that made it stand out for John. I have not looked, but I would be surprised if my notes from studying 1John did not make much of the spiritual / mystical significance of this, for he brings it up in that letter as well. Nor would I be alone in seeking to make this a matter more deep than it appears. Looking through several commentaries on this passage, I see that there is longstanding Protestant perspective on the matter, suggesting that the blood stands as symbol for justification, and the water for sanctification. That’s possible, to be sure. Wiersbe, perhaps expressing that very same viewpoint, arrives at the idea of the blood to atone, and the water to wash away. I will add to this my own thought, when I had been considering God’s Justice being comingled with His Mercy, in meditation on this passage. All of this is quite possibly on John’s mind as he writes.
On the other hand, all of this may be no more than our own tendency to think of John as being focused on these lofty, spiritually significant matters. Maybe it’s just the influence of knowing him to be the author of the Revelation. Maybe it’s the gauzy hyperbole of his introductions, both to this Gospel and to his lengthier letter. That whole description of the Word Incarnate just seems saturated in this highly spiritualized perspective. It’s as though, having been subjected to such visions as had been given him on Patmos, he came to view all of life through that lens of heaven. And, perhaps he did.
On the other hand, John also had very real, very earthly problems to deal with as the last of the Apostles. He had problems of Docetism and Gnosticism. Some have thought his writings smack of Gnostic influence themselves. But, the reality is that there were these heretical movements infiltrating the church in his time, and one of their major points of attack was to discredit the death of Jesus. Now, they could not outright deny it. But, they could seek to make it less than it was. They would posit, for instance, that Jesus was not really flesh and bone, at least at that point, and therefore had not died a physical death. Or, they would seek to pass it off as having been no more than a vision itself. For them, the idea of God in the flesh, the God-Man, was simply unacceptable, and so they would alter the evidence to suit.
John will have none of it. You see it in his letters quite clearly. For all that he is thought of as the Apostle of Love, I’ve got to say that when it comes to those who would dilute the Truth of the Gospel, he is as stern as they come! Take this point from 2Jn: “Many deceivers have gone out into the world, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh” (2Jn 7). Which leads our Apostle to this point: “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting” (2Jn 10). He’s a lion when it comes to the Truth of God! And how could he not be? There is nothing more critical to life than this! Would that we had such lions in our own day!
So, then, I look back on my own comments, in considering the symbolic possibilities in this passage: “it is highly unlikely that John records these details for the physicians in our midst. Possible, but unlikely.” I concede that I am quite probably wrong about that. I note the stress upon the validity of this testimony, and I bring to mind those issues he notes in that letter, which were for him a constant plague in the church, and it’s perfectly reasonable to suppose that he is simply establishing the very real, very well testified fact of Jesus’ very physical death upon a very solid cross.
His death was real. This is so absolutely central to the message of faith that it is no wonder we find the Devil working so hard to discredit it. It’s right up there with the Virgin Birth. If He is not God’s Son, then His death cannot have saved more than Himself. If He did not die at all, but only appeared to, then God’s Justice has remained unsatisfied and we are but deluded fools doomed by our beliefs. No! It was necessary that there be a real atonement for our sins. It was necessary that this atonement be of such a nature as to flow across eternity. I am mindful of that passage from Hebrews that speaks of Jesus cleansing the temple in heaven by this act, even as He was cleansing us. For nothing is made clean without blood.
This brings me around to another question that comes up: Who is it that John is indicating when he talks about “he who has seen”? Is this just another one of those circumlocutions he employs to avoid bringing attention to himself? There is, after all, a certain similarity to that certification he applies at the end of the Gospel. “This is the disciple who bears witness to these things, who wrote these things. And we know that his witness is true” (Jn 21:24). And, we are reasonably sure that he was there, being the one to whom Jesus was entrusting His mother’s care.
Yet, there are some translations that look at verse 35 as referring to another. The NCV makes it pretty explicit. “(The one who saw this happen is the one who told us this, and whatever he says is true. And he knows that he tells the truth, and he tells it so that you might believe.)” Weymouth also words things in a fashion that is at least suggestive of some third party. “This statement is the testimony of an eye-witness, and it is true”.
Over against this, let me set the things John says in his lengthier letter. In the introduction to that letter, there is this: “We have seen it and bear witness to it”, and “What we have seen and heard is what we tell you” (1Jn 1:2-3). These are proclamations that he is himself eyewitness to what he has taught, and continues to teach. And there, in this letter of eyewitness, he describes this same scene, albeit as a matter of deeper truths. “This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with water only, but with water and blood. And the Spirit bears witness because the Spirit is truth. There are three, then, that bear witness: Spirit, water and blood. And these three agree” (1Jn 5:6-8).
Now, I am not at all certain that we need to look upon verse 35 as excluding one or the other. In fact, it seems to me that the centurion who had charge of those soldiers who stood by the cross could well be viewed as the witness in question. Let’s consider this possibility. We know that there were four men left to stand watch at the Cross, those four who had, as benefit of their duty, divvied up Jesus’ clothes among themselves. They would be tasked not only with having nailed Him up there in the first place, but also with standing watch over Him to see to it that He died. What with all these crowds about, and His popularity (at least up until today), it wouldn’t be unthinkable that some of the locals might try and get Him down, were they not there.
That being the case, the soldiers who come to speed up the execution are not the same as they who were already there. They come from Pilate’s court with their orders, and they are going to be certain those orders are carried out. But, the orders are not specifically to do with smashing leg bones. They concern making sure that the three are dead and can be taken down. Coming to Jesus, there are these four, maybe with the centurion as fifth, who have been out here for the day. They have seen Him die, been surprised by it, for it is not the normal course of crucifixion for the victim to pass on so soon. It was noteworthy, even without the three hours of darkness, even without the earthquake that marked His passing. But, those earthy signs had sealed the event in their minds, and it’s not hard to imagine that centurion telling them not to bother. He’s already dead.
But, these are soldiers under orders, and they will be certain that they, at least, have done their duty. So, they will not take the centurion’s word for it. They put one forth with his spear to poke the body and make sure there’s no response. And, he pokes hard! He pokes, apparently, hard enough to pierce right through to the heart. And no, there is no involuntary response of the nerves. There is just the blood and the water. It’s unlikely that anybody in John’s original sphere would understand the physiological significance of this, nor that he expected them to understand. It’s not the stressful nature of His death that John’s interested in. That was already obvious. It’s the very real nature of His death that he wants made clear. He also wants it made clear that they don’t need to take John’s word alone on this.
The Truth is established on the testimony of two or three witnesses. And, it strikes me that this centurion, who had stood on duty throughout Jesus’ ordeal, and who would later testify, “Surely, this was the Son of God,” would have been very likely to discover a change of religion upon that realization, particularly if, considering his role in the death of God’s Son, he also heard the message of atonement and forgiveness which that death entailed. Oh! What a relief! God would not be out to avenge His Son on this poor centurion, but rather, had arranged all this in part so that very centurion could be saved from his sins along with the Jews! And, would not his testimony be a most powerful witness in support of these most amazing and unbelievable events?
I think back again on Matthew’s note about the dead saints roaming the streets of Jerusalem. So much about this final day just seems to defy acceptance. And yet, it is True. It’s easy enough to see why the Apostles would find it necessary to labor long and hard to establish that Truth. It’s easy to see why those antichrist teachers thought it an obvious place to attack. What a great resource it would be to have this centurion as witness to the events. You know, the Apostles you might suspect of collusion. The Jews might be deemed suspect. But, this guy? Maybe not unimpeachable, but highly unlikely to be playing along with some game cooked up by an odd sect from the religion of a defeated state.
Whether, then, there ought be some deeper significance read into the blood and the water, this much is certain: The things to which the Apostle testifies are real events, real conversations, real healings, and in this case, a very real death. If it happens that he is but indicating himself as the witness of this thing, then his words are no less genuine for that cause. If he is speaking of another, I confess it seems odd that this other goes unnamed. On the other hand, if this other is indeed that centurion who was pointed out earlier, one could see how being a witness on the part of Christ might be a matter which could cause him trouble in the ranks. It is enough that the Church has his testimony. It need not instigate his martyrdom. John has shown a similar regard for the privacy of those whose stories he has included. We saw that commented upon in considering those women who were at the cross. Where a name tied to events might have brought undo negative attention on the person, such as that woman caught in adultery, he leaves that person nameless. It’s hardly out of character for him to leave this witness nameless if his naming might cause difficulties for him.
But, the events here declared are true. They are real, genuine. And as such, the events described by these words of truth are real and genuine. The facts of the scene correspond perfectly with the description. It is trustworthy, well attested by people who were there. This was a real man who died a real death. As to those who would counter this statement, among them, you will find no eye witnesses. They are speculators. But, what is being written by the Apostle is written to one end, and that end is not his personal gain. He goes carefully nameless, just as he leaves those subjects of delicate facts nameless. It’s not about him any more than it’s about them. It’s about the One in Whom we need to believe. It’s about the truth, the reality, the genuineness of the things that are said about Him. It’s about the very real nature of His atoning work on the cross which alone gives us hope and a future. This is trustworthy. These fanciful, hyper-mystical interpretations that the Gnostics and their ilk are spreading are not. Here is the Truth. Rest ye in it.
As further witness to the reliability of the evidence, John turns to God Himself. Look! See what He caused to be prophesied about this very event, not once, but manifold times. For the Jews amongst those he wrote to this would be particularly significant. It is to this end that we find Matthew pointing out so many of the prophetic fulfillments. It’s not some rebellious sect breaking away from the ancient faith. It’s the fulfillment of the ancient faith, the clear path of continuity. It’s the point of that ancient faith, the same point to which Abraham and Moses looked forward. But, John’s audience, I think, is not primarily Jewish. It is, however, primarily believers; but believers perhaps shaken by these false teachings that ever plague the church. So, he is not writing to convert, but to convince. He is writing that they (that we) might believe. There is something of that same spirit Jesus displayed when He told His disciples, “You trust God, trust also in Me” (Jn 14:1). After all, God testifies of Jesus. God also, as John is pointing out here, testifies to the events just described.
There is one thing more that we might see in the conclusion John provides to this scene. Notice the point as he introduces it. “For these things came to pass that the Scripture might be fulfilled” (v36). These were not random events. This was not happenstance. Understand that Pilate was assuredly exercising his free will in sending these soldiers, and they were exercising their own in obeying that command. Indeed, the putting forward of this one soldier to jab the body and make certain it was dead was an act entirely in the hands of those soldiers. They could, at least in theory, have opted to break His legs in spite of His being dead. Orders are orders, after all. But, with their own fellow soldiers telling them there is no need, a stab is as good as a swing, and probably works up a lot less of a sweat. So, they choose to simply satisfy themselves of His being dead rather than sticking strictly to the letter of their orders. Free will all around! But, notice: God is directing. For all that everybody involved in this great tragedy acted wholly of their own accord, yet they all – from the high priest to this man with his spear – acted wholly according to God’s will.
This boggles the mind of man. It lies at the heart of that age-old debate between those who hold God’s sovereignty as of prime significance and those who hold the freely willing heart of man as being most critical. What gets lost is that the one does not preclude the other. Man’s will is free. God’s will, as a dear friend of mine once put it, is freer. We are not made automatons by this reality. We act and choose as suits our temperaments. But, there is this: God directs the outcome, and His desired outcome will be the outcome every time. Did He not tell us this long ago? “The mind of man plans his ways, but the Lord directs his steps” (Pr 16:9). This was one of the first verses I ever highlighted in my Bible (a practice I still find an odd aversion to). Does this not exactly set forth the situation? Man is never coerced by God, never forced into a decision he did not wish to make. Man does as he wills. But, God directs. Whatever it is that man may will, it will serve the purposes of God. This is something distinct from saying it is God’s will. It is God’s will, but in a different sense. It is not necessarily His preference. It was not, for instance, His preference that Pharaoh be so hardened as to require destruction along with so many of his soldiers. But, it served God’s purpose that he willed himself to be so hardened.
God’s preference, as we are told clearly, is that all should be saved. But, the free will of man, and His unwillingness to coerce, leaves it the case that many, even most, shall not be saved. “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling” (Mt 23:37). Who chose? It wasn’t Him! Was God’s plan thereby made null? Not in the least. All unfolds exactly as it must, even as men freely choose, each one for himself, whether they shall by their efforts seek to support Him or oppose Him.
In the end it matters not how each one chooses. For God is directing events. At the very least it must be said that He has fully taken into account every choice of man as He has set events in motion. After all, He knows our every thought even before we do! Consider it as you will. If it somehow maintains your faith to suppose your freedom could allow you to buck even God’s plan, then understand that your supposition must certainly express an arrogance not unlike Pharaoh’s, but if, even with such an understanding, you are directing your will as best you may to obedience to God, perhaps it is enough. For my part, the assurance of His will being done is so great a foundation for faith that I should not wish to do without it.
God’s Word cannot fail! If He can direct events so well that this poor soldier would serve to fulfill things written centuries beforehand, things about which he was no doubt thoroughly unaware, what is there that He cannot arrange? What possibility is there of failure in Him? There is none. Impossible, as I recall from much nearer the beginning of this long Gospel study, is a term that loses all meaning when one attempts to apply it to Him. God and impossible are simply mutually exclusive concepts. God’s Word cannot fail, and this is all my confidence. If He has spoken me into His family then in His family I am, and there I shall remain. I may often fail in my efforts to shape myself after His desire, but He does not. It is He Who is at work within me, and because of this, at least to the degree I am able, I seek to work out my sanctification in fear and trembling (Php 2:12-13). It is He Who is at work within me, and therefore I know, however fallible my own efforts, He shall complete His work (Php 1:6). It is of this thing I am confident, not my flesh. It is that God is directing, and He cannot fail.
