KJV: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
YLT: but one of the soldiers with a spear did pierce his side, and immediately there came forth blood and water;
Darby: but one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and immediately there came out blood and water.
ASV: howbeit one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and straightway there came out blood and water.
εἷς | one |
Parse: Adjective, Nominative Masculine Singular Root: εἷς Sense: one. |
|
τῶν | of the |
Parse: Article, Genitive Masculine Plural Root: ὁ Sense: this, that, these, etc. |
|
στρατιωτῶν | soldiers |
Parse: Noun, Genitive Masculine Plural Root: στρατιώτης Sense: a (common) soldier. |
|
λόγχῃ | with a spear |
Parse: Noun, Dative Feminine Singular Root: λόγχη Sense: the iron point or head of a spear. |
|
αὐτοῦ | His |
Parse: Personal / Possessive Pronoun, Genitive Masculine 3rd Person Singular Root: αὐτός Sense: himself, herself, themselves, itself. |
|
τὴν | - |
Parse: Article, Accusative Feminine Singular Root: ὁ Sense: this, that, these, etc. |
|
πλευρὰν | side |
Parse: Noun, Accusative Feminine Singular Root: πλευρά Sense: the side of the body. |
|
ἔνυξεν | pierced |
Parse: Verb, Aorist Indicative Active, 3rd Person Singular Root: νύσσω Sense: pierce. |
|
ἐξῆλθεν | came out |
Parse: Verb, Aorist Indicative Active, 3rd Person Singular Root: ἐξέρχομαι Sense: to go or come forth of. |
|
εὐθὺς | immediately |
Parse: Adverb Root: εὐθέως Sense: straightway, immediately, forthwith. |
|
αἷμα | blood |
Parse: Noun, Nominative Neuter Singular Root: αἷμα Sense: blood. |
|
ὕδωρ | water |
Parse: Noun, Nominative Neuter Singular Root: ὕδωρ Sense: water. |
Greek Commentary for John 19:34
Instrumental case of this old word, here only in the N.T. Pierced his side First aorist active indicative of νυσσω nussō old word to pierce, here only in N.T., and πλευραν pleuran (side), another old word, occurs in N.T. only here and John 20:20, John 20:25, John 20:27. Blood and water Dr. W. Stroud (Physical Cause of the Death of Christ) argues that this fact proves that the spear pierced the left side of Jesus near the heart and that Jesus had died literally of a broken heart since blood was mixed with water. [source]
Only here in the New Testament. Properly, the head of a spear. So Herodotus, of the Arabians: “They also had spears ( αἰχμὰς ) tipped with an antelope's horn sharpened like a spear-point ( λόγχης )” (vii., 96). Used also, as here, for the spear itself. [source]
Only here in the New Testament. The question has been raised whether the Evangelist means to describe a gash or a prick. Another verb is rendered pierced in John 19:37, the quotation from Zechariah 12:10, ἐξεκέντησαν , which occurs also at Revelation 1:7, with reference to Christ's crucifixion, and is used in classical Greek of putting out the eyes, or stabbing, and in the Septuagint of Saul's request to his armor-bearer: “Draw thy sword and thrust me through therewith” (1 Chronicles 10:4). The verb used here, however, νύσσω , is also used to describe severe and deadly wounds, as in Homer:“As he sprangInto his car, Idomeneus, expert To wield the ponderous javelin, thrust ( νύξ ) its blade-DIVIDER- Through his right shoulder. From the car he fell,-DIVIDER- And the dark night of death came over him.”“Iliad,” v. 45-47. It has been suggested that the body was merely pricked with the spear to ascertain if it were yet alive. There seems, on the whole, no reason for departing from the ordinary understanding of the narrative, that the soldier inflicted a deep thrust on the side of Jesus (compare John 20:25, John 20:27); nor is it quite apparent why, as Mr. Field urges, a distinction should be kept up between the two verbs in John 19:34and John 19:37. [source]
It has been argued very plausibly that this was a natural phenomenon, the result of a rupture of the heart which, it is assumed, was the immediate cause of death, and which was followed by an effusion of blood into the pericardium. This blood, separated into its thicker and more liquid parts, flowed forth when the pericardium was pierced by the spear. I think, however, with Meyer, that John evidently intends to describe the incident as something entirely unexpected and marvelous, and that this explanation better suits the solemn asseveration of John 19:35. That the fact had a symbolic meaning to the Evangelist is evident from 1 John 5:6. [source]
Reverse Greek Commentary Search for John 19:34
The excuse had a pious sound as they misunderstood the words of Jesus in his outcry of soul anguish. We have here one of the rare instances (σωσων sōsōn) of the future participle to express purpose in the N.T. though a common Greek idiom. Some ancient MSS. add here what is genuine in John 19:34, but what makes complete wreck of the context for in Matthew 27:50 Jesus cried with a loud voice and was not yet dead in Matthew 27:49. It was a crass mechanical copying by some scribe from John 19:34. See full discussion in my Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the N.T. [source]
Only here in the New Testament. The question has been raised whether the Evangelist means to describe a gash or a prick. Another verb is rendered pierced in John 19:37, the quotation from Zechariah 12:10, ἐξεκέντησαν , which occurs also at Revelation 1:7, with reference to Christ's crucifixion, and is used in classical Greek of putting out the eyes, or stabbing, and in the Septuagint of Saul's request to his armor-bearer: “Draw thy sword and thrust me through therewith” (1 Chronicles 10:4). The verb used here, however, νύσσω , is also used to describe severe and deadly wounds, as in Homer:“As he sprangInto his car, Idomeneus, expert To wield the ponderous javelin, thrust ( νύξ ) its blade-DIVIDER- Through his right shoulder. From the car he fell,-DIVIDER- And the dark night of death came over him.”“Iliad,” v. 45-47. It has been suggested that the body was merely pricked with the spear to ascertain if it were yet alive. There seems, on the whole, no reason for departing from the ordinary understanding of the narrative, that the soldier inflicted a deep thrust on the side of Jesus (compare John 20:25, John 20:27); nor is it quite apparent why, as Mr. Field urges, a distinction should be kept up between the two verbs in John 19:34and John 19:37. [source]
Διά bymust be taken with ὁ ἐλθὼν Hethat came. It has not mere]y the sense of accompaniment, but also of instrumentality, i.e., by, through, by means of. Water and blood are thus the media through which Jesus the Mediator wrought, and which especially characterized the coming. See especially Hebrews 9:12: “Christ being come … neither by the blood ( δἰ αἵματος ) of goats and calves, but by His own blood ( διὰ δε τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος ”). Compare “we walk by faith not by sight ( διὰ πίστεως οὐ διὰ εἴδους, ” 2 Corinthians 5:7): we wait with (lit., through ) patience ( δἰ ὑπομονῆς, ” Romans 8:25). Water refers to Christ's baptism at the beginning of His Messianic work, through which He declared His purpose to fulfill all righteousness (Matthew 3:15). Blood refers to His bloody death upon the cross for the sin of the world. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- Other explanations are substituted for this or combined with it. Some refer the words water and blood to the incident in John 19:34. To this it is justly objected that these words are evidently chosen to describe something characteristic of Christ's Messianic office, which could not be said of the incident in question. Nevertheless, as Alford justly remarks, “to deny all such allusion seems against probability. The apostle could hardly, both here and in that place, lay such evident stress on the water and the blood together, without having in his mind some link connecting this place and that.” The readers of the Epistle must have been familiar with the incident, from oral or from written teaching. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- Others refer the words to the Christian sacraments. These, however, as Huther observes, are only the means for the appropriation of Christ's atonement; whereas the subject here is the accomplishment of the atonement itself. Αἷμα bloodstanding by itself, never signifies the Lord's Supper in the New Testament. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- The true principle of interpretation appears to be laid down in the two canons of Düsterdieck. (1.) Water and blood must point both to some purely historical facts in the life of our Lord on earth, and to some still present witnesses for Christ. (2.) They must not be interpreted symbolically, but understood of something so real and powerful, as that by them God's testimony is given to believers, and eternal life assured to them. Thus the sacramental reference, though secondary, need not be excluded. Canon Westcott finds “an extension of the meaning” of water and blood in the following words: “Not in the water only, but in the water and in the blood,” followed by the reference to the present witness of the Spirit. He argues that the change of the prepositions ( ἐν infor διά by), the use of the article ( τῷ ), and the stress laid on actual experience (it is the Spirit that witnesseth ), these, together with the fact that that which was spoken of in its unity (by water and blood ) is now spoken of in its separate parts (in the water and in the blood )- “all show that St. John is speaking of a continuation of the first coming under some new but analogous form. The first proof of the Messiahship of Jesus lay in His complete historical fulfillment of Messiah's work once for all, in bringing purification and salvation; that proof is continued in the experience of the Church in its two separate parts.” Thus we are led to the ideas underlying the two sacraments. -DIVIDER- -DIVIDER- The subject opened by the word blood is too large for discussion within these limits. The student is referred to Dr. Patrick Fairbairn's “Typology of Scripture; “Andrew Jukes, “The Law of the Offerings;” Professor William Milligan, “The Resurrection of our Lord,” note, p. 274 sqq.; Canon Westcott's “Additional Note” on 1 John 1:7, in his “Commentary on John's Epistles;” and Henry Clay Trumbull, “The Blood Covenant.” [source]
Second aorist active articular participle of ερχομαι erchomai referring to the Incarnation as a definite historic event, the preexistent Son of God “sent from heaven to do God‘s will” (Brooke).By water and blood (δι υδατος και αιματος di' hudatos kai haimatos). Accompanied by (δια dia used with the genitive both as instrument and accompaniment, as in Galatians 5:13) water (as at the baptism) and blood (as on the Cross). These two incidents in the Incarnation are singled out because at the baptism Jesus was formally set apart to his Messianic work by the coming of the Holy Spirit upon him and by the Father‘s audible witness, and because at the Cross his work reached its culmination (“It is finished,” Jesus said). There are other theories that do not accord with the language and the facts. It is true that at the Cross both water and blood came out of the side of Jesus when pierced by the soldier, as John bore witness (John 19:34), a complete refutation of the Docetic denial of an actual human body for Jesus and of the Cerinthian distinction between Jesus and Christ. There is thus a threefold witness to the fact of the Incarnation, but he repeats the twofold witness before giving the third. The repetition of both preposition (εν en this time rather than δια dia) and the article (τωι tōi locative case) argues for two separate events with particular emphasis on the blood (“not only” ουκ μονον ouk monon “but” αλλ all') which the Gnostics made light of or even denied.It is the Spirit that beareth witness Present active articular participle of μαρτυρεω martureō with article with both subject and predicate, and so interchangeable as in 1 John 3:4. The Holy Spirit is the third and the chief witness at the baptism of Jesus and all through his ministry.Because (οτι hoti). Or declarative “that.” Either makes sense. In John 15:26 Jesus spoke of “the Spirit of truth” (whose characteristic is truth). Here John identifies the Spirit with truth as Jesus said of himself (John 14:6) without denying personality for the Holy Spirit. [source]
Accompanied by These two incidents in the Incarnation are singled out because at the baptism Jesus was formally set apart to his Messianic work by the coming of the Holy Spirit upon him and by the Father‘s audible witness, and because at the Cross his work reached its culmination (“It is finished,” Jesus said). There are other theories that do not accord with the language and the facts. It is true that at the Cross both water and blood came out of the side of Jesus when pierced by the soldier, as John bore witness (John 19:34), a complete refutation of the Docetic denial of an actual human body for Jesus and of the Cerinthian distinction between Jesus and Christ. There is thus a threefold witness to the fact of the Incarnation, but he repeats the twofold witness before giving the third. The repetition of both preposition (εν en this time rather than δια dia) and the article (τωι tōi locative case) argues for two separate events with particular emphasis on the blood (“not only” ουκ μονον ouk monon “but” αλλ all') which the Gnostics made light of or even denied. [source]
See on John 19:34, and compare Zechariah 12:10; John 19:36. The expression here refers not to the Jews only, but to all who reject the Son of Man; those who “in any age have identified themselves with the Spirit of the Savior's murderers” (Milligan). The passage is justly cited as a strong evidence that the author of the Gospel is also the author of Revelation. [source]