The Spear of Destiny

The Spear of Destiny is the weapon that supposedly was used to pierce Jesus to see if he was dead. Whether that actually happened is an interesting question.

The Swoon Theory

There is a claim, the "Swoon Theory", that Jesus did not die on the cross, and that instead he was taken down mistakenly whilst still alive, and he later managed to escape from his tomb, and so was later seen alive by the disciples. I personally do not find it very likely, but Christians who argue against will always cite the piercing by the spear as "proof" Jesus really was dead.

The Account

So we should take a look at what it says in John.

John 19:31 Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32 The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. 36 These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,”[c] 37 and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”[d]

Blood and Water

Note that it presumably was some clear, colourless liquid, rather than water. For ease of typing, I am going to just call it water, as the text does.

The issue of blood and water from the wound is supposed to be proof Jesus was actually dead. I am not going to dispute the medical aspects; as far as I know, they are sound. The point here is that it only proves Jesus died if it actually happened (again, I do think Jesus did die on the cross, I just do not think this proves it).

One question is whether the people of the time knew that the issue of blood and water meant the guy was dead. I think the answer has to yes. If John is right, then this is the test the Romans used to determine just that. On the other hand, if this was made up, then it was done so to assure everyone that Jesus had really died, so again, it must have been the case that they knew blood and water meant death.

Joseph of Arimathea

A bit of an aside... Verse 38 onward ties in with the accounts in the synoptics, where Joseph of Arimathea has Jesus taken down. But the earlier verses are unique to John.

So first the Jewish leaders asked Pilate for the bodies to be taken down to preserve the sanctity of the sabbath, and then later Joseph of Arimathea goes to see Pilate, to ask for the same thing! Why is Joseph asking for the body to be taken down when that has already happened?

To be fair to the author, his view of Joseph is a little different:

38 Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jewish leaders. With Pilate’s permission, he came and took the body away. 

In John, Joseph is asking for the body after it has been taken down, and he is doing so because he is a follower, and he wants to bury Jesus honourably. This would have been completely against the Roman desires, who crucified Jesus specifically to dishonour him.

Absent from Mark, etc.

To me my mind, verses 32 to 37 are all made up. The fact that they are absent from the other accounts is, by itself, enough to cast doubt on the event.

Mark was written around AD 70, nearly 40 years later. It was (in part) the final stage of a passion narrative that had been circulating and evolving for decades. And at no point in that process had anyone thought to include the spear incident (or that Joseph of Arimathea was a Christian or...).

Did the author of John know about it but kept it secret all that time? Did his fellow Christians not believe him? Or had he not made it up at that point?

The Command to the Soldiers

From what we read in John, we would expect Pilate to have instructed the soldiers to break the legs of the prisoners, and then take the bodies down. And if that is the case, it is highly unlikely the soldiers would do anything else.

What incentive did they have to disobey the command? To a Roman soldier, breaking legs would be the work of seconds; faster than assessing a body, and if it could be dead, piercing with a spear and inspecting what comes out, and then possible breaking the legs anyway.

Breaking the legs is faster, easier and more reliable. And it is almost certainly what they were instructed to do, if the text is right.

What John reports makes no sense.


Worth noting in passing that if they knew Jesus was dead, they would not bother with the spear at all. If John is right about the spear, then they must not have been sure.

Was it Roman Practice?

Some Christians claim this was standard Roman practice. One source cited is Adrian Treloar FRCP, "Blood and Water," Catholic Medical Quarterly Volume 63(1) (February 2013). However, Treloar offers no indication what his source is (and he does reference other claims), leading me to wonder if this verse in the Bible is in fact why he believes it was common practice.

Why was it included?

Some Christians claim the author had no reason to make up such a thing as it serves no apologetic purpose - which is odd, because it is always being used for an apologetic purpose when the topic comes up!

Clearly it does serve an apologetic purpose today, and I see no reason to suppose that was not the case when John was written.

Indeed, I think it possible there was a "swoon theory" back then, and the spear was invented to counter that, just as the guards on the tomb were invented to counter the claims that the disciples stole the body. We have nothing outside of the Bible about such claims, but all the texts we have from that time were preserved and copied by the church, so that is to be expected. So why think there could have been a "swoon theory"?

This verse:

35 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.

The author here clearly is particularly concerned with the previous verse, and to me the most likely reason is that he had put it there specifically to counter those claims.