The Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide: S. John
Ver. 30. — When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar , He said, It is finished: and He bowed His head , and gave up the ghost. All the suffering and all the mysteries which the Father decreed from all eternity that I should suffer and carry out, as He ordered from My very birth, and willed, moreover, that the prophets should foretell concerning Me. There remains only the final issue of death, to complete My course of suffering, to expiate thereby the penalty of death, which Adam incurred by sin, and to restore mankind to life.
I therefore embrace it, and resign My spirit into the hands of My Father. (Matt, xxvii. 48, seq.)
Christ spake seven words on the cross, three recorded by S. John, the four others by the other Evangelists.
Ver. 31. — The Jews therefore (because it was the preparation) that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the sabbath day (for that sabbath-day was an high day) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away . See Deut. xxi.
22. This was done, in order that they might not pollute and make gloomy this most solemn festival, by the horror of their sufferings, as St. Augustine says. It was necessary therefore that they should die and be buried before sunset, at which time the sabbath began. “ That,” as Theophylact says, “ the sun might not set on their sufferings.”
For this was the sabbath within the octave of the Passover, and for this reason a more solemn day than other sabbaths.
Their legs were to be broken with the strong blows of a mallet or iron bar, to make them die the sooner, from the intensity of the pain, or the loss of blood, or because the vital force resides in the knees and legs. (See Pliny , N. H. xi. 45.)
But why did they not pierce their hearts with a spear or sword, which would have been an easier and a quicker death ? They preferred to break the legs of criminals, in order to increase their sufferings, as even now notorious criminals are put on the rack. Probably the Jews wished to do this to Christ, out of bitter hatred, and Baronius thinks that they gave Him vinegar to keep Him alive for this further torture. But He was already dead, not because He dreaded this further suffering, but on account of the mystery (of which more presently), but also because His strength was worn out by all He had already undergone. (See Lipsius , de Cruce, ii. 14.)
These Jews seemed to urge their being taken down from the cross, not so much from any regard for the sabbath, as from dread, shame, and consciousness of guilt. For they saw the sun darkened, the veil of the temple rent, the earthquake, &c., all which condemned their treatment of Christ. And they therefore feared either that God would punish them, or the people rise up against them as the murderers of Christ. They ordered Him therefore to be taken down from His seat of triumph, and to be buried. See F. Lucas.
Ver. 33. — But when they came to Jesus (evidently to break His legs. Euthymius says, “They came to Him last, as wishing to please the Jews by treating Him with greater insult) and saw that He was dead already, they brake not His legs. He did not wish His legs to be broken, for He wished to rise again with an unmutilated body.
As Lactantius says (iv. 26), “ His body is taken down from the cross entire, and carefully laid in the tomb, lest by the loss of any limb it might be rendered less seemly for resurrection.”
Instead, then, of His legs being broken, His side was pierced with the spear. This was after He was dead, not while He was alive, as some have thought. This error was condemned in the Council of Vienne. For as Christ, while alive, gave up His whole Body for us, so did He in His death wish to give us His heart. For this it was that was pierced by the spear, and blood and water flowed forth from it, so that He gave Himself entirely to us.
You will say that Christ was already dead, and that therefore He merited nothing by this piercing of His heart. But I reply that when alive He knew this wound would be inflicted, and that He offered it to the Father for us, and thus merited and effected our salvation. Thou wilt say next, We see that blood flows from the body of a slain person, if the murderer is present. This then is a natural effect. I say that it is not natural, but very nearly miraculous ; to point out and confound the murderer. And much more was it miraculous in the case of Christ, as I will presently show.
Ver. 34. — But one of the soldiers opened His side . As somewhat doubting, says S. Cyril, whether He were really dead ; and if He were not, to hasten His death. For it was the duty of these soldiers to carry out the sentence, and to see that criminals were not taken away before it was certain that they were dead. S. Chrysostom adds, “ To please the Jews, they lay open His side and insult Him when dead. O most evil and most atrocious wish.” Some suppose that this soldier was the centurion, who cried out “ Truly this was the Son of God !” (Matthew xxvii. 54.) But it is not likely that he who so cried out would dare to commit such an act. Nazianzen in his “ Christus Patiens ” suggests that he was blind, and that he then regained his sight. Many stories on this matter were collected , which Baronius rejects as apocryphal. Here note
— 1. That the soldier was one of the guard who brake the legs of the two malefactors, and would have broken Christ’s also had he been alive. But they pierced His side, to show that He was dead, and this was why they brake not His legs. 2. Some say it was a spear, others a sword which was used. 3. The Vulgate seems to have read ἤνοιξε, but the Greek is ἔνυξε. 4. This wound was so large that a hand could have been thrust into it See John xx. 27. 5. It was on the right side, as represented by painters. Some think it was so foretold by Ezekiel xvii. 2. S. Francis also received his wound on the right side. See S. Bonaventura, Ribadeneira, &c. 6. Christ therefore received six wounds. 7. This wound seems to have pierced through both sides, as Prudentius says in several passages.
As struck the cruel spear through either side,
Water and Blood poured forth in mingled tide :
For victory this, and that to cleanse applied.
De Pass, Christi [apud Diptych, num. xlii.]; Peristeph. Hymn viii. [15]; and Cathemer, Hymn ix. [85]; [Pseudo]-Cyprian also (de Pass.) says the same. Theophylact speaks of this wound in the plural number, Prudentius seems to imply that the larger wound emitted blood, and the smaller wound on the left side water. But this wound on the left side was so small as not to be taken into account. Hence there were only five wounds. S. Bridget’s Revel iv. 40, vii. 15, and ii. 21, are also referred to.
And forthwith came thereout blood and water . Both together
(not separately, as Nonnus paraphrases), but yet not mixed, but so that they could be distinguished from each other. But this could not be the case naturally, because the blood of a dead body congeals, and pure blood cannot flow from it. And this was pure blood, not serum, as Innoc. III. lays it down (Lib. iii. Decret. tit. 41, de Celebr . Miss, cap . viii.) Calvin is therefore wrong in saying that water is contained in the pericardium. Therefore this flowing forth of blood and water was miraculous, as S. Ambrose on Luke xxiii., Euthymius , and Theophylact say. The latter remarks, “ The contumely is changed into a miracle, and wonderful it was that blood flowed forth from a dead body. But a caviller might say that some vital force might probably remain in the body. But the water which flowed forth puts the matter beyond all dispute.” He says afterwards , “ Confounded be the Armenians, who in the Mysteries mix not water with the wine. For, as it seems, they do not believe that water flowed forth from the side (which would be more wonderful), but blood only. And in this passage they do away with a mighty miracle. The blood then is the symbol of a crucified man, but the water of one who is above man, that is, of God.” See Adam Coutzen and Francis Lucas on this passage.