For the purposes of this post, I will examine a hypothetical scenario in which Jesus was alive (but unconscious) at the time when he was stabbed and taken down from the cross. I will address the issue of whether or not Jesus was alive (and the extent of his injuries) in other posts, except to point out that the soldiers felt the need to stab Jesus to make sure he was dead. Regardless of what we think about Jesus' previous injuries, the soldiers weren't sure that Jesus was dead, and demonstrated that uncertainty by stabbing him.
So if Jesus was alive, would the spear wound have killed him?
Instead of analyzing every possible spear wound Jesus could have received, I will illustrate two possible scenarios and use them to demonstrate a broader point--the difference between a mortal and a non-mortal wound would have been a matter of centimeters, and a soldier (even an experienced one) attempting to inflict a killing blow certainly could have failed to do so.
Scenario 1: because Jesus was elevated on the cross, was stabbed in the side, and "water" came out of the wound in addition to blood, one likely scenario is that the spear (green arrow) traveled up through Jesus' diaphragm, peirced his lung (allowing a pleural effusion caused by previous injuries to drain), and then peirced either the apex or the diaphragmatic surface of his heart. Because Jesus was alive, his blood had not clotted, and therefore blood was mixed with the "water". This kind of wound would have been instantly fatal, and meets the description documented in the new Testament.
Scenario 2: everything is the same as scenario 1, except that the spear stopped short of peircing Jesus' heart (or the angle changed such that his heart was missed). Jesus still could have died from such a wound, but he definitely could have survived as well. Jesus being alive would have meant that his blood had not coagulated, and so blood would have mixed with "water" from the pleural effusion. This wound would have been survivable, meets the description documented in the New Testament, and would have looked the same as scenario 1 to the soldiers (except that there would have been less blood).
In conclusion, the two nearly identical wounds from scenarios 1 and 2 would have looked the same to the soldiers, resulted in blood and "water" emanating from the wound, and are only different by a few centimeters. The first scenario would have been instantly fatal, while the second scenario would have been survivable.
Similar fatal/non-fatal scenarios exist for many other situations, and also could have met the description documented in the New Testament (for example, spear thrusts that either hit or narrowly missed the aorta).
But my point is this: we don't know the precise nature of Jesus' spear wound. We can't know, because the texts don't give nearly enough detail. What we do know is that there are some scenarios that would have caused death, and others that would have permitted survival.
In short, Jesus could have survived even though the soldiers thought he was dead and inflicted a spear wound on him.
So if Jesus was alive, would the spear wound have killed him?
Instead of analyzing every possible spear wound Jesus could have received, I will illustrate two possible scenarios and use them to demonstrate a broader point--the difference between a mortal and a non-mortal wound would have been a matter of centimeters, and a soldier (even an experienced one) attempting to inflict a killing blow certainly could have failed to do so.
Scenario 1: because Jesus was elevated on the cross, was stabbed in the side, and "water" came out of the wound in addition to blood, one likely scenario is that the spear (green arrow) traveled up through Jesus' diaphragm, peirced his lung (allowing a pleural effusion caused by previous injuries to drain), and then peirced either the apex or the diaphragmatic surface of his heart. Because Jesus was alive, his blood had not clotted, and therefore blood was mixed with the "water". This kind of wound would have been instantly fatal, and meets the description documented in the new Testament.
 |
| Scenario 1: A fatal wound |
Scenario 2: everything is the same as scenario 1, except that the spear stopped short of peircing Jesus' heart (or the angle changed such that his heart was missed). Jesus still could have died from such a wound, but he definitely could have survived as well. Jesus being alive would have meant that his blood had not coagulated, and so blood would have mixed with "water" from the pleural effusion. This wound would have been survivable, meets the description documented in the New Testament, and would have looked the same as scenario 1 to the soldiers (except that there would have been less blood).
 |
| Scenario 2: A survivable wound |
In conclusion, the two nearly identical wounds from scenarios 1 and 2 would have looked the same to the soldiers, resulted in blood and "water" emanating from the wound, and are only different by a few centimeters. The first scenario would have been instantly fatal, while the second scenario would have been survivable.
Similar fatal/non-fatal scenarios exist for many other situations, and also could have met the description documented in the New Testament (for example, spear thrusts that either hit or narrowly missed the aorta).
But my point is this: we don't know the precise nature of Jesus' spear wound. We can't know, because the texts don't give nearly enough detail. What we do know is that there are some scenarios that would have caused death, and others that would have permitted survival.
In short, Jesus could have survived even though the soldiers thought he was dead and inflicted a spear wound on him.
No comments:
Post a Comment