IT WAS NOT FROM A BROKEN HEART
Jesus was crucified. But how did He die? Was it of a broken
heart? Or BECAUSE HE SHED HIS OWN BLOOD WHEN SPEARED by one of
the Roman soldiers?
by Herman L. Hoeh
WHY WAS Jesus Christ already dead when the soldiers came to break
His legs? What killed Him so soon? Was Jesus weaker than other
men ?
DIED OF A BROKEN HEART?
It is commonly taught today that Jesus died of a broken heart.
This idea was introduced by a Dr.Stroud about the year 1847, in
the book on the "Physiological Cause of the Death of Christ."
Stroud claimed that Christ died of "laceration or rupture of the
heart." This idea has since been perpetuated by many Protestants
today. You will find this idea explained in the "International
Standard Bible Encyclopedia," on page 489 under the article
"Blood and Water."
But is this idea true? Did Christ shed His blood only after He
died? This Encyclopedia continues by saying: "It is well arrested
that usually the suffering on the cross was very prolonged. It
often lasted two or three days, when death would supervene [that
is, occur] from exhaustion. There were no physical reasons why
Christ should not have lived; very much longer on the cross than
lie did."
The question is Why did Christ die so soon?
We know from john's account that the two thieves crucified with
Jesus died sooner than - because their legs were broken; John
19:32). But Jesus was already dead when the soldiers came. What
killed Him?
Dr. Stroud, in his book, tried to explain that the death of
Christ
resulted because His heart ruptured. He reasoned that the blood
passed from the heart into the pericardium or caul of the heart
where it collected into red clot (blood) and into the limpid
serum (which he calls "water"). Therefore, after Jesus was dead,
says this doctor, a spear was thrust into His side and our flowed
a little blood and water which had collected around His heart!
So, it is reasoned, Jesus died of a broken heart!
IS THIS WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS?
Does the Bible teach us that Jesus died of a broken heart?
Why was Jesus not able to suffer longer than He did? Was He a
weakling? If Jesus died of a broken heart, because He was weak
and was suffering the penalty of sin, then He died for His own
sins!
But the fact remains - Jesus was strong! He obeyed God's laws!
The physical laws as well as God's spiritual laws. If Jesus died
because He was weak and had a broken heart, then He was merely
paying the penalty of His own weakness!
Now turn to John 19:31-33. "The Jews therefore, because it was
the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross
on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day [Thursday] was an high
day), besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that
they might be taken away. Then came the soldiers, and brake the
legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.
But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already,
they brake not his legs."
Thus they broke the legs of the two thieves in order that they
might die the sooner. But in this case, they did not break
Christ's legs because He war already dead.
Mark 15:42-45 brings us a few more details: "And now when the
even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day
before [a] sabbath, Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable
counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and
went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus. And
Pilate marvelled if He were already dead."
Notice. He marvelled that Christ was already dead! Then he
himself called the centurion. He could not believe it when Joseph
of Arimathaea came in and told him Jesus was dead. So Pilate
"asked him [the centurion] whether he [Jesus] had been any while
dead."
"And when he knew it of the centurion, he gave the body to
Joseph." Even Pilate himself was struck by the fact of Jesus'
death. What was it that caused the death of Jesus Christ so soon?
CHRIST IS OUR PASSOVER
Let's read a little further. In 1 Cor.5:7, the last half of the
verse, we read: "For even Christ our Passover it sacrificed for
us."
Unless Christ was sacrificed - actually shed His own blood - you
have no Saviour! Unless the original Passover lamb had been
sacrificed or slain, had its own blood shed, the Israelites in
Egypt could never have been delivered out of Egypt.
Now read Exodus 12:46: "In one house shall it [the Passover] be
eaten; you shall not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of
the house; neither shall you break a bone thereof."
And, if you will notice John's account, chapter 19, verse 36,
"these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled,
A bone of him shall nor be broken." Notice! Jesus was already
dead, and the soldiers who would have other wise broken his bones
did not, that it might be fulfilled - which John quoted from
Exodus 12:46, "A bone of him shall not be broken."
Unlike Mosaic sacrifices which had their bones broken, and the
body of the animal separated and cut up and placed on the altar,
the Passover always remained whole until eaten, because it was to
foreshadow the fact that Christ would not have any bones of His
body broken.
This is one of the major proofs that Christ is our Passover.
Notice further, Exodus 12:6. Israel was to kill the Passover
lamb. Now how did they kill the lamb? By letting the lamb die of
a broken heart?
Why no!
They shed its blood!
As Christ is our Passover - and as the lamb was a type, and had
its own blood shed - so Christ should also shed His blood to pay
for our sins.
WHY SHED BLOOD?
We read in Hebrews 9:22 that "without" the "shedding of blood"
there "is no remission" of sins. It does not say, "without a
broken heart, there is no remission of sins!"
God requires of you that you have a contrite spirit and "a broken
heart." That is, you must repent and utterly give up your old way
of life. But what pays the penalty of your sin is not your
contrite spirit or your broken heart. What God requires of you
doesn't pay the penalty of your sins. What pays the penalty of
your sins is the Passover Christ - who shed His blood, because
without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins. But
if Jesus died of a broken heart, then He didn't die for your
sins.
Let's notice another evidence, Israel was to eat the Passover.
According to Leviticus 7:24, and 22:8, and also Deuteronomy
14:21, any animal that dies of itself, we are forbidden to eat.
Israel could sell it to the unconverted gentiles, if they wanted
it; but any clean animal that died of itself, we are forbidden to
eat.
If Christ died of a broken heart, then that is how the Passover
lamb should have died. But if the Passover lamb would have died
of itself, it could not have been eaten, could it?
So there is another proof that the passover lamb had to have its
blood shed! It could not have died of itself, because if it died
of itself, then it wasn't to be eaten. In other words, a Saviour
that died of himself was not fit to be our Passover! That's
exactly what the Scriptures teach!
HOW CHRIST REALLY DIED
Let's read further. What does Isaiah 53:7-8 teach us? Here is the
key verse in the Old Testament that tells us how Christ would
die! "He," that is, Christ, "He was oppressed, and He was
afflicted, yet He opened not His mouth: He is brought as a lamb
to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so
He opened not His mouth."
Jesus Christ was brought as a lamb to the slaughter. When a lamb
is slaughtered, its blood is shed, isn't it? It doesn't die of
itself. So Christ, then, is pictured as a lamb which had its
blood shed.
Now turn to Acts 8:32. Philip had joined himself to the Ethiopian
eunuch and the eunuch had been reading from Isaiah 53. "The place
of the scripture which he read was this, "He was led as a sheep
to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so
opened he not his mouth."
Now, notice further, verse 34, "And the eunuch answered Philip,
and said, I pray thee, of whom speaks the prophet this? of
himself, or of some other man? Verse 35. Then Philip opened his
mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him
Jesus." This prophecy is referring to Jesus. The New Testament
tells us so!
And the question is, what man was prefigured, was foreshadowed by
a lamb going to the slaughter? Jesus Christ, who was our
Passover.
Now let us read Isaiah 53:8. "He was taken from prison and from
judgment ... he was cut off out of the land of the living: for
the transgression of my people WAS HE STRICKEN."
Notice that in the margin of most Bibles, instead of the last
three words, "was he stricken," you will find the words, "The
stroke was upon him." Jesus didn't die of a broken heart, but
"for the transgression of my people, the stroke was upon him."
That is, the mortal wound of a spear. In other words, a stroke of
a spear brought about his death.
Notice verse 12, "Therefore will I divide Him a portion with the
great, and He shall divide the spoil with the strong; because He
has poured out His soul unto death: and He was numbered with the
transgressors."
Did you notice that Christ poured out His soul UNTO DEATH? It
doesn't say that Christ was already dead, and then He poured out
His Soul. It said He poured out His soul unto death. The pouring
out of His soul led to His death. Death was the consequence of
pouring out His soul. Isn't that clear from this verse?
What was His soul?
LIFE IN THE BLOOD
This Hebrew word for "soul" - nephesh - comes from the same
Hebrew word translated "life" in a number of places in the Old
Testament. The life (soul, nephesh) of the flesh is in the blood
(Lev.17:11). Jesus poured out His life.
And where is the soul or life? It is in the blood! So Jesus,
then, poured out His blood unto death. In other words, the
shedding of blood brought about His death - so says the Scripture
here! Jesus did not die of a broken heart, and then after He was
dead, a soldier pricked His side, and out dribbled a little water
and blood - just to make sure that He was dead. The Scripture
plainly says "the stroke" of a weapon brought about His death as
payment of our sins, "He poured out his soul unto death."
These scriptures mean what they say. They tell us how Christ
died!
Now notice another scripture, John 10:11. "I am the good
shepherd," said Jesus, "the good shepherd gives his life for the
sheep." His life was in His blood, wasn't it? That is where the
life of man is. It does not reside in an immortal soul. The life
of man is in his blood. So, if Christ is the good Shepherd, which
He is, then, He must have given His life, or His blood, for the
sheep. In other words, He was willing to lose His life, to lose
His blood, in order to redeem, or to buy back, human beings whom
the Scripture calls "His sheep."
CHRIST DIED FOR STEPHEN'S MURDERERS
Christ died for the sins of the world. The New Testament tells us
that if you hate your brother, you are a murderer. We read in the
New Testament that Paul "breathed out threatenings and slaughter"
(Acts 9:1). Paul wanted to kill Christians. Paul was responsible
for murder. But Christ died for Paul. Christ died to pay the
penalty of the sin of murder.
Now notice what kind of a death expiates the sin of murder. Turn
to Genesis 9:6. Here is what we read: "Whoso sheds man's blood,
by man shall his blood be shed."
It does nor read: "Whoso shall shed man's blood shall die of a
broken heart." The only way to expiate the sin of murder is
through the shedding of blood.
How did Christ pay the penalty of those who have murdered and
shed the blood of Christians? Why, he died by taking on Himself
the same penalty here that would otherwise have passed on the
murderer, "Whoso sheds man's blood, BY MAN SHALL HIS BLOOD BE
SHED." As Christ paid the penalty of murder instead of the
murderers, instead of Paul for example - then Christ had to shed
His blood to pay the penalty for that sin! It seems plain, then,
that Christ died because blood poured from His body.
A MISSING VERSE!
Now let us read the account of the death of Christ, according to
the gospel Matthew wrote, from the Fenton translation.
Mat.27:45,46, "Then from mid-day until three o'clock in the
afternoon darkness spread over all the land; and about three
o'clock Jesus called out with a loud voice, exclaiming. 'Eloi,
eloi, Lima sahachthani?' that is, 'My God! My God! to what have
You forsaken Me?' And some of the bystanders, on hearing that,
remarked, 'He seems to call for Elijah.' And at once one from
among them ran, and taking s sponge, filled is with sour wine:
and placing; it upon a cane, gave Him a drink. But the others
called out, 'Let Him alone! Let us see whether Elijah will come
and save Him!'"
Now notice carefully, verses 49 and 50: "But another taking a
spear pierced His side, when blood and water came out. Jesus,
however, having again called out with a loud voice, resigned His
spirit."
Let me read it from the Moffatt translation, beginning at verse
48.
"One of them ran off at once and took a sponge, which he soaked
in vinegar and put on the end of a stick, to give Him a drink.
But the others said, 'Stop, let us see if Elijah does come to
save Him!' (Seizing a lance, another pricked [it should be
translated "pierced"] his side, and out came water and blood.)"
We read here both from the Fenton and the Moffatt translations a
vital verse that we do not find in the King James version, and
certain others.
How is it that this verse does not appear in the King James
Version? Why haven't we been reading that the reason Christ died
is that one of the soldiers that was there came with a lance or
spear and pierced His side and out came water and blood? Now we
know from a number of Scriptures, for instance, Zechariah 12:10
that "they shall look upon [Him] whom they have pierced."
And Revelation 1:7 says that those who pierced him "shall look
upon Him." We have at Ambassador College (remember this was
written in 1959 - Keith Hunt) copy of the Vaticanus - a Greek New
Testament manuscript written about 300's A.D. It was first
published in 1859 by Angelus Maius. Mr.and Mrs. Armstrong and
some of the others of the ministers have seen the original copy
of this codex. In the Greek of Matthew 27:49 is this very verse:
"And another took a spear and pierced His side and there came
forth water and blood."
This verse is in the Greek Text in this manuscript, which, as far
as modern scholars know, is the oldest complete manuscript of the
New Testament (not as complete as people would have you believe -
Keith Hunt).
Many of you may have in your possession the Harmony of the
Gospels by Robertson from which Mr. Armstrong often has quoted
over the air. We read this in the comment on Matthew 27:49 which
is included in the footnote on page 234: "Many ancient
authorities add 'And another took a spar and pierced his side,
and there came out water and blood.'"
IN MANY EARLY MANUSCRIPTS
We have also the New Testament in Greek published by Dr.Eberhard
Nestle and translated into English from German. In the footnote
of Matthew 27:49 Nestle states that this text appears in many
ancient manuscripts. He lists a number in which it appears. For
instance, in the Sinaiticus, the Vaticanus (these are two of the
most ancient manuscripts), Codex Ephraemi and a number of others
which are labelled by scholars as "l," "T," "Z," etc., and such
other manuscripts as "33" "79" "892" and "1241."
Numerous other early manuscripts have this text.
I have before me also the statement written by Frederick Henry
Ambrose Scrivener, in his book entitled "Criticism o f the New
Testament," Vol.11, Page 302. After quoting Mat.27:49, he says:
"Thus we read in ...." and he lists a large number of
manuscripts.
He further adds on page 302 such Greek manuscripts as those
labelled by scholars as "5, 48, 67, 115, 127, [and] five good
manuscripts of the Vulgate," which is the Latin translation from,
the Greek. It is in "the margin of 1 E [and] VI, "the Jerusalem
Syriac . . . and in the Echiopic."
When the Echiopic translation was made from the Greek into the
Ethiopian language, this verse was still in the Greek
manuscripts. It has been deleted since the time those early
translations were made!
We have here at the Ambassador College library the volume
entitled, "The New Testament in Greek" by Westcott and Hort,
published in 1896. This volume contains the English comments on
the Text in Greek. Under the subject of Matthew 27:49 in the
notes, page 21 and 22 at the back of the book, we read the
following surprising facts. This verse, admit Westcott and Hort,
appears in the bulk of the Syrian translations, in the Egyptian,
(which Dr.Meredith and I saw in Egypt in 1957), in the Armenian,
in the Gothic. It is even included in Origin's work [around 200
A.17.], and, as already mentioned, it appears in the Echiopic.
Then Westcott and Hort list the various Greek texts that the
verse appears in.
Ivan Panin carelessly neglected to include this verse in his
Numeric New Testament.
WHY LEFT OUT OF THE TEXT?
Wescott and Hort give us the following surprising story
concerning this verse:
"In a letter partially preserved in Syriac (ap. Petr. jun. in
Assemani B.O. ii 81) he [Severus] mentions the reading [of this
verse which is nor in the King James version] "as having been
vigorously debated at Constantinople in connexion with the matter
of the patriarch Macedonius, when the magnificently written (but
spurious] copy of St.Matthew's Gospel said to have been
discovered in Cyprus with the body of St.Barnabas in the reign of
Zeno (?477) was consulted and found not to contain the sentence
in question ... The 'magnificent' copy of St. Matthew, though
[falsely] said to have been written by Barnabas himself ... was
doubtless of quite recent origin (that is, of a very late
production, written around the same time that the fraud was
perpetrated], the discovery having been opportunely made by
Anchemius bishop of Salamis when he was vindicating the
independence of Cyprus against the patriarch of Antioch, Peter
and Fuller ... In a sarcastic statement of the Chronicle of
Victor Tunenensis," continue Westcott and Hort, he states that
"at Constantinople the holy Gospels were by command of the
emperor censored . . ." at this verse.
In other words, this verse, Matthew 27:49 - which you find in the
Moffatt and the Fenton translations, and in the Vaticanus, the
Ethiopic, and all of those early manuscripts, including the
Sinaiticus, a copy of which we have at Ambassador - this verse
was left out as a result of a controversy that developed over the
finding of what obviously was nothing but a spurious copy of
Matthew's gospel, planted in order to justify the political
independence of the Island of Cyprus. They brought forth a text
purportedly written by Barnabas himself, which was found in his
supposed tomb. This was the same era in which others "discovered"
the relics of Peter to justify their pretensions.
Although this important verse had heretofore been in the Greek
manuscripts, as witnessed by the fact that is appears in the
various translations from the Greek, from this time on it
generally ceased to continue to appear. ***The bulk of Greek
manuscripts has officially not included this text.***
***Yet God has seen to it that the Greek people, who are
responsible for preserving the Bible in Greek, have themselves
left us the witness that this verse originally was in Matthew!
And even though they have officially not approved it in their
text since that day - since around 510 to 511 A.D. -
nevertheless, many Greek manuscripts that they copied still
retain it.***
***IT WAS STILL A MARGINAL READING OF THE GREEK TEXT WHEN THE
KING JAMES VERSION WAS MADE! (Walton's Polyglot, published in
1657, Volume VI, page 6 of the appendix on "Various Grecian
Readings." This set of six Volumes is a recent acquisition of the
College Library.) But the translators thought it better to leave
it out!***
***Thus, by the Greeks' own admission this verse was in there
till as late as 510 A.D. when they made the mistake of removing
it. However, this does NOT mean they tampered with the rest of
the Bible. God committed the New Testament to their care. But it
does mean that when they did make this change, they were forced
to leave us witness so that we might know what the true original
reading of it is. No other verse has been removed by them.***
Christ, then, according to Matthew, died because a soldier took a
spear and pierced His side, and out came water and blood. As a
result of that frightful wound Christ cried with a loud voice -
He screamed - and then He expired. That's what caused His death!
No, Christ didn't die of a broken heart. Christ died because He
shed His blood for you and for me!
DID JOHN CONTRADICT MATTHEW?
The reason the King James translators did not include this verse
is due to the fact that they, like many others, have
misunderstood the inspired statement of John concerning the
piercing of Christ's side. People have assumed all these
centuries that John tells us that Christ's side was speared after
Jesus died and at that time out came blood and water. They have
assumed that that was the time when Jesus was speared, and they
reason, "if He was speared after He was dead, then how could He
have been speared before He was dead?"
Matthew's account makes it plain when He was speared before He
died. The soldiers gave Jesus the sponge. Then He was speared in
the side. Out came the water and blood. He cried with a loud
voice and then expired.
Jesus knew what was coming, because He said, "My God! My God! why
have you forsaken me?" He knew Isaiah 53 had to be fulfilled -
that without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of
sins.
John records for us the same thing! But it has been
mistranslated. Let us turn to John, and see how his account ought
to be rendered.
"Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of
the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to
Jesus, and saw that he was lead already, they brake not his legs"
(John 19:32).
It is assumed from the next verse that the they then pierced His
side to see if He were dead. Therefore the King James Version,
and others read, "But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced
his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he
that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knows
that he saith is true, that you might believe." John says here is
absolute proof that Christ died by shedding His blood.
But notice what the scripture says! "And when they {the soldiers}
came to Jesus, AND SAW THAT HE WAS DEAD ALREADY, they brake not
his legs."
They did not have to do anything further. They saw He was already
dead. But why did Jesus die so soon. John continues: "Howbeit one
of the soldiers with a spear HAD PIERCED HIS SIDE, and
immediately came there out blood and water" - as properly
translated.
The verb "pierced," in the Greek, is in the AORIST tense. In
English we are familiar with the present, the imperfect, and the
perfect tenses. The imperfect in English means that one "used to
do" or "did" something. And the perfect tense, that he "has done"
something.
But in the Greek, the AORIST means not time of action, but kind
of action. It leaves the past indefinite. The "aorist tense" in
Greek means that an action was done at a single moment, and not
continuously.
The Greek has two major past tenses. One, the imperfect, and the
other, the AORIST. The "imperfect" means that the action
continues in the past. The "aorist" means that it happened once
in the past, or from time to time - action widely spaced apart.
The soldiers pierced Christ's side not as a continual action but
one particular time (in the PAST - Keith Hunt), and out of His
side came thereforth blood and water. The "aorist tense" John
used points out the type of action, NOT the TIME of the action.
The "aorist tense" of the word "pierced" does not tell you WHEN
the spearing occurred - whether they then speared Him or whether
He had already been speared. You can know the time only by
putting John 19:34 with the rest of the Scriptures. Consider!
Instead of the soldiers breaking Christ's legs, they saw He was
dead already. Now if they saw He was dead already, they didn't
have any reason to pierce his side. He was 'dead already.' If
they were not sure, what would they have done? They would have
broken His legs! That's what they had come to do. If there was a
question or doubt, they would have smashed His legs, but when
they saw Him, they knew He was dead already.
So John tells us - not what they next did - but rather the reason
why they didn't break His legs! He tells us the cause of Jesus'
death in verse 34! One of the soldiers HAD PREVIOUSLY taken a
spear and had pierced his side. That's the reason Christ died. He
shed - as Isaiah said - His blood, or His soul. He poured it out
unto death.
Further, notice that John tells us that there came out "blood and
water." Matthew worded it "water and blood." Many have tried to
claim that the verse in Matthew was added from John, but if it
were just copied from John, then it would have read "blood and
water." But Matthew doesn't put it in that order. He says out
came "water and blood." Matthew is writing as God led him to
write it. He wrote it decades before John wrote his gospel.
WHY BLOOD AND WATER?
When the spear cut that gaping hole in Jesus side, it literally
ripped Him up and cut His bladder open, and out poured water. The
word "water" is no more than a poliTE form for urine. In other
words, he had been in the hands of men all this time, ever since
the previous evening. And His captors gave Him no peace. What the
soldiers did was to cut Him open, and out came the water from the
bladder, and the blood He shed for our sins.
Jesus' blood was thoroughly shed. It was not a little sack around
the heart that dribbled some blood our when His side was pricked!
You will find the proof that His blood was all drained out if you
read the Book of Acts. Peter, speaking of Christ's resurrection,
Acts 2:31, said: "He [David] seeing this before spake of the
resurrection of Christ, that his soul (the body] was not left in
hell, neither his flesh did see corruption."
If Christ died of a broken heart, and just the blood which
collected around the heart was shed, and all of the rest of the
blood was in the body, Christ's body would have corrupted in
three days' time.
Jesus Christ was buried for three days and three nights in the
tomb. But the fact is, His body had no blood left! It was all
shed! It is the blood that first corrupts. Flesh corrupts much
more slowly. Because blood was not there, the flesh of Christ's
body did not start to corrupt! That didn't mean that He had some
kind of immortal flesh as some people reason. It means that, as
all of the blood was gone from His body, there was no corrupting
agent and over a three-day period of time, the flesh would not
have begun to disintegrate into dust.
(Also we need to note that Joseph and Nicodemus used about 100
pounds of myrrh and aloes on Jesus' body - John 19:39,40, as well
as "wrapping" the body as was Jewish burial custom - not a one
piece "shroud" - this would have also help to prevent Jesus' body
from fast de-composition - Keith Hunt).
Christ was mortal flesh. He took upon Himself the flesh of man
(Hebrews 2:14). There was nothing immortal about His flesh.
Whatever blood was in the lower portion of His body and His legs
that didn't pour out of His side, drained out from His wounds in
the feet as a result of the nails that pierced them.
Christ is our Saviour! Christ did die by SHEDDING HIS BLOOD. The
Passover Season we should have re-commemorated that sad event
with real feeling. And as a result of that terrible spear wound,
and the complete loss of blood, the Creator was dead! Christ did
shed His blood for you and for me. But He is NOW ALIVE
FOREVERMORE!
................
Written in 1959
