It is well known that the Crurifragium, which is here applied, was not usually an accompaniment of crucifixion, though it may have been sometimes employed along with it,(3) but that it was a distinct punishment. It consisted in breaking, with hammers or clubs, the bones of the condemned from the hips to the feet. We shall not discuss whether in the present case this measure really was adopted or not. The representation is that the Jews requested Pilate to break the legs of the crucified that the bodies might be removed before the Sabbath, and
that the order was given and executed. The first point to be noted is the very singular manner in which the leg-breaking was performed. The soldiers are said to have broken the legs of the first and then of the other who was crucified with Jesus, thus passing over Jesus in the first instance; and then the Evangelist says: "but when they came to Jesus, as they saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs, but one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side." This order of procedure is singular; but the whole conduct of the guard is so extraordinary that such details become comparatively insignificant. An order having been given to the Roman soldiers, in accordance with the request of the Jews, to break the legs of the crucified, we are asked to believe that they did not execute it in the case of Jesus! It is not reasonable to suppose, however, that Roman soldiers either were in the habit of disregarding their orders, or could have any motive for doing so in this case, and subjecting themselves to the severe punishment for disobedience inflicted by Roman military law. It is argued that they saw that Jesus was already dead, and therefore that it was not necessary to break his legs; but soldiers are not in the habit of thinking in this way: they are disciplined to obey. The fact is, however, that the certainty that Jesus was dead already did not actually exist in their minds, and could scarcely have existed seeing that the death was so singularly rapid, for in that case why should the soldier have pierced his side with a spear? The only conceivable motive for doing so was to make sure that Jesus really was dead;(1) but is it possible to suppose that a Roman soldier, being in the slightest doubt, actually chose to assure himself in
this way when he might still more effectually have done so by simply obeying the order of his superior and breaking the legs? The whole episode is manifestly un-historical.(1)
It is clear that to fulfil in a marked way the prophecies which the writer had in his mind, and wished specially to apply to Jesus, it was necessary that, in the first place, there should have been a distinct danger of the bones being broken, and at the same time of the side not being pierced. The order to break the legs of the crucified is therefore given, but an extraordinary exception is made in favour of Jesus, and a thrust with the lance substituted, so that both passages of the Scripture are supposed to be fulfilled.(3) What Scriptures, however, are fulfilled? The first: "A bone of him shall not be broken," is merely the prescription with regard to the Paschal lamb, Ex. xii. 46,(3) and the dogmatic view of the fourth Evangelist leads him throughout to represent Jesus as the true Paschal lamb. The second is Zech. xii. 10,(4) and any one who reads the passage, even without the assistance of learned exegesis, may perceive that it has no such application as our Evangelist gives it. We shall pass over, as not absolutely necessary for our immediate purpose, very many important details of the episode; but regarding this part of the subject we may say that we consider it evident that, if an order was given to break the legs of the crucified upon this occasion, that
order must have been executed upon Jesus equally with any others who may have been crucified with him.
There has been much discussion as to the intention of the author in stating that, from the wound made by the lance, there forthwith came out "blood and water" [———]; and likewise as to whether the special testimony here referred to in the third person is to attest more immediately the flow of blood and water, or the whole episode.(1) In regard to the latter point, we need not pause to discuss the question.(2) As to the "blood and water," some see in the statement made an intention to show the reality of the death of Jesus,(3) whilst others more rightly regard the phenomenon described as a representation of a supernatural and symbolical incident,(4) closely connected with the whole dogmatic view of the Gospel. It is impossible not to see in this the same idea as that expressed in 1 John v. 6: "This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not in the water only, but in the water and the blood."(5) As a natural incident it cannot be entertained, for in no sense but mere quibbling could it be said that "blood and water" could flow from such a wound, and as a supernatural
