154 Dimensions of Baptism
to the short tract that later came to bear the name, 1 John. If the same
author in fact wrote more than one work, is it possible that this author
himself had more to say about sin and purification? Or, if not the author,
then some close associates?- Purification at the Cross? (John 19.34 and Matthew 27.49)
Before we look at 1 John, one more passage in the Gospel with a possible
bearing on purification requires our attention. After Jesus' crucifixion by
Roman soldiers, and after the Gospel writer has pronounced him 'already
dead' (19.33; cf. v. 30), we are told that 'one of the soldiers pierced his
side with a spear, and at once blood and water (alpa KOU uScop) came out'
(v. 34, NRSV). The writer provides immediate verification: 'He who has
seen has testified, and his testimony is true (and he knows that he tells the
truth), so that you too might believe' (v. 35).^11 The brief notice bristles
with unanswered questions: What exactly are we expected to 'believe'?
What do 'blood and water' represent? Are we to look at them separately or
together? Are they for washing or drinking? Do they suggest cleansing
from sin or the impartation of life, or both? Or are they simply evidence
that Jesus lived a fully human life and died a fully human death? All these
without even raising the question of what blood and water may have to do
with baptism or the Lord's supper.
Perhaps the simplest explanation is that John intends 19.34 as a sequel
to 7.37-38, identifying the thirst-quenching 'living water' from Jesus'
stomach (EK TTJS KoiXias CCUTOU, 7.38) with the blood and water from his
side at the crucifixion. Such an identification is in keeping with 6.53-56,
where Jesus insists repeatedly on the necessity of drinking his blood in
order to gain eternal life, because 'my flesh is real food, and my blood is
real drink' (6.55). When Jesus' side is pierced, blood is expected but water
is not.^12 The blood, therefore, is mentioned first and then the water, saving- Still more verification follows in the next chapter: 'He showed them his hands
and his side' (20.20); 'Then he said to Thomas... "Reach out your hand and put it in
my side. Do not doubt, but believe'" (20.27). - The observation that there should have been no blood because a corpse does not
bleed is probably not relevant, in view of the common early Christian understanding of
Jesus' 'blood' as a metaphor for the death itself. In the parallel passage (Mt. 27.49), the
presence of blood is wholly natural because Jesus is still alive when his side is pierced.
It is highly unlikely that in the Johannine version the flow of blood is viewed as some
kind of a miracle or anomaly just because Jesus has died a moment before. As for the
water, there is a long tradition of attempted medical explanations of such a phenome-