In my previous posts I have mentioned that the significance of the blood and water pouring out of Jesus’ side after his side was pierced with a spear to confirm His death. That it was not recognised by the medical profession as a sign of death until the early nineteenth century. That might explain why Luke omitted it from his Gospel but it does not explain why John included in his Gospel. If the only people who noticed the connection between blood and water flowing out separately as a sign of were members of execution parties. Then it begs the question of how John was told of its importance. In Part 4 of this series of posts I speculated that members of the execution party that crucified Jesus would have probably retired to a Roman colonnia or colony such as Philippi where Paul and Luke just happened to turn up. If when Jesus prayed “Father forgive them for they know not what they do,” he was primarily referring to His executioners, then God must provide the means for them to receive that forgiveness in order for that prayer to be answered. Of course there were sound reasons for any such persons not to be named as such in Scripture. They would have probably been responsible for the deaths of a large number of Jewish patriots and be the subject of potential vengeance attacks. We do not know John’s itinerary of his life after the early chapters of Acts, so it is quite possible that John also visited Philippi. But there is a tradition that John moved to Ephesus while Mary the mother of Jesus still alive and living in his household. Could it be that a member of the execution squad, (maybe the Philippian gaoler?) instead, travelled across the Aegean Sea to Ephesus to seek out the Lord’s mother’s forgiveness for his part in the Lord’s death? If you find that difficult to believe that Mary might be able to forgive one of her Son’s executioners, is it because you have issues of unforgiveness in your own life? After all, John who before Jesus’ death was know as one of the “Sons of Thunder” had, by the time of his death become known as the “Apostle of Love,” because he would invariably preach on the love of God. Despite the various privations he was supposed to have suffered he appears to have harboured no bitterness. Maybe this was one of the things that John learned from Mary?
David Rose, 2015.