BLOOD AND WATER, the tr. of the phrase appearing in John 19:34 concerning the spear thrust by the Rom. soldier into Jesus’ side. The Gr. phrase, “καὶ̀ εξῆλθεν ευθὺ̀ς ἇιμα καὶ̀ ὕδωρ,” seems to admit no other tr. than “and there flowed at once blood and water.” It is noted in the passion narrative as a most unusual event which is followed by the evangelist’s affirmation of the statement, “He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth—that you also may believe.” Over the centuries, commentators have offered all sorts of explanations for this passage. In the apostolic and post-Nicene church much was made of the fact that it was blood and water which flowed from the Savior’s side. They determined blood as significant of birth and the passion, and water as reflecting baptism. The writers of the time also maintained that the Lord was already dead and did not then die of the fresh wound, as some ancient heretics proposed. In the medieval tradition each aspect of the story was embellished with layers of cause, symbol and effect, in accord with the dominant Aristotelianism of the time. The soldier who delivered the thrust was identified by a popular etymology of the Gr. for “spear” as a certain Longinus, and his tomb was located at the Chapel of St. Mary in Lyons, France, where his epitaph was reported to have stated, Qui salvatoris latus cruce cuspide fixit Longinus hic iacet. “Here lies Longinus, who the Savior’s side on the cross, with a spear pierced.” In the Reformation period many expositors rejected the miraculous view of the narrative and sought to see in it some fulfillment of the Savior’s atonement as though a final sign had been given with the comingled elements. In the 18th cent. when rationalistic tendencies became dominant in the wake of the deists elaborate quasimedical explanations were given for the event. Many medical examiners thought that some extreme emotional or physical strain had caused the condition. In the 19th cent. the romanticists went to the extremity of deducing the cause of death as “a broken heart,” while a few critical philosophers assumed some dialectical antithesis was meant. The most probable interpretation is that, on the basis of the words that follow, this was a miraculous event testifying to the completion of the Messianic atonement, beyond any natural explanation, justification or denial.