John 19:33,34 says that the Roman soldier pierced Jesus after seeing that He was already dead. Why do you say that Jesus was pierced before He died?

First, let’s notice the wording of Matthew 27:48–50 as it appears in the King James Version (KJV):

“And straightway one of them ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave Him to drink. The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save Him. Jesus, when He had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.”

This passage says nothing about Jesus being pierced. However, many ancient manuscripts include a statement at the end of verse 49 that does not appear in the KJV. This statement is included in some of our English versions, including the Fenton and Moffatt translations. Notice how the Fenton translation renders verses 49 and 50:

“But the others called out, ‘Let Him alone! Let us see whether Elijah will come and save Him!’ 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.”

The Moffatt translation renders the passage similarly: “But the other said, ‘Stop, let us see if Elijah does come to save him!’ (Seizing a lance, another pricked [the Greek root is nussoo, which means “pierced”] his side, and out came water and blood.)”

Neither Mark’s account nor Luke’s tell of Jesus being pierced, but remember that no one account describes all the details. In order to get a full picture of what happened, and the order in which each event occurred, it is necessary to put all the accounts together, and to consider any possible variation in translation. With this in mind, let’s turn our attention to John’s account.

John 19:33,34 states: “But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.”

This account, as it appears in English, seems to say that the soldier pierced Jesus after it was discovered that He was already dead. The usual explanation is that they wanted to make sure He was dead. However, in the Greek, the word translated “pierced” in our English Bibles is in the aorist tense; therefore, the term (“pierced”) refers not to the time of the action, but to the kind of action. Since “pierced” is in the aorist tense in the Greek, the passage could mean that Christ was pierced after the soldiers discovered that He was dead, or it could mean that He had already been pierced when the soldiers observed that He was dead. It can be understood either way, but in view of Matthew’s account, with the insertion of the missing portion of verse 49 (chapter 27), we have reason to believe that John was saying that the soldiers didn’t break Jesus’s’ legs because He was already dead, having been pierced.

Other scriptures support the above. For instance, the manner in which the Passover and other sacrifices (all of which foreshadowed Christ) were killed (they were “pierced,” or cut with a blade, and bled to death) more closely fits the description of Christ bleeding to death as the result of being pierced. While this alone does not prove that Christ died after being pierced, when all things are considered—that is, the missing verse, John’s use of the aorist tense, and Christ’s death compared with the Passover sacrifice—it is evident that Christ died after being pierced.

It is also significant that Pilate marveled that Christ’s death occurred so quickly (Mark 15:42–45). When report came that He was already dead, Pilate checked with a centurion to make certain that He was in fact dead. Pilate knew that death through crucifixion involved prolonged suffering, often lasting two or three days. The two "thieves" who were crucified alongside Christ died after having their legs broken, but Christ was dead already. Why did His death occur so soon? The most plausible explanation is that He bled to death—the result of having been pierced.