How should "His blood be upon us" be interpreted?

[JPerry1980]

I’ve always had a difficult time in attempting to understand the passage from Matthew 27:24-25 of “His blood be upon us and upon our children.” (NAB).

What is the official teaching of Rome regarding this passage? Is this to state that the responsibility of Christ’s crucifixion to be on the hands of Judaism for all time? I have a hard time in accepting this. As a Catholic, I believe that the sins of an individual person cannot be laid upon their children because a child has free-will to decide on their own actions (in omission and comission). Thus, I believe those who blame Judaism to this day for the crucifixion of Christ are ignoring a fundamental virtue of Catholicism in believing that the sins of a parent can be transferred to the children of said parent. Yes, we are to some degree the product of the environment in which we are raised. Yet, at the same time, we are the actions that we take in our lives, not the result of our birth (save for original sin). We are the actions that we personally take, or fail to take, in our lives.

I think this passage has been used to great extents for the continuation and propagation of great anti-Semitic development throughout the last 2,000 years. At the same time, I think we must also consider the age in which this passage was written (historical relevance). Is this passage an indictment of Judaism as a whole in the failure to prescribe to the teachings and acceptance of Christ as Messiah? Or, is this passage an example of the fact that all people who do not accept the teachings of Christ are thus deemed to be responsibile for his crucifixion for the very nature of their unbelief?

Anyway, I do not intend to start any arguments, I’m honestly just curious as to how this passage should be properly read in the framework of the teachings of the Church. Ultimately, I do not believe any blame should fall upon any individual or group of people for the necessity of Christ’s crucifixion. We are all to blame for the necessity of His glorious sacrifice. He came for us, that we as all people may live through knowing Him and His Sacred Sacrements within the fullness of our faith and His Church. No man or group of individuals took the life from Christ, rather He gave His life so that we may attain His salvation. Yet, the passage is still inscribed as “His blood be upon US…”.

So, I ask, how should this passage be properly understood?

pax,

j.p.

 

[Holly3278]

Perhaps this from the Haydock Commentary would be helpful:
Haydock Catholic Commentary:

Mat 27:25 All the people answered: his blood be upon us, and upon our children which continues, saith St. Jerome, to this day. Then Pilate delivered to them Jesus to be crucified. (Witham) — This blasphemous prayer continues to this day, and will continue a protracted curse upon the Jews, and upon their posterity. (Origen) — Behold the insanity of the Jews! Their passion and pertinacious obstinacy will not suffer them to see and understand: they draw down curses upon themselves in these terrible imprecations: his blood be upon us and upon our children. Still the God of all mercies did not literally comply with their impious prayer. For, of these children he selected some for himself; amongst the rest even Paul, and many thousands who were converted at Jerusalem. (St. John Chrysostom)

 

[Spirithound]

I’ve always had a difficult time in attempting to understand the passage from Matthew 27:24-25 of “His blood be upon us and upon our children.” (NAB).

I think you flagged an important point that the sins of the parents are not laid on the children. So, my interpretation of this verse is that it is an oath that the people had no business or legitimacy making. It is certainly an emphatic utterance, and shows their determination to go through with it, but I don’t believe that their children can be culpable.

 

[I_Fortuna]

My opinion: We are born in sin due to Adam and Eve because of their disobedience, we are redeemed by the Holy Virgin Mary due to her obedience. The blood of Christ the Lamb has washed us clean. His blood sacrifice was shed for us in payment for all of our sins. To come to Jesus is to be cleansed.

The Jews were first to her the word of Jesus Christ but rejected it. This is part of the fulfillment of prophecy as I understand it. From the beginning, Jesus was born to take our sins away by whatever means God willed for him. Jesus’ obedience saved us all.

 

[I_Fortuna]

Perhaps this from the Haydock Commentary would be helpful:

I think it is important to note that the Eight Homilys against the Jews by John Chysosthom have been apologized for on the Vatican website and explanations are given.

I think it is important to note that the primay reason for these homilys at the time was to warn people about the dangers of being led away from the Catholic church. He also advised against partaking of any Jewish feasts as they may be a temptation to stray.

It is much more harsh than I have portrayed it here, however, read them and make up your own mind. It is my understanding that he did many wonderful things for the church as well.

Also, am I to understand that you are referring to “Blood libel”? This is the cause of many innocent Jews being tortured and killed by ignorant people. You can find the history of this on the internet if you google the quoted item.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I have read someplace that this was said by the officials and crowd in Jerusalem; so applied only to them. It was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem and the slaughter of its inhabitants by the Romans forty years later. Note that the condemnation of the Jews by the Gospel writers, who we would now consider Jews, applied to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judea who rejected Jesus as opposed to the Galileans who followed Him.

Don’t remember where I read that. It was not an official teaching, but a reasonable discussion.

 

[patrick457]

Joe,
That is the interpretation I favor. Note that when “the people” (most likely referring just to the probably Jerusalemite paid crowd assembled before the Praetorium; now we need not automatically assume that like half of the city is present as art usually portrays it!*) shout those words, they just say “on us and on our tekna (children)” (nothing here explicitly implying “we the Jewish people as a whole shall take responsibility for all time”). And one generation later, what happens? Jerusalem gets torn down.

So to sum: some 1st-century Judeans (Ioudaioi, the term usually translated in our Bibles as ‘Jews’) did have some share in the guilt, but it’s rather quite a stretch to assume that the Jewish nation all over the world as a whole is guilty - and to assume it’s okay to abuse and slaughter them for it!

• You know, since the Middle Ages, people usually portrayed a very large multitude present at the trial of Jesus (a modern example is Mel Gibson’s portrayal).

The Gospels, however, do not imply anything about the size of the crowd. Given that (1) most of those present were paid to stack the decks against Jesus’ favor, (2) that a good number of those in the city probably wouldn’t have cared that much about this Galilean (Jesus’ popularity rested mostly in Galilee since He did most of His work there after all), (3) that it was the Passover season: people in Jerusalem were generally busy with something else, it could also be likely that there were less than a hundred people in Pilate’s front yard.

 

[Splinker]

Joe,
That is the interpretation I favor. Note that when “the people” (most likely referring just to the probably Jerusalemite paid crowd assembled before the Praetorium; now we need not automatically assume that like half of the city is present as art usually portrays it!*) shout those words, they just say “on us and on our tekna (children)” (nothing here explicitly implying “we the Jewish people as a whole shall take responsibility for all time”). And one generation later, what happens? Jerusalem gets torn down.

So to sum: some 1st-century Judeans (Ioudaioi, the term usually translated in our Bibles as ‘Jews’) did have some share in the guilt, but it’s rather quite a stretch to assume that the Jewish nation all over the world as a whole is guilty - and to assume it’s okay to abuse and slaughter them for it!

• You know, since the Middle Ages, people usually portrayed a very large multitude present at the trial of Jesus (a modern example is Mel Gibson’s portrayal).

The Gospels, however, do not imply anything about the size of the crowd. Given that (1) most of those present were paid to stack the decks against Jesus’ favor, (2) that a good number of those in the city probably wouldn’t have cared that much about this Galilean (Jesus’ popularity rested mostly in Galilee since He did most of His work there after all), (3) that it was the Passover season: people in Jerusalem were generally busy with something else, it could also be likely that there were less than a hundred people in Pilate’s front yard.

Also, thousands and thousands of Jews had already suffered crucifixion. I find it hard to believe that many would have the taste or inclination to go see another one. Such places would have been avoided by Jews as much as possible.

 

[patrick457]

Also, thousands and thousands of Jews had already suffered crucifixion. I find it hard to believe that many would have the taste or inclination to go see another one. Such places would have been avoided by Jews as much as possible.

Correct. Under the eyes of the law, Jesus Christ was just another criminal sentenced to a shameful death - He was hardly the only one in Roman history who was crucified.

Now many of the people couldn’t have avoided seeing it though. Crucifixions, as a rule, were practiced at public places where passersby can see the victims, preferably up-close, say on roadsides or near city gates* (sure debunks another common assumption in art that Golgotha was a secluded hill located a good distance away from the city!), but as you have mentioned, people have gotten so used to it that for many, it was nothing special. “Oh great, the Romans are killing somebody again. Now let’s go home.”
People came to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover, not to see an execution!

*The Gospels themselves support this, since they note that “those passing by” were the ones who taunted the dying Jesus, and that people saw the placard above His head “because the place where Jesus was crucified was near to the city.”

Personally, I think the reason why the artists so prefer their ‘cast of thousands’ on the Praetorium and Golgotha is because of a single comment by Luke that a “great multitude of the people” were following Him on the road (which does bring us to the question: just how great is ‘great’ here?) Of course, artists and filmmakers would also have loved them since it was a good chance to show off (1) how Jesus was so special - that He even has the ability to summon a huge gathering at His death, (2) for artists, how they are skilled enough that they are able to paint a huge number of people in a given scene, or (2) for directors, how big their budget was.

 

[patrick457]

That reminds me. The Greek has merely To aima autou eph’ himas kai epi ta tekna himon, which literally translated is, “His blood on us and on our children.” There is no verb in the original. The word ‘let’ and ‘be’ is actually just an insertion by English translators (which some opine has no syntactical justification), which has unfortunately led into the traditional understanding that it was sort of bloodthirsty wish, a self-curse by the Jews.

The statement is thus, rather than being a wish, is thus a sort of acceptance of responsibility by the ‘crowd’ (“X’s blood on Y” is a common Semitic expression signifying Y’s taking of the responsibility for X’s death; cf. Leviticus 20:9, 11-13; Joshua 2:19; 2 Samuel 1:16; Ezekiel 18:13; 33:4-6; Matthew 23:35-36; Acts 5:28; 18:6), and probably partly as a jest of Pilate’s statement of Jesus being a ‘just man’: after all, nobody calls down upon his children the responsibility for the unjust killing of a righteous person.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

I agree with Patrick. I think the crowd was acknowledging responsibility for the crucifixion of who they saw as a man; not knowingly executing the Messiah and calling down some form of blood curse on themselves. At any rate, even if they were calling a curse on themselves, it would seem only to apply to the Jews directly involved in the Crucifixion.

That being said, I disagree with the starter of the thread in the sense that sin cannot have consequences for the children. Saint Paul is replete with examples of sin being a corporate affair, and as affecting the entire Body of Christ. The Old Testament is likewise rife with examples of generational consequences for sin, extending six generations down if memory serves.

I think the idea of “individualized” sin, while valid in one sense, is also somewhat of an unfortunate byproduct of Protestant thinking. Liturgy, confession, and sin may be individual, but are a corporate affair.

 

[Spirithound]

That reminds me. The Greek has merely To aima autou eph’ himas kai epi ta tekna himon, which literally translated is, “His blood on us and on our children.” There is no verb in the original. The word ‘let’ and ‘be’ is actually just an insertion by English translators (which some opine has no syntactical justification), which has unfortunately led into the traditional understanding that it was sort of bloodthirsty wish, a self-curse by the Jews.

The statement is thus, rather than being a wish, is thus a sort of acceptance of responsibility by the ‘crowd’ (“X’s blood on Y” is a common Semitic expression signifying Y’s taking of the responsibility for X’s death; cf. Leviticus 20:9, 11-13; Joshua 2:19; 2 Samuel 1:16; Ezekiel 18:13; 33:4-6; Matthew 23:35-36; Acts 5:28; 18:6), and probably partly as a jest of Pilate’s statement of Jesus being a ‘just man’: after all, nobody calls down upon his children the responsibility for the unjust killing of a righteous person.

That is really interesting! Generally, typologically, the verb “to be” is only deleted when it is in the present indicative, not the subjunctive/imperative mood that shows up in the English translation, so your analysis sounds good.