Mathew 27: 25 (anti-Semitic verse)

[Saint_Gemma]

Douay Rheims Bible:

And the whole [Jewish] people answering, said: His blood be upon us and our children.

I am Catholic, but I have a hard time explaining this verse to my (ethnically) Jewish father in a way where it does not justify anti-Semitism.
Both I and my father know about Ven.Pope Pius XII saving 800,000 Jews from the Nazis, etc. What I am interested in is either
a) an explanation of why this verse is not anti-Semitic
or
b) an explanation of how a Catholic Bible can have an anti-Semitic verse without the Catholic Church being anti-Semitic.

Would someone please explain this to me?

Thank you.

 

[JeanneH]

I am Catholic, but I have a hard time explaining this verse to my (ethnically) Jewish father in a way where it does not justify anti-Semitism.
Both I and my father know about Ven.Pope Pius XII saving 800,000 Jews from the Nazis, etc. What I am interested in is either
a) an explanation of why this verse is not anti-Semitic
or
b) an explanation of how a Catholic Bible can have an anti-Semitic verse without the Catholic Church being anti-Semitic.

Would someone please explain this to me?

Thank you.

Hi,

The note to this verse in my JB says–The Jews are accepting the responsibility for the death they demand.

The note from the Haydock commentary says:

Ver. 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. Chrysostom)

JeanneH

 

[Nita]

The statement was made by Jews. To record in historical documents, words and events that truly occurred, is not racist. It’s just honestly recording history.

To use those historical words or events as an excuse to persecute or harass a particular group of people would be racism.

Nita

 

[ryanoneil]

(Mat 27:25) is simply and oath formula where they take responsibility for the fallout.

Unless the gospel writers made it up, what is anti-semitic about that? Compair to (Josh 2:17-19)

**The men answered her, "This is how we will fulfill the oath you made us take: When we come into the land, tie this scarlet cord in the window through which you are letting us down; and gather your father and mother, your brothers and all your family into your house. Should any of them pass outside the doors of your house, he will be responsible for his own death, and we shall be guiltless. But we shall be responsible if anyone in the house with you is harmed. **

Is this oath formula from the OT anti-semitic? I don’t think so.

Peace,

Ryan

 

[porthos11]

They’re the ones who said it. Why is it anti-Semitic?

 

[Verbum]

Exactly. This is just reporting a fact. The Jews present (and not all the Jews in the world) are saying to Pilate, “Don’t you worry yourself. We take full responsibliity.”

Some Christians may use these words to justify anti-semitism, but there is no anti-semitism in the text.

Verbum

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I am Catholic, but I have a hard time explaining this verse to my (ethnically) Jewish father in a way where it does not justify anti-Semitism.
Both I and my father know about Ven.Pope Pius XII saving 800,000 Jews from the Nazis, etc. What I am interested in is either
a) an explanation of why this verse is not anti-Semitic
or
b) an explanation of how a Catholic Bible can have an anti-Semitic verse without the Catholic Church being anti-Semitic.

Would someone please explain this to me?

Thank you.

Jesus was a Jew, the Chief Priests were Jews, Barabbas was probably a Jew because he was notorious among the Jews. How would this be anti-semitic? Certainly this was a major piece in the split which became Christianity but unless he believes Jews were in error by rejecting God why would he care?

 

[tomarin]

i can’t imagine jesus would curse anyone, even if they asked for it. and why would anyone ask to be cursed and to have the curse extend to their children?

 

[ryanoneil]

Have you read Mat 21:18-22 when Jesus curses the fig tree.

The fig tree symbolizes the unfaithful of Old Covenant Israel.

They are odious; they have done abominable things, yet they are not at all ashamed, they know not how to blush. Hence they shall be among those who fall; in their time of punishment they shall go down, says the LORD. I will gather them all in, says the LORD: no grapes on the vine, No figs on the fig trees, foliage withered! (Jer 8:13)

They have sunk to the depths of corruption, as in the days of Gibeah; He shall remember their iniquity and punish their sins. Like grapes in the desert, I found Israel; Like the first fruits of the fig tree in its prime, I considered your fathers. When they came to Baal-peor and consecrated themselves to the Shame, they became as abhorrent as the thing they loved. (Hos 9:9-10)

Peace,

Ryan

 

[Angelos]

Listen to what prophet Jeremiah says when Jewish priests try to sentence him to death:

26:15 But know you, and understand, that if you put me to death, you will shed innocent blood against your own selves, and against this city, and the inhabitants thereof. For in truth the Lord sent me to you, to speak all these words in your hearing.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Some regard the Gospel references to Jews as referring to those living in Judea, and especially in Jerusalem, who rejected Jesus and called for His death; as opposed to the Galileans and others who accepted and supported Him. Note that the former were punished forty years later when Jerusalem was demolished by the Romans. This was suggested in Hebrews 3:7-19 as further fulfillment of the punishment for rejecting God in the desert.

Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, “Today, when you hear his voice, 8 do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, on the day of testing in the wilderness, 9 where your fathers put me to the test and saw my works for forty years. 10 Therefore I was provoked with that generation, and said, ‘They always go astray in their hearts; they have not known my ways.’ 11 As I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall never enter my rest.’” 12 Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. 13 But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end, 15* while it is said, “Today, when you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.” 16* Who were they that heard and yet were rebellious? Was it not all those who left Egypt under the leadership of Moses? 17* And with whom was he provoked forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? 18 And to whom did he swear that they should never enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? 19 So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.

Note that it is forty years since we rejected His voice in Humanae Vitae.

 

[Saint_Gemma]

The statement was made by Jews. To record in historical documents, words and events that truly occurred, is not racist. It’s just honestly recording history.

To use those historical words or events as an excuse to persecute or harass a particular group of people would be racism.

Nita

My father thinks that a large group of people saying something like that spontaneously is highly unlikely, and that someone planted those words in the mouth of the Jewish crowd.

 

[St_Aloysius]

Saint_Gemma:

My father thinks that a large group of people saying something like that spontaneously is highly unlikely, and that someone planted those words in the mouth of the Jewish crowd.

It’s possible the author took certain liberties, yes. I agree also, though, that this verse is clearly employing an Old Testament style of oath. It is the crowd’s way of saying, “We, yes we, take responsibility for what happens here!” They were reassuring Pilate that if their actions were in the wrong, then he needn’t worry: his blood would be on their heads. It was an understandable statement if authentic, and is in any case only made by a small group of Jews and is in no way, shape, or form justification for anti-Semitism.

As a deacon once pointed out to me in regards to this verse: “The early Christians were very hurt not only by the Jewish people’s rejection of Jesus, whom they saw as the Promised Messiah, the Christ, but also by the ensuing persecutions at their hands. There is an undeniable sense of tension in nearly all early Christian writings when it comes to the Jewish people. Look no farther than the Gospels, yet it also permeates the Didache, the Fathers, etc. Their sentiments do not justify anti-Semitism, but rather are understandable expressions of their hurt. How others later would reinterpret and twist these words is another story entirely.”

I agree in many ways. The Qur’an has a similar internal ordeal. Muhammed and his followers were amply mocked by Christian and Jew alike. How hard it was for them, especially as one considers for so long the Arabs had felt utterly cut off from God and his revelation, poured out so graciously on the Christian and Jewish people. Then, just when something happens, both sects refuse to listen. They want no part in what Muhammed was certain could fulfill their revelation and reconcile their differences.

This sort of thing isn’t uncommon. I don’t think the Bible endorses anti-Semitism or any other form of racism. But I do understand the hurt of the early Christians. Likewise, I’m not upset with certain Qur’anic passages which, as opposed to others, do not deal in the most kindly manner with Christians and Jews. Rather, I understand the underlying emotional distress in both of these.

Maybe your father has never given this real consideration. I can see where words as difficult as these could make an ethnic Jew more than just a little uneasy–but saddened even.

 

[ryanoneil]

It’s possible the author took certain liberties, yes. I agree also, though, that this verse is clearly employing an Old Testament style of oath. It is the crowd’s way of saying, “We, yes we, take responsibility for what happens here!” They were reassuring Pilate that if their actions were in the wrong, then he needn’t worry: his blood would be on their heads. It was an understandable statement if authentic, and is in any case only made by a small group of Jews and is in no way, shape, or form justification for anti-Semitism.

As a deacon once pointed out to me in regards to this verse: “The early Christians were very hurt not only by the Jewish people’s rejection of Jesus, whom they saw as the Promised Messiah, the Christ, but also by the ensuing persecutions at their hands. There is an undeniable sense of tension in nearly all early Christian writings when it comes to the Jewish people. Look no farther than the Gospels, yet it also permeates the Didache, the Fathers, etc. Their sentiments do not justify anti-Semitism, but rather are understandable expressions of their hurt. How others later would reinterpret and twist these words is another story entirely.”

I second that.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

My father thinks that a large group of people saying something like that spontaneously is highly unlikely, and that someone planted those words in the mouth of the Jewish crowd.

It seems fairly clear in the Gospels that the Jewish leaders planted words in the crowd. [Note Mark 15:11But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barabbas instead.] /These were skilled political leaders who knew how to manipulate a crowd. Apparently they had their cheerleaders strategically placed.