Blood on Who's Hands?

"All the people answered, 'Let his blood be on us and on our children!'" (Matt 27:25)

Some time ago a friend asked me if the previous passage recorded in Matthew could be seen as a request for the atoning blood of Jesus to be placed on the nation of Israel. At first appearance, such an interpretation seems feasible as it would be seen to draw a parallel to the blood sprinkled on the people for the original covenant at Mount Sinai. “Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, "This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words." (Ex 24:8).

In pondering the question, I have noticed that the Bible will often list multiple generations when a judgment or promise is given. For example, the LORD visits “the iniquity of fathers on the children and upon the children’s children to the third and fourth generations” (Ex 34:7, KJV). Further, “No one born of a forbidden marriage nor any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation” (Deut 23:2). When the LORD talks of eternal blessings the reference frequently used is “children’s children”, such as the LORD’s love to the children’s children of those who fear him (Psa 103:17) and a future return of the Jewish people to the land of Israel when the “children and their children’s children will live there forever, and David my servant will be their prince forever” (Ezek 37:25).

The proclamation “Let his blood be on us and on our children!” is found only in Matthew, which is considered the gospel account written to the Jewish people. Had the statement been a request for the blood of Jesus to be an atonement for the sins of the nation, I think it would have read something like, “Let his blood be on us, our children, and our children’s children for all generations.” As stated, the proclamation appears limited to just the generation of the crucifixion and the generation that followed.

Because this historically aligns with the destruction of the temple forty years (one generation) after the crucifixion of Jesus, it would appear to be a curse or statement of condemnation. This is why Pilate washed his hands to be “innocent of this man’s blood” (Matt 27:24) and a position the Sanhedrin avoided in the presence of Peter and John (Acts 5:28). Further, “the people” are principally believed to be the Sadducees and the Herodians, supporters of Herod and his descendants. The Sadducees (priests), ceased to exist shortly after the destruction of the temple. Caiaphas and Annas were Sadducees.

The current form of Rabbinic Judaism derives almost entirely from the Pharisees of Jesus’ day, who had developed their system of worship in Babylon to operate in the absene of a temple. Although we generally condemn the Pharisees along with the Sadducees, historically only 6 to 7 Pharisees were among the 71-members assembly of the Sanhedrin and High Priest. We know from scripture 3 of the Pharisees on the Sanhedrin, Nicodemus (John 3:1), Joseph of Arimathes (Luke 23:51), and Gamaleil (Acts 5:33), and it appears they “had not consented to their (Sanhedrin) decision and action” (Luke 23:51). Approximately 27 members of the Sanhedrin were required to have a quorum, so the condemnation of Jesus could occur with 44 members absent. Recent speculation holds that no Pharisees were present during the condemnation of Jesus.

Thoughts on passage or other observations? Looking forward to seeing everyone. Scott