# His blood be on us

Matthew's cry has been used to accuse the Jewish people of deicide; Christian traditions now read it as the voice of all sinners, while Jewish readers name its harmful history.

Source: https://manybibles.app/articles/his-blood-be-on-us — ManyBibles. Scripture is quoted from the New Consensus Bible, an AI rendering. The article is AI-generated from ManyBibles' records of how each tradition reads these passages; it describes their positions and does not rule between them.

## The passage (Scripture)

### Matthew 27:24-26

> [24] And Pilate, seeing that it was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, having taken water, washed his hands before the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of the blood of this righteous one; you will see to it." [25] And answering, all the people said, "His blood be upon us and upon our children." [26] Then he released Barabbas to them, but having flogged Jesus, he delivered him up so that he might be crucified.

Study the chapter: https://manybibles.app/study/matthew/27

## The question

Does this verse lay guilt on the Jewish people, as it was long used to claim?

## Background (historical background)

Matthew 27:24-25 is unique to the First Gospel. Pilate washes his hands and declares himself innocent, and the crowd answers in verse 25 with a bloodguilt formula, an idiom that also appears in the Hebrew Scriptures where a person or group accepts responsibility for a death (e.g., 2 Sam 1:16; Josh 2:19). In the narrative, this is spoken by the crowd before Pilate.

The Gospel of Matthew is generally dated by scholars to roughly 80-90 CE, after the destruction of the Second Temple. Many historians regard the scene as part of Matthew's theological and polemical narrative: the evangelist emphasizes the Roman governor's reluctance and places the demand for crucifixion on a Jewish crowd, likely reflecting tensions between the Matthean community and the emerging rabbinic movement. The verse has been cited across centuries to justify the charge of deicide.

## How the traditions read it (each tradition's interpretation)

### Catholic: No collective Jewish guilt; all sinners share responsibility; Christ's blood is salvific.

The Catholic Church formally teaches that what happened in the passion cannot be attributed collectively to the Jews then living or today, and that all sinners are the agents of the passion. This is stated in Nostra Aetate (4) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (597). The blood of Christ is interpreted as poured out for the forgiveness of sins, not as a curse on a people. The hand-washing and the cry are read liturgically as part of the drama of sin and redemption, with the Church asking God to place the blood of Christ on all for salvation.

### Lutheran and Reformed: The crowd's words voice the guilt of all sinners, including every Christian, not an ethnic curse.

In Lutheran and Reformed practice, the passion reading is proclaimed so that the hearer says with the crowd, 'I am the one who has done this.' The Lutheran Law/Gospel distinction uses the text to accuse every believer of sin and drive them to Christ; the Reformed tradition sees the crowd's demand as the natural demand of the sinful human heart. Neither tradition's confessions single out the Jewish people as uniquely liable. The cry is understood as fulfilled in the atoning blood of Christ, which covers the guilt of all who trust him.

### Anglican / Episcopal: The liturgy has the congregation speak these words to acknowledge universal human complicity.

Many Anglican liturgies of Holy Week assign the crowd's part to the whole assembly, so that verse 25 is not heard as the voice of a particular ethnic group but as the voice of every sinner. The Book of Common Prayer structures the Passion reading to invite this identification. Rowan Williams reads Pilate's hand-washing as the evasion of worldly power in the face of divine truth, not as a transfer of guilt to the Jewish people. The Thirty-Nine Articles interpret the crucifixion as a satisfaction for the sins of the world.

### Jewish: The text does not establish Jewish guilt and has been used to fuel antisemitism.

Jewish readers do not treat Matthew as Scripture. Medieval polemicists noted discrepancies such as the misattributed prophecy in verses 9-10, and modern historians like Joseph Klausner and Geza Vermes point out that crucifixion was a Roman penalty for sedition, not a Jewish religious execution. The evangelist's shifting of blame from Pilate to the Jewish crowd is understood as a sectarian move within a post-Temple Jewish-Christian conflict. Verse 25 has a catastrophic history: it was used for centuries as the foundational text for the charge of deicide and fueled systemic violence against Jewish communities.

### Historical-critical scholarship: The verse reflects Matthew's sectarian context, not a historical curse on Jews.

Scholars note that the hand-washing and blood cry are unique to Matthew. Many argue that the evangelist, writing after 70 CE, shaped the trial scene to deflect responsibility from Roman authorities and to address conflicts between his community and formative Rabbinic Judaism. The bloodguilt formula in verse 25 is viewed as a Matthean composition using biblical idioms, not as a transcript of a comprehensive Jewish crowd. Raymond E. Brown's detailed study of the passion sees these verses as part of the evangelist's theological and polemical narrative.

## The text and its translation (historical background)

There are no major manuscript variants in verses 24-25. The Greek term translated 'people' in verse 25 is 'λαός', which in Matthew often refers to the Jewish crowds gathered, not to the entire Jewish nation; the scope of 'upon us and upon our children' is a matter of interpretation, not textual corruption.

## Common ground (AI explanation)

Christian traditions that receive Matthew as Scripture agree that verse 25 is not a warrant for antisemitism and does not single out contemporary Jewish people for punishment. They also agree that the passage depicts a transfer of responsibility and that Christ's blood is central to salvation. Jewish and historical-critical readers agree that the verse's historical use has been harmful and that its original setting is intra-Jewish conflict.

## Why it matters (AI explanation)

How this verse is read shapes Holy Week preaching and Christian self-examination: whether the cry is heard as one's own sin or as another group's curse. It has had direct consequences for Jewish-Christian relations, as a misreading of this text was used to justify deicide accusations, expulsions, and violence. For Catholics and many Protestant churches, repudiating collective Jewish guilt is now part of formal teaching and liturgical practice. Historical and Jewish readings emphasize the need to read the passage in its first-century context.

## Questions people ask

### Does Matthew 27:25 mean the Jewish people are guilty of Jesus' death?

The article explains that Catholic and many Protestant churches today reject any collective charge of deicide against Jewish people, reading the crowd's cry instead as the voice of every sinner. Jewish and historical-critical readers say the verse never established Jewish guilt, but has a long history of being used to fuel antisemitism. The article presents these readings without deciding between them.

### How do Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed and Anglican traditions read Pilate's hand-washing and the crowd's cry?

Catholic teaching, in Nostra Aetate and the Catechism, says the passion cannot be attributed collectively to the Jews and reads Christ's blood as poured out for forgiveness rather than as a curse. Lutheran and Reformed practice invites each hearer to identify with the crowd as a sinner driven to Christ, and many Anglican liturgies give the crowd's words to the whole congregation. Rowan Williams reads Pilate's hand-washing as the evasion of worldly power, not a transfer of guilt to a people.

### What do Jewish readers and historians say about Matthew 27:24-26?

Jewish readers do not treat Matthew as Scripture and note that crucifixion was a Roman penalty for sedition, seeing the shift of blame from Pilate to the crowd as an inner-Jewish sectarian move. Historical-critical scholars observe that the hand-washing and blood cry appear only in Matthew, often dated around 80-90 CE, after the Temple's destruction. Both stress the verse's harmful later use in deicide accusations and violence against Jewish communities.

### Is the dispute about the text of Matthew 27:24-26 or how it is interpreted?

There are no major manuscript variants in these verses, so the disagreement concerns interpretation, historical setting and later use, not the wording itself. The Greek word translated 'people' can refer to the crowd gathered before Pilate rather than the whole Jewish nation, and the scope of 'upon us and upon our children' is debated. Jewish and historical-critical readers agree the verse's history has been harmful, while Christian traditions agree it is not a warrant for antisemitism.