“His blood be on us and on our children!”

Climacus

I was listening to an Orthodox podcast on atonement, and a very different interpretation was given to what I thought previously. I am curious if anyone has heard this, what you think of it, etc.

This was described as a blessing. As in the saving blood of Christ is effective for them:

Fr. Stephen: ...And the people, they mock him and they spit on him. And this is very important, because, in our modern era, a lot of people will take these descriptions of what happens at Christ’s death, and the hymns about them that we’re going to sing in Holy Week in a few weeks, and label them as anti-Semitic.

Fr. Andrew: Yeah, which we’re actually about to show you how it’s the opposite. [Laughter] It’s the opposite! It’s not anti-Semitic. Okay, perfect example; this is probably the classic example: Matthew 27:25, where the people say in response to Pilate, “His blood be upon us and upon our children.” Now, given everything we just said about the blood of the goat, and given everything you should know if you’re a Christian about what the blood of Christ does, if his blood is upon you, that’s actually good. I mean, St. Matthew is himself a Jew—anti-Semitic?—he’s writing the most Jewish of the gospels, the most Hebraized of the gospels! When he says that Christ’s blood is going to be upon them and upon their children, that’s a blessing! That’s absolutely a blessing!

Fr. Stephen: Right, and what St. Matthew conveys there with “His blood be on us and on our children” in narrative theology, Hebrews just comes out and says, in Hebrews 9:18-22, that says, “They were sprinkled with the blood. They and their children were sprinkled at the blood at the beginning of the old covenant, and now we have been sprinkled and purified with the blood of Christ.” So that’s the non-narrative theology way to say it. But, yes, this is… St. Matthew is deliberately subverting a potentially anti-Semitic reading of this. This is like Joseph in Genesis. They meant it to him for evil, but he meant it for good. They’re cursing him; he’s taking away their sins.

Fr. Andrew: “Father, forgive them.”

Fr. Stephen: Yeah, and note that it’s not just Jews who are doing these Day of Atonement things. It’s also the Roman soldiers who are doing these Day of Atonement things in St. Matthew’s gospel.

This is after a review of the Day of Atonement in the OT, a look at the Epistle of Barnabas and its description of 1st century Day of Atonement [the goat sent away: the scarlet cord, the beating with a reed, mocked and spitted upon...]

Thank you.

stetson

St. Matthew is deliberately subverting a potentially-Semitic reading of this.

Too bad all the antisemites over the centuries who used that line to justify murdering Jews didn't pick up on all the clever subversion going on.

Lamb Chopped

It's a pretty standard thing to point out in sermons, etc.--I've done it myself. The people who said this were doing it along the lines of a curse, that is, "We're so sure of this man's guilt that we're willing to call down a curse upon ourselves and our children if we turn out to be wrong--that is, we're accepting responsibility for his death." And of course they were tragically wrong about Jesus' guilt. But pretty much any Christian interpreter is likely to note the irony that it is in fact Jesus' blood upon us all (and our children) that saves us (not curses us).

As for those assholes who use this or anything else to justify murder, there IS no justification for that. It's a misuse of the text. If I could stop them from using it this way, I would. But then, stopping assholes from doing anything is a hard, hard challenge.

stetson

Lamb Chopped wrote: »

As for those assholes who use this or anything else to justify murder, there IS no justification for that. It's a misuse of the text. If I could stop them from using it this way, I would. But then, stopping assholes from doing anything is a hard, hard challenge.

Well, Fr. Stephen didn't just say it was a text about the self-certainty of the mob that has been wrongly used to justify antisemitism. He said that it was written in such a way so as to deliberately undermine people trying to give it an antisemitic interpretation, by implying that "His blood be on us and our children" is really a blessing.

But I'm really wondering how many antisemites over the centuries have had their antisemitic interpretations of the line reversed by suddenly coming to the realization that it's a blessing. If the number is as low as it appears to be, I'd say Matthew seriously failed as a writer there.

Lamb Chopped

I think he's incorrect if he's saying that the people in the story considered it to be a blessing, or if he's saying Matthew intended us to read their intention that way.

If he's saying Matthew was aware of the double meaning possibility like many a Christian preacher after him, or that God took a meant curse and subverted it into a blessing, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Nick Tamen

Lamb Chopped wrote: »

If he's saying Matthew was aware of the double meaning possibility like many a Christian preacher after him, or that God took a meant curse and subverted it into a blessing, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

And that’s how I read the snippet @Climacus provided, especially:

St. Matthew is deliberately subverting a potentially anti-Semitic reading of this. This is like Joseph in Genesis. They meant it to him for evil, but he meant it for good. They’re cursing him; he’s taking away their sins.

(Emphasis mine.)

stetson

Lamb Chopped wrote: »

I think he's incorrect if he's saying that the people in the story considered it to be a blessing, or if he's saying Matthew intended us to read their intention that way.

If he's saying Matthew was aware of the double meaning possibility like many a Christian preacher after him, or that God took a meant curse and subverted it into a blessing, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

But Fr. Stephen also states that Matthew, a Christian, also considered himself fully Jewish.

But if Matthew was using the reportorial device that Fr. Stephen claims he's using and for the claimed purposes, then we'd have to assume that Matthew had knowledge of a future state in which Christians and Jews would be widely seen as two entirely different groups, with the former routinely scape-goating the latter for everything, and that the crowd in Jerusalem would be misinterpreted as not just an angry mob randomly shouting for blood, but as having been acting on behalf of all Jews.

Or maybe God knew all that, with or without Matthew knowing, and just whispered the details into his ear? Either way, the theory seems to assume a maximalist view of divine inspiration.

Telford

I don't believe that bit. I suspect it was put in there to try and appease the Romans. It wasn't the fault of that nice Pilate. The crowd forced him to do it etc

Lamb Chopped

I don't think Matthew foresaw all the future anti-semitism in detail and handled his material with an eye to that; and I don't see that the podcasters are clearly saying that about him, either. The phrasing I read looked rather unclear. I took from it that the speaker thought the curse content HAD been subverted, and that Matthew is aware of that and is willingly subverting anti-semitism; but it's wise to remember that there was anti-semitism before ever there was Christianity. Matthew could easily have been thinking of past or present anti-semitism without having to have a prophetic vision of the future.

But I think this is all too complicated. I think Matthew wrote it because it really happened; and the fact that it makes a neat preaching point is just a bonus.

Climacus

Thank you for the responses.

Lamb Chopped wrote: »

It's a pretty standard thing to point out in sermons, etc.--I've done it myself. The people who said this were doing it along the lines of a curse, that is, "We're so sure of this man's guilt that we're willing to call down a curse upon ourselves and our children if we turn out to be wrong--that is, we're accepting responsibility for his death." And of course they were tragically wrong about Jesus' guilt. But pretty much any Christian interpreter is likely to note the irony that it is in fact Jesus' blood upon us all (and our children) that saves us (not curses us).

I will say I do not think I have ever heard this verse preached on; made reference to (usually pointing out the horrific anti-Semitic views from it), but not on it. So my only experience, at least that I recall on it was that (forgive me, preachers; I value you but I don't remember everything!) Perhaps it hit me harder because of that. Thank you.

pease

Lamb Chopped wrote: »

It's a pretty standard thing to point out in sermons, etc.--I've done it myself. The people who said this were doing it along the lines of a curse, that is, "We're so sure of this man's guilt that we're willing to call down a curse upon ourselves and our children if we turn out to be wrong--that is, we're accepting responsibility for his death." And of course they were tragically wrong about Jesus' guilt. But pretty much any Christian interpreter is likely to note the irony that it is in fact Jesus' blood upon us all (and our children) that saves us (not curses us).

As for those assholes who use this or anything else to justify murder, there IS no justification for that. It's a misuse of the text. If I could stop them from using it this way, I would. But then, stopping assholes from doing anything is a hard, hard challenge.

In relation to "the irony that it is in fact Jesus' blood upon us all (and our children) that saves us (not curses us)", my understanding is that the blood of Christ "washes away" sin, but it is dying with Christ that leads to being born again.

It seems likely that Matthew saw himself as a Jew who was a follow of Christ, and that his concern was how other Jews might become followers of Christ. However...

I become increasing mindful that it is only from a Christian perspective that Christianity is a fulfillment of Judaism (and Judaic law) - from other perspectives, it subverts it. The 2000 years following the events in Jerusalem demonstrate rather bleakly who suffer most from this inherent tension.

Crœsos

I'm wondering how if this analysis can be used more generally, or if it's a bespoke argument that only applies in this one specific instance. For example:

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets.

In this context "shedding the blood of the prophets" seems to have entirely negative connotations and included the idea of ancestral guilt. I suppose you could argue that killing Jesus was a special circumstance in the larger category of murdering prophets, but that seems like both special pleading and motivated reasoning.

TurquoiseTastic

I've often thought about that latter passage ("we would not have taken part" etcetera), which I've always found very difficult to make sense of. But I think yes, it could be analysed in a similar way. Jesus is criticising the Pharisees because they do not acknowledge that they would have shed the blood of the prophets. They think they are better than their ancestors, they do not perceive themselves as in need of forgiveness. And ironically this is the very trait which is undesirable, which makes one likely to kill a prophet.

Lamb Chopped

Much depends on the purpose of the speaker. In Acts 3, in the temple courts, Peter is addressing much the same people, and he says:

"25 You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’ 26 God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness.”

Merry Vole

I notice Matthew 27:25 is the fifth use of the word blood in that chapter. Bit of a theme for St Matthew?