Why did they say, "His blood be on us"?

I. Scriptural Reference

Matthew 27:24–25 states: “When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but that instead a riot was breaking out, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd. ‘I am innocent of this man’s blood,’ he said. ‘You bear the responsibility.’ And all the people answered, ‘His blood be on us and on our children!’” This passage recounts a climactic moment during the trial of Jesus before Pontius Pilate, where the Jewish crowd accepts responsibility for His death.

II. Historical Context

The event takes place during the Roman occupation of Judea in the first century AD. Pontius Pilate served as prefect from around AD 26 to AD 36. Archaeological evidence supporting Pilate’s existence includes the “Pilate Stone,” discovered in Caesarea in 1961, which mentions his name and title. This helps confirm that the biblical account is positioned within a genuine historical framework.

In the broader historical setting, religious leaders — particularly certain members of the Sanhedrin — had brought Jesus to Pilate, seeking a Roman death sentence. Tension between the religious authorities and Roman rule often led to precarious political maneuvering. Pilate’s hesitation (Matthew 27:23) portrays his attempt to appease both Roman expectations of justice and the fervent demands of local leaders and the crowd.

III. The Immediate Context of the Statement

In Matthew 27:24, Pilate symbolically washes his hands to show he does not endorse an unjust execution. The people’s response, “His blood be on us and on our children!” (Matthew 27:25), can be read in at least two overlapping ways:

1. Acceptance of Responsibility: The crowd proclaims collective liability for Christ’s death, emphasizing their determination to see Jesus sentenced.

2. Judicial Invocation: In many ancient cultures, calling for “blood” on one’s self signified a willingness to assume any guilt or consequences arising from a legal action.

IV. Old Testament Background

The concept of blood carrying both guilt and atonement is woven throughout the Old Testament.

• Leviticus 17:11 declares, “For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for your souls.” In ancient Israel, blood represented life, responsibility, and covenant.

• In Deuteronomy 19:10, the shedding of innocent blood was prohibited, placing guilt upon those who participated in it.

Therefore, the statement in Matthew 27:25 carries deep connotations, as those uttering it effectively claim liability for shedding innocent blood — which under Mosaic Law was regarded with utmost seriousness.

V. Theological Significance

1. Sin-Bearing and Atonement: Jesus, the sinless Lamb, went to the cross as a sacrifice for the sins of humanity (1 Peter 2:24: “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree…”). Even as the crowd declared, “His blood be on us,” they placed themselves under a curse. Yet through His sacrifice, blood also becomes the means of redemption (Ephesians 1:7: “In Him we have redemption through His blood…”).

2. Universal Responsibility: While the gospel account focuses on one historical crowd, Scripture teaches that all humanity’s sins necessitated Christ’s crucifixion (Romans 3:23–25). Hence, the statement “His blood be on us” applies to every person in need of atonement. The very blood they invoked in condemnation is the same blood that can cleanse from sin (1 John 1:7).

3. Irony and Prophecy: Their words reveal a profound irony—by calling down the responsibility for His death, they also unwittingly invoke the very atoning blood that can save them. The early Church acknowledged this tension yet offered forgiveness to all if they would repent and believe (Acts 2:38–39).

VI. Historical Witness and Manuscript Evidence

1. Manuscript Consistency: The oldest extant manuscripts of Matthew’s Gospel contain this account without contradiction, underscoring the reliability of the text. Early papyri (such as Papyrus 45 and Papyrus 46 for accompanying New Testament writings) and later codices (like Codex Sinaiticus) affirm the stability of these historical details.

2. Extrabiblical Corroboration: Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, refers to the political figures and tumult of the period in his works (e.g., “Antiquities of the Jews”). While he does not quote Matthew 27:25 specifically, his references to upheaval during the time of Pilate and the Sanhedrin’s involvement with Jesus support the credible political context in which these biblical events occurred.

3. Transformative Effect: Anecdotal cases throughout church history highlight individuals whose lives changed upon understanding the gravity of Jesus’ blood. The statement “His blood be on us” transformed into an acceptance of Christ’s redemptive power for countless believers, illustrating the continuing influence of these events.

VII. Implications for Behavior and Belief

1. Repentance and Forgiveness: While the crowd’s words invoked a heavy responsibility, Scripture extends the hope of forgiveness to all who turn to Christ, regardless of background or initial stance. Romans 10:9 asserts, “If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”

2. Seriousness of Rejecting Truth: The biblical narrative underscores the severity of rejecting the innocent for selfish or misguided reasons. Those who demanded Jesus’ crucifixion acted out of false charges and hardened hearts, a warning for all eras.

3. God’s Sovereign Plan: Even in the midst of human frailty and wrongdoing, these events unfold according to a divine design for salvation. Christ’s death and resurrection are historical, testified by an empty tomb (Matthew 28:5–7) and by over five hundred witnesses according to 1 Corinthians 15:6. Such testimony is the bedrock of the Christian faith and hope.

VIII. Conclusion

The crowd’s cry, “His blood be on us and on our children!” in Matthew 27:25, is laden with historical, theological, and prophetic significance. On the surface, it reveals a tragic acceptance of guilt for shedding innocent blood. Yet it also points to a profound paradox—Christ’s atoning blood has the power to cleanse rather than condemn. This passage challenges readers to examine the gravity of rejecting or accepting the sacrifice of Jesus. Through reliable manuscript evidence, corroborative historical details, and the testimony of Scripture, the enduring message is clear: although humanity is responsible for Christ’s death, His blood is the means of redemption and peace for all who believe.