Abstract

‘The entire people cry out, “His blood be on us and on our children.”’ Is this the epochal ‘no’ of Israel renouncing its birthright? The legal precedent is not in delict but in contract, in treaties and covenants in which an entire people bind themselves and their descendants, their entire nation, in perpetuity by an imprecatory curse-oath identifying themselves and their descendants with a blood sacrifice that seals the contract. Legally, treaties and covenants require contemporaneous ratification. The author of Matthew’s gospel obtains the acclamations of the other actors, Pilate, the soldiers, the chief priests, scribes and elders and from the sign atop the cross by the formulaic talisman, ‘King of the Jews’ or ‘Israel’s King’ that each recite. He obtains the crowd’s acclamation from Pilate using together the words ‘Christ’ and ‘blood’ and employing a Jewish hand washing ritual. The purpose of the hand washing ritual was to forgive Israel for the guilt of innocent blood. However, Pilate uses this ritual meant to forgive Israel for its extreme opposite perverse purpose to condemn Israel. But the crowd uses the words ‘blood on’ in a different sense that evades Pilate’s request. ‘Blood on’ in the sacrificial system meant acceptance of a sacrificial blood offering.