This Man's Blood (part 2 of 2)

As Acts reports, the disciples having been instructed by the angel of the Lord in association with their being freed from the jail, these appointed apostles of Christ were said to have “entered the temple courts at daybreak and began teaching” (Acts 5:21b).  This was in obvious contradiction to the directive that had been given to them by the council.  The apostles are reminded that “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this Name” (5:28a).  That is followed by the declaration of “Look, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this Man’s blood upon us” (5:28b).

Peter and the others responded to this statement by saying “We must obey God rather than people” (5:30a).  Then, taking every opportunity to preach Christ and His Resurrection, the response continues with “The God of our forefathers raised up Jesus, Whom you seized and killed by hanging Him on a tree.  God exalted Him to His right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins” (5:30b-31).  Most importantly, they added “we are witnesses of these events” (5:32a).  Not only were they literal witnesses of these events, but they were called to be witnesses to these events---giving their lives (in life or death) to proclaim these things. 

Peter and the apostles were accused of attempting or intending to bring the blood of Jesus upon those whom were accused of putting Jesus to death.  When these “blood-bringing” words are read, the mind should be catapulted to Matthew’s Gospel and the scene of Jesus’ trial.  Standing before the people, Pilate says, “What should I do with Jesus Who is called the Christ (the Messiah)?” (27:22a)  The response was “Crucify Him!” (27:22b).  Pilate’s rejoinder was “Why?  What wrong has He done?” (27:23a).  However, “they shouted more insistently, ‘Crucify Him!’” (27:23b)  “When Pilate saw that he could do nothing, but that instead a riot was starting, he took some water, washed his hands before the crowd and said, ‘I am innocent of this Man’s blood.  You take care of it yourselves!’” (27:24).  How did the people reply to this act and statement of Pilate?  They said, “Let His blood be on us and our children!” (27:25b)  Clearly then, Luke (the author of Acts), was aware of the Matthean narrative of the trial of Jesus. 

So in both the Gospel of Matthew and the book of Acts, this statement about blood being upon them carries the same connotation.  In both cases, there is the implication of guilt, with either a willingness to bear it or a desire to escape it.  In Matthew, the people effectively say, “If we’re wrong about this, we’ll bear the responsibility.”  In Acts, the council seems to be saying, “We don’t want to bear this responsibility, but you are attempting to assign blame to us where none exists.”  Ironically however, when the council declares that “you intend to bring this Man’s blood upon us,” we can understand that as precisely what Peter and the apostles intended to do. 

The apostles, who are shown to be effectively spurred on by the Holy Spirit as witnesses, wanted to bring the men of the council under the blood.  They did not want to condemn them, or even get them to admit that they had made a huge mistake by condemning Jesus to death and allowing Him to be crucified.  They wanted the council to believe that this Jesus, who had been crucified, was now raised and exalted.  If they were to come under this blood themselves, by confessing Jesus as Lord and Leader and Savior, then the fact that they had been participants in His crucifixion would become irrelevant.  This belief and confession would be the mark of repentance from their opposition to the ways of God that had been espoused and pronounced by Jesus Himself.  This belief and confession would represent forgiveness of sins (an important concept for Israel), thus bringing to an end the exile from God’s blessings, because they were not in line with the new covenant requirement---believing in Jesus---in which these men found themselves. 

Yes, in effect, the Creator God wanted the blood of Christ to come upon them.  Here, one could borrow language from Ezekiel and hear God, through His witnesses, saying to these men, “I will make you pass under the shepherd’s staff; and I will bring you into the bond of covenant” (Ezekiel 20:37).  If one calls upon Christ as shepherd, and looks to His cross as His staff, then when His blood comes upon that person, the God of Israel brings that individual into the bond of His new covenant.

So yes, the apostles intended that the blood of Jesus come upon all people, be that the council, or the people of Jerusalem, or Judea, or Samaria, or the ends of the earth.  This would be accomplished in one way, which would be the power of the Creator God’s Spirit working transformation in hearts and minds, bringing people into alignment with His kingdom program, through “teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus was the Christ” (5:42b).