Are "the" or "some" Jews Cursed?

Serv wrote: Does this apparent perpetual and multi-generational �curse� (at least as it has been interpreted at times viciously throughout history) apply to {keyword} �the� disbelieving Jews and their ancestors, �children,� in toto?  Or, as post-modernist exegetes and others would have it, does it only apply to �some� Jews �for instance, to those who were present at the time in Jerusalem?  Does the Bible itself specify?  Must we try to understand it on our own?  Did (and do) �some� or �all� Jews say?   Couldn�t the New Testament writers, speakers of that capable language, Greek, make it clearer?  (Matt 27:20-24) �But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed. "Which of the two do you want me to release to you?" asked the governor. "Barabbas," they answered. "What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?" Pilate asked. They all answered, "Crucify him!" "Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!" When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!" All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children! [bold emphasis added]�

Let me help you understand Matthew 27:25 with some clips from an article explaining what was going on and what that verse means:

Matthew 27:25 arguably stands out as one of the most misunderstood and misinterpreted passages in all of Holy Scripture. Of the proposed interpretations for Matthew 27:25, the anti-Jewish interpretation is the oldest and most frequently cited in the history of the Church. This view says the Jewish people are permanently guilty and condemned in the eyes of God for their murder of Jesus Christ. As such, the cry of �His blood be upon us� means that the Jewish crowd in Jerusalem admitted full guilt for killing the Lord Jesus Christ and thereby invoked God�s curse upon themselves and their descendants until the end of time. This interpretation first surfaced in the writings of the early church fathers in the second century AD. It became universally accepted by the Middle Ages. The result, among other things, was the slanderous accusa tion that all Jews were �Christ killers� and �murderers of God.� Sadly, this is still a widespread belief in the Church today.

The true meaning of Matthew 27:25, like any other Bible verse, is found within the context in which it is written. When looking at the context of Matthew�s Gospel (specifically, chapters 26 and 27) it is quite obvious that the entire Jewish race was not totally responsible for having Jesus crucified. Matthew 26 and 27 informs the reader that one individual and three distinct groups were responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. They are (1) Judas Iscariot, the disciple who betrayed Jesus into the hands of the Jewish authorities (Matt. 26:14�16; 47�50); (2) the Jewish leaders. This group was made up of Caiphas the High Priest, the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes. They united to form the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem which tried Jesus on the charge of blasphemy (Matt. 26:47, 57�67; 27:1�2, 5, 18, 25); (3) the Romans, comprised of the Procurator Pontius Pilate who handed Jesus over to be crucified and the Roman soldiers who actually nailed Jesus to the cross (Matt. 27:11�37); (4) the Jewish mob of Jerusalem. Though their role in Matthew 27 seems passive and subordinated under the control and influence of the chief priests and elders, their guilt in the death of Christ cannot be overlooked. They had the opportunity afforded them by Pilate to have Jesus released, but they chose instead a criminal named Barabbas (Matt 27:17, 20�26).

From the context of Matthew 26�27 Jewish guilt for the death of Jesus applies only to Judas, the religious leaders of Jerusalem, and the mob of Jerusalem before the judgment seat of Pilate. It was the unbelieving Jews of Jerusalem and Israel, not all Jews in general, whom Matthew and the New Testament indict for their failure to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and their complicity in His death.

In part 2 we will look in depth at how Matthew�s words themselves tell us exactly who �our children� are.

The meaning of �children� in the cry of the crowd in Matthew 27:25 does not mean all the subsequent descendants of those Jews who rejected Christ in Matthew 26 and 27. The word in the Greek text of Matthew can also mean a child of parents. In the context of verse 25 it refers to the offspring of the unbelieving Jews of Jerusalem who shouted for Christ to be crucified. This at once limits the meaning to only one generation and corresponds with the judgment of Jerusalem in AD 70.

To read the cry of Matthew 27:25 as an eternal curse on the Jewish people is therefore to press the language beyond its Biblical context. Jewish guilt for the death of Christ in Matthew rested upon a small number of the nation who were there, and to read into these words a curse on all Jews forever is ludicrous (after all, Matthew and his fellow apostles were Jews). Like everyone else in the present age of grace, Jews will not be judged corporately, but judged individually on the sole basis of their acceptance or rejection of Jesus as Messiah and Lord (John 3:36).

The cry of Matthew 27:25 was not a bloodthirsty wish, curse, or prophecy, but rather a cultural idiom of the ancient Near East used to verbally express individual or group responsibility for a solemn action taken. The use and meaning of this expression goes back to the Old Testament (see Deut. 19:10; Josh. 2:19; 2 Sam. 3:28�29; I Kings 2:33; Jer. 26:15; Ezek. 18:13). Pilate�s unwillingness to condemn Jesus prompted the Jerusalem crowd to take responsibility for it themselves, hence the cry �His blood be upon us�.� The guilt for the murder of Christ belonged to these Jews alone who stood before Pilate demanding that Jesus be crucified. It was not passed on to all Jews born a fter them.

If indeed Matthew 27:25 meant the Jews are in fact condemned as a race for killing Christ, should not the Italian descendants of the ancient Romans also be condemned for nailing Jesus to the cross? Those within the Church who have favored the anti-Jewish interpretation of Matthew 27:25 would do well to at least be consistent with their racist interpretation. The reason they are not is because they are exclusively biased against the Jewish people.

I suggest that you read the whole article.  It is not very long.

http://www.levitt.com/essays/bloodlibel.html

As I pointed out the Arabic does not allow us to read "some."  The verse infers "all" Jews.

Further than that, since Allah would have know how Matthew 27:25 had been used to persecute and/or accuse all Jews of Jesus' murder I would think that he would have made sure that it didn't happen again with a verse in the Qur'an.  In other words, he would have identified the Jews as "x,y,z" Jews and not have left the impression that he condemned all Jews.

As you can readily see from the article, all Jews were not condemned for the murder of Jesus, but only some Jews as identified in the article.

Now could you tell me what your understanding is of the Jews calling Ezra the "son of God."  Why was that expression so horrid to Allah that he put a curse on them?

Peace