Is the centurion at the cross the 'first Christian'?

[Stefan Kristensen]

Of course I was not correct in my original post here, that the almost universal understanding is that the centurion gives a Christian confession. Actually there are two ways to go, two overall options:

1) This person or character (the centurion) confesses Christ, because he somehow, for some reason, understands Jesus' true identity.

2) This person or character does not confess Christ, which means that something else is going on, and his 'confession' of "son of God" must be explained and understood in another way (irony, for example).

I'm in option 2).

I think this is just a case of the Centurion expressing something that the author of Mark took to be ironic. What the original meaning/context of his supposed statement (however the author of Mark came to know of it) was supposed to be we will never know. We just know that the author of that part of Mark thought it was ironic.

Same goes with the supposed titulus that read "The King of the Jews" (Mk 15:26). The Romans and the crowds mocked him for accepting such a claim about him, but the author of Mark "knew" that Jesus was *really* the savior of mankind. This is sublime irony, and perhaps only evident to a Christian of Mark's age. No one knew that the Judean nation would ultimately be crushed until much later, despite the brief rule of king Agrippa along the way.

That happens to be how irony works. It just takes a while for the rationalization process to morph a failed royal claimant into a divine redeemer, even greater than a Roman approved^tm king of the Judeans (Agrippa).

Who knew?

DCH

Your choice as well as mine is within option 2), that the centurion does not give a Christian confession. But don't you think that the author of this passage cared about what the centurion himself might have meant in this situation? Or do you think that the author was well aware, what the centurion could have meant with his statement, and he also thought his audience would understand it easily (so that it's just us today that don't understand)?

I see the centurion as a literary character, whom the author fully 'controls', whether this event and saying was tradition-material or the author's own invention. By which I mean that I think Mark has something specific in mind, concerning the statement of the centurion. If it is ironic, then the author understands the event in another way than it was originally meant, but I think the author is very careful that his story is not unintelligable on the 'non-ironic' level.

[Stefan Kristensen]

Actually, the first Christian would be the first person who saw/believed Christ had risen from the dead.

According to Mark 16:5-6 that would be the young man dressed in a white robe, (name unknown) sitting in the empty tomb.

Sincerely,

John T

I agree with the first part, that the first Christian (according to Mark) would be the first person who saw/believed Christ had risen from the dead.
But I think the young man at the grave is an angel. (That represents symbolically the risen Christ = the risen 'son of man' = the new creation of God, the 'church').

[Stefan Kristensen]

Matthew 16:
15 “But what about you,” He asked; “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”

It seems here, that Peter has some impressive insight, and this could be the first Christian confession in 'history'. This is in gMatt, however. Also, it doesn't seem like Peter actually understands the Christian teaching after all, judging from the rest of the story, and he hasn't come to this realization himself, but it has been revealed to him "by my Father in the heavens" (Matt 16:17).

[Stefan Kristensen]

.
Most verses or passages in Mark 15 are contradictory or 'sliding door' type events, situations, or comments or passages ...


Jesus refusing to tell Pilate whether he was the King of the Jews or not in Mk 15:2-5.


In Mk 15: 8-15, again no direct answers to Pilates questions -

8 So the crowd came and began to ask Pilate to do for them according to his custom. 9 Then he answered them, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?” 10 For he realized that it was out of jealousy that the chief priests had handed him over. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release Barabbas for them instead. 12 Pilate spoke to them again, “Then what do you wish me to do with [the man you call] the King of the Jews?” 13 They shouted back, “Crucify him!” 14 Pilate asked them, “Why, what evil has he done?” But they shouted all the more, “Crucify him!” 15 So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released Barabbas for them; and after flogging Jesus, he handed him over to be crucified.

Then Mk 15:17 'they clothed him in a purple cloak', yet -

Mk 15:20 'After mocking him, they stripped him of the purple cloak and put his own clothes [back] on him'


Then Mk 15:11 They compelled a 'passer-by', who was coming in from the country, to carry his cross; it was Simon of Cyrene ...

• There is a hidden message there^ - Simon of Cyrene is unlikely to have been a passer-by in this event ...

Then, at Golgotha, Mk 15: 23 And they offered him wine mixed with myrrh; but he did not take it.


Mk 15:28 And with him they crucified two bandits, one on his right and one on his left.[+/- v28 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “And he was counted among the lawless”.]


Pointing out the contradictions of destroying the temple and supposedly being able to [re-]build it in 3 days; and that he could save others, but not himself -

29 Those who passed by derided [or blasphemed] him, shaking their heads and saying, “Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, 30 save yourself, and come down from the cross!” 31 In the same way the chief priests, along with the scribes, were also mocking him among themselves and saying, “He saved others; he cannot save himself .."

33 When it was noon, darkness came over the whole land/earth (until three in the afternoon).


36 " let us see whether Elijah will come to take him down.” 37 [but] Then Jesus gave a loud cry and breathed his last.


39 Now when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said, “Truly this man was a son of God!”


42 When evening had come, and since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.


44 Then Pilate 'wondered' if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he had been 'dead for some time'.


45 When he 'learned' from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph [who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God].

---

I wonder if the centurion is a foil, contrast, or metaphor for something ...

Exactly, a metaphor, perhaps. But then the question still remains: In a metaphor, there are two meanings, the surface meaning and the transposed meaning. The transposed meaning could be something like the Gentile world receiving the spirit, because it has now left Israel, the temple, symbolized by the 'breath/spirit' leaving Jesus' body. But if that is the transposed meaning (or at least a suggestion), then what is the surface meaning in the metaphor? I think also it must be something like a "polytheistic" expression "or equivalent to a demigod".

Also, I believe the grammatical construction, υιος θεου ην, is open for dual meaning: "was a son of God", but also: "was the son of God".

[Stefan Kristensen]

Is there another third solution?

I think there is: The event happened as a 'parable', and it is symbolic of Gentiles coming to faith ... symbolic of God's new covenant with humans at large (in principle, including Gentile Roman executioners¹), which replaces his old covenant with Israel centered around the temple. But if the event is symbolic what about the actual centurion? What does he mean, then, if he's not expressing the Christian faith in Jesus as [a] son of God? Wouldn't the most 'realistic' solution be that he sees Jesus' death with the darkening, and then concludes that Jesus was "a son of God" in the sense a Roman soldier would understand: like the great men of Rome's history? At least that's an explanation that takes into account both the fact that the resurrection hasn't happened yet in the story, and the fact that this centurion does conclude that Jesus "was (a) son of God".

¹ and including soldiers/centurions. As a pacifying trope? To signal an acceptance by a/the warring party/parties?

I think gMark shows a very 'friendly' minded attitude to the Romans as such, at least when it comes to Pilate and this centurion. This creates a stark contrast to God's chosen people, and that's probably the point, I think. They must be the bad guys, something like the Biblical tradition, found for example in 2 Kings 17,7ff.

If the 'Temple Cleansing' is an interpretation by Mark of the destruction of the temple in AD 70 (which I believe it is), then not only was the destruction of the temple God's angry punishment, but in this 'parable' of the Temple Cleansing, the role of the Roman destructive forces in AD 70 is played by Jesus himself! So Jesus making a big mess in the temple court is a symbol of the Roman armies destroying the temple!

[Stefan Kristensen]

Either:
1) Mark has just not cared to compose his story to be 'realistic', and he doesn't care at all about this gross anachronism, that this guy suddenly grasps the whole truth about Jesus, without even knowing about the resurrection (which hasn't happened yet)
2) or else, for Mark the resurrection is irrelevant for understanding Jesus.

Bernard has an interesting take on this: http://historical-jesus.info/79.html. For completely different reasons, Crossan also suggested that a more original text once ended with the centurion's confession.

It is very interesting, and some sound argumentation, I think. I disagree with some of the details and premises, which changes my whole perspective on the thing. But it must be admitted, that the ending of 16:8 is a very strange ending. (Not that it's a strong argument in itself for not to be the original ending).

[Giuseppe]

Note en passant that a ''centurion'', in any Gospel episode where he appears, is always a converted Christian. Differently from the same Pilate.

[MrMacSon]

I wonder if the centurion is a foil, contrast, or metaphor for something ...

Exactly, a metaphor, perhaps. But then the question still remains: In a metaphor, there are two meanings, the surface meaning and the transposed meaning. The transposed meaning could be something like the Gentile world¹ receiving the spirit, because it has now left Israel, the temple, symbolized by the 'breath/spirit' leaving Jesus' body. But if that is the transposed meaning (or at least a suggestion), then what is the surface meaning in the metaphor? I think also it must be something like a "polytheistic" expression "or equivalent to a demigod".

¹ The Roman forces receiving information about /or accepting the spirit, new god? (or both?)

Does there have to be a superficial meaning? other than portrayal of the transposed meaning?

Could it just be what you said in your previous post -viz. --

I think gMark shows a very 'friendly' minded attitude to the Romans as such, at least when it comes to Pilate and this centurion. This creates a stark contrast to God's chosen people, and that's probably the point, I think. They must be the bad guys, something like the Biblical tradition, found for example in 2 Kings 17,7ff².

If the 'Temple Cleansing' is an interpretation by Mark of the destruction of the temple in AD 70 (which I believe it is), then not only was the destruction of the temple God's angry punishment, but in this 'parable' of the Temple Cleansing, the role of the Roman destructive forces in AD 70 is played by Jesus himself.³ So Jesus making a big mess in the temple court is a symbol of the Roman armies destroying the temple!

² Could it be a play on 2 Kings 2,20-21 -

20 Therefore the Lord rejected all the people of Israel; he afflicted them and gave them into the hands of plunderers, until he thrust them from his presence.

21 When he tore Israel away from the house of David ...

In this case Mark is has defined or announced a member of the house of David and is tearing Him away from Israel ??


³ the centurion at the cross could also represent 'the overcoming' of the Roman destructive forces. ie. both receiving the spirit and a subtle reflection on nullifying or changing military or militant action?

Also, I believe the grammatical construction, υιος θεου ην, is open for dual meaning: "was a son of God", but also: "was the son of God".

The use of the definitive article or, at least, the introduction to or the transfer to it, parallels the change from a son of Man to the Son of Man trope we see from the Hebrew Bible/OT to the NT.

[MrMacSon]

.
When is the first hint of or the first definitive mention of Mk 15:39, or Matt 27:54, or Lk 23:47 in the Patristic writings/record ??

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

It is almost universally exclaimed by interpreters and commentators, that the centurion at the cross is the first person in the story of Mark who actually understands Jesus' identity, the Son of God. Mark apparantly starts his story with an incipit telling the audience that Jesus is "the son of God" (Mark 1:1), and all the way through the story the spiritual beings have similarly revealed this to the audience, but Jesus has been silencing them lest they reveal it to the characters in the story, but then, finally, it is at his death on the cross that one of the characters understands who he is. This accords well with the theme in Mark's story that Jesus' identity must only be understood in light of his suffering and death.

But does this really make sense? For me, if the centurion is meant to have come to an understanding of Jesus' identity, a full, true understanding, then that means we can't take Mark's narrative universe seriously. Jesus' full, true identity is of course the risen Lord sitting at the right hand of God. Without the resurrection there can be no understanding of who Jesus really is. Maybe this is where Mark disagrees, but I doubt it.

Perhaps the following posts could be helpful

Mark Goodacre
The Centurion's Sarcastic Cry in Mark 15.39
More on the Centurion's Sarcastic Cry in Mark 15.39

Joe Wallack
Son Control-Mark's 2nd Amendment. Is 1:1 "son of God" added?