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

[Stefan Kristensen]

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?)

I don't think there is intended some specific military consideration when it comes to the idea of salvation (gift of the spirit) for the Gentiles, which I think is foreshadowed here symbolically. But I think it's significant that this is a centurion, because his full allegiance is definately to the emperor, whom he regards as his divine lord in some sense, even a son of god, divi filius. I believe that Mark intends a corrolation between the royal inscription ('epigraph') and image ('eikon') of the emperor on the Roman coin on the one hand (Mark 12:13-17), and then Jesus (the image of God?) with his own 'royal' inscription ('epigraph', 15:26) on the other hand. Surely, it is not unlikely that Mark in 12:16 wants his audience to think of the divi filius inscription found on many Roman coins, and historically also on coins of Tiberius.

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

Well, no. It could well be that the narrative itself is just plain nonsensical in some places. Mayby like the command to silence at 5:43, after the dead girl has been revived, which is pretty hard to swallow as 'realistic'. Or the walking on water bit: Even if we buy the inner logic of the story, that Jesus can actually walk on water, it is still very odd that he chooses to go out to the ship simply to "pass by" (Mark 6:48)? I do think, however, that the author strives to make the narrative itself realistic, but I also hypothesize that the priority for him is always the deeper meaning, the transposed meaning. Which means that the surface narrative is allowed to suffer a little sometimes. We are not supposed to ask about those small details, such as why did Jesus intend to pass by the boat. Sort of like a parable, where the 'surface' meaning can be a bit silly, but this is because the deeper meaning must dominate the shaping of the wording. For example, in the parable of the Mustard Seed (Mark 4:30-32), there seems to be a little problem with the 'surface' level, where perhaps the size of the mustard plant is exaggerated a little (Matthew and Luke even have mustard "tree").

[Stefan Kristensen]

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?

Excellent, thank you very much!

I think it's interesting that Mark Goodacre only discusses one interpretation within option 2) (the option that the centurion's statement is not a confession), i.e. the sarcastic understanding. Which I didn't mention above, but which is pretty widespread.

For me, I don't think it's sarcastic. Goodacre argues that there is nothing special about what the centurion sees concerning the death of Jesus, as opposed to gMatt. Because we are not to believe that the centurion in gMark can see the temple veil being torn. So, Goodacre argues, there is nothing impressive or special about the death of Jesus in the eyes of this centurion.

But there is in fact something special about the way Jesus dies, something which the centurion witnesses up close, and this special thing is explicitly narrated by Mark only five verses on:

Then Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he had been dead for some time.When he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph.(Mark 15,44–45)

Mark takes time to explicitly mention that the (fortunate) quickness of Jesus' death impresses Pilate. So isn't it most likely also what is meant to impress for the centurion? Could this 'realistically' or 'plausibly' be the thing that made a centurion in that situation exclaim that? Sure, why not.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

For me, I don't think it's sarcastic. Goodacre argues that there is nothing special about what the centurion sees concerning the death of Jesus, as opposed to gMatt. Because we are not to believe that the centurion in gMark can see the temple veil being torn. So, Goodacre argues, there is nothing impressive or special about the death of Jesus in the eyes of this centurion.

But there is in fact something special about the way Jesus dies, something which the centurion witnesses up close, and this special thing is explicitly narrated by Mark only five verses on:

Then Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he had been dead for some time.When he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph.(Mark 15,44–45)

Mark takes time to explicitly mention that the (fortunate) quickness of Jesus' death impresses Pilate. So isn't it most likely also what is meant to impress for the centurion?

I appreciate your argument because it starts at the right point. So far I know even many scholars overlook that the Centurion's statement in GMark is explicitly based on the manner in which Jesus died.

15:39 Having seen moreover, the centurion .. that in this way he breathed his last, he said: Truly, this man was son of God.

Could this 'realistically' or 'plausibly' be the thing that made a centurion in that situation exclaim that? Sure, why not.

I must confess that I can't see this point. Is it a characteristic quality of sons of Gods to die very quickly or to die very quickly when they were murdered? (Does not the question already sound strange?)

[Secret Alias]

Peter

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Peter

... and the wolf

[Stefan Kristensen]

Could this 'realistically' or 'plausibly' be the thing that made a centurion in that situation exclaim that? Sure, why not.

I must confess that I can't see this point. Is it a characteristic quality of sons of Gods to die very quickly or to die very quickly when they were murdered? (Does not the question already sound strange?)

Hm, maybe, I guess. I think it definately makes sense that the quickness of Jesus' death would impress the other character in the scene, i.e. the centurion, just like Mark tells us explicitly that it impresses Pilate. But you're right that it is not really 'realistic' that it would naturally make the centurion think of Jesus specifically as a 'son of God'. But one could phrase it differently than you do here, and say that it could well be considered a sign by the centurion, that the divine forces are with Jesus, helping him mercifully to a quick death. Crucifixion was meant to be a slow death, that was a main point in crucifixion, so the suprising manner of Jesus' quick death could be a sign in the eyes of onlookers, that someone up there was looking out for him. As such one could come to think of him as a 'son of God', a 'divine man'. Not an emperor-ruler-type 'son of God', though, more like the charismatic divine man prophet type 'son of God'. It's possible but not plausible, and a bit forced, I guess.

But I don't see a very big problem in including the three hours of cosmic darkness in "the manner he breathed his last". So that it is the whole scene of the crucifixion including the darkness and the suddenness of Jesus' death which make the centurion exclaim that Jesus was a 'son of God'. After all, the word translated here as "breathed his last", εκπνευω, normally just means "die", plain and simple. So: "When the centurion saw that Jesus died in this way, he said: 'Surely, this was a son of God".

I don't know, I just think that both the sarcastic explanation is weak, and even more so the confession explanation. What do you think?

Also, are we supposed to believe that the centurion did know that Jesus in fact himself had claimed to be the 'son of God' (14:62)? Or did the centurion only know of the charge of royal pretender? Or did the centurion naturally equate these two things (being king and being son of God)?

Of course one very important piece of context for this imo hasn't been brought forth here yet: Wisd 2-3, especially Wisd 2:12-24.

[Ben C. Smith]

Could this 'realistically' or 'plausibly' be the thing that made a centurion in that situation exclaim that? Sure, why not.

I must confess that I can't see this point. Is it a characteristic quality of sons of Gods to die very quickly or to die very quickly when they were murdered? (Does not the question already sound strange?)

Hm, maybe, I guess. I think it definately makes sense that the quickness of Jesus' death would impress the other character in the scene, i.e. the centurion, just like Mark tells us explicitly that it impresses Pilate. But you're right that it is not really 'realistic' that it would naturally make the centurion think of Jesus specifically as a 'son of God'. But one could phrase it differently than you do here, and say that it could well be considered a sign by the centurion, that the divine forces are with Jesus, helping him mercifully to a quick death. Crucifixion was meant to be a slow death, that was a main point in crucifixion, so the suprising manner of Jesus' quick death could be a sign in the eyes of onlookers, that someone up there was looking out for him. As such one could come to think of him as a 'son of God', a 'divine man'. Not an emperor-ruler-type 'son of God', though, more like the charismatic divine man prophet type 'son of God'. It's possible but not plausible, and a bit forced, I guess.

But I don't see a very big problem in including the three hours of cosmic darkness in "the manner he breathed his last". So that it is the whole scene of the crucifixion including the darkness and the suddenness of Jesus' death which make the centurion exclaim that Jesus was a 'son of God'. After all, the word translated here as "breathed his last", εκπνευω, normally just means "die", plain and simple. So: "When the centurion saw that Jesus died in this way, he said: 'Surely, this was a son of God".

I don't know, I just think that both the sarcastic explanation is weak, and even more so the confession explanation. What do you think?

Also, are we supposed to believe that the centurion did know that Jesus in fact himself had claimed to be the 'son of God' (14:62)? Or did the centurion only know of the charge of royal pretender? Or did the centurion naturally equate these two things (being king and being son of God)?

Of course one very important piece of context for this imo hasn't been brought forth here yet: Wisd 2-3, especially Wisd 2:12-24.

There are people here who will doubtless roll their eyes at what I am going to suggest, since it involves a proto-Mark of some kind, but so be it. I have no proof of any of this, but it strikes me as a possible reconstruction of what is going on here.

1. I have elsewhere agreed with David Ulansey that the gospel of Mark sets up parallels between the death and the baptism of Jesus. One of those parallels is the entrance of the spirit into Jesus at his baptism versus, in linguistic form, the exit of the spirit from Jesus at his death (ἐξέπνευσεν). What if, in the original gospel story, this was literal? The spirit entered Jesus at the baptism and exited him at his death; this would be in line with what separationist adoptionists described by Irenaeus and other heresiologists believed (though using a different vocabulary at points).
2. It has also been suggested that the burial story (Mark 15.40-16.8) is later than the crucifixion story itself, which ends with the centurion's confession at 15.39. This would make the "assumption" of the spirit out of Jesus the climax of the original narrative.
3. Peter 5.19 says, "And the Lord shouted out, saying: 'My power, O power, you have forsaken me.' And having said this, he was taken up,'" which could be a remnant of this same christology, as could the promise in Luke 23.43, which envisions Jesus (his spirit?) in paradise that very day.
4. In such a scenario, the "way" Jesus "breathed his last" would entail this act of separation of his power, his spirit, from his dying body, a separation cosmically emphasized by the splitting of the veil. I find it hard to believe that this event's placement between Jesus' death and the centurion's confession, at least in the extant version, is no more than a signal to the reader that Jesus really is "all that," a signal which has been made before throughout the gospel and which could have been made anywhere during the sequence. I think it pretty much has to inform the centurion's reaction in some way.
5. The centurion's confession would then be the final event in the gospel, and the final of 5 moments therein by which Jesus is called the son of God, twice by God himself (at the baptism and at the transfiguration), once by a disciple (Peter at Caesarea Philippi), once by a Jewish official (the high priest at the hearing), and once by a gentile official (the centurion). The movement from God's will and plan, through the discipleship group, and to both Jews and gentiles is thus clear, not as historical remembrance but as theology set to prophecy historicized (to steal a phrase from Crossan).
6. The vindication of the righteous man in Wisdom of Solomon 2.12-24 thus becomes the assumption of the spirit back to heaven.

YMMV.

[MrMacSon]

I have elsewhere agreed with David Ulansey that the gospel of Mark sets up parallels between the death and the baptism of Jesus. One of those parallels is the entrance of the spirit into Jesus at his baptism versus, in linguistic form, the exit of the spirit from Jesus at his death (ἐξέπνευσεν). What if, in the original gospel story, this was literal? The spirit entered Jesus at the baptism and exited him at his death; this would be in line with what separationist adoptionists described by Irenaeus and other heresiologists believed (though using a different vocabulary at points).

That seems to parallel Romans 6 -

3 ...don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7 because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.

It also had a prelude about sin -

Rom 6
1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?

While the centurion is not overtly baptized into Christ at Christ's death, the stage is set for the centurion to be able to live a new life -

'For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his' Rom 6:5

[Stefan Kristensen]

There are people here who will doubtless roll their eyes at what I am going to suggest, since it involves a proto-Mark of some kind, but so be it. I have no proof of any of this, but it strikes me as a possible reconstruction of what is going on here.

1. I have elsewhere agreed with David Ulansey that the gospel of Mark sets up parallels between the death and the baptism of Jesus. One of those parallels is the entrance of the spirit into Jesus at his baptism versus, in linguistic form, the exit of the spirit from Jesus at his death (ἐξέπνευσεν). What if, in the original gospel story, this was literal? The spirit entered Jesus at the baptism and exited him at his death; this would be in line with what separationist adoptionists described by Irenaeus and other heresiologists believed (though using a different vocabulary at points).
2. It has also been suggested that the burial story (Mark 15.40-16.8) is later than the crucifixion story itself, which ends with the centurion's confession at 15.39. This would make the "assumption" of the spirit out of Jesus the climax of the original narrative.
3. Peter 5.19 says, "And the Lord shouted out, saying: 'My power, O power, you have forsaken me.' And having said this, he was taken up,'" which could be a remnant of this same christology, as could the promise in Luke 23.43, which envisions Jesus (his spirit?) in paradise that very day.
4. In such a scenario, the "way" Jesus "breathed his last" would entail this act of separation of his power, his spirit, from his dying body, a separation cosmically emphasized by the splitting of the veil. I find it hard to believe that this event's placement between Jesus' death and the centurion's confession, at least in the extant version, is no more than a signal to the reader that Jesus really is "all that," a signal which has been made before throughout the gospel and which could have been made anywhere during the sequence. I think it pretty much has to inform the centurion's reaction in some way.
5. The centurion's confession would then be the final event in the gospel, and the final of 5 moments therein by which Jesus is called the son of God, twice by God himself (at the baptism and at the transfiguration), once by a disciple (Peter at Caesarea Philippi), once by a Jewish official (the high priest at the hearing), and once by a gentile official (the centurion). The movement from God's will and plan, through the discipleship group, and to both Jews and gentiles is thus clear, not as historical remembrance but as theology set to prophecy historicized (to steal a phrase from Crossan).
6. The vindication of the righteous man in Wisdom of Solomon 2.12-24 thus becomes the assumption of the spirit back to heaven.

YMMV.

I think this centurion thing in gMark is so difficult to get a good hold of that we need to explore all kinds of possibilities. I for one willl not roll my eyes (and not even put in the emoticon!) I definately agree with the theory that there is an intended connection between Jesus' baptism and death, based on the elements you mention, Ben (and in the post you link to). I also agree that we are meant to understand that something special happens with Jesus' body/soul/spirit when he dies, which is why Mark has the narrator use this specific word εκπνευω ("exhale" or "spirit-out"), instead of choosing any other word for "die" (such as the word "die", for example!)

But the question is, is this what the centurion sees? That a cosmic event is happening here with this "exhalation" of Jesus? Or is this cosmic event, which you describe, only something the readers can "see"? I think the latter, which means that the centurion has no idea what kind of cosmic event this really is, and he has no idea about the significance of the words of his statement about Jesus as "son of God". He uses the words of the, later, Christian confession, but he has no idea himself. He means something else - but what?

Note also he says: "this man was son of God", which by itself seems to preclude that this is intended as a Christian confession.
Another thing which might be coincidental is that there is another point in the story, where Jesus is referred to with the expression, "this man" (ουτος ο ανθρωπος). The words of the centurion, "surely, this man was the son of God", of course corresponds to Jesus' very own confession which the readers heard in the interrogation scene. But the confession of Jesus in this scene is juxtaposed brilliantly with the scene of Peter's denial, and Peter in fact says: "I do not know this man (τον ανθρωπον τουτον) you speak of" (yes, Peter would use prepositions at the end of his sentences if he spoke English!).
Christ: "I am (the son of God)" (14:62)
Peter: "I do not know this man you speak of" (14:71)
Centurion: "Surely, this man was the son of God" (15:39)

[Ben C. Smith]

Note also he says: "this man was son of God", which by itself seems to preclude that this is intended as a Christian confession.

Right, but there might be an adoptionist/separationist reason for the past tense. At the baptism, the spirit descends into Jesus, and then the voice from heaven says, "You are my beloved son." This sequence may suggest that Jesus + spirit of God = son of God (compare Romans 8.15). So at the cross the process reverses: Jesus exhales his last, which is the spirit leaving his body, and now only Jesus the man is left on the cross. The equation is now broken, so "this man was the son of God."