Is the centurion at the cross the 'first Christian'?
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:57 pm
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.
I don't see the commentators really dealing with this question. How can the centurion have come to the realisation of Jesus' true identity, when Jesus hasn't even been resurrected?
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.
Is there another third solution?
I think there is: The event happened as a 'parable', and it is symbolic of Gentiles coming to faith. This Gentile was not actually exhibiting true, Christian faith in Jesus, but this happened, Mark would say, in order to be symbolic of God's new covenant with humans at large (in principle including Gentile Roman executioners), 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 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".
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.
I don't see the commentators really dealing with this question. How can the centurion have come to the realisation of Jesus' true identity, when Jesus hasn't even been resurrected?
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.
Is there another third solution?
I think there is: The event happened as a 'parable', and it is symbolic of Gentiles coming to faith. This Gentile was not actually exhibiting true, Christian faith in Jesus, but this happened, Mark would say, in order to be symbolic of God's new covenant with humans at large (in principle including Gentile Roman executioners), 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 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".