Mark 15:39 as a Markan Theology of Revelation: The Centurion’s Confession as Apocalyptic Unveiling

Abstract

The centurion’s statement in Mark 15:39, usually translated “Truly this man was the son of God,” has been a subject of controversy. Are his words sincere or mocking derision? Is the grammar definite, referring to “the son of God,” or indefinite, best rendered “a son of God”? Finally, how does Mark 15:39 relate to 15:38, the splitting of the temple veil? Gamel explores these issues using a narrative critical approach, while not neglecting grammatical and historical questions.A brief introduction discusses the controversy and establishes Gamel’s methodology. Chapter 2 follows with a review of the discussion of Mark 15:38–39. Until the 19th century, the centurion’s words were understood as a Christological confession. In the 19th century, critical scholars noted that the phrase “son of God” is anarthrous. Some concluded that any Christological significance in the centurion’s statement was accidental. The traditional reading received support from “Colwell’s rule” that a predicate nominative preceding the verb is usually definite. Others, however, concluded Colwell overstated the case, and the centurion understood Jesus as “a son of a God,” conforming to his polytheistic expectations. Likewise, the verse’s relationship to its context is unclear. How is the centurion’s statement connected to the tearing of the temple veil in Mark 15:38? Could he have even seen this event, let alone comment on it? These questions lead to the historical analysis of ch. 3.Chapter 3 explores the historical options for understanding the centurion’s words. Were the words sincere or were they spoken in mockery? Furthermore, how would a “centurion’s confession” be received in the early church? While the NT does contain positive portrayals of centurions (see Matt 8:5–13 // Luke 7:1–10; Acts 10), their status as oppressors of the Jewish people and adherents to Roman deities and the emperor cult would make the centurion supervising Jesus’s crucifixion a strange hero. However, Gamel thinks the words are sincere, because in the context of telling the story, they provide an opportunity for the audience to affirm the centurion’s insightChapter 4 asserts that the centurion’s words are an example of synkrisis, or, comparison. They provide a contrast to Jesus’s unfaithful disciples and to those mocking his crucifixion. Both negative reactions are comprehensible, because Jesus’s death did not conform to the “noble death” or “martyr’s death” so valued in antiquity. For Mark, however, Jesus’s death, while shameful, climaxes God’s redemptive work, as confirmed when the temple veil is torn in Mark 15:38, which provides an inclusio to Mark 1:11. Thus, the centurion’s words are an apocalyptic revelation of the significance of Jesus’s shameful death on the cross (see 8:31; 9:31: 10:33–34). This point is further confirmed in ch. 5, which contrasts the “blindness” of Jesus’s enemies, family, and disciples, with precursors to the centurion, such as Bartimaeus (10:46–52); individuals with spiritual insight who “see” Jesus’s actual significance.The centurion’s “confession” certainly corresponds to Mark’s Christology, which focuses on Jesus’s status as God’s son. However, Jesus’s identity is only apprehended through divine revelation. The book could make a stronger case for Mark’s countercultural impact, because Jesus’s shameful death affirms rather than contradicts Jesus’s status. Also, Gamel could supply a specific definition of how he uses the term apocalyptic in his analysis. Nevertheless, Gamel’s narrative-critical interpretation provides a useful tool for entering and appreciating Mark 15:39 in the context of the world created by Mark’s implied author.