Two Neglected Aspects of the Centurion’s Slave Pericope

How to cite this article: Joshua N. Tilton, “Two Neglected Aspects of the Centurion’s Slave Pericope,” Jerusalem Perspective (2024) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/28673/].

Rather listen instead?

JP members can click the link below for an audio version of this essay.[*] Paid Content Premium Members and Friends of JP must be signed in to view this content. If you are not a Premium Member or Friend, please consider registering. Prices start at $5/month if paid annually, with other options for monthly and quarterly and more: Sign Up For Premium

Scholars have given a great deal of attention to various aspects of the story of the military officer who pleaded with Jesus on behalf of his ailing “boy.” Much of the discussion focuses on the identities of the characters involved and the nature of their relationship. It is because the story occurs with disparate details in two very different versions in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (Matt. 8:5-13 ∥ Luke 7:2-10) and in a more distant parallel to the story in the Gospel of John (John 4:46-54) that so much discussion occurs. Thus, whereas Matthew and Luke describe the petitioner as a ἑκατόνταρχος/ἑκατοντάρχης (hekatontarchos/hekatontarchēs, “commander of a hundred”), a term that is equivalent to the Latin centurio (“centurion”) but could also be used for non-Roman officers, the Johannine parallel refers to the petitioner as a βασιλικός (basilikos, “royal official”). These details could be reconciled by supposing that the petitioner was a military officer who served in the private army of Herod Antipas,^[37] who ruled over the Galilee in the time of Jesus. But should these details be reconciled? Or was the identity of the petitioner intentionally changed in the Johannine or the synoptic sources for apologetic purposes?^[38] The Gospels also use different terms to describe the ailing person. In Matthew he is called a παῖς (pais, “boy,” “slave boy”), while in Luke he is called a δοῦλος (doulos, “slave”), and John’s Gospel identifies the sick person as the petitioner’s υἱός (huios, “son”). Again, these seemingly conflicting details could be reconciled by supposing that in the earliest version of the story the petitioner referred to the ailing individual as his “boy,” which Luke (or his source) mistakenly interpreted as meaning his “slave,” but which John (or his source) correctly interpreted as meaning his “son.”^[39] Others have supposed that “boy” should not be taken to mean “son” or “slave,” but should be understood as referring instead to the junior sexual partner in a relationship between the petitioner and a youth who might or might not be the petitioner’s slave.^[40] But once again we are confronted with the legitimacy of the harmonizing approach to the story. Are interpreters justified in interpreting Matthew’s “boy” in light of John’s “son” or Luke’s “slave”? Or might one of the evangelists (or their sources) have deliberately changed the identity of the ailing person for some reason?

Interesting as such questions are, these aspects of the story are minor in comparison with the roles ritual purity and Roman imperialism play in the Lukan and Matthean versions of the pericope. While the exact identity of the petitioner, the ailing person, and the nature of their relationship are important, they are not fundamental to a coherent understanding of the pericope. On the other hand, understanding the dynamics of ritual purity and Roman imperialism brings clarity to the otherwise unintelligible statements the centurion makes to Jesus. How prominent a role these inherently Jewish concerns play in the different versions of the story versus how much these concerns have receded into the background is also a useful index of how close or far each version of the story is to Jesus’ Second-Temple Jewish cultural context, since the importance of these issues diminished as the church became increasingly Gentile in composition. Because Gentiles were not bound by the scriptural prescriptions of Levitical purity, Gentile believers tended not to understand the dynamics of ritual purity and to disregard their importance. Likewise, the political aspects of Jesus’ message and his story were downplayed or ignored by Gentile believers for whom the tensions between the Jews living in their ancient homeland and their Roman (or Roman instated) overlords were irrelevant. Therefore, the presence and prominence of these themes in the versions of the Centurion’s Slave pericope are likely to be a reliable measure of each version’s authenticity.

Conclusion

The interactions described in Centurion’s Slave cannot adequately be understood without an appreciation for the roles ritual purity and Roman imperialism play in the story. The degree to which the issues of ritual purity and Roman imperialism are portrayed accurately and realistically in the Lukan and Matthean versions of the story, as well as in the more distant Johannine parallel, is a reliable measure of each version’s authenticity. It is Luke’s version of Centurion’s Slave that most accurately represents the ritual purity concerns of the actors and that portrays most realistically how the dynamics of Roman imperialism affected the various actors in the story.

• ^[1] See, for example, Karl Rengstorf, “ἱκανός, ἱκανότης, ἱκανόω,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich; trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley; 10 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-1976), 3:293-296, esp. 294; Marshall, Luke, 281; David R. Catchpole, The Quest for Q (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993), 295, 301-302; Wolter, Luke, 1:296. ↩
• ^[2] See, for example, Plummer, Luke, 196; Fitzmyer, Luke, 1:652; Donald A. Hagner, Matthew (2 vols.: WBC 33A-33B; Dallas: Word Books, 1993, 1995), 1:204; Nolland, Luke, 1:317; David Flusser, “Two Anti-Jewish Montages in Matthew,” in his Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988), 552-560, esp. 556; idem, Jesus (3d ed.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 2001), 78; Peter J. Tomson, ‘If this be from Heaven…’ Jesus and the New Testament Authors in their Relationship to Judaism (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 220-221; idem, “Shifting Perspectives in Matthew: from ‘the House of Israel’ (10:6) to ‘All Gentiles’ (28:19),” in his Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), 279-296, esp. 286. ↩
• ^[3] For an introduction to the ancient Jewish conception of ritual purity, see Joshua N. Tilton, “A Goy’s Guide to Ritual Purity,” Jerusalem Perspective (2014) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/12102/]. ↩
• ^[4] The mikveh, or ritual immersion pool, was a common means for the removal of ritual impurity. On mikvaot in the first century, see Ronny Reich, “Design and Maintenance of First-century Ritual Immersion Baths,” Jerusalem Perspective 56 (1999): 14-19 [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/1786/]. ↩
• ^[5] On the distinction between ritual and moral impurity, see Jonathan Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). ↩
• ^[6] Those guilty of murder or manslaughter were permitted to enter the sacred precincts in hopes of finding sanctuary at the horns of the altar (Exod. 21:13-14), while the suspected adulteress was brought into the Temple to be tested with the ordeal of the bitter waters (Num. 5:11-31). ↩
• ^[7] Another indication that the explanation in Luke 7:7 is the product of Lukan redaction is the vocabulary in which the explanation is expressed. Thus the conjunction διό (dio, “therefore”) is extremely rare in the Synoptic Gospels (only in Matt. 27:8; Luke 1:35; 7:7), but it is relatively common in Acts, especially in its second half where Lukan style is most pronounced. Likewise, the verb ἀξιοῦν (axioun, “to deem worthy”) occurs nowhere else in the synoptic tradition, but it occurs twice in Acts, with both instances being found in its second half (Acts 15:35-28:31). ↩
• ^[8] One occasionally encounters in Christian scholarship the notion that Jesus was somehow “immune” to ritual impurity, that far from contracting ritual impurity from other people or objects, Jesus transferred some of his purity to others. Such pious explanations fail to understand how ritual purity functioned in Second Temple Judaism. Claiming that Jesus was “immune” to ritual impurity is like claiming that he was “immune” from getting wet when coming into contact with water. If Jesus possessed a physical body, then his body was subject to ritual impurity. But this is not a problem, since contracting ritual impurity entailed no moral judgment. Being sometimes ritually impure was just as much a part of the human condition as sometimes having to empty one’s bladder or vacate one’s bowels. ↩
• ^[9] See m. Ohol. 18:7; t. Ohol. 18:7-12. In b. Yev. 60b-61a Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai rejected the view that Gentile corpses defile by ’āhil, but the sages did not accept his opinion. ↩
• ^[10] See Tomson, ‘If this be from Heaven…’, 220-221; idem, “Shifting Perspectives in Matthew,” 286. ↩
• ^[11] See the discussion in The Oxford Annotated Mishnah: A New Translation of the Mishnah with Introductions and Notes (3 vols.; ed. Shaye J. D. Cohen, Robert Goldenberg, and Hayim Lapin; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022), 3:608. ↩
• ^[12] See Gedalyahu Alon, “The Levitical Uncleanness of Gentiles,” in his Jews and Judaism in the Classical World: Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the Second Temple and Talmud (trans. Israel Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977), 146-189, esp. 186 n. 75. ↩
• ^[13] Cf. b. Avod. Zar. 32b, which declares that idolatrous sacrifices contaminate by ’āhil. ↩
• ^[14] Among the scholars who prefer Matthew’s narration of Centurion’s Slave are Adolf von Harnack, The Sayings of Jesus: The Second Source of St. Matthew and St. Luke (trans. J. R. Wilkinson [Sprüche und Reden Jesu: die Zweite Quelle des Matthäus und Lukas, 1907]; New York: Putnam, 1908; repr., Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2004), 76; John Martin Creed, The Gospel according to St. Luke: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indices (London: Macmillan, 1930), 100; Walter E. Bundy, Jesus and the First Three Gospels (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1955), 197 §107; Fitzmyer, Luke, 1:648-649; Catchpole, The Quest for Q, 293-298; Nolland, Luke, 1:314; Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:769 n. 193; Luz, Matthew, 2:8; Wolter, Luke, 1:292. ↩
• ^[15] On the author of Matthew’s anti-Jewish outlook, see Flusser, “Two Anti-Jewish Montages in Matthew,” 552-560; David Flusser, “Matthew’s ‘Verus Israel,’” in his Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988), 561-574; idem, “Anti-Jewish Sentiment in the Gospel of Matthew,” in his Judaism of the Second Temple Period: Volume 2 The Jewish Sages and their Literature (trans. Azzan Yadin; Jerusalem: Magnes; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 351-353 (for an important correction to this article see JP Staff Writer, “Corrections and Emendations to Flusser’s Judaism of the Second Temple Period,” Jerusalem Perspective (2016) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/16266/]); R. Steven Notley, “Anti-Jewish Tendencies in the Synoptic Gospels,” Jerusalem Perspective 51 (1996): 20-35, 38 [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/2773/]. ↩
• ^[16] There is a Lukan parallel to Jesus’ words in Matt. 8:11-12, but it does not occur in Centurion’s Slave and its sense is different. Whereas Matthew describes an eschatological banquet where Gentiles from east and west will dine with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but where the “sons of the kingdom” (i.e., the Jews) will be cast into outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, Luke 13:28-29 describes a scene where many Jews will come from all directions to dine with the patriarchs, but Jesus’ skeptical audience will be cast out unless they mend their ways. ↩
• ^[17] Cf. Francis Wright Beare, The Gospel of Matthew: Translation, Introduction and Commentary (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1981), 207; Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 141, 142; W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (3 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988, 1991, 1997), 2:21; Catchpole, The Quest for Q, 288; Nolland, Luke, 1:316. ↩
• ^[18] The following examples of this type of formula occur in the Gospel of Matthew:
  • Matt. 8:13 ὡς ἐπίστευσας γενηθήτω σοι (hōs epistevsas genēthētō soi, “As you have believed let it be done to you!”) Centurion’s Slave (cf. Luke 7:10)
  • Matt. 9:29: κατὰ τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν γενηθήτω ὑμῖν (kata tēn pistin hūmōn genēthētō hūmin, “According to your faith let it be done to you!”) Two Men Healed of Blindness (cf. Mark 10:52 ∥ Luke 18:42 [Man Healed of Blindness])
  • Matt. 15:28 γενηθήτω σοι ὡς θέλεις (genēthētō soi hōs theleis, “As you wish let it be done to you!”) Jesus and a Canaanite Woman (cf. Mark 7:29)

  ↩

• ^[19] On the source behind much of the narrative portions of John’s Gospel, see David Flusser, “The Gospel of John’s Jewish-Christian Source,” Jerusalem Perspective (2015) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/13826/]. ↩
• ^[20] See Bultmann, John, 205, 206 n. 7; Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (Anchor Bible; 2 vols.; Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1966, 1970), 1:192. Pace C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text (London: SPCK, 1955), 206. ↩
• ^[21] See Shmuel Safrai, “The Synagogue the Centurion Built,” Jerusalem Perspective 55 (1998): 12-14 [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/2810/]. ↩
• ^[22] Other scholars who have supposed the petitioner to have been a Roman centurion include Brown, John, 1:192; M. Avi-Yonah, “Historical Geography of Palestine,” in The Jewish People in the First Century (ed. Shmuel Safrai and Menahem Stern; 2 vols.; CRINT I.1-2; Amsterdam: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 1:78-116, esp. 105-106; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:18; Flusser, Jesus, 77. ↩
• ^[23] See Pieter W. van der Horst, “‘Thou Shalt not Revile the Gods’: The LXX Translation of Ex. 22:28 (27), Its Background and Influence,” Studia Philonica Annual 5 (1993): 1-8. ↩
• ^[24] See Joshua N. Tilton, “A Mile on the Road of Peace,” WholeStones.org (2017) [https://wholestones.org/2017/04/02/a-mile-on-the-road-of-peace/]. ↩
• ^[25] Luke’s version of the centurion’s speech differs from Matthew’s in that it adds the participle τασσόμενος (tassomenos, “stationed”) after the phrase ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν (hūpo exousian, “under authority”). Since the inclusion of the participle is stylistically better than its omission, and since the author of Matthew would have had no reason to drop τασσόμενος had it occurred in his source, it is likely that the inclusion of the participle is a Lukan editorial improvement. ↩
• ^[26] See Manson, The Sayings of Jesus, 64-65; Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus (trans. John Bowden [Neutestamentliche Theologie, 1. Die Verkündigung Jesu, 1971]; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971), 163; Luz, Matthew, 2:10. ↩
• ^[27] See Catchpole, The Quest for Q, 300-301. ↩
• ^[28] Marshall, Luke, 282; Beare, Matthew, 208; Gundry, Matthew, 144; Bovon, Luke, 1:262; Nolland, Luke, 1:317; Wolter, Luke, 1:297. ↩
• ^[29] It is jarring to read McNeile’s incomprehension of how Jesus could ever be considered to be under anyone’s authority, as though the Roman Empire never existed: “Jesus was subject to no human authority in His work.” See Alan Hugh McNeile, The Gospel According to St. Matthew (London: Macmillan, 1915), 104. Cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:23: “...Jesus...is under no earthly authority at all.” Equally jarring are Plummer’s comments in praise of Roman imperialism: “Roman organization produced, and was maintained by, excellent individuals, who were a blessing to others and to themselves.” See Plummer, Luke, 195. ↩
• ^[30] Tomson noted another way in which Luke’s version of Centurion’s Slave demonstrates historical authenticity, which is how it correctly alternates between insider ("Israel") and outsider ("Jews") terminology depending on the perspective of the speaker: the centurion sends “elders of the Jews,” whereas Jesus speaks of “Israel.” See Peter J. Tomson, “The Names Israel and Jew in Ancient Judaism and in the New Testament: II,” Bijdragen 47 (1986): 266-289, esp. 280. ↩
• ^[31] That the author of Matthew falsified Jesus’ prophecy emerges from 1) his intrusive placement of the saying into the Centurion’s Slave pericope, unlike its placement in Luke, where it is in no way associated with Centurion’s Slave, 2) the uniquely Matthean vocabulary (“sons of the kingdom”; Matt. 8:12; 13:38) that occurs in Matthew’s version of the prophecy, and 3) the theological harmony of this prophecy with other redacted statements in Matthew’s Gospel, such as the statement in the Wicked Tenants parable, where the author of Matthew has Jesus declare, “the kingdom of God will be taken away from you [i.e., Israel] and it will be given to an ethnos producing its fruit” (Matt. 21:43). ↩
• ^[32] Whereas Matt. 8:10 has Jesus declare, “From no one in Israel have I found such faith,” the Lukan parallel has Jesus declare, “Even in Israel I have not found so much faith” (Luke 7:9). Luke’s version of the declaration presupposes that Israel is where faith is typically to be found. See Bruce, The Synoptic Gospels, 139; Marshall, Luke, 282. By contrast, Matthew’s declaration negates the presence of faith in Israel. See Flusser, “Two Anti-Jewish Montages in Matthew,” 556-557. Of the two versions, it is Luke’s that is most credible. ↩
• ^[33] See the author of Matthew’s changes to the Great Banquet parable (Matt. 22:1-14; cf. Luke 14:15-24), where the king’s armies, who destroy the city of the guests who killed his messengers, allegorically represents the Roman destruction of Jerusalem (Matt. 22:7). ↩
• ^[34] On the author of Matthew’s favorable view of the Roman Empire, see JP Staff Writer, “Evidence of Pro-Roman Leanings in the Gospel of Matthew,” Jerusalem Perspective (2024) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/28170/]. ↩
• ^[35] Cf. Bultmann, John, 206 n. 7. ↩
• ^[36] On the anti-Roman outlook of John’s source, see Flusser, “The Gospel of John’s Jewish-Christian Source,” under the subheading “Intentions and Tendencies of the Jewish-Christian Source.” ↩
• ^[37] Scholars who identify the petitioner as an officer in Antipas’ private army include Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke (ICC; 5th ed.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1922 [orig. pub. 1896]), 194; Alexander Balmain Bruce, The Synoptic Gospels (6th ed.; Expositors Greek Testament; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1910 [orig. pub. 1897]), 138, 510; H. van der Loos, The Miracles of Jesus (Leiden: Brill, 1965), 533; I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 279; A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Law and Roman Society in the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963; repr. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1978, 1992), 123-124; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (2 vols.: AB 28A and 28B; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981, 1985), 1:651; Ulrich Luz, Matthew: Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (3 vols.; trans. James E. Crouch [Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, 1985-2002]; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001, 2005, 2007), 1:9-10; John Nolland, Luke (3 vols.: WBC 35A-35C; Dallas: Word Books, 1989, 1993, 1993), 1:316; François Bovon, Luke: Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (3 vols.; trans. Donald S. Deer [Evangelium nach Lukas, 1989-2009]; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002, 2013, 2012), 1:259-260, esp. 259 n. 6; John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew (5 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1991-2016), 2:720-721; Michael Wolter, The Gospel According to Luke (2 vols.; trans. Wayne Coppins and Christoph Heilig; Waco, Tex.: Baylor, 2016-2017), 1:293; R. Alan Culpepper, Matthew: A Commentary (New Testament Library; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2022), 169; Christopher B. Zeichmann, Queer Readings of the Centurion at Capernaum: Their History and Politics (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2022), 171, 197-201, 249. ↩
• ^[38] For the sake of promoting the Gentile mission a redactor of the pre-synoptic tradition could have identified the petitioner as a centurion in order to more clearly indicate his Gentile status. On the other hand, a redactor of the Johannine tradition could have suppressed the petitioner’s non-Jewish ethnicity because he was opposed to the Gentile mission. ↩
• ^[39] Cf. Thomas Walter Manson, The Sayings of Jesus as Recorded in the Gospels According to St. Matthew and St. Luke (London: SCM Press, 1957; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979 [orig. pub. 1937]), 64; C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 190 n. 2; Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray et al.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977 [Das Evangelium des Johannes, 1964]), 205 n. 1; Luz, Matthew, 2:10. ↩
• ^[40] For an overview of the scholarship on this issue, see Zeichmann, Queer Readings of the Centurion at Capernaum. ↩