\n<\/p>\n
The Bible is full of miracles. From God\u2019s first words, \u201cLet there be light<\/a>,\u201d to the resurrection of the dead and the removal of the old earth in Revelation, we witness God\u2019s magnificence. Even after the \u201cdarkest\u201d moment when Jesus is crucified, miraculous events are afoot.<\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.<\/p>\n At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split, and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus\u2019 resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people. <\/p>\n Matthew 27:50-53 (NIV)<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n After witnessing Jesus\u2019 dignity in the face of terrible insults and literal condemnation, three hours of darkness, an earthquake, and the raising of dead holy people, the centurion and those Roman soldiers with him say something extraordinary.<\/p>\n When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, \u201cSurely he was the Son of God!\u201d<\/p>\n Matthew 27:54 (NIV)<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Without a doubt, the darkness, the temple\u2019s curtain tearing, and the like are miracles, but can we include the centurion\u2019s conversion and those Roman soldiers as another miracle?<\/p>\n Some claim the exclamation, \u201cHe was the Son of God!\u201d amounts to a revelation that Jesus is God\u2019s son. In Mark\u2019s Gospel, he writes something similar.<\/p>\n And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, saw how he died, he said, \u201cSurely this man was the Son of God!\u201d <\/p>\n Mark 15:39 (NIV)<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Luke, on the other hand, suggests something different.<\/p>\n The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, \u201cSurely this was a righteous man.\u201d <\/p>\n Luke 23:37 (NIV)<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n In some translations, the emphasis is on Jesus\u2019 innocence (dikaios<\/em><\/a>) rather than any claim to a unique divinity.<\/p>\n Without a doubt, Jesus is the Son of God. That\u2019s not up for debate. But when we examine the original Greek in Matthew and Mark, neither actually says, \u201cthe Son of God.\u201d<\/p>\n The expression \u201che was the Son of God!\u201d is ambiguous in the original Greek. The core phrase is Huios Theou<\/em> (pronounced hwee-oss theh-oo), where huios<\/em> (Greek: \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2) means \u201cson\u201d and theou <\/em>(Greek: \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6) means \u201cof God.\u201d<\/p>\n The critical issue is that the phrase lacks the definite article, tou <\/em>(pronounced too: Greek \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6), which is the Greek equivalent of \u201cthe\u201d (meaning \u201cof the\u201d). If the Centurion had said \u201cthe Son of the God\u201d (i.e., Huios tou Theou<\/em>: \u03a5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6), it would have been an unambiguous theological confession of Jesus\u2019s unique divinity, suggesting faith\u2014a miracle we ought to rightly celebrate.<\/p>\n However, the article is absent, so the phrase can mean \u201cson of a god\u201d or someone possessing divine power. Such an expression is far more plausible coming from pagan Roman soldiers terrified by the darkness, earthquake, and rising of the dead because it aligns with their polytheistic worldview (where heroes and emperors could be \u201csons of a god\u201d).<\/p>\n When we examine the use of \u201chuios<\/em>\u201d (son) elsewhere in the New Testament, it appears 382 times<\/a>. Sometimes it\u2019s translated as \u201cson of\u201d or \u201ca son\u201d, but it\u2019s also translated as \u201cThe son\u201d when the definite article, tou, is absent. Consider Matthew 1:1 and Matthew 8:20.<\/p>\n This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham: <\/p>\n Matthew 1:1 (NIV)<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The NIV and many other translations include \u201cthe son of David,\u201d but the literal translations reveal a different perspective.<\/p>\n [The] scroll of the birth of Jesus Christ, Son of David, Son of Abraham. <\/p>\n Matthew 1:1 (LSV)<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Matthew 8:20 is the same in every translation.<\/p>\n Jesus replied, \u201cFoxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.\u201d <\/p>\n Matthew 8:20 (NIV)<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n And Jesus says to him, \u201cThe foxes have holes, and the birds of the sky places of rest, but the Son of Man has nowhere He may lay the head.\u201d <\/p>\n Matthew 8:20 (LSV)<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Every English translation I checked (29 of them) and the PDV2017<\/a> (French: \u201cle Fils de l\u2019homme\u201d) translation say \u201cThe son.\u201d That\u2019s because Matthew used the Greek word \u201ctou<\/em>\u201d in the title \u201cThe Son of Man.\u201d Matthew\u2019s use of tou <\/em>in Matthew 8:20 but not in Matthew 27:54 reveals that Matthew\u2019s intent wasn\u2019t to portray those soldiers as recognizing Jesus as \u201cThe Son of God,\u201d but as a righteous or divine \u201cson.\u201d<\/p>\n In the Roman world, a phrase like filius dei<\/em> (son of a god) was common. The emperor himself was often called divi filius<\/em> (son of the divine\/deified). However, the context of the miracle, involving the Jewish Temple curtain and the earthquake, suggests the centurion was not merely saying Jesus was a minor demigod. He acknowledged the authority of the Jewish God, whose power was manifested because of Jesus\u2019s death.<\/p>\n Since tou <\/em>is absent in Matthew 27:54, a translator who chooses to render it as the unique title \u201cThe Son of God\u201d is prioritizing theological climax over grammatical ambiguity and historical context. After all, in the historical context, those soldiers may have recognized Jesus\u2019 divine nature, but their polytheistic worldview didn\u2019t allow for a single God. That\u2019s not to say they wouldn\u2019t be open to the premise after hearing the Gospel, but unlike the thief on the cross, who had a Jewish monotheistic background, it\u2019s a bit of a stretch.<\/p>\n Still, if we consider that the same Roman soldiers who beat Jesus and mocked Him as \u201cThe King of Jews,\u201d recognized His divinity, that\u2019s saying quite a bit. They might be just a \u201cpush\u201d away from believing the miracle we believe: Jesus is the Son of God.<\/p>\n When Luke reported what the centurion said in Luke 23:37, he was aware of the title, \u201cThe Son of God,\u201d because he used it in Luke 22:70.<\/p>\n They all asked, \u201cAre you then the Son of God?\u201d He replied, \u201cYou say that I am.\u201d <\/p>\n Luke 22:70 (NIV)<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The literal translations support \u201cThe Son of God\u201d because Luke used \u201ctou<\/em>,\u201d revealing that if the centurion had said, \u201cThe Son of God,\u201d Luke would have reported it that way. Considering that Luke\u2019s Gospel was an \u201corderly account\u201d of Jesus\u2019 life, it\u2019s likely that Luke didn\u2019t find support for claiming the centurion said, \u201cThe Son of God.\u201d<\/p>\n After examining Matthew, Mark, and Luke\u2019s accounts of what the centurion said after witnessing Jesus\u2019 crucifixion, the original text suggests that the centurion and Roman soldiers with him didn\u2019t make a confession of faith. Instead, they responded in fear and in awe to what they had seen.<\/p>\n This incident reminds me of a similar incident in Jonah.<\/p>\n Then they took Jonah and threw him overboard, and the raging sea grew calm. At this the men greatly feared the LORD, and they offered a sacrifice to the LORD and made vows to him. <\/p>\n Jonah 1:15-16 (NIV)<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Some suggest this sacrifice to the LORD reveals a conversion experience to Judaism. After Jonah told them about his God and how throwing him into the sea would calm it down, they were amazed that what Jonah said was true. Earlier, the sailors had \u201ccried out to his own god\u201d to no avail (Jonah 1:5<\/a>, NIV). But Jonah was below-deck at the time, so after casting lots to see who was responsible, \u201cthe lot fell on Jonah\u201d (Jonah 1:7<\/a>, NIV).<\/p>\n Although Jonah told the sailors how to calm the storm, they didn\u2019t want to anger Jonah\u2019s \u201cgod\u201d by throwing him overboard. But after Jonah interceded for them, they threw him overboard, and the storm left. While one might say these sailors converted to Judaism or suddenly believed in the \u201cOne True God,\u201d it\u2019s far more likely, based on their paganistic polytheistic worldview, that their sacrifice and reverence reflected a temporary awe and not a conversion. The same can be said of the centurion and those Roman soldiers.<\/p>\n\n
\n
The Claim<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
The Greek<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Luke<\/h3>\n
\n
Jonah<\/h3>\n
\n