I also wanted to say that you are fundamentally right about the early Hellenic supremacy of 1st century Christianity. I think that Jewish Christianity was mostly swallowed by Pauline/Hellenic Christianity by the year 60 or so. One thing that I saw recently that really put a point on that for me is in the famous 'Jerusalem Council' of Acts 15. This is usually presented as Paul and the Gentiles that he represents coming to the Great Pillar Apostles Peter, James, and John for a decision on the question of whether or not Gentile Christians need to follow Jewish Law and a sort of scriptural pillar on which the Magisterium is built.
But when I looked at it recently I noticed the enormous flaw in this theory right at the very beginning of the story,
'And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”Acts 15:1'
The men who started the whole problem came from Judea, which is to say from the Jerusalem Church. Peter, James, and John were sending out missionaries who were preaching what is now universally recognized as heresy. Sounds like I am out on a limb? But it's confirmed a few verses down,
' 4 And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them. 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” 6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. 7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.”'
'Some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed' that is members of the Jerusalem church, stood up in the meeting and started preaching the Judaizing heresy right on the spot, demanding that Paul's companion Titus be circumcised on the spot, as we learn in Paul's parallel account in Galatians 2. And the heresy was not some isolated thing but a powerful enough faction in the church of Peter, James, and John that it wasn't at all clear who was going to win. The racket and confusion is finally put to a stop by Peter's confession that he himself is failing to keep the law, which seems to shock them into silence. Then everyone shuts up long enough for Paul to tell them about the miracles that prove his case. Far from the Council, or Peter for the papally minded, settling the matter, the heresy continues in the Jerusalem church, and 'men from James' continue evangelizing the heresy and Peter doesn't have the stones to buck them in Antioch.
The picture that the establishment church is trying to sell us was cobbled together much later from pieces that don't really fit at all.
This is one of your best pieces Mark and not just because you reference some of your brightest and funniest friends. When I think back, I seem to remember that you used to refuse to call yourself a follower of Christ. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore.
I think that the picture that you are painting is fundamentally true and I am very interested to see where it goes. As I read about your centurion, I thought about a Marine Corps Major that I used to know. I'll describe Major Kevin briefly as he is what I see when I read this. He made Colonel later but when I knew him best he was a major not long back from Iraq. I remember him telling me how at one point he was essentially the mayor of Fallujah and about how much time and effort they put into working with the locals and learning their ways, and how quickly his work transitioned from killing to working out disagreements between the town's inhabitants. He is a man of very deep and passionate piety with a sort of soldierly humility which seems a bit strange, a very, very bright man who passes off many things as 'above his paygrade' which I always thought that he understood perfectly well. He wore the jarhead moniker with pride claiming that his head could be unscrewed and replaced with any other marine's head and we would never know the difference. Kevin once told me that you could always tell when the Marines had left a post because it would be spotless, because of their love for clean fields of fire I suspect, and that this was achieved by the commanding officer simply going out as soon as the area was under their control and beginning to pick up trash. All of the other marines immediately followed being unwilling to watch their commander clean while they were idle. He was the son of a soldier turned lawyer and farmer on the strength of the GI Bill who bragged about being the only lawyer in town who still milked his own cow. It only remains to be said that when not on active duty Kevin was a history teacher and I suspect a brilliant one and that eighteen years later he is still as vivid in my mind as when I last saw him.
Great story, Jon. I have a similar one, which maybe I'll tell someday. But I absolutely get the part about picking up trash (or "field-stripping" cigarettes, in my case).
I fear I didn't emphasize the centurion's orderliness and discipline as much as I could have in this intro, nor what it meant to lead men in occupied foreign lands. The draft was getting too long, so I will try to bolster both in the conclusion. I am glad that I encountered your own piece before publishing, as it completed a line of thought for me that otherwise would have trickled off into the woods. Thank you for that.
I always have found the centurion's orderliness to be the heart of the story. He understands military order (Jon's paygrade reference above) and has no trouble placing it onto a divine order. Where I differ from you is that I believe Jesus' divinity was apparent to all with eyes to see. I don't think that anything was discovered about it, by anyone, in this vignette. Jesus did exactly what the centurion expected him to. Why Jesus marveled is that so few understood this. But I think that the military orderliness gave insight that the chaos and randomness of the countryside did/could not.
I believe it's understood in Orthodoxy that the centurion was likely a 'phoboumenoi ton Theon,' a God-fearer, a gentile in the Greco-Roman world who showed a sympathetic interest in Hellenistic Judaism without becoming a full convert to the faith.
St Paul frequently addressed God-fearers in his missionary work, preaching to them in synagogues and emphasizing that faith in Christ, rather than adherence to the Mosaic Law, provided salvation.
The conversion of figures like Cornelius the centurion, described as a "devout man, and one that feared God with all his house," exemplifies how God-fearers were receptive to the Christian message and became early converts.
He arranged to build their synagogue too, making him a local patron of sorts. I have more to say about phoboumenoi ton Theon, but I will leave it for part two.
What a fascinating coincidence. I’ve been reflecting on the centurion passage a lot.
I’ve been combining Hoff breathing with prayer. In particular, while I’m trying to maintain a breath hold for as long as possible, I think of the painful feelings as being a kind of sin offering. And while doing this, I realized once that there were parts of me that were angry at God, because they don’t want to follow God. These wounded subpersonas want to follow me. I realized the Centurion’s words were perfect for their healing. If these portions of my consciousness don’t want to be Christian, I figured they are injured. So I need to follow this Centurion example. Your post couldn’t be more timely.
Totally agree we should learn from our brothers and not imagine ourselves superior.
Thank you for this story. :) You are a monster fighter, dedicated to the pursuit of the Good, the True and the Beautiful. It is not surprising that you find value in the story of the roman (and probably pagan) centurion!
And thus, the question of why a pagan (not neo-, though, never neo-) has Christian friends, easily answers itself. :) Your "fruit" is very, very good. At least from where I stand.
A pagan is not required to find anyone, who expresses ANY faith in the divine, who reports ANY personal experience of the divine, to be wrong in their faith, or in their experience.
We know we are all are in the same boat - stuck using "whichever tools and materials are available, no matter how shabby or ill-suited" - because of the fact that a human being is really not terribly well suited to understanding and/or to communicating, very much of depth or complexity, in the incomparable vastness of all that is.
Now, if a person's faith and/or experience, causes them to depart from seeking the Good, the True and the Beautiful... well, now, THAT is a different matter, and subject to the kind of judgment call your own scriptures will have reported as follows: "by their fruit shall ye know them." :)
"By their fruit," indeed. Words are cheaper now than they've ever been, expelled into the voids of cyberspace like breaths (or farts). One of the amazing things I've discovered when grappling with original sources is how costly writing was back then, along multiple vectors of cost.
Indeed. There is a lot to be said for the saying - "promise little, accomplish much." Words are easy, intentions are easy, even remorse is easy.... what is hard is to keep one's own counsel and continue pursuing the Good, the True and the Beautiful through one's acts day in, day out.
That said, I know you are not give to throwing your words out like farts... Lol! You spend a lot of time honing and polishing... and that makes them worth reading, and savouring. :)
Mark, I feel compelled to offer a word of warning: please tread lightly in your exegesis. I'm not claiming to know "the right" way to interpret Scripture (there's probably more than one, anyway), and as far as I can tell neither are you. But there are plenty of heresies that began as people looking at the stories of Christ in a new light, and I'd hate to see you fall into that trap.
My struggle for the last several months has been to answer the question, "who has the authority to speak on God's behalf?" Of course this is an ancient question, but it's my first time personally wrestling with it. I'm unlikely to come to a concrete answer, but one of the guiding principles that rings true is that "authority should be recognized by community." I'm other words, don't spend too much time in your own head, and run your ideas by others. Perhaps you are, or perhaps Substack is a way to do that, in part. I hope so.
And I'm still looking forward to seeing what comes next - I just want it to help you (and others) continue on the narrow path. May God bless you and yours.
Thank you, John. I am also wary, and trying to tread lightly. But I hear it deep in my soul that we must dare to tread, given the many evils of the world we were born into, which have metastasized at an intense rate of speed in recent years. But in no way do I consider myself fit to speak on God's behalf. I don't even consider myself fit to speak on another man's behalf.
To answer your question: I gave the final draft of this article to a trusted friend of mine, who was raised Orthodox but married a Catholic woman, and who now lectors at their local church. He is the most serious and devout Christian I know, who received formal training in theology and philosophy when he was younger. I can't disclose much more about his position or background, but I will say that this article was in part developed through our long conversations about exactly your concerns.
For what it's worth, I spoke to him this morning about it before I published, and he approved. Maybe that's because he already knows where I'm going with it in Part 2. Reading your comment, I wish I could have published it as a whole instead of parts. But I didn't do that, precisely *because* I take it so seriously. It needs more time, more work, and more discussion before it can see the light of day. I hope you will be patient with me until then, and not judge this background piece too harshly in the meantime.
There's no judgement on my part - my comment was offered in the spirit of brotherhood and charity (and I hope taken that way). You don't owe me an explanation, though I'm pleased to hear you've got others you can work with when contemplating these matters. Always better to travel the way with friends!
A theologian is reputed to have said: "I had an original thought once; and I was wrong." I do not take that as a warning not to think, but to think carefully and in community with 2000 years of careful thinking. However; as Luther pointed out, creeds have been wrong....
I appreciate the author's perspective here. How the God/Man inhabited this world has long been a puzzle only partly understood. I lean toward the godhead being veiled in humanity and learning as do we all.
I hadn't considered the hellenistic weight of the early church, especially in Jerusalem. There is no indication in the text as to how many of the 5000 were Jews.
My warning stems more from a desire to make sure intellectual energy is well spent rather than concern about a particular heresy. In my own faith journey I've gone from childlike trust in the words of Scripture, through midwit deconstruction of the Bible, to theological deep dives, and now I find myself headed back to simply trusting and accepting that some things are the way they are. The trick is figuring out which things merit reflection and which distract from the questions that matter. I'm not an expert by any means, and I'm just sharing my opinion, but I think Christ's dual nature falls into the latter category. Too much insistence on "figuring it out" has spawned (or at least contributed to) beliefs like Docetism and Marcionism, and if the last 2000 years have taught us anything, it's that people will never agree on a consistent explanation anyway. It's a mystery, and that's ok. Don't let the "how?" upstage the "why?".
(Also, I'm not saying Mark is getting lost in the weeds, but I could feel that danger lurking, which is why I felt compelled to say something. Or maybe I'm just projecting my past transgressions in this regard, in which case the warning is unnecessary.)
I think that is a lesson we all need to keep close. It is also a danger to fall into the other ditch of ignoring the responsibility to find what truth we may. There are doctrines worth fighting for. And there are others we should only ever fight over with ourselves, if even that. There are legitimate heresies, and there are questions beyond what has been revealed.
I am presently reading a printed version of the New Living Testament and highly recommend it. Time after time, it makes things clear and obvious that I have never seen. You might appreciate it.
Great job Mark. You have reinforced my most fervent belief that faith is truly a mystery. Its elusiveness is wasted upon my feeble mind.
I yearn for that which is more than the stories we’ve been told and the dogma that’s evolved from them.
The centurion embodies the mystery we all strive to attain, much like the Christ in the Bible. Think we must have the capacity for this as much as for the evil we see so much more of these days.
I see in another comment that you ran this article by a well educated Catholic. I would assume then that you know that Catholics recite the centurion’s words as part of the communion rite, switching out “servant” for “soul.”
“Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”
No, that's okay. Like I said, probably wasn't a mystery for RC and EO readers where I going with that. But I have a bit more to say about the words than their prominent place in ritual. We know they're important, but why do we say them at the moment we do, right before we are served the Eucharist?
My not-thought-through answer would be that that vast majority of us are gentiles from formerly pagan cultures surrounded by cultures of aggressive and jealous gods (Porn and Materialism and Eat-Pray-Love) also believing from afar (in time now as well as space) - so the centurion is the most relatable bible character for us.
Thank you for doing the work you do here. Your writing is thought provoking and inspiring.
Alongside the Christian and the (neo)Pagans, we now have the Jungians: they come with their Holy Scripture (of which the Gospel part was humbly titled by their most humble Guide *Liber Novus*), their Jesus (going by the "Carl Gustav" name, incarnated in Switzerland in the late 19th century), and well... they call salvation "integration", and life in the Kingdom "life with meaning" (here, in this world).
I suspect that the unsavouriness of most "Christian banner holding" people, including on Substack, helps steering seekers of meaning and truth away from the Real One to cultivated, depth-orientated, *human* pursuits of knowledge (and their heritage), which can't reach the Goal however noble-meaning they might be. Then there is also the Deceiver that pushes all of humankind to disbelief for Christ, on a pre-conscious level.
I’ve always loved the story of the Centurion. And now I have a better understanding of why. Well done. Cannot wait for the second part of this article.
Keep on rockin' Mister Mark! This old world's last clambake is just gettin' warmed up. lol
Before & after the Christ-man's resurrection, honest men of great secular authority understood the overwhelming Authority & Power of Christ.
Another example (post-resurrection) of a secular power broker's appreciation for Christ's Authority is shown in Acts 8, beginning at verse 26: apostle Philip is told by Christ's Spirit to head south and wait for instruction. What happened next? Philip converted and baptized a man of great authority in worldly affairs. Then, according to Scripture, "And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing."
Philip was instantaneously transported 30 miles, from Gaza to Ashdod (then known as Azotus). That mode of flight is the same form of appearance\vanishing Jesus displayed several times following His resurrection.
New Testament Scripture does not make a big deal of how easily physical healing and transportation, instantaneously over great distances, are effected by Christ's Spirit. The point of the New Testament is to inspire & strengthen a soul's understanding, appreciation & APPLICATION of the supernatural substance known as FAITH. Faith is the key characteristic of the Roman Centurian that so amazed and pleased Jesus.
"New Testament Scripture does not make a big deal of how easily physical healing and transportation, instantaneously over great distances, are effected by Christ's Spirit."
No, it doesn't. But I'd still bet that seeing it up close and personal it threw plenty of folks for a loop, to the extent some of them wondered if they were losing their minds. That would be a coping mechanism too, then as now. Much scarier when you accept it as real. But fear is only the first step. The next one's a doozy.
What basis do you have for saying that Jesus was surprised? Are you saying that Jesus did not have perfect understanding of the centurion’s heart, like He knew everyone else? I think this is a dangerous extrapolation of the word “amazed”.
I would simply say that Jesus marveled at the centurion’s faith, not that He was surprised. Without any explicit statement, I would assume that Jesus had His usual perfect insight.
Also, how does your definition of "perfect insight" differ from my attribution of Christ's "perfect discernment"? Does one take place in linear spacetime and not the other? Not trying to be snarky, I'm just trying to genuinely understand where we might differ.
Im not trying to be snarky or argumentative either. I liked your thesis on the Roman centurions and their background and I learned a few things. I think our difference is that you seem to be saying that Jesus did not know in advance how the centurion would react. I believe that Jesus knew before it happened, but simply ‘marveled’ at a pagan with faith, meaning that He was happy to see a pagan with clear faith.
That does seem to be the big difference. "What did he know, and when did he know it?"
When I was being raised up Catholic, I recall there seemed to be a kind of vague agreement that Jesus was all-seeing, all-knowing, at all times. My issue is that the Gospels themselves appear to contradict this notion. That is why, for instance, I included Mark 5:25-34. If Jesus was all-knowing, then why did he go searching for the person who touched him in the crowd? Could he not have instantly identified her, or even foreseen that she was creeping up on him for a touch? He was literally surprised, feeling the power activate without his direct attention.
But to return to insight/discernment (which I believe we are using the same way), my point is that Jesus could be surprised by the centurion's words, but only because he knew, via his Divine insight, that they were honest. I will try to explain more in part two, but the gist is that there were many rational explanations for why the centurion might not invite Christ into his home, not least of which was the threat of scandal (and really, double-scandal, both to Rome and to the town's Jewish population).
A man like you or I could merely guess at his true motives, using all sorts of predictive models and rationales. But whatever theories we came up with would be just that: theories. Christ *knew* what was in the soldier's heart in that moment. The centurion's words - as important as they are to our faith - were only words, and could have been purely strategic. Christ's true-seeing knowledge, unavailable to us, is what surprised him. I believe it is also what prompted his vision of the table, and the actual breadth and scope of his mission.
I understand your interpretation but I cannot be sure whether it’s correct. My puny brain probably can’t understand the reality of how Jesus and the Father are related to each other.
I also wanted to say that you are fundamentally right about the early Hellenic supremacy of 1st century Christianity. I think that Jewish Christianity was mostly swallowed by Pauline/Hellenic Christianity by the year 60 or so. One thing that I saw recently that really put a point on that for me is in the famous 'Jerusalem Council' of Acts 15. This is usually presented as Paul and the Gentiles that he represents coming to the Great Pillar Apostles Peter, James, and John for a decision on the question of whether or not Gentile Christians need to follow Jewish Law and a sort of scriptural pillar on which the Magisterium is built.
But when I looked at it recently I noticed the enormous flaw in this theory right at the very beginning of the story,
'And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”Acts 15:1'
The men who started the whole problem came from Judea, which is to say from the Jerusalem Church. Peter, James, and John were sending out missionaries who were preaching what is now universally recognized as heresy. Sounds like I am out on a limb? But it's confirmed a few verses down,
' 4 And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them. 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” 6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. 7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.”'
'Some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed' that is members of the Jerusalem church, stood up in the meeting and started preaching the Judaizing heresy right on the spot, demanding that Paul's companion Titus be circumcised on the spot, as we learn in Paul's parallel account in Galatians 2. And the heresy was not some isolated thing but a powerful enough faction in the church of Peter, James, and John that it wasn't at all clear who was going to win. The racket and confusion is finally put to a stop by Peter's confession that he himself is failing to keep the law, which seems to shock them into silence. Then everyone shuts up long enough for Paul to tell them about the miracles that prove his case. Far from the Council, or Peter for the papally minded, settling the matter, the heresy continues in the Jerusalem church, and 'men from James' continue evangelizing the heresy and Peter doesn't have the stones to buck them in Antioch.
The picture that the establishment church is trying to sell us was cobbled together much later from pieces that don't really fit at all.
This is one of your best pieces Mark and not just because you reference some of your brightest and funniest friends. When I think back, I seem to remember that you used to refuse to call yourself a follower of Christ. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore.
I think that the picture that you are painting is fundamentally true and I am very interested to see where it goes. As I read about your centurion, I thought about a Marine Corps Major that I used to know. I'll describe Major Kevin briefly as he is what I see when I read this. He made Colonel later but when I knew him best he was a major not long back from Iraq. I remember him telling me how at one point he was essentially the mayor of Fallujah and about how much time and effort they put into working with the locals and learning their ways, and how quickly his work transitioned from killing to working out disagreements between the town's inhabitants. He is a man of very deep and passionate piety with a sort of soldierly humility which seems a bit strange, a very, very bright man who passes off many things as 'above his paygrade' which I always thought that he understood perfectly well. He wore the jarhead moniker with pride claiming that his head could be unscrewed and replaced with any other marine's head and we would never know the difference. Kevin once told me that you could always tell when the Marines had left a post because it would be spotless, because of their love for clean fields of fire I suspect, and that this was achieved by the commanding officer simply going out as soon as the area was under their control and beginning to pick up trash. All of the other marines immediately followed being unwilling to watch their commander clean while they were idle. He was the son of a soldier turned lawyer and farmer on the strength of the GI Bill who bragged about being the only lawyer in town who still milked his own cow. It only remains to be said that when not on active duty Kevin was a history teacher and I suspect a brilliant one and that eighteen years later he is still as vivid in my mind as when I last saw him.
Great story, Jon. I have a similar one, which maybe I'll tell someday. But I absolutely get the part about picking up trash (or "field-stripping" cigarettes, in my case).
I fear I didn't emphasize the centurion's orderliness and discipline as much as I could have in this intro, nor what it meant to lead men in occupied foreign lands. The draft was getting too long, so I will try to bolster both in the conclusion. I am glad that I encountered your own piece before publishing, as it completed a line of thought for me that otherwise would have trickled off into the woods. Thank you for that.
I always have found the centurion's orderliness to be the heart of the story. He understands military order (Jon's paygrade reference above) and has no trouble placing it onto a divine order. Where I differ from you is that I believe Jesus' divinity was apparent to all with eyes to see. I don't think that anything was discovered about it, by anyone, in this vignette. Jesus did exactly what the centurion expected him to. Why Jesus marveled is that so few understood this. But I think that the military orderliness gave insight that the chaos and randomness of the countryside did/could not.
I believe it's understood in Orthodoxy that the centurion was likely a 'phoboumenoi ton Theon,' a God-fearer, a gentile in the Greco-Roman world who showed a sympathetic interest in Hellenistic Judaism without becoming a full convert to the faith.
St Paul frequently addressed God-fearers in his missionary work, preaching to them in synagogues and emphasizing that faith in Christ, rather than adherence to the Mosaic Law, provided salvation.
The conversion of figures like Cornelius the centurion, described as a "devout man, and one that feared God with all his house," exemplifies how God-fearers were receptive to the Christian message and became early converts.
He arranged to build their synagogue too, making him a local patron of sorts. I have more to say about phoboumenoi ton Theon, but I will leave it for part two.
What a fascinating coincidence. I’ve been reflecting on the centurion passage a lot.
I’ve been combining Hoff breathing with prayer. In particular, while I’m trying to maintain a breath hold for as long as possible, I think of the painful feelings as being a kind of sin offering. And while doing this, I realized once that there were parts of me that were angry at God, because they don’t want to follow God. These wounded subpersonas want to follow me. I realized the Centurion’s words were perfect for their healing. If these portions of my consciousness don’t want to be Christian, I figured they are injured. So I need to follow this Centurion example. Your post couldn’t be more timely.
Totally agree we should learn from our brothers and not imagine ourselves superior.
Maybe it isn't coincidence? In terms of field theory, I've noticed a lot of carrier waves seem to be hitting multiple simultaneous shores.
Thank you for this story. :) You are a monster fighter, dedicated to the pursuit of the Good, the True and the Beautiful. It is not surprising that you find value in the story of the roman (and probably pagan) centurion!
And thus, the question of why a pagan (not neo-, though, never neo-) has Christian friends, easily answers itself. :) Your "fruit" is very, very good. At least from where I stand.
A pagan is not required to find anyone, who expresses ANY faith in the divine, who reports ANY personal experience of the divine, to be wrong in their faith, or in their experience.
We know we are all are in the same boat - stuck using "whichever tools and materials are available, no matter how shabby or ill-suited" - because of the fact that a human being is really not terribly well suited to understanding and/or to communicating, very much of depth or complexity, in the incomparable vastness of all that is.
Now, if a person's faith and/or experience, causes them to depart from seeking the Good, the True and the Beautiful... well, now, THAT is a different matter, and subject to the kind of judgment call your own scriptures will have reported as follows: "by their fruit shall ye know them." :)
Thank you, Scotlyn.
"By their fruit," indeed. Words are cheaper now than they've ever been, expelled into the voids of cyberspace like breaths (or farts). One of the amazing things I've discovered when grappling with original sources is how costly writing was back then, along multiple vectors of cost.
Indeed. There is a lot to be said for the saying - "promise little, accomplish much." Words are easy, intentions are easy, even remorse is easy.... what is hard is to keep one's own counsel and continue pursuing the Good, the True and the Beautiful through one's acts day in, day out.
That said, I know you are not give to throwing your words out like farts... Lol! You spend a lot of time honing and polishing... and that makes them worth reading, and savouring. :)
Be well, may blessing and beauty walk with you!
You as well, my friend.
Mark, I feel compelled to offer a word of warning: please tread lightly in your exegesis. I'm not claiming to know "the right" way to interpret Scripture (there's probably more than one, anyway), and as far as I can tell neither are you. But there are plenty of heresies that began as people looking at the stories of Christ in a new light, and I'd hate to see you fall into that trap.
My struggle for the last several months has been to answer the question, "who has the authority to speak on God's behalf?" Of course this is an ancient question, but it's my first time personally wrestling with it. I'm unlikely to come to a concrete answer, but one of the guiding principles that rings true is that "authority should be recognized by community." I'm other words, don't spend too much time in your own head, and run your ideas by others. Perhaps you are, or perhaps Substack is a way to do that, in part. I hope so.
And I'm still looking forward to seeing what comes next - I just want it to help you (and others) continue on the narrow path. May God bless you and yours.
Thank you, John. I am also wary, and trying to tread lightly. But I hear it deep in my soul that we must dare to tread, given the many evils of the world we were born into, which have metastasized at an intense rate of speed in recent years. But in no way do I consider myself fit to speak on God's behalf. I don't even consider myself fit to speak on another man's behalf.
To answer your question: I gave the final draft of this article to a trusted friend of mine, who was raised Orthodox but married a Catholic woman, and who now lectors at their local church. He is the most serious and devout Christian I know, who received formal training in theology and philosophy when he was younger. I can't disclose much more about his position or background, but I will say that this article was in part developed through our long conversations about exactly your concerns.
For what it's worth, I spoke to him this morning about it before I published, and he approved. Maybe that's because he already knows where I'm going with it in Part 2. Reading your comment, I wish I could have published it as a whole instead of parts. But I didn't do that, precisely *because* I take it so seriously. It needs more time, more work, and more discussion before it can see the light of day. I hope you will be patient with me until then, and not judge this background piece too harshly in the meantime.
There's no judgement on my part - my comment was offered in the spirit of brotherhood and charity (and I hope taken that way). You don't owe me an explanation, though I'm pleased to hear you've got others you can work with when contemplating these matters. Always better to travel the way with friends!
A theologian is reputed to have said: "I had an original thought once; and I was wrong." I do not take that as a warning not to think, but to think carefully and in community with 2000 years of careful thinking. However; as Luther pointed out, creeds have been wrong....
I appreciate the author's perspective here. How the God/Man inhabited this world has long been a puzzle only partly understood. I lean toward the godhead being veiled in humanity and learning as do we all.
I hadn't considered the hellenistic weight of the early church, especially in Jerusalem. There is no indication in the text as to how many of the 5000 were Jews.
My warning stems more from a desire to make sure intellectual energy is well spent rather than concern about a particular heresy. In my own faith journey I've gone from childlike trust in the words of Scripture, through midwit deconstruction of the Bible, to theological deep dives, and now I find myself headed back to simply trusting and accepting that some things are the way they are. The trick is figuring out which things merit reflection and which distract from the questions that matter. I'm not an expert by any means, and I'm just sharing my opinion, but I think Christ's dual nature falls into the latter category. Too much insistence on "figuring it out" has spawned (or at least contributed to) beliefs like Docetism and Marcionism, and if the last 2000 years have taught us anything, it's that people will never agree on a consistent explanation anyway. It's a mystery, and that's ok. Don't let the "how?" upstage the "why?".
(Also, I'm not saying Mark is getting lost in the weeds, but I could feel that danger lurking, which is why I felt compelled to say something. Or maybe I'm just projecting my past transgressions in this regard, in which case the warning is unnecessary.)
I think that is a lesson we all need to keep close. It is also a danger to fall into the other ditch of ignoring the responsibility to find what truth we may. There are doctrines worth fighting for. And there are others we should only ever fight over with ourselves, if even that. There are legitimate heresies, and there are questions beyond what has been revealed.
Blessings.
Agreed, we don't want to be the servant that buried one talent in the ground. Per usual, the truth lies between extremes. Blessings to you as well!
I am presently reading a printed version of the New Living Testament and highly recommend it. Time after time, it makes things clear and obvious that I have never seen. You might appreciate it.
More than a few times I have thought, why am I still paying Mark to explore Christianity? Then you remind me.
Thanks, brother.
This was amazing, thank you.
Thank you as well.
Dante would likely agree with you in this concept, given the high position he gave Greek pagans in the Comedy.
Yeah, I think he absolutely did. Artists can see a ways into the past and future (which doesn't mean they are good people, necessarily).
Great job Mark. You have reinforced my most fervent belief that faith is truly a mystery. Its elusiveness is wasted upon my feeble mind.
I yearn for that which is more than the stories we’ve been told and the dogma that’s evolved from them.
The centurion embodies the mystery we all strive to attain, much like the Christ in the Bible. Think we must have the capacity for this as much as for the evil we see so much more of these days.
My feeble mind too, Joan. But I'm not sure it's wasted on any of us. The mystery draws us closer, even though we'll never solve it in the flesh.
Part 2 cannot come soon enough! I am currently reading through Luke currently and this is fresh on my mind. Epic.
Thank you. I am trying my best to write it.
Mark,
I see in another comment that you ran this article by a well educated Catholic. I would assume then that you know that Catholics recite the centurion’s words as part of the communion rite, switching out “servant” for “soul.”
“Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”
Yes indeed. That is the "fourth defense" I mention (and the Eastern rite is even more explicit in it's reading of the centurion's words).
Apologies for the spoiler!
No, that's okay. Like I said, probably wasn't a mystery for RC and EO readers where I going with that. But I have a bit more to say about the words than their prominent place in ritual. We know they're important, but why do we say them at the moment we do, right before we are served the Eucharist?
I’m looking forward to the next installment :)
My not-thought-through answer would be that that vast majority of us are gentiles from formerly pagan cultures surrounded by cultures of aggressive and jealous gods (Porn and Materialism and Eat-Pray-Love) also believing from afar (in time now as well as space) - so the centurion is the most relatable bible character for us.
Thank you for doing the work you do here. Your writing is thought provoking and inspiring.
I think that is a good answer, and very similar to my own.
Lord, I am not worthy to receive you; but only say the word, and I shall be healed.
Alongside the Christian and the (neo)Pagans, we now have the Jungians: they come with their Holy Scripture (of which the Gospel part was humbly titled by their most humble Guide *Liber Novus*), their Jesus (going by the "Carl Gustav" name, incarnated in Switzerland in the late 19th century), and well... they call salvation "integration", and life in the Kingdom "life with meaning" (here, in this world).
I suspect that the unsavouriness of most "Christian banner holding" people, including on Substack, helps steering seekers of meaning and truth away from the Real One to cultivated, depth-orientated, *human* pursuits of knowledge (and their heritage), which can't reach the Goal however noble-meaning they might be. Then there is also the Deceiver that pushes all of humankind to disbelief for Christ, on a pre-conscious level.
I’ve always loved the story of the Centurion. And now I have a better understanding of why. Well done. Cannot wait for the second part of this article.
Thank you, Randy. And thank you very kindly for your patronage, too.
Keep on rockin' Mister Mark! This old world's last clambake is just gettin' warmed up. lol
Before & after the Christ-man's resurrection, honest men of great secular authority understood the overwhelming Authority & Power of Christ.
Another example (post-resurrection) of a secular power broker's appreciation for Christ's Authority is shown in Acts 8, beginning at verse 26: apostle Philip is told by Christ's Spirit to head south and wait for instruction. What happened next? Philip converted and baptized a man of great authority in worldly affairs. Then, according to Scripture, "And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing."
Philip was instantaneously transported 30 miles, from Gaza to Ashdod (then known as Azotus). That mode of flight is the same form of appearance\vanishing Jesus displayed several times following His resurrection.
New Testament Scripture does not make a big deal of how easily physical healing and transportation, instantaneously over great distances, are effected by Christ's Spirit. The point of the New Testament is to inspire & strengthen a soul's understanding, appreciation & APPLICATION of the supernatural substance known as FAITH. Faith is the key characteristic of the Roman Centurian that so amazed and pleased Jesus.
PHILIP AND THE EUNUCH: https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/act/8/26/s_1026026
FAITH: https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/heb/11/1/s_1144001
"New Testament Scripture does not make a big deal of how easily physical healing and transportation, instantaneously over great distances, are effected by Christ's Spirit."
No, it doesn't. But I'd still bet that seeing it up close and personal it threw plenty of folks for a loop, to the extent some of them wondered if they were losing their minds. That would be a coping mechanism too, then as now. Much scarier when you accept it as real. But fear is only the first step. The next one's a doozy.
What basis do you have for saying that Jesus was surprised? Are you saying that Jesus did not have perfect understanding of the centurion’s heart, like He knew everyone else? I think this is a dangerous extrapolation of the word “amazed”.
"What basis do you have for saying that Jesus was surprised"
The fact that the synoptic Gospels of Luke and Matthew agree he was surprised.
"Are you saying that Jesus did not have perfect understanding of the centurion’s heart, like He knew everyone else?"
I'm saying he did not know it before the exchange happened, which is why he was amazed.
"I think this is a dangerous extrapolation of the word 'amazed'."
How would you define it?
I would simply say that Jesus marveled at the centurion’s faith, not that He was surprised. Without any explicit statement, I would assume that Jesus had His usual perfect insight.
What is your definition of "marveled"?
Also, how does your definition of "perfect insight" differ from my attribution of Christ's "perfect discernment"? Does one take place in linear spacetime and not the other? Not trying to be snarky, I'm just trying to genuinely understand where we might differ.
Im not trying to be snarky or argumentative either. I liked your thesis on the Roman centurions and their background and I learned a few things. I think our difference is that you seem to be saying that Jesus did not know in advance how the centurion would react. I believe that Jesus knew before it happened, but simply ‘marveled’ at a pagan with faith, meaning that He was happy to see a pagan with clear faith.
That does seem to be the big difference. "What did he know, and when did he know it?"
When I was being raised up Catholic, I recall there seemed to be a kind of vague agreement that Jesus was all-seeing, all-knowing, at all times. My issue is that the Gospels themselves appear to contradict this notion. That is why, for instance, I included Mark 5:25-34. If Jesus was all-knowing, then why did he go searching for the person who touched him in the crowd? Could he not have instantly identified her, or even foreseen that she was creeping up on him for a touch? He was literally surprised, feeling the power activate without his direct attention.
But to return to insight/discernment (which I believe we are using the same way), my point is that Jesus could be surprised by the centurion's words, but only because he knew, via his Divine insight, that they were honest. I will try to explain more in part two, but the gist is that there were many rational explanations for why the centurion might not invite Christ into his home, not least of which was the threat of scandal (and really, double-scandal, both to Rome and to the town's Jewish population).
A man like you or I could merely guess at his true motives, using all sorts of predictive models and rationales. But whatever theories we came up with would be just that: theories. Christ *knew* what was in the soldier's heart in that moment. The centurion's words - as important as they are to our faith - were only words, and could have been purely strategic. Christ's true-seeing knowledge, unavailable to us, is what surprised him. I believe it is also what prompted his vision of the table, and the actual breadth and scope of his mission.
I understand your interpretation but I cannot be sure whether it’s correct. My puny brain probably can’t understand the reality of how Jesus and the Father are related to each other.