Abstract
In this work Brian Gamel uses the centurion’s confession in Mark 15:39 to explore the soteriological significance of Jesus’s death in Mark’s Gospel. Gamel argues that the centurion is a narrative symbol whose sincere (not sarcastic) confession functions as the definitive moment of apocalyptic revelation in Mark that exposes Jesus’s divine identity as Son of God (pp. 25–68). Furthermore, Gamel asserts that the centurion’s strange and sudden awareness of Jesus’s identity is a consequence of apocalyptic unveiling symbolized by the tearing of the temple veil in 15:38 (pp. 69–114). That the centurion comes to spiritual perception in precisely this manner has a number of soteriological implications vis-á-vis Jesus’s death, namely, that due to the cross eschatological sight is available for humanity, enmity between God and man is overcome, and Gentiles are incorporated into God’s kingdom (pp. 115–172). Thus, for Gamel, the tearing of the temple veil and the confession of the centurion are apocalyptic events that interpret the saving significance of Jesus’s death in Mark.
Gamel admirably draws attention to the importance of Mark 15:39 in Mark’s passion narrative. Rather than getting bogged down in old christological or historical debates, Gamel seeks new terrain by taking the centurion’s confession as the interpretive key that unlocks the significance of Jesus’s death. While Gamel does treat the meaning of ‘Son of God’ in 15:39, he does not stop here, but goes on to propose how this designation is relevant within the Markan narrative as a whole. What emerges is a plausible and creative thesis that seeks to account for the function of the centurion’s confession. Particularly helpful is Gamel’s survey of research on Mark 15:39 in chapter 2 (pp. 9–23). Interpreters of this text will want to consult this chapter to gain an up-to-date analysis of the debated issues. Gamel demonstrates that although it is only one verse, the exegetical and theological issues linked to 15:39 have a significant bearing on Mark’s agenda.
As for critical interaction, there are a number of items to consider. Here I mention three. First, Gamel appeals to performance criticism in order to evince the centurion’s sincerity (among other proofs), but he uncritically assumes rather than defends this disputed hermeutical theory. Strong challenges have been lodged against performance criticism in recent years, and some engagement with these objections would have strengthened Gamel’s argument. Second, the way that Gamel appeals to divine revelation discounts the centurion’s role in the narrative as an active participant. The argument is plausible, but it is not more persuasive than the theory that the centurion, who was familiar with crucifixions and who had observed this crucifixion in its entirety, detected the particularities of Jesus’s death and spoke on this basis. Third, Gamel rightly links the centurion’s statement to Jesus’s death and the torn veil, but he overinterprets the theological significance of this connection. The centurion does not state that Jesus ‘is’ the son of God, but that he ‘was’ the son of God. What he sees he sees indirectly. It is unlikely that 15:38 performs such heavy theological lifting, even if the utterance is a consequence of apocalyptic unveiling. Despite these weaknesses Gamel is to be commended for providing an original and stimulating proposal. This work is certainly required reading for anyone attempting to come to terms with the centurion’s contested statement.