Some Thoughts on Matthew 8:5-13: The Healing of the Centurion’s Servant

8:5 When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him asking for help: 8:6 “Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible anguish.” 8:7 Jesus said to him, “I will come and heal him.” 8:8 But the centurion replied, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof. Instead, just say the word and my servant will be healed. 8:9 For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I say to this one, ‘Go’ and he goes, and to another ‘Come’ and he comes, and to my slave ‘Do this’ and he does it.” 8:10 When Jesus heard this he was amazed and said to those who followed him, “I tell you the truth, I have not found such faith in anyone in Israel! 8:11 I tell you, many will come from the east and west to share the banquet with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 8:12 but the sons of the kingdom will be thrown out into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 8:13 Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go; just as you believed, it will be done for you.” And the servant was healed at that hour. (NET Bible)

Matthew 8:5-13 is Matthew’s second story about healing in this particular section of his gospel. The first is found in vv. 1-4 (Jesus’ healing of the leper), and our story of healing is followed by another, which is found in vv. 14-17 (Jesus’ healing of Peter’s mother-in-law). Moreover, this literary section is concluded with a message from Jesus about discipleship (vv. 18-22).  Furthermore, this pattern of alternating stories of miraculous works followed by a teaching about discipleship repeats itself two more times till the end of chapter nine (8:23-9:13; 9:14-9:38). 

To begin to comprehend the full significance of this passage, we must first grasp some basic information about Roman centurions and how they were viewed by Jews in the first century. In the ancient world, a section of roughly 100 soldiers were under the command of a centurion (“century” means 100 years). Also, Roman soldiers participated in pagan religious worship to the divine emperor and were not viewed highly by the Jewish people in the first century. So, compare this man to Jesus and it seems rather odd that he would approach Jesus in the first place…right? They really don’t have that much in common. Again, the Centurion is a professional soldier, and Jesus is a man of peace; the Centurion is a Gentile and Jesus is a Jew; the centurion is a pagan worshipper and Jesus is the Son of God.

But the narrative seems to suggest that the two have much in common. For one, this particular centurion, a high rating Roman officer, seems to be a man of high character and quality as indicated by his concern for a lowly servant and Jesus, rating quite highly in the divine order, is too a man of high character and has great concern for humanity. So in many respects, both individuals are excellent examples of humility (For more on Jesus’ humility see Phil. 2:5-11). But, to understand their connection more fully we must look more closely at the narrative.

I think that their main connection is the location where our narrative takes place and what it signifies. Capernaum has already been mentioned as Jesus’ hometown in 4:13 (cf. 9:1; 17:24), and is presently marked by the astonishing faith that Jesus finds in this Roman centurion and a far cry away from what will later be Jesus’ condemnation of Capernaum for its unbelief (11:23). So not only does the centurion’s faith bring him to Jesus, but in many respects this centurion and Jesus have much in common as they are an example of faith, which have come out of Capernaum.

And there are things we can learn from the centurion’s request and statement and Jesus’ response. As for Jesus’ response we can learn about discipleship and ministering to people who are not ethnically and culturally like us, and as for the centurion’s request and statement we can learn about what it means to have great faith. So, let us begin by first examining the centurion’s request.

We have much to gain from observing and modeling the humility of the centurion and this teaching is two fold. First, the centurion humbles himself before Jesus not on behalf of himself but for a lowly servant (vv. 5-6). Now there is some debate as to whether the Greek term pais means “son” or “servant” but the point is that this individual was probably considered part if not all of the centurion’s family. In the ancient world, Roman soldiers were not permitted to have legal families during their two decades of military service, so this servant might be the only member of what the centurion would consider family. Moreover, the evidence that this centurion considers this slave a family member is witnessed by the economic cost for a slave in those days and instead of just letting the slave pass away from natural causes and thus saving the centurion some great financial costs (roughly one third of his annual pay), he considers this slave to be a treasured member of his family and comes to Jesus on his behalf.

Second, the centurion humbles himself by acknowledging his inferior status (vv.5-6). In other words, this highly rated Roman military officer comes to Jesus, who is a non-Roman citizen under the rule of the Roman government, and entreats (or pleads) him to do something for his dying servant. So what we have witnessed first is that the centurion’s request is an example of humility as he comes on behalf of another and acknowledging his inferior status and what we witness next from the centurion is wisdom.

The wisdom of the Centurion is also two fold. The Centurion recognizes Jesus’ authority (v.6). It’s very likely that he has heard of Jesus’ miraculous works and who he has claimed to be, and as a result addresses him with the title “Lord” as it contrasts with what Jesus’ enemies call him (i.e. Teacher. Cf. 26:25, 49.). This centurion shows faith not only by humbling himself and entreating Jesus but also by recognizing who Jesus was and the power and authority he possessed that is far superior to his own concerning this matter.

In addition to recognizing Jesus’ authority he recognizes his divinity as well. Now I think that the centurion’s recognition of Jesus’ divinity is ever clear in vv. 8-9. First, in response to Jesus’ claim that he will come to the servant and heal him in v.7, the centurion says no, but why? Why does the centurion feel himself not fit to have Jesus in his house? I think part of the reason is a feeling of personal inadequacy at a moral and/or spiritual level, not because he is a horrible person per se, but mostly because he knows the majesty and authority the God-man possesses and what he is capable of doing: “Just say the word and my servant will be healed.” (v.8b).

Now the significance of the centurion’s recognition of Jesus’ ability to simply command something that is followed by its fulfillment is further expounded upon in v.9. Here, the centurion’s statement that he “too is a man under authority” implies that he is referring to Jesus as the other man who is also under authority. And just like the centurion who has authority over others, Jesus too has authority over others. The centurion is under the authority of Caesar and there are some who are under him (i.e. soldiers and slaves) and there is something under them (i.e. work). The centurion gives a command that implies that it must be fulfilled. In the same manner, Jesus, under the authority of the Father, gives a command to the one under him (the Holy Spirit), and that work gets done.

Now this command fulfillment pattern is found among the literature of the ANE. Specifically in an Ugaritic Poem (dating about 1200 BC) titled the Epic of King Keret. In this poem, Keret is struck with multiple misfortunes. Although he had seven wives, they all either died or deserted him. Also, he had no surviving children so no heir to his throne. Following such a horrible tragedy, he is left alone crying himself to sleep. One night, while he is praying and lamenting his plight, the god El appears before him and commands him to go and do a number of things and the rest of the poem is him carrying out these commands. Also, we can find a biblical example of this command fulfillment pattern: Creation. God creates by commanding and it is fulfilled.

So, Jesus, the God-man, can command that something be done and it will be done and this is the reason why the centurion’s request and later statement that if Jesus would “just say the word” then his servant will be healed is an example of great faith. This leads me into my next point.  

The acceptance of Jesus. (Keep in mind that this is part one of two concerning Jesus’ response.) First, Jesus accepts the centurion’s attitude as one of faith-greater than the faith of “anyone in Israel.” (v. 10). So the first lesson to be gained from this text is the nature of true faith. Jesus calls the centurion’s request and statement an example of great faith because it implies the authority that Jesus has. All Christ had to do was speak and command something and that command would be done. In this passage, all Jesus had to do was to command that the disease be healed and it would obey, and Jesus had this ability because he was divine, and by the centurion saying “just say the word” it demonstrated recognition of who Jesus truly is. In many ways this is what faith is. We live by faith in that we recognize the authority that God has and the role that we play within salvation history. For we are under the rule of God as he commands us to do something and this is the second lesson to be gained from this text: The abandonment of ethic and cultural prejudices when witnessing and ministering to people different than you. Also, by Jesus saying that the faith of the centurion is greater than anyone in Israel points us to a truth that every Christian needs to be reminded of: Those closest to the truth often take it for granted. Therefore, let us be like the centurion who recognizes the power of the truth of God communicated to us in the Word and in the personage of Jesus Christ!

This brings us to my final observation: the anticipation of Jesus- which is also two fold (being positive and negative). First, Jesus regards this exceptional example of faith by a Gentile as the promise of more Gentiles to come (v.11). This further emphasizes the fate of those you haven’t heard and the responsibility that we bear to minister to them. Once more, Jesus commands that in order to properly disciple nations we must abandon any prior ethnic and culture prejudices. Also, this banquet imagery we see in v.11 is a way of describing the fellowship and celebration that these Gentiles will experience as being part of the people of God in the kingdom of heaven.

But Jesus also anticipates something rather negative (v.12). The “sons of the kingdom” are surely to be interpreted as Jewish people- those who expected salvation based upon their ethic decent from Abraham. But instead of being destined for salvation, they are destined for damnation “where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” The weeping indicates mourning over their eternal state and the gnashing indicates anger. This sober warning to the Jewish nation of Jesus’ day is just as important to complacent Christians today.

This episode is capped off by a statement from Jesus that brings about what the centurion and the reader had already anticipated (v.13), and I think what this passage teaches us overall is that true genuine faith anticipates a favorable or positive response or reaction. Now this response might not always be witnessed, experienced or enjoyed here on earth, but it will surely be done so in heaven!  

A History and Critique of The Documentary Hypothesis and a Defense of Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch

Introduction 

It seems that the debate regarding the authorship of the Pentateuch has generated more discussion and disagreement than any other of its kind. Opinions are quite varied on the topic as some claim that Moses wrote every word, while others claim that Moses had nothing to do with it. This form of critical scholarship of the Pentateuch supposes that authors of much latter dates than Moses composed the Pentateuch, and from different sources and documents the Pentateuch was constructed. Given this opinion, rather than primarily expressing my own, I would like to interact with its claims and see if they stand up to criticism.

A (brief) History of the Documentary Hypothesis,

and the Authorship of the Pentateuch

The notion that Moses had nothing to do with the Pentateuch was first suggested in 1670 by Jewish philosopher Benedict Spinoza. This is in fact the beginnings of what scholars refer to today as the documentary hypothesis. The documentary hypothesis proposed that instead of having one document, written and put together by one author (i.e. Moses) you have many documents or sources (J, E, D, and P), and the authors of these alleged sources are the real authors of the Pentateuch.

The first real documentary hypothesis scholar to suggest the existence of a J (or “Yahwist”) and E (or “Elohist”) source for the Pentateuch was the French physician Jean Astruc in 1753. The characteristics the J source can be identified by the use of Yahweh in Gen 2 and the E source can be identified by the use of Elohim in Gen 1. For Astruc, the reference to God as Elohim and Yahweh was evidence of authorship and not a stylistic literary purpose. In addition to the divine names, another characteristic and proof of the J and E sources were the evidence of doublets. Following Astruc, Johann G. Eichhorn in 1780-83 identified the J and E source by literary characteristics. For example, J was identified in Gen 12:10-20 when Abraham and Sarah were in Egypt and the E source in Gen 20:1-10 when they are in Gerar. For him, this series of doublets proved that there had to be two authors since the elements of the narrative event were so similar and yet differed on the detail of location or setting of the event. Other characteristics germane to J are anthropomorphic speak about God, because this sort of thinking is regarded as being quite simple, for who in there right mind would think that God would be portrayed in human ways. And communications and visions through dreams are further characteristics of E. For example, Moses being portrayed as a miracle worker: Turning of water to blood, etc. 

Further proof of the existence of a J and E source were brought forth by W.M.L. DeWette in 1807. He marks the next important stage in the development of the documentary hypothesis as he suggested that different phraseology (such as vocabulary and style) were parts of later contemporary authorship and thus nothing in the Pentateuch and the J source pre-dates 1000 BC and 900 BC for the E source. The proof for such a late contemporary authorship was the similarity of phraseology between J and E and the book of Jeremiah. Also, there were anachronisms, such as allusions to the temple in Dt 12:5 and allusions to Kingship in Dt 17:14-20, which prompted him to conclude that this phraseology proves latter authorship since there was no temple until the time of Solomon and the writing of 1 Kgs 9, and the notions of kingship meant that the text must have been written when there were actually kings in the land.

As DeWette was one of the first to suggest a D source (commonly understood among documentary hypothesis scholars as a reference to the book of Deuteronomy), the grounds for its identity and characteristics can be found within the Deuteronomistic History (this would have been everything from Joshua to 2 Kgs). Why? Because of the parallels with the Deuteronomistic phraseology. The identity of the Deuteronomistic phraseology is writing from a Covenant Lawsuit perspective. In other words, it evaluated the legitimacy of the northern kingdom. The work Traditional Historical Studies by Martin Noth in 1943 further develops these notions. He proposed (as well as Dewette) that the book of Deuteronomy was fabricated by someone, perhaps Josiah as he discovers a “Book of the Law” in 2 Kgs 22-23, and thus writes in a Deuteronomistic phraseology in order to use it as a preface for the histories. In other words, Deuteronomy was a “pious fraud” or counterfeit in order to produce reform. It was to centralize worship (Dt 12:5) so that the nation would come under control of the priests. Deuteronomy also functioned as providing further theological rational that accounted for why the nation had gone so astray.

This move to centralize worship in the temples and thus under the control of the priests, as well as the writing of covenantal material are crucial characteristics of D. However, within the Pentateuch there was actual achievement of the centrality of worship so documentary hypothesis scholars identified one more document: the P or “Priestly” source. The first to identify P was Hermann Hupfeld in 1853 in light of certain legal and priestly material found within the Pentateuch. Shortly thereafter, the hypothesis reached its classical form with the works of Karl Graf, Abraham Kuenen, and the brilliant German scholar, Julius Wellhausen. Frist, Graf in 1865 looked at the P source and concluded that P was later than D, because D seems to not know P on account of D not citing P. For if one reads D, then one would not find any of the core material of P, which is Lev 17-26. Again, his logic is that if D does not quote P, then P did not exist until after D. He categorizes P as being exilic or sometime during the exile, and slits P into two portions: Legal P, which was exilic, and Historical P which was much earlier. Next, given Graf’s suggested split with P, Abraham Kuenen in 1869 was the next crucial scholar for the hypothesis. He was the first to claim that there was only one “P” and suggested that it was quite late (either exilic or post exilic), and then provided the documentary hypothesis with its official ordering of the documents: J, E, D, and P.

Therefore, given Kuenen’s ordering of the documents, the man who most refined and populized the hypothesis was Wellhausen, who was an expert in Semitic languages. In 1876, being highly influenced by Hegelian philosophy and Darwinian evolution, he concluded that the practices of the religious institutions during the writing of Pentateuch evolved, not revealed. The proof he needed can be found among the varying characteristics of the document. The ritual practice of centralized worship is mentioned in D and not achieved until P. Moreover, J and E never write about the centrality of worship, so they are much older than D and P. Given his presuppositions and conclusions, he was prompted to provide dates for each one. J was written around 850 BC by someone from Judah (the southern kingdom) who emphasized biography as well as ethical and religious concerns. E was written around 750 BC by someone from the northern kingdom and was more objective in his narrative writing style. D was written around 621 BC by the high priest Hilkiah who incorporated notions of the law and legal religious practices most likely as a result of the reign of Manasseh. Following both Graf and Kuenen, Wellhausen dated P as a post-exilic source. According to him it was mainly compiled and edited by Ezra around 450 BC. Ezra incorporated genealogies, lists, origins, sacrifices and the description of the Tabernacle into the Pentateuch. Along the way there were redactions that combined each individual document. JE was redacted and combined into one document in 650 BC; JED in 550 BC; and JEDP in 400 BC. While the exact dates for the documents are still to this day highly debated within this hypothesis, Welhausen’s dates are considered by many to be more-less representative of this view and more-less “close enough.”

To conclude this brief historical account, this hypothesis took the scholarly world by storm. It gained enthusiastic support from numerous biblical scholars and theologians. As a result, this way of thinking was state of the art among liberal biblical/theological scholarship, and if one was considered to be a serious biblical scholar then this approach was adapted. S.R. Driver was the most influential English scholar to articulate the hypothesis and promoted its appreciation and acceptance for British scholarship, while Charles A. Briggs of Union Seminary did the same for American critical scholarship. Lastly, Frank M. Cross, formerly a professor of OT at Harvard Divinity School, is only one of many modern scholars who promote and teach this approach as most plausible concerning the authorship and dating of the Pentateuch.

A Critique of the Documentary Hypotheses

The problems and weaknesses concerning the documentary hypothesis are quite numerous, as reaction and opposition to it began as early as the nineteenth-century. The key scholars are too numerous to simply even mentions, but their main criticism rested upon the hypothesis’ inconsistent and contradictory methodology. To begin, none of the alleged documents have even been found. Also, the same verse or passage might be assigned to different documents depending upon the scholar. In addiction to this, some respected scholars have identified additional sources (K, L, or S). Therefore, these inconsistencies and contradictions concerning the methodology of the hypothesis certainly beg the questions concerning its reliability. Also, this subjective handling of the texts does little to increase one’s confidence in the method.

The next form of criticism worth mentioning notes the Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) parallels found among the literature of the Pentateuch. On a side note, in a much earlier blog post I mentioned one account that clearly proves ANE literary parallels within the Pentateuch, and I think it would be a source to consult for a further and more detailed discussion. Here’s a link: http://nicholaslutzo.blogspot.com/2011/02/ane-suzerian-vassal-treaties-creation.html. In fact, these ANE parallels are too numerous for me to simply list, but I will provide a few examples. For one, hypothesis scholars claim that there is a J and E source because of a discrepancy concerning divine names. If you remember, they claim that it is a result of authorship and not literary style. This is simply absurd! There are many singular gods among the ANE who had numerous names: The Egyptian sun god Ra was also referred to as Amon-Re; Osiris is referred to as Wennofer and two other names; and the Ugaritic god “Koshar and Hasis” is a compound name and no one suggests that such a compound is a result of different authors and documents with respect to particular Egyptian and Mesopotamian texts. In fact, since there is an obvious parallel to what one sees with the divine naming and compounding of Elohim and Yahweh in the biblical texts, then one can similarly conclude that the text is a result of one author and document. Also, the reason for the ANE style of using different divine names was for literary purposes. Therefore, the reason for the different uses of the divine names speaks not to issues of different authorship, but to the nature and purposes of the context of the passages. Again, this is just a few examples of how the documentary hypothesis appeals to arbitrary discrepancies upon texts.

There also seems to be an antisupernatural bias or naturalism assumed among certain hypothesis scholars when working the texts. Since some would presuppose that miracles and prophecy do not exist, then texts that speak of kings and a temple must have been written when there actually were kings and a temple in the land. This highly begs the questions and is quite the illogical move for the scholar. Next, there is an arbitrary appeal to redactors. A prime example is much later covenantal material (D source) found within a much earlier narrative of Exodus 20:2-17 (J and E). The primary D material being referred to here is the Decalogue (Dt 5), and since you have it in Ex. 20 then they conclude that a D redactor had their hand in the content of J and E. However, this account does not take into consideration the fact that this covenantal lawsuit material can be found in the ANE Tukulti-Ninurta Epic in 1240 BC. The literary structure of the Ex. passage is:

I.                   Narrative (JE)

II.                Cov. material (D)

III.             Narrative (JE)

However, if you look at the Tukulti-Ninurta epic, then you will find the same literary pattern existing there:

I.                   Narrative

II.                Cov. lawsuit

III.             Narrative

Also the documentary hypothesis proposes artificial stylistic restrictions. But style has nothing to do with authorship and everything to do with subject/genre in the ANE. There are also artificial discoveries of discrepancies, and duplicates. For example the Gen 12 and Gen 20 story of Abraham and Sarah. Is it possible that Abraham made the same mistake twice? Sure it is we do all the time! Lastly, as I pointed out above, the documentary hypothesis seems to have not adequately taken into consideration how the people in the ANE wrote. There are many ANE parallels found in the Pentateuch that one need not look far to see how authors of that time wrote and thus support the notion that the text of the Pentateuch is quite old and primarily written by one author (i.e. Moses).

Conclusion and Defense of Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch

It seems that the most basic reason that best accounts for such a movement within biblical scholarship is based upon what one wants to see in the Bible. If you want to see discrepancy then you will find it. However, if you want to see unity then you will find it. In other words, the issue of authorship of the Pentateuch is a matter of starting points. Given my response to the notions of the documentary hypothesis, let’s begin from a perspective of unity within the Pentateuch.

First of all, it seems that we should look for unity within the compositional structure of the book(s) as a whole rather than the solely among its individual parts that make up the whole, since it is possible that the author might have used a collection of clay tablets, which contained on them the accounts of creation, the flood and the lives of the early patriarchs. Given this, the author would have written the Pentateuch in the same manner as Luke say he wrote his gospel (Lk 1:1-4). However the author did it it seems rather certain that the Pentateuch accurately depicts the age and historical period of the Exodus. There are many reasons that support such a statement, but it is mainly proven by our knowledge of how the people of the ANE wrote. Also, assessing unity from the structure of the whole accounts is supported by how narrative literature works. In other words, it tells a story. For example, the building of the tower of Babel (Gen 11:1-9) is quite the isolated story and mostly self-contained within its most immediate context. However, the story plays a huge role within one of the major themes of the Pentateuch: God restoring his blessings upon his people through the lineage of Abraham and making them one great and numerous nation.

Among other aspects of unity found in the Pentateuch, the author is certainly concerned with history and impressing upon the Israelites the ideology of their identity and the meaning of God’s kingdom. Themes of God as the creator and redeemer, and ones that relate to his attributes, such as his holiness, along with the descriptions of who God is and how who humanity is (sinful) speak to issues of history, identity and the meaning of God’s kingdom. Accompanying the talk of God as redeemer that are notions of human salvation from destruction and the coming of a Messiah or Anointed One who will ultimately rescue humanity from their sin. There is also consistent mentioning of covenants being made and being referred back to as humanity either upholds or breaks them. These factors of literary unity speak to the issue that the one writing is more than a crude redactor or editor who simply compiles patches together the sources.

Given these themes and the many parallels with other writings of the ANE, it is rather valid and sound to claim Mosaic authorship. He would have received superb teaching and training, and such teaching and training in many respects can be found reflected in what is found in the Pentateuch. In addition to the Moses’ education, his other qualifications for authorship are tied to his exceptional spiritual gifts, his divine calling and high role as a political and religious leader of Israel. Moses in many ways can be seen as someone who redefines and redirects Israel’s meaning, identity, purposes and mission, and destiny as God’s elect people.  

In addition to Moses’ qualifications, we have statements within the Pentateuch which would provide further support concerning his authorship: Ex 17:14; 24:4, 12; 31:9, 24; 34:27-28 (“the Book of the Law,” which is a clear reference to Ex 20-23); and Num 33:2 all speak of Moses writing something that pertained to the Law and is mostly likely found within the Pentateuch. There are also clear references to Moses being the author of parts of the Book of Deuteronomy (Dt 31:9, 19, 22, 24). There are also speeches from God that are introduced with the phrase “The Lord spoke to Moses” (Lv 4:1), which implies that what follows has come from Moses’ hand. Lastly, without mentioning the references, there are many other statements to be found within the OT and even the NT that ascribe authorship to Moses.

To conclude, I would like to clearly state that I do not think that Moses wrote every word of the Pentateuch as we have it today. What I hopefully have laid groundwork for is primary Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, with later editors adding minor additions to meet the needs of the postexilic community. But we can discuss further reasoning later.