The Bible is full of miracles. From God’s first words, “Let there be light,” to the resurrection of the dead and the removal of the old earth in Revelation, we witness God’s magnificence. Even after the “darkest” moment when Jesus is crucified, miraculous events are afoot.
And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.
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’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
Matthew 27:50-53 (NIV)
After witnessing Jesus’ 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.
When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, “Surely he was the Son of God!”
Matthew 27:54 (NIV)
Without a doubt, the darkness, the temple’s curtain tearing, and the like are miracles, but can we include the centurion’s conversion and those Roman soldiers as another miracle?
The Claim
Some claim the exclamation, “He was the Son of God!” amounts to a revelation that Jesus is God’s son. In Mark’s Gospel, he writes something similar.
And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, saw how he died, he said, “Surely this man was the Son of God!”
Mark 15:39 (NIV)
Luke, on the other hand, suggests something different.
The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, “Surely this was a righteous man.”
Luke 23:37 (NIV)
In some translations, the emphasis is on Jesus’ innocence (dikaios) rather than any claim to a unique divinity.
Without a doubt, Jesus is the Son of God. That’s not up for debate. But when we examine the original Greek in Matthew and Mark, neither actually says, “the Son of God.”
The Greek
The expression “he was the Son of God!” is ambiguous in the original Greek. The core phrase is Huios Theou (pronounced hwee-oss theh-oo), where huios (Greek: υἱός) means “son” and theou (Greek: Θεοῦ) means “of God.”
The critical issue is that the phrase lacks the definite article, tou (pronounced too: Greek τοῦ), which is the Greek equivalent of “the” (meaning “of the”). If the Centurion had said “the Son of the God” (i.e., Huios tou Theou: Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ), it would have been an unambiguous theological confession of Jesus’s unique divinity, suggesting faith—a miracle we ought to rightly celebrate.
However, the article is absent, so the phrase can mean “son of a god” 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 “sons of a god”).
When we examine the use of “huios” (son) elsewhere in the New Testament, it appears 382 times. Sometimes it’s translated as “son of” or “a son”, but it’s also translated as “The son” when the definite article, tou, is absent. Consider Matthew 1:1 and Matthew 8:20.
This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:
Matthew 1:1 (NIV)
The NIV and many other translations include “the son of David,” but the literal translations reveal a different perspective.
[The] scroll of the birth of Jesus Christ, Son of David, Son of Abraham.
Matthew 1:1 (LSV)
Matthew 8:20 is the same in every translation.
Jesus replied, “Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.”
Matthew 8:20 (NIV)
And Jesus says to him, “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the sky places of rest, but the Son of Man has nowhere He may lay the head.”
Matthew 8:20 (LSV)
Every English translation I checked (29 of them) and the PDV2017 (French: “le Fils de l’homme”) translation say “The son.” That’s because Matthew used the Greek word “tou” in the title “The Son of Man.” Matthew’s use of tou in Matthew 8:20 but not in Matthew 27:54 reveals that Matthew’s intent wasn’t to portray those soldiers as recognizing Jesus as “The Son of God,” but as a righteous or divine “son.”
In the Roman world, a phrase like filius dei (son of a god) was common. The emperor himself was often called divi filius (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’s death.
Since tou is absent in Matthew 27:54, a translator who chooses to render it as the unique title “The Son of God” is prioritizing theological climax over grammatical ambiguity and historical context. After all, in the historical context, those soldiers may have recognized Jesus’ divine nature, but their polytheistic worldview didn’t allow for a single God. That’s not to say they wouldn’t be open to the premise after hearing the Gospel, but unlike the thief on the cross, who had a Jewish monotheistic background, it’s a bit of a stretch.
Still, if we consider that the same Roman soldiers who beat Jesus and mocked Him as “The King of Jews,” recognized His divinity, that’s saying quite a bit. They might be just a “push” away from believing the miracle we believe: Jesus is the Son of God.
Luke
When Luke reported what the centurion said in Luke 23:37, he was aware of the title, “The Son of God,” because he used it in Luke 22:70.
They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?” He replied, “You say that I am.”
Luke 22:70 (NIV)
The literal translations support “The Son of God” because Luke used “tou,” revealing that if the centurion had said, “The Son of God,” Luke would have reported it that way. Considering that Luke’s Gospel was an “orderly account” of Jesus’ life, it’s likely that Luke didn’t find support for claiming the centurion said, “The Son of God.”
After examining Matthew, Mark, and Luke’s accounts of what the centurion said after witnessing Jesus’ crucifixion, the original text suggests that the centurion and Roman soldiers with him didn’t make a confession of faith. Instead, they responded in fear and in awe to what they had seen.
This incident reminds me of a similar incident in Jonah.
Jonah
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.
Jonah 1:15-16 (NIV)
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 “cried out to his own god” to no avail (Jonah 1:5, NIV). But Jonah was below-deck at the time, so after casting lots to see who was responsible, “the lot fell on Jonah” (Jonah 1:7, NIV).
Although Jonah told the sailors how to calm the storm, they didn’t want to anger Jonah’s “god” 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 “One True God,” it’s 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.
Furthermore, we can examine Jesus’ Parable of the Sower—not as proof of salvation, since the parable isn’t about that, but as an illustration of how someone responds to God’s word. With joy (in this case, awe and fear), we could describe the centurion’s response as a case of divine revelation without salvation.
In the parable, Jesus describes someone who receives the word at once but doesn’t have a root and quickly falls away. This describes people who might profess some sort of “Christian” allegiance because they like “the idea” of Christ, love, and all that, but they never go further (no root) and fall away as soon as someone contemptuously says, “You’re a Christian?”
When we consider the centurion and those Roman soldiers’ statement about Jesus, concluding that they experienced a conversion to Christianity and were saved is more like wishful thinking than anything. After all, the text reveals that none of the Gospel writers actually recorded the words, “The Son of God.”
