The Official in John 4:46

[Marno]

John 4:46 So he came again to Cana in Galilee, where he had made the water wine. And at Capernaum there was an official whose son was ill.

I am writing a commentary on the gospel of John. I have read various opinions concerning the official (basilikos) in this passage. Before I give my thoughts, I am curious whether there may be opinions here.

Do you think the official was a Jew or a Gentile? Do you think it matters?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

An interesting question, one I've never pondered.

A.T. Robertson (of Greek grammar fame) in his "Word Pictures" offers two explicit suggestions as possibilities:
Chuzas (Luk_8:3), Manaen (Act_13:1).

He seems quite confident (?!). What the official might have been religiously or ethnically, I couldn't say. It is certain these tetrarchs surrounded themselves with whatever men could deliver the goods, and no coubt there were planty of Jews willing to do so. There were Zaccheuses and Matthews as tax-gatherers, so there were also Jewish courtiers.

 

[Marno]

Mm. Interesting. Are you suggesting that if he were a Jew, he was a turncoat in serving Herod?

 

[moral necessity]

From Gill..."there was a certain nobleman" the vulgate latin renders it "a petty king", the Arabic version and Nonnus call him "a royal man"; and the syriac version renders it "a king's servant", with which agrees the Ethiopic, calling him "a minister, a steward, the king's domestic." The Persic version makes it to be his name, reading it, 'there was a great man, whose name was Abdolmelic', which signifies a king's servant: from the whole he seems to be one that belonged to the palace of Herod Antipas, and was one of his coutiers; who, though he was but tetrarch of Galilee, yet is sometimes callled a king, Mark 6:14; whose son was sick at Capernaum; some versions, as the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic, read the phrase, 'in Capernaum', with the former clause, 'there was a nobleman in Capernaum'; and others, as we do with this; and both may be true; for he might be an inhabitant of Capernaum, and his house be there where his son lay sick. Some think this nobleman was either Chuza, Herod's stweard, Luke 8:3; or Manaen, who had been brought up with Hereod, Acts. 13:1."

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Mm. Interesting. Are you suggesting that if he were a Jew, he was a turncoat in serving Herod?

I don't know, brother. I honestly haven't thought it over enough. Mark 6:21 indicates something of the social scene around the Herods. But was this official one of those? I wouldn't want to even guess right now, but just listen to the scholars, and think. I'd love to hear your ideas.

Blessings

 

[Marno]

I speculate that the official was a Roman citizen serving in Herod Antipas' court. D A Carson says "there is no evidence he was a Gentile", but offers little to no evidence that the official was not a Gentile. I have an ally in the ESV Study Bible, but let me skip all that and get to this:

I think John is very subtle in some of his motifs and sub-motifs in his gospel. One of these is a preview, as it were, of the Great Commission to "Judea, Samaria, and the ends of the earth." In the gospel of John we see Christ bring the message of eternal life through faith to a learned Jew (Nicodemus) in John 3, to the Samaritans in chapter 4, and (if the official were Roman) to a Gentile in chapter 5. There is a little more, but you get the point.

Any comments or observations?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I think Carson's caution is more appropriate, myself. Since the word itself cannot tell us anything about the ethnicity of the person, it seems to me that we pass into interpretation, rather than strict exegesis at this point, if we propose this pattern (Jew-Samaritan-Gentile) as an overlay.

I sense that (like me) being a preacher, you are not content with mere exegesis, but really want to preach the passage albeit in written form. If this is the way you are going with the book, I think that's fine, but I think you have more of an exposition of John, rather than a strict commentary. And engaging the text in the way you propose here is an example of the preacher's tendency (as I am well aware).

If you heard me preaching on one of the gospels, or as I am now on Exodus, you would not fail to hear (I think) a distinctively Christian interpretation of the text, complete with teasing out what I believe are the latent redemptive history trajectories.

Something to consider: what if John has a pattern in mind, but it's different? For example: (J-/-J-S-/-J-S-G). I'm not asserting this is the case, just pointing out that often the "pattern" is in the eye of the beholder.

If you try to shoehorn this person into a preconceived pattern, then you might risk obscuring a different or more intentional pattern.

John (written so late) no doubt having familiarity with the synoptic tradition, why not relate the story of the centurion (Mt.8:5ff, Lk.7:1ff)? If his intent is to present a preview of the gospel trajectory, this would eliminate ambiguity, in my opinion.

Personally, I would think the first idea to come to an average reader's mind might be that John is teaching that Jesus' ministry affects people of every station in life, whether working-class (Peter, John), educated (Nicodemus), low-class (Sam. woman), and men of "rank" or government (this official).

Here's my suggestion: how about viewing the official as a sort of "ambiguous figure" who doesn't fit neatly into a "standard" ethnic category? Perhaps John's thought is to prepare the reader for seeing the gospel break-out of the confines of Judaism. I suppose John is writing his gospel while he is ministering in Ephesus, when historically the gospel has already broken out of Palestine.

I guess I just don't see John trying to be too subtle, if he intends to show the gospel going to Gentiles. See Jn.12:20ff.

 

[Marno]

I very much appreciate your input here. I especially like your insight that what I am doing, being pastorally minded, may be more exposition than commentary. Yes, I think you are right.
I think I will continue with the conditional proposition, "IF the official were a Roman, etc...".
Let me expound, then, on the passage bit more. The Lord's parable when leaving Samaria, a prophet is not honored in his own country, sets up the disparity between the spurious sign-faith of many in Galilee (Jews) and the foreigners (Samaritans) that had received him and called him, note, "the Savior of the world".

The healing of the official's son is called the "second sign". Since there is not third sign, fourth sign, etc., the relationship surely is intended to compare with the "first sign", the water to wine sign. An inclusio, perhaps? Both were in Cana, both had similar results: spurious sign-faith in many, but true faith in some (the disciples at the wedding, the official and his household in chapter 4). This expands perhaps to spurious faith, even dishonor, among Christ's own people, but honor from among those who are not his people. I think it fits pretty well, but I agree with you. Not neat enough or wrapped with a bow to state affirmatively. Just speculatively.