Luke 23:47

And when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man.

Luke here added another quotation from the centurion who had charge of the crucifixion. Quibbles which have been raised regarding these words and others from the parallels are refuted by a careful examination of what the holy records have recorded.

Now the centurion, and they that were with him watching Jesus, when they saw the earthquake, and the things which were done, feared exceedingly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God. - Matthew 27:54. And when the centurion, who stood by over against him, saw that he so gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God. - Mark 15:39.

From Matthew's account it is clear that the words, "Truly this was the Son of God," were not spoken by the centurion only, "they that were with him" also being subjects of the verb "saying." Thus there were multiple speakers, and this necessarily means that there were multiple sayings also. The most astounding physical wonders ever known on earth were occurring. The miracles of the loud voice (and it was that) was precisely the act that prompted the centurion's utterance that "Truly this man was the Son of God," as plainly stated in Mark's account. Note that it was when the centurion saw that Jesus so gave up the ghost, that he recognized Jesus as the divine Son of God.

As Dr. Lloyd Bridges, a Central Church of Christ minister, Houston, Texas, said in a sermon:

The Greek New Testament has no article in the title the centurion gave Jesus, being simply SON OF GOD. It is wrong to translate this "a Son of God," the true meaning being "the Son of God." There is only one Son of God!

Luke here stated that the centurion "glorified God." How? By confessing that Jesus is the Son of God! In the further quote given by Luke that the centurion said, "Certainly this was a righteous man," is there any denial that he also said, "Truly this man was the Son of God"? Indeed there is not. There is no way to deny, either honestly or intelligently, that the situation points to MANY EXCLAMATIONS having been uttered on that awesome occasion, not merely by the centurion but also by the men who were with him. The fact of the sacred Gospels having written down only two remarks that were made cannot be made to read that these were all of the remarks uttered. Likewise, Luke's having given one remark, and Matthew and Mark another, is incapable of denying that both are genuine.

Some have attempted to scale down the impact of "the Son of God" by rendering the words, "a son of God"; but the English Revised Version (1885) is correct in the rendition, "the Son of God." C. E. B. Cranfield, a renowned scholar, declared unequivocally that "The Greek text does not at all necessitate the rendering, `a son'."[28] It is not, therefore, the Greek text, but skepticism, that motivates the changing of these words.

Certainly this was a righteous man ... Matthew Henry's reasoning on this statement is thus:

The centurion who commanded the guard ... This testimony amounts to the same as "Truly this man was the Son of God"; for if Jesus was a righteous man, he said very truly when he said he was the Son of God; and therefore that testimony of Jesus concerning himself must be admitted; for, if it were false, he was not a righteous man.[29]

[28] C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to Saint Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966), p. 469.

[29] Matthew Henry and Thomas Scott, Commentary on the Holy Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960), p. 316.