Jesus entered Galilee from Samaria near Cana, where he had performed the first sign mentioned in this Gospel narrative. The healing that took place as a result of what occurs here, is the second sign or miracle that the writer of the fourth Gospel uses to make his point about Jesus being the Messiah (John 4:54; cp. 20:30-31). The account mentions a nobleman, whose son is sick at Capernaum (John 4:46). Who is the nobleman, and is there a connection between John’s narrative here (John 4:46-54) and Luke’s (Luke 7:1-10)? While the events are similar, the actors are different. John mentions a nobleman and his son, and the nobleman is royalty of some kind. In Luke’s account, however, the text mentions only the Roman’s centurion and his beloved servant. Is there a connection, and, if so, how does it all fit together?
Interestingly, Luke’s healing of the centurion’s servant (Luke 7:2-10) has some similar issues with the healing of the nobleman’s son. Both healings occurred in Capernaum and both were done by Jesus over a distance. That is, Jesus wasn’t with the person who was dying, when he healed him. Could the centurion’s servant be the same person as the nobleman’s son? If so, under what circumstances would a nobleman’s son be a centurion’s servant? The term servant may be used simply to distinguish rank (Genesis 19:2; 32:18) without having the meaning of being one’s bondservant. Care for nobility often fell within the responsibility of military men in the Roman era. Roman generals, for example, were often associated with guiding and protecting Caesar’s sons, who for all practical purposes obeyed the general under whose authority they were placed. If this was the case concerning the centurion’s servant, it would have been considered an honor for a low-ranking nobleman in Israel to have his son tutored by a Roman centurion, who was arguably the backbone of Roman military power. In such a case the Roman centurion would have a special interest in the welfare of such a servant.
If such analysis is logical and true, a nobleman among the Jews of Galilee would probably have come from Herod’s family or household. The word nobleman is basilikos (G937) in the Greek. This word is used five times in the New Covenant text, four in reference to a person. It is used to describe the nobleman here (John 4:46, 49), and two more times in reference to Herod Agrippa (Acts 12:20, 21). Therefore, considering the fact that the nobleman of John 4 has Jewish connections, it is logical for him also to be connected with Herod Antipas, for almost immediately after the incident of Jesus’ healing of the centurion’s servant, we find a mention of Chuza, Herod’s steward, where he is connected with Jesus’ ministry through his wife, Joanna. The text mentions that she helped support Jesus’ ministry out of her own substance (Luke 8:3). Thus, the context not only allows such a conclusion, but it seems the logical conclusion, as well.
However, the analysis doesn’t end there. If Chuza is indeed the nobleman of John 4:46, could Chuza also be Manaen of Acts 13:1? Strictly speaking, Jewish nobility was of the priestly family in the first century AD. Nothing is mentioned of David’s descendants being considered nobility during Jesus’ day. On the other hand, the Herod family, although not Jews, were considered nobility. So, simply by process of elimination, the nobleman of John 4:46 seems very likely to have come from the Herod family. Moreover, since Galilee was ruled by Herod Antipas, the nobleman of John 4:46 would be most easily identified as coming from his household.
Acts 13:1 mentions Manaen (Greek for the Hebrew Manahem) who was brought up with (suntrophos – G4939) Herod Antipas. The Greek points to his being either a foster-brother or at the very least an intimate friend in Herod’s household. Josephus mentions another Manahem, who was an Essen. He had prophesied Herod the Great’s rise to power.[1] Afterward, he became Herod’s friend and may be the father of Manaen of Acts 13:1, who is probably Chuza of Luke 8:3. Of course, such a conclusion cannot be put in stone, but it is possible, perhaps probable, that this is the true identity of John’s nobleman.
_________________________________________________
[1] Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews 15.10.5
Smoodock's Blog 