Three options can solve the puzzle. Scriptures: Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10.

This discrepancy is not so difficult to solve, if we allow the authors of the Gospels to be story tellers of truths of their Gospels and do not impose modern demands on them. I believe they were divinely and inerrantly inspired story tellers who allowed themselves certain liberties with this one True Story, both this one about the centurion’s servant and the entire story about Jesus in their four Gospels, told from different angles.

In this post three options are offered to solve the issue.

I don’t know whether it is even possible to answer the criticism of hostile readers, since they seem so unconvincible. By my observation, they are too eager to turn little molehills into mountains and then gloat before uniformed Christians who needlessly panic.

But maybe we can explain things to seekers or semi-friendly readers and nervous, uninformed Christians, whose faith seems too brittle. It snaps in two when these difficult differences emerge in the Gospels.

The translations are mine, unless otherwise noted. If you would like to see other ones, please go to biblegateway.com. If you don’t read Greek, scroll past it for the commentary.

I quote from friendly scholars because I learn many things from them and they respect the Bible. I place friendly scholars on the same or higher level than hostile critics. Hostile critics cannot claim objectivity compared to friendly scholars.

Let’s begin.

Jesus Heals the Centurion’s Servant
Matthew 8:5-13	Luke 7:1-10
5 As he was going into Capernaum, a centurion came up to him, pleading with him, 6 saying, “Lord, my servant is lying down, paralyzed, at the house, suffering terribly.” 7 Jesus said to him, “Shall I go and heal him?” 8 Then in reply, the centurion said, “Lord, I am unqualified for you to come under my roof. Instead, just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 I also am a man under authority, having soldiers under me. I say to one, ‘Go!’ And he goes. And to another, ‘Come!’ and he comes. And to my servant, ‘Do this!’ and he does. 10 When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those following him, “I tell you the truth: I have not found anyone in Israel with such strong faith! 11 I tell you that many will come from the east and west and recline with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 12 but the sons and daughters of the kingdom will be thrown into farthest darkness, and in at that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 13 Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go. Just as you have believed, let it be done for you.” And his servant was healed at that moment.	1 And when he finished speaking his words in the hearing of the people, he went to Capernaum. 2 A servant of a centurion, having an illness, was about to die, and he was important to him. 3 When he heard about Jesus, he sent elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and heal his servant. 4 And the ones who approached Jesus urgently pleaded with him and said, “He is worthy for you to do this, 5 for he loves our nation and he himself built the synagogue for us.” 6 So Jesus went with them. While he was already not far from approaching the house, the centurion sent friends who said to him, “Lord, don’t bother, for I am unqualified that you would come in under my roof. 7 Therefore I considered myself unworthy even to come to you. Instead, speak the word and my servant will be healed, 8 for I myself am also a man placed under authority and have soldiers under me. And I say to this one ‘Go!’ and he goes, and to another one, ‘Come!’ and he comes, and to my servant, ‘Do this!’ and he does. 9 When Jesus heard this, he marveled at him, turned to the crowd following him, and said, “I tell you that not even in Israel have I found such faith!” 10 The ones who were sent turned back to the house and found the servant healthy.
5 Εἰσελθόντος δὲ αὐτοῦ εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ προσῆλθεν αὐτῷ ἑκατόνταρχος παρακαλῶν αὐτὸν 6 καὶ λέγων· κύριε, ὁ παῖς μου βέβληται ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ παραλυτικός, δεινῶς βασανιζόμενος. 7 καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ· ἐγὼ ἐλθὼν θεραπεύσω αὐτόν. 8 καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ ἑκατόνταρχος ἔφη· κύριε, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς ἵνα μου ὑπὸ τὴν στέγην εἰσέλθῃς, ἀλλὰ μόνον εἰπὲ λόγῳ, καὶ ἰαθήσεται ὁ παῖς μου. 9 καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπός εἰμι ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν, ἔχων ὑπ’ ἐμαυτὸν στρατιώτας, καὶ λέγω τούτῳ· πορεύθητι, καὶ πορεύεται, καὶ ἄλλῳ· ἔρχου, καὶ ἔρχεται, καὶ τῷ δούλῳ μου· ποίησον τοῦτο, καὶ ποιεῖ. 10 ἀκούσας δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐθαύμασεν καὶ εἶπεν τοῖς ἀκολουθοῦσιν· ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, παρ’ οὐδενὶ τοσαύτην πίστιν ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ εὗρον. 11 Λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι πολλοὶ ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν καὶ δυσμῶν ἥξουσιν καὶ ἀνακλιθήσονται μετὰ Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακὼβ ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν, 12 οἱ δὲ υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας ἐκβληθήσονται εἰς τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον· ἐκεῖ ἔσται ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων. 13 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τῷ ἑκατοντάρχῃ· ὕπαγε, ὡς ἐπίστευσας γενηθήτω σοι. καὶ ἰάθη ὁ παῖς [αὐτοῦ] ἐν τῇ ὥρᾳ ἐκείνῃ.	1 Ἐπειδὴ ἐπλήρωσεν πάντα τὰ ῥήματα αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς ἀκοὰς τοῦ λαοῦ, εἰσῆλθεν εἰς Καφαρναούμ. 2 Ἑκατοντάρχου δέ τινος δοῦλος κακῶς ἔχων ἤμελλεν τελευτᾶν, ὃς ἦν αὐτῷ ἔντιμος. 3 ἀκούσας δὲ περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἀπέστειλεν πρὸς αὐτὸν πρεσβυτέρους τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐρωτῶν αὐτὸν ὅπως ἐλθὼν διασώσῃ τὸν δοῦλον αὐτοῦ. 4 οἱ δὲ παραγενόμενοι πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν παρεκάλουν αὐτὸν σπουδαίως λέγοντες ὅτι ἄξιός ἐστιν ᾧ παρέξῃ τοῦτο· 5 ἀγαπᾷ γὰρ τὸ ἔθνος ἡμῶν καὶ τὴν συναγωγὴν αὐτὸς ᾠκοδόμησεν ἡμῖν. 6 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἐπορεύετο σὺν αὐτοῖς. ἤδη δὲ αὐτοῦ οὐ μακρὰν ἀπέχοντος ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκίας ἔπεμψεν φίλους ὁ ἑκατοντάρχης λέγων αὐτῷ· κύριε, μὴ σκύλλου, οὐ γὰρ ἱκανός εἰμι ἵνα ὑπὸ τὴν στέγην μου εἰσέλθῃς· 7 διὸ οὐδὲ ἐμαυτὸν ἠξίωσα πρὸς σὲ ἐλθεῖν· ἀλλ’ εἰπὲ λόγῳ, καὶ ἰαθήτω ὁ παῖς μου. 8 καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπός εἰμι ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν τασσόμενος ἔχων ὑπ’ ἐμαυτὸν στρατιώτας, καὶ λέγω τούτῳ· πορεύθητι, καὶ πορεύεται, καὶ ἄλλῳ· ἔρχου, καὶ ἔρχεται, καὶ τῷ δούλῳ μου· ποίησον τοῦτο, καὶ ποιεῖ. 9 ἀκούσας δὲ ταῦτα ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐθαύμασεν αὐτὸν καὶ στραφεὶς τῷ ἀκολουθοῦντι αὐτῷ ὄχλῳ εἶπεν· λέγω ὑμῖν, οὐδὲ ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ τοσαύτην πίστιν εὗρον. 10 Καὶ ὑποστρέψαντες εἰς τὸν οἶκον οἱ πεμφθέντες εὗρον τὸν δοῦλον ὑγιαίνοντα.

Statement of the Problem

Luke 7:3 says that Jewish elders were emissaries to encourage Jesus to come to heal the centurion’s servant. Then in v. 6 the centurion sent a second group of emissaries, his friends, who spoke for him and declared those wonderful words of faith. Further, v. 7 emphasizes that the centurion would not come to Jesus because the army officer was not worthy. In contrast, Matthew 8:5-8 says the centurion himself actually approached Jesus, and the centurion himself spoke his own words.

How do we reconcile the two versions?

Preliminaries

As to Luke’s Gospel, Darrel L. Bock says that this is the third example of great faith: Mary in 1:45; the four men lowering the paralytic (5:20), and the centurion here (p. 630). I am surprised that Bock does not even try to solve the differences between Luke and Matthew. This is rare for him. Evidently he did not consider it worth his time. I say he is right. But let’s soldier on.

Leon Morris in his commentary on Luke says that this story would encourage the Gentiles coming into the Christian communities (p. 155).

Matthew says that the servant was laid up in bed paralyzed and suffering (he had probably had a stroke), while Luke says he was almost dead. So the two accounts coordinate nicely and clarify the other one.

OT background: Psalm 107:20: he sent forth his word and healed them. God heals from a distance by sending forth his word, in this case through his Son.

Finally, I quote published commentators because I learn a lot from them. They are a community of teachers I respect because they first respect the book they are commenting on. They are fair and reasonable, not hostile.

Solutions

Option One

D. A. Carson in his commentary on Matthew favors the solution that says the emissaries and friends go in the person of the centurion. Then Carson quotes a Latin phrase: qui facit per alium facit per se. He translates: “he who acts by another acts himself” (p. 237).

I respect Craig Blomberg’s commentaries and interpretations because he wrote two books on the reliability of the Gospels: one on the Synoptics and the other on John. He accepts Option One. He writes:

The Lukan parallel describes two other groups of individuals who speak with Jesus on behalf of the centurion (Luke 7:3–6). Luke is probably more literal at this point and Matthew more dramatic (cf. his additions in vv. 11–12). Both renderings are legitimate and draw attention to the centurion’s faith rather than his personal presence. (p. 140)

I also like how Blomberg says Matthew’s version is more dramatic. Apparently this means that since Matthew’s version is shorter, it is more focused and intense. So in a sense Prof. Blomberg accepts the second option, too (see below).

Then Prof. Blomberg writes that representatives can speak for the sender, the more important person:

We too often use similar literary devices. A news report declares, “The President announced today” when in fact only his press secretary ever spoke to anyone. On the lack of contradiction between these accounts, see C. L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1987), 134. (p. 140, note 11)

Thus when the centurion’s friends spoke the words for him, Jesus treated the words as if they came from the centurion himself. Note how Luke 7:9 says that Jesus marveled at him (singular), even though the friends (plural) are reported to have said the words. 

Here are just a few examples of NT story tellers (of true things) who employ this principle of representation or agency or spokesmanship.

Matthew 11:2-6 and Luke 7:18-23

In those two passages, John the Baptist, in prison, sent two disciples to ask of Jesus whether he was the one to come (the Messiah, Savior, Rescuer) or should John wait for someone else. Jesus replied to John himself, through John’s disciples. “Go tell John” […]. Then Jesus proceeded to give his answer to John, who was not physically there. Thus Jesus recognized that the messengers were not the ones who mattered, but John was.

Matthew 14:3, 10; Mark 6:13-16

In Matthew 14:3, Herod himself is said to have seized John and throw him in prison, but Herod himself did not literally do this, but his guards or henchmen did. The guards were the petty king’s agents who acted in his behalf. In Mark 6:17, Mark does not take the shortcut or abbreviation because he writes that Herod had sent (his guards) to seize John. Fittingly, in 14:10, Matthew does not take a story teller’s shortcut (abbreviation) because he writes more fully that Herod had John beheaded, making clear that an executioner did the brutal and unjust act.

Matthew 21:2-3, Mark 11:4-6; Luke 19:32-34

Just before the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, Jesus sent two disciples who represented him to find a donkey on which to ride. He gave them the words to speak: “If anyone says anything to you, say that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away.” (v. 3, NIV). Things went smoothly in Matthew’s version because the donkey’s owner (or owners) did not challenge the disciples, so Matthew once again followed his practice of trimming things out (except for two instead of one animal).

In contrast, Mark and Luke add the detail that the owners of the donkey did challenge the disciples, who spoke the words of Jesus; then the owners relinquished their animal. The disciples spoke for the Lord as his emissaries or representatives. They had his authority, and the owners recognized this (Mark 11:4-6; Luke 19:32-34).

Acts 12:1-1

Herod himself is depicted as violently laying hands on some who belonged to the church. He himself is said to execute James by beheading him. He himself is said to arrest Peter and throw him in prison. But we all know from Matthew 14:3, 10, that Herod himself did not literally do those things. These menial tasks would have been far beneath his status. His guards or henchmen did them. Agency. And so in Acts the story teller (Luke) is simply abbreviating his account.

To apply those verses, it is a sure thing that in Luke’s Gospel the centurion instructed his friends what to say, word for word. They obeyed and spoke the words of faith. Jesus acknowledged that the centurion himself, whose person was embodied in his friends (plural), had spoken the words. This is why, once again, v. 9 says that Jesus marveled at him (singular), the centurion, even though the friends (plural) had spoken.

This option is solid. You may stop here if you wish, because the second option does not sit well with fiery preachers or Christian philosophers and theologians. But exegetes who handle the biblical text often prefer the next option.

Option Two

However, some critics may not accept Option One because representation and spokesmanship may be all well and good, but this concept cannot overcome the fact that Matthew says that the centurion himself actually approached Jesus and spoke for himself, while Luke does not record this, though the third option (below) may prove that the centurion may have spoken too.

The second option will be difficult for many American Christians to accept, because certain Christian philosophers and theologians have taught church folk that the Gospel authors were not all that free to vary their stories very much. More specifically, they teach that the Gospel writers were certainly not free to vary their stories so much that the differences border on contradictions. (No, I’m not saying that Christian philosophers and theologians never accept variations, but they seem reluctant in cases like that of the centurion, because the variations appear to go too far for them. That’s why, for them, only the first option is acceptable.)

Or maybe a fiery youth pastor told his young flock that too many variations cannot be true and still maintain total inerrancy.

This is why the second option is so difficult to present to an American audience, even though it may be the best one that makes the most sense.

As noted, it is difficult to find a commentator who exegetes actual passages–puts his hands on the Greek and English texts in detail–who does not accept the Gospel authors’ freedom to vary their accounts, sometimes in major ways. Even Carson and Blomberg, who mainly advocate for the first option, note the variations all over the place in their excellent commentaries on Matthew.

So what is the second option?

Simple. In my translation and commentary of Matthew, I have learned to nickname Matthew “the Trimmer” because he edits out so many tiny details and sometimes big details. I have alluded to this in Option One, when I noted that Matthew, Mark, and Luke even vary their stories that use representatives or spokesmen.

Recall, for example, that Matthew 21:2-3 says, right before the triumphal entry, that Jesus told two disciples what to say when they meet the owner of the donkey. But they never met him or them in Matthew’s version, while Mark and Luke tell us that the disciples did meet them. Sure enough, just as Jesus predicted, they challenged the disciples, who spoke Jesus’s words, verbatim. This was sufficient for the owners, so they relinquished their animal. Once again, Matthew trims out the details.

Evidently, Matthew did not prefer details that got in the way of the main point or the gist of his story. In many cases we the readers are called on to assume things. In this case the two disciples did meet the owner (or owners) who did challenge the disciples, and the disciple did speak the very words that Jesus told them to speak.

Now let’s look at some high-level, excellent published commentaries.

Morris in his commentary on Luke writes of the trimming in Matthew:

But it is better to see Matthew as abbreviating the story and leaving out details inessential to his purpose. What a man does through agents he may be said to do himself. So Matthew simply gives the gist of the centurion’s communication with Jesus, whereas Luke in greater detail gives the actual sequence of events. (p. 157)

So it looks like Morris accepts the two options, agency and editing out the messengers. However, note Morris’s word “gist.” That’s the best way to reconcile the two versions (see the major section about it, below).

But why would Matthew and Luke vary their versions so much?

Morris continues:

Perhaps we can discern something of the differing purposes of the two Evangelists [Matthew and Luke] in their treatment of the messengers. Matthew was concerned primarily with the centurions faith and nationality; to him the messengers were irrelevant, even a distraction. But Luke was interested in the man’s character and specifically in his humility; to him the messengers were a vital part of the story. (p. 137)

Yes, the Gospel writers’ editorship does have differing purposes. Sometimes, however, the purposes are difficult to discern; at other times they are slightly easier. For me, though, Morris’s opinion makes sense.

Craig Keener in his commentary on Matthew also accepts that the Gospel writers were free to vary their stories in small and big ways. He writes, after long introductory remarks:

Matthew typically abbreviates–a standard rhetorical practice–by omitting intermediaries like messengers (Mt. 9:18 // Mk. 5:35 …), though they [the messengers] were intrinsically likely. [Then Keener references Plutarch] This was typical ancient writing style. (p. 264, note 15)

So Matthew was simply following his cultural context. Writers two thousand years ago were free to include or omit data or shorten their accounts. Also, Keener affirms that Luke’s longer version is probably the one that happened.

Keener brought up Matthew 9:18 and Mark 5:35, and I add Luke 8:49. The parallel accounts are about the raising of Jairus’s daughter. In Mark’s and Luke’s versions, while Jesus was on his way to Jairus’s house, a servant came and announced that his daughter had died. Jesus should not bother coming now. Too late (Mark 5:35 and Luke 8:49). In contrast, Matthew trims out this detail. No messenger. Mark’s and Luke’s versions add to the drama. This is no longer a healing, but a resurrection. Matthew informs us of this when Jesus walks in the house and sees the mourners and the girl who had just died (v. 24).

Outside evidence that confirms the second option is significant. Stated humorously, what does Matthew have against messengers who were not disciples? In any case, we have a second example of Matthew trimming out the detail about a messenger that he considered a surplus to requirement or an unneeded detail for the flow of his storyline.

R. T. France is an excellent commentator. I consider his commentary on Matthew to be the most excellent among all the other excellent ones that I have read.

In any case, he accepts that Matthew abbreviated his account for his own purposes. France writes:

This is the only miracle story which Matthew shares with Luke (7:1-10) and not also with Mark. The basic story line [the gist] is the same, but Matthew typically omits material which he regards as unessential to the narrative, the warm relations between the centurion and local Jewish community, and his use of Jewish elders as intermediaries (Luke 7:3-5). We shall note below that Matthew may have omitted this element not only in order to abbreviate but also because the inclusion of the Jewish elders would distract attention from the direct confrontation between the Gentile officer and the Jewish leader [Jesus] which is important for Matthew’s version of the story (p. 309-10).

France goes on to say that the Gentile centurion’s faith being greater than anyone else’s faith in all of Israel means that Jesus will welcome Gentiles who come from far and wide to sit at the Messianic banquet spelled out in both Matthew’s and Luke’s versions, while Jews of Jesus’s audience and even his entire generation will be excluded.

I add: Jesus was on his way to take down the Jerusalem and temple establishment and predicted their destruction.

Matthew 24:4-35 Predicts Destruction of Jerusalem and Temple

Luke 21:5-33 Predicts Destruction of Jerusalem and Temple

This explains why Matthew omitted the two sets of messengers. His purpose was not to distract the reader from his massive theme and historical event–the takedown of the entire temple religion of Moses.

However, I’m not saying that God inspired Matthew to create flat contradictions, for the law of non-contradiction goes back as far as Aristotle. But God did allow all the Gospel writers to go in their own directions for each and every true story (and the Gospels are true through and through). I don’t believe Matthew had Aristotle in mind when he edited out the messengers. Matthew wanted to focus and intensify the gist or central truth of this story to contrast the Gentile of great faith with his own Jewish generation with no faith.

Accusing Matthew of creating formal contradictions is clunky, failing to appreciate his own purposes. I’m not an inspired interpreter, but he was an inspired and inerrant writer. I follow his lead.

But if you’re not happy with the second option, stick with the first one. Or go for the next one.

Option Three

Really briefly, when the centurion sent his friends while Jesus and the Jewish elders were walking towards his house, I can easily imagine that the centurion was standing outside of his house because the text says that Jesus “was already not far from approaching the house.” “Not far from” is a litotes (pronounced lih-toh-tees). It is a favorite expression for Luke (Acts 12:18; 14:17, 28; 15:2; 17:4, 12, 27; 19:11, 23; 20:12; 21:39; 26:19; 27:20; 28:2). In this context it means “close” to the centurion’s large house (large because he was rich enough to refurbish the local synagogue). Thus Jesus was close by, within hearing and seeing distance from the centurion and his house. The centurion saw and heard Jesus and the group approaching. Jesus’s disciples were there too. Commotion.

It is not farfetched to believe that Jesus and the centurion were making eye contact from a close distance because the centurion went outside to affirm that he was unworthy to go to Jesus and to invite the Jewish prophet into his house.

Or we could combine the first and the third options. Standing outside his house, the centurion watched his friends deliver his message, and when Jesus heard it, he “marveled at him” (v. 9). He looked past the friends and looked at the centurion and acknowledged that this was the centurion speaking.

But I prefer the idea that both the friends spoke the words (Luke’s version) and then when Jesus got closer to the house, the centurion repeated the words (Matthew’s version) from a close distance.

Bottom line: it is possible, given the logic of history and the text itself, that from a close distance the centurion also repeated the words which his friends had already spoken. So Matthew’s and Luke’s versions coordinate and explain the other quite well.

Objection: But this switches the sequence of who spoke when. Reply: Yes, well, I appeal to the second option. The Gospel writers gave themselves permission to do this. More restrictive yet friendly Bible interpreters need to accept the textual data and not impose a modern template on these documents. The same goes for the postmodern hostile readers. Sometimes Gospel writers switched the sequence in a story.

Why Did Luke Switch the Sequence in the Temptation Passages?

The Gist of the Story

In my replies to hostile and semi-friendly critics and reasonable seekers in this post and in my other apologetics posts on the Gospels, I have constantly counseled reasonable ones to find the gist of the story. Here is what I mean by the term in more detail, the how-to.

Write down the elements of any story. Compare them with the elements in the parallel account (Matthew and Luke) or three accounts (the three Synoptics). What do they have in common? That’s the gist.

In these two narratives, the gist could be these elements, as follows:

1. The centurion was a Gentile.
2. The centurion considered himself to be unworthy for Jesus to enter his house.
3. His words, whether spoken by himself or by his friends or both, about being under authority and having authority–the Greek is almost identical in Matthew and Luke–reveal profound and insightful faith.
4. He affirmed that Jesus could heal from a distance.
5. Disease must submit to Jesus and his authority.
6. His faith astonished Jesus.
7. No one in Israel of Jesus’s generation, i.e. children of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob (Jews), had this much faith.
8. Jews of Jesus’s generation are at risk of being thrust outside of the Messianic banquet, while people from far and wide (Gentiles) will be welcomed to sit down and partake.
9. The centurion’s servant was healed from a distance.

You can add other common story elements, if you wish.

And so finding the gist is the best and surest way to reconcile any minor discrepancies–minor because they don’t matter to the main points (the gist) of the one true story. It is not so difficult to find the essence, either; there is no need to adopt postmodern skepticism about finding it.

Conclusion and Recommendation

Many scholars who are exegetes give the Gospel writers license (so to speak) to adjust their texts, because Greco-Roman biographers did the same. The writers were also following Old Testament precedence:

Differences in Gospel Parallels = Differences in OT Parallels

Don’t allow hostile readers of the Gospels and the entire Bible to alarm you. They turn little molehills into mountains. By my observation they read these ancient stories with bad intentions, in bad faith.

They have drunk too deeply of the Postmodern Age, which is hyper-skeptical.

What Is Postmodernism?

Sometimes I detect a sneer:

The Skeptical Sneering Age

I choose to be a reasonable, friendly reader. I choose to glean the central truth (the gist) of each passage under examination. I don’t panic when differences emerge.

So which option do I choose? I like what Morris and Blomberg said. Matthew’s typical and frequent abbreviations are obvious to anyone who has studied his Gospel. And in Luke’s version the centurion’s friends embodied the sender and spoke for him. Jesus recognized their perfect representation when he heard their (plural) words and marveled at him (singular). This is acceptable practice in Greco-Roman writers. So I accept both options.

However, I really prefer the third option. While Jesus was near (“not far from”) the house, the centurion repeated the same words which his friends had already spoken. Let’s not get fussy and take out a measuring stick and calculate how close or far the centurion was from Jesus. This simply does not read the Gospels with charity or generosity, but imposes modern precision on them. I doubt any modern story teller would be so anxious about establishing such details that require getting out a tape measure.

The third option is how to reasonably reconcile Matthew’s and Luke’s versions. And combining all three would also reasonably reconcile the one story written from two different angles.

Truthfully, though, the differences in Matthew and Luke (messengers, no messengers, the messengers perfectly represented the centurion or both the messengers and the centurion spoke) just do not matter to me because I get the gist of the one and true story.

God did not inspire androids but story tellers who lived two thousand years ago. He allowed them latitude, sometimes great liberty, by divine inspiration to inerrantly include and omit data and switch the sequence of a story, in some cases.

No one should have such a brittle faith that he throws out Scripture based on these discrepancies. One may, however, have to dial down “total inerrancy” and just conclude Scripture is infallible and inerrant in faith and morals and practice. As for the main storyline, and on historical and geographical matters, Scripture is highly reliable and accurate.

If the differences prove unsolvable to everyone’s satisfaction, we can still learn wonderful truths from the Bible about God and his redemptive plan of salvation in Christ, from Genesis to Revelation. We can still learn how we can live our lives in him. We can learn great things about the life and ministry and resurrection and exaltation of Christ. The American church of the more restrictive variety needs to relax a lot more when it comes to how the story tellers unfold their narratives.

The Bible is not brittle. Don’t let your faith be brittle, either.

Finally, I’m glad the Gutenberg printing press was invented only in the mid-1400s, long after the NT documents were written down and hand copied. Now we can read the oral traditions behind the Gospels. We can now observe the inspired story tellers’ narrative art. The Gospels live and breathe and pulsate with the inerrant truth of the main storyline. Jesus’s interaction with all sorts of people and the Gospel writers’ narratives about this interaction feel authentic to me. I celebrate these stories and their differences and similarities.

Authentic and true and inerrant.

Recommendations

My view of Scripture: It’s very high, but I don’t believe in “total inerrancy” or “hyper-inerrancy”:

‘Total’ Inerrancy and Infallibility or Just Infallibility?

Begin a series on the reliability of the Gospels. Start with the Conclusion which has quick summaries and links back to the other parts:

15.. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels: Conclusion

See this part in the series that puts differences in perspective:

13..  Are There Contradictions in the Gospels?

The Gospels have a massive number of agreements in their storylines:

14.. Similarities among John’s Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels

Celebrate them, as well.

Jairus’s Daughter in Three Gospels: Do the Differences ‘DESTROY’ the Truth of the Story?

SOURCES

For the bibliographies, please click on these links and scroll down to the bottom:

Matthew 8

Luke 7