Did the centurion speak directly to Jesus?

[Paidion]

According to the following account in Luke, the centurion first sent Jewish elders to Jesus asking Him to come and heal his servant. As Jesus approached the centurion's house, the centurion send friends to Him saying that he was not worthy to have Jesus come into his house, and that Jesus need only to "say the word" and his servant would be healed.

After he had finished all his sayings in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum. Now a centurion had a servant who was sick and at the point of death, who was highly valued by him. When the centurion heard about Jesus, he sent to him elders of the Jews, asking him to come and heal his servant. And when they came to Jesus, they pleaded with him earnestly, saying, “He is worthy to have you do this for him, for he loves our nation, and he is the one who built us our synagogue.” And Jesus went with them. When he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends, saying to him, “Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof. Therefore I did not presume to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed. (Luke 7:1-7 NKJV)

But in Matthew's account, the centurion himself comes to Jesus and personally tells him about his sick servant, and when Jesus tells him that He will come and heal him, the centurion says he is not worthy that He should enter his house, but only speak a word and his servant will be healed.

Now when Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, pleading with him, saying, "Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, dreadfully tormented." And Jesus said to him, "I will come and heal him." The centurion answered and said, "Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof. but only speak a word, and my servant will be healed. (Matthew 8:5-8 NKJV)

So what do you think? Did the centurion personally ask Jesus to heal his servant? Or did he send others to make the request?

I, myself, am inclined to think Matthew's account is more likely to be correct since Matthew was one of the 12 who was personally aware of the events in Jesus' life. If his memory served him well, then his is a first-hand account of the incident. However Luke got his information from Paul who learned the stories of Jesus from others of the 12.
Maybe some one didn't remember correctly or inadvertantly altered the account as happens when a story is passed around.

Of course, those who hold to an infallible Bible must somehow integrate the two accounts in such a way that they are both true. Perhaps they could say that in Matthew's account, the centurion "came to Jesus" through his representatives.

[steve]

Your final suggestion is the position I take in my lectures.

[steve7150]

Of course, those who hold to an infallible Bible must somehow integrate the two accounts in such a way that they are both true. Perhaps they could say that in Matthew's account, the centurion "came to Jesus" through his representatives.










Didn't Luke get his info from many people, not just Paul? Is it possible all three things could have happened , another words after the elders then the friends and lastly as he got more desperate the centurion himself finally approached Jesus. After all Jesus sometimes healed immediately but sometimes took his time for his own reasons.

[Paidion]

Is it possible all three things could have happened , another words after the elders then the friends and lastly as he got more desperate the centurion himself finally approached Jesus.

It doesn't seem plausible, Steve, that after having sent friends with the messages: "I am not worthy to have you come under my roof" and "Say the word, and let my servant be healed," that he should then come to Jesus in person and say almost exactly the same words.

[jriccitelli]

Matt may be a condensed version of the story, because I do not think someone falsely fabricated the whole messenger story for Luke's account, because there is no real purpose to fabricate such a story if it didn’t really happen. Luke notes that the Centurion did not even feel worthy to come before him, and asked only for the sake of the servant, so I suspect the Centurion did not go to Jesus.

Another thing is that I presume some material may have (possibly, not necessarily) been lost from our modern manuscripts, and maybe copyists have tried to keep what was written sensible, but I feel it is much more likely that something may have been lost from Matthews account, rather than a bunch of material 'added' to the account of Luke.

Seems to me Luke didn’t get all his material from Paul. Where did Luke get the information about Jesus standing up to read in the Temple (Lk 4:16-21), what about Luke's record of Jesus words in Lk. 4:25-30, where did Luke get his information about Josephs genealogy, the historical of 3:1-3? Was it Paul who told Luke about the birth of Christ and all the events surrounding this, Herod and Mary's visit to Elizabeth, what about the promise of Johns birth Lk. 1:5-25, the annunciation?
Was it Paul who told Luke of the details of the day of Pentecost, who told Luke about Peters sermons and Peters vision, Paul?

If you look at all the additional material that Luke reports on, it seems Luke is the one who went to pains to get 'all' the facts. It seems Luke often gives 'more' information of the events, more often than less. Compare Matt 3:7-12 with Luke 3:7-18 for example.

[jriccitelli]

I generally go with the account that has more information, especially in Luke's case. Since Luke set out to write a more of an in depth study of the Gospel account. Still, Matt at face value seems to say the Centurion stood before Jesus, but the way it reads 'almost' 'allows' for Jesus to be hearing only messengers. Clues to the omission of some details may be gleaned from the odd response Jesus gives "I will come…" , the word is translated correctly, but it doesn't fit for a response to someone standing right in front of you. I will come is something you say on the phone or send in a message.

It seems to me the word 'heard' (Akouo, Matt 8:10), may lend a clue to what Matt could have meant about the communication between the Centurion and Jesus. I quickly looked at all the times Matt uses Akouo translated heard, and except for the Magi hearing king Herods orders (which seems to be fitting of a 'message received' from someone like a King with whom, although they are standing right in front of you, you cannot as much as respond as in a normal conversation). 'Heard' always seems to be an 'understanding' of a 'message' being delivered, not a simply a person standing there 'saying' something.

Same for the word translated 'come' (Erchomai, used at least 40 times in Matthew) in Matt 8:7), a quick look seems to reveal no situations where the word is used in the same sense, 'come' (erchomai) seems a bit out of place, which lends me to think some other information is missing, rather than wrong.

There are many places where erchomai is use in a different sense, but ones that are of similar situations are;

'Peter said to Him, "Lord, if it is You, command me to come (Erchomai) to You on the water." And He said, "Come!" (Erchomai) And Peter got out of the boat, and walked on the water and came (Erchomai) toward Jesus' (Matt 14:28-29)
(This is similar, but note the two are bidding each other over from a distance)

In Mark 1:38, Jesus says "I go…" Let us 'go' would seem to be a more perfect use of words for the situation of Matt 7. As in; 'He said to them, "Let us go somewhere else to the towns nearby, so that I may preach there also; for that is what I came (Erchomai) for." (Mark 1:38) And note also;
'Then Jesus came (Erchomai) with them to a place called Gethsemane, and said to His disciples, "Sit here while I go over there and pray." (Matt 26:36)

The following story is also similar, but Erchomai is in relation to a messenger also;
'While He was saying these things to them, a synagogue official came and bowed down before Him, and said, "My daughter has just died; but come (Erchomai) and lay Your hand on her, and she will live."19 Jesus got up and began to follow him, and so did His disciples' (Matt 9:18)

Another thing; is the thing that amazed Jesus, the whole; 'I also am a man under authority and with authority'. 'Sending slaves' is what Matthew says the Centurion 'does', and so it may have been understood that 'this was the case', since that is 'what' verse 8:8-9 is talking about.

Another thing; is that the second messengers may 'also' have been a servants, so unless Matt had spoken it in some way other than it is, it may have been misunderstood. If Matthew would have written; 'And to the servant Jesus said go…' this may have confused the reader with the first servant who was at home paralyzed. It would easily have been cleared up with an explanation but apparently Matt or scribe did not find this necessary (?).

(I am only thinking out loud here, my intention was to respond to Mkprr, but I have gone on too long)

[Paidion]

Matt may be a condensed version of the story, because I do not think someone falsely fabricated the whole messenger story for Luke's account...

I know of no one who is remotely suggesting a fabrication. I clearly expressed my thought in the original post about a possibility :

I, myself, am inclined to think Matthew's account is more likely to be correct since Matthew was one of the 12 who was personally aware of the events in Jesus' life. If his memory served him well, then his is a first-hand account of the incident. However Luke got his information from Paul who learned the stories of Jesus from others of the 12. Maybe some one didn't remember correctly or inadvertently altered the account as happens when a story is passed around.

There is a great difference between an honest mistake and a fabrication (an invented story).
If your thought about a fabrication is directed to me, you are attacking a straw man. Please address what I have written.

[Bud]

Hi Paidion, let's see if I can keep this all straight. Yes, I think the centurion spoke directly to Jesus, after the elders, then the friends spoke to Him. I don't think it implausible that the centurion and his friends said almost the same thing as the friends and he probably discussed what would be said.
I also like Steve Gregg's answer should this one fail.
Good question, it has my head spinning, thus the fall back answer

[jriccitelli]

I enjoy this kind of Bible question, no matter who asks it, and I gave my response.
You are the one who asked; "So what do you think?"
I'm sorry I had not ever thought 'you' were implying a fabrication.
I wrote; 'I do not think someone falsely fabricated the whole messenger story for Luke's account, because there is no real purpose to fabricate such a story if it didn’t really happen'
All I am saying that the information in Luke is either true, or made up.

There are no traveling messengers, friends, Jewish elders nor the following details of vs.3-6 in Matt's account;
"When he heard about Jesus, he sent some Jewish elders asking Him to come and save the life of his slave.4 When they came to Jesus, they earnestly implored Him, saying, "He is worthy for You to grant this to him;5 for he loves our nation and it was he who built us our synagogue."6 Now Jesus started on His way with them; and when He was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends, saying to Him…"
This is a lot of information, so I tend to think Luke got this from a good source, Luke was interested in details, and Luke was careful in his reporting. So when Luke reports of the outcome of the encounter, Luke does not mention the Centurion;
'When those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave in good health'
Luke never mentions the Centurions final visit, and so because Luke is more focused on the details than Matt's account I would put my money on Matt's account missing details, rather than Luke missing details.

Luke is not a disputed book. Luke has proved to be very trustworthy.

[Paidion]

Okay, fellows, thank you for expressing yourselves. I guess we all have our opinions concerning which is the most likely explanation for the apparent contradiction.
Three explanations have been offered:

1. It is not a contradiction at all. The events in both Matthew and Luke took place, first those described by Luke and afterward those described by Matthew. This seems to be the favoured theory by Steve 7150, JR, and, I think, Bud. To my way of thinking, this is the most unlikely of the three explanations, since it seems highly unlikely that the centurion would send the elders and his friends with a message to Jesus, and afterward go to Him in person with the same message expressed in the same words.

2. It's an apparent contradiction, but not a true contradiction. While Matthew stated succinctly that the centurion spoke directly to Jesus, it may have been his way of saying that he spoke through the elders and his friends. This is the explanation which Steve Gregg uses in his teachings. I wasn't aware of that. When I finished writing the original post, I tried to think of a possible way to avoid admitting that the two accounts contradicted each other, and this explanation came to mind. Actually, I was rather surprised to learn that Steve actually used it in his lectures. Although I consider this explanation also unlikely, I think it more plausible than the first.

3. It's a true contradiction. This was my position in my original post. I wrote:

I, myself, am inclined to think Matthew's account is more likely to be correct since Matthew was one of the 12 who was personally aware of the events in Jesus' life. If his memory served him well, then his is a first-hand account of the incident. However Luke got his information from Paul who learned the stories of Jesus from others of the 12. Maybe some one didn't remember correctly or inadvertantly altered the account as happens when a story is passed around.

I still think this is the best explanation. We need not be concerned that there are contradictions in the Bible. I don't doubt that both Matthew and Luke were inspired to write their gospels, but this doesn't imply that they got every detail factually correct. God, of course, didn't make a mistake in his inspiration, but all the gospel writers were fallible human beings who sometimes wrote what they heard from other spiritual leaders, or forgot exactly what was said and wrote their accounts of events slightly differently.

It seems Matthew also made a mistake as to who wrote the prophecy about the thirty pieces of silver.

Mt 27:9 then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, "and they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of him who was priced...

I haven't forgotten that this matter was discussed some time ago. One of the explanations of this apparent mistake was that it states that the prophecy was "spoken" by Jeremiah, not "written" by Jeremiah. So Jeremiah may have spoken these words. How Matthew could have known that is anybody's guess — unless the position is taken that God revealed it directly to Matthew, an idea that I also find unlikely.

Also the fact is that similar words were written in Zechariah 11:12,13. Matthew could have been loosely quoting from memory Zechariah, and mistakenly confused the author with Jeremiah.

Also, I didn't find the explanation that Jeremiah spoke the words convincing for another reason. Virtually all the NT quotes of Old Testament prophecies use the words "spoken by..." — even though they were written. The only cases I have been able to find in which "written" is used are Matthew 2:5, Mark 1:2, and Luke 3:4.

However, this is not a big deal except for someone who insists that the Bible is infallible and everything stated therein which is not figurative, has to be literally true. In the discussion of the quote about the thirty pieces of silver, I think I recall Steve Gregg also saying (or rather "writing") that even if Matthew made a mistake as to which prophet wrote these words, this in no way supports the idea that the "gospels", the primary documents about the life of Christ, are unreliable. I wholly concur. (Steve, this is what I "remember", and my memory is not so good any more. If this is not what you wrote, please elaborate).