76. Did the Capernaum centurion come personally to ask Jesus to heal his slave (Matthew 8:5), or did he send elders of the Jews and his friends (Luke 7:3,6)?

(Category: the text is compatible with a little thought & misunderstood the author's intent)

This is not a contradiction but rather a misunderstanding of sequence, as well as a misunderstanding of what the authors intended. The centurion initially delivered his message to Jesus via the elders of the Jews. It is also possible that he came personally to Jesus after he had sent the elders to Jesus. Matthew mentions the centurion because he was the one in need, while Luke mentions the efforts of the Jewish elders because they were the ones who made the initial contact.

We know of other instances where the deed which a person tells others to do is in actuality done through him. A good example is the baptism done by the disciple's of Jesus, yet it was said that Jesus baptized (John 4:1-2).

We can also understand why each author chose to relate it differently by understanding the reason they wrote the event. Matthew's main reason for relating this story is not the factual occurrence but to relate the fact of the importance of all nations to Christ. This is why Matthew speaks of the centurion rather than the messengers of the centurion. It is also the reason why Matthew spends less time relating the actual story and more on the parable of the kingdom of heaven. Matthew wants to show that Jesus relates to all people.

Luke in his telling of the story does not even relate the parable that Jesus told the people, but concentrates on telling the story in more detail, thereby concentrating more on the humanity of Jesus by listening to the messengers, the fact that he is impressed by the faith of the centurion and the reason why he is so impressed; because the centurion does not even consider himself 'worthy' to come before Jesus. Ultimately this leads to the compassion shown by Jesus in healing the centurion's servant without actually going to the home of the centurion.

In the view of the ancients, agency and representation was the same as being there. If the elders and friends were there representing the centurion, so then was the centurion. This was a reality of ancient culture, and the evidence shows that this was accepted to the point that actions directed by another could be directly attributed to that person.

For example, in the Babylonian creation story Enuma Elish (Heidel, Babylonian Genesis, 188), Tablet 6 clearly says that Marduk gave a plan to create man to the god Ea, who then went and executed the plan.

Here is another example, but from the Bible:

> John 19:1 Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him.

Pilate didn't leave the scourging to his soldiers, did he? The Latins had a maxim: "What our agent does we do ourselves." Historically it is quite likely that the centurion sent elders and/or friends to make the requests -- under the ancient rules of patronage and honor, a person of high social status (like the centurion) never made a request of one of lower status unless they were desperate. To have actually come out to Jesus physically would have been exceptional.

Why does Matthew shorten the story using the principle of agency? The answer lies in his addition of the material about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and his goal to compile the teachings of Jesus and his lesser emphasis on action. But Luke, whose concern is more to express the universality of the Gospel and is less concerned with specific parties, prefers to report the interaction between the centurion and the Jewish leaders, thus exemplifying the cooperation to be demonstrated by those who come to Jesus with no concern for ethnic barriers.

R&R – Issue 41 #11

Q:

In comparing the two accounts of Jesus healing the centurion’s servant, Matthew indicates that the centurion came to Jesus personally. At the same time, Luke explains that he sent others to plead with Jesus on his (and his servant’s) behalf. How can both of these accounts be true?

A:

The accounts in question are found in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10. Indeed, Matthew indicates that “when Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, pleading with Him” (Matthew 8:5). On the other hand, Luke notes that when the centurion “heard about Jesus, he sent elders of the Jews to Him, pleading with Him to come and heal his servant” (Luke 7:3; cf. 7:6). Do the differences in these accounts demand that we judge them contradictory, or can they be reasonably and justly harmonized?

To help answer this question, consider a scenario where the President of the United States sends two individuals from his administration to your house with an official invitation to dine at the White House. What might you truthfully tell your friends about this encounter? To one friend, you might give every detail, describing the two individuals who came to your house, what they said to you, and how you responded to them, etc. To another friend, you might simply say, “The President has asked me to come to eat at the White House, and I told him, ‘Yes!’” The two different versions you tell are totally different, but both are true. How can the second account be truthful? Because “he who acts through another is deemed in law to do it himself”1—a legal principle (known as the “law of agency”)2 that billions of people around the world have understood and accepted for millennia.3

Though some may not like it, and others (who continually cry “Bible contradiction”) may “not have it,”4 the fact is, the Bible writers frequently (and logically) employed this widely practiced and accepted legal principle of proxy in their penning of Scripture. Before turning our attention back to the centurion’s interaction with Jesus, consider a few (of the many) examples of the “law of agency” in Scripture.

• Moses wrote about Joseph, who was second in command of all of Egypt (Genesis 41:37-44), repeatedly doing things that he undoubtedly ordered to be done (and not literally done by him). The text says that Joseph “gathered…and laid up the food in the cities; he laid up in every city the food of the fields which surrounded them. Joseph gathered very much grain, as the sand of the sea, until he stopped counting” (Genesis 41:48-49). Later, “Joseph opened all the storehouses and sold to the Egyptians” (Genesis 41:56). “Joseph” also “gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan, for the grain which they bought; and Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh’s house” (Genesis 47:14). What’s more, “Joseph gave” and “fed” the Egyptians “with bread in exchange for all their livestock” (Genesis 47:17). Most everyone easily and rightly understands that all these statements are made in light of Joseph’s authority and not of him personally doing each and every one of these individual tasks (on behalf of hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions of people). It truthfully can be said that what Joseph authorized and commanded, “he did.” Like all sorts of leaders in the past and present, Joseph was viewed as ultimately responsible for Egypt’s success or failure (at least during seven years of plenty and seven years of famine—Genesis 41:1-47:26). All those actions done on Joseph’s behalf were done (in a very real sense) “by Joseph.”
• At one point, Joseph reminded his brothers that they had sold him “into Egypt” (Genesis 45:4), when technically they sold him to the Midianites (Genesis 37:36), who in turn sold him into Egypt. Nearly 2,000 years later, Stephen used Joseph’s same language to describe Joseph being sold by his brothers “into Egypt”—Acts 7:9. Truly, this type of speech was used, understood, and perfectly acceptable among Israel for 2,000 years!
• The Gospel writers frequently use such acceptable legal language throughout their accounts of the life of Christ. For example, John wrote that “the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though,” John explains, “Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples)” (John 4:1-2).
• Prior to Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem during the final week of His life, Matthew, Mark, and Luke all indicate that He instructed two of His disciples, saying, “Go…find a colt…and bring it here” (Luke 19:30; Matthew 21:2; Mark 11:2). The disciples then “brought the colt to Jesus and threw their clothes on it, and He sat on it” (Mark 11:7; cf. Matthew 21:7; Luke 19:35). Yet, when John briefly addresses these same events, he simply notes, “Jesus, when He had found a young donkey, sat on it” (12:14). Did Jesus personally obtain the donkey? No. However, what Jesus commanded, “He did” (in the “law-of-agency” sense).
• One of the most well-known examples of this type of language is found in Acts 1:18. Luke mentions that Judas “purchased a field with the wages of iniquity,” yet literally it was the chief priests who used the deceased Judas’s 30 pieces of silver, which he had returned to them, to buy the potter’s field (Matthew 27:3-10).

The accounts of Jesus speaking “to the centurion” are easily harmonized by considering that (1) “he who acts through another is deemed in law to do it himself”; and (2) the Bible writers frequently used this language throughout Scripture. Did the humble centurion5 plead with Jesus via the Jewish elders (in Luke 7:3) and through his friends (in Luke 7:6)? Yes. Did Jesus respond to the centurion through these same men? It certainly seems so (Matthew 8:7; Luke 7:3-9). Might it also be the case that at some point, the centurion personally came to where Jesus and the crowd were located in Capernaum, but not necessarily in Jesus’ immediate presence? Yes. And, though not demanded, could it be that Jesus also momentarily bypassed the proxy and spoke directly to the centurion? Indeed, such is possible.

Whereas Matthew gives a more summarized view of the interaction between Jesus and the centurion, omitting the technical details regarding those who were sent on the centurion’s behalf (Luke 7:3-8), Luke includes those details. On the other hand, whereas Matthew includes more of Jesus’ hard-hitting speech on this occasion (Matthew 8:10-13), Luke gives a very abbreviated form (Luke 7:9). As expected from two honest, independent writers, we have two different (but harmonious!) accounts.

Problem: Matthew seems to present the centurion as the one who seeks the help of Jesus (Matt. 8:5); but, Luke seeems to say that the centurion sent elders to see Jesus (Luke 7:3). Also, Matthew appears to say that the centurion himself comes to talk with Jesus. However, in Luke, the Bible says only the centurion’s representatives saw Jesus.

Solution: Both Matthew and Luke are correct. In the 1st century, it was understood that when a representative was sent to speak for his master, it was as if the master was speaking himself. Even in our day this is still the case. When the Secretary of State meets individuals from other countries, he goes out in the name of the president of the United States. In other words, what he says, the president says. Therefore, Matthew states that a centurion came entreating Jesus about his sick slave, when in fact the centurion sent others on his behalf. So, when Matthew declares that the centurion was speaking, this was true, even though he was (as Luke indicated) speaking through his official representative.

# The Healing of the Centurion's Servant: Did the Centurion Come in Person?

The Apparent Contradiction

When Jesus entered Capernaum, He healed the servant of a centurion. Did the centurion come personally to request this of Jesus? At first glance, there appears to be a contradiction between Matthew 8:5, which seems to imply that the centurion came to Jesus directly, and Luke 7:3–6, which states he sent emissaries.

> Now when Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, pleading with Him... (Matthew 8:5)

> So when he [the centurion] heard about Jesus, he sent elders of the Jews to Him, pleading with Him to come and heal his servant... And when He was already not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to Him, saying to Him, "Lord, do not trouble Yourself, for I am not worthy that You should enter under my roof." (Luke 7:3–6)

The Resolution: Agency and Representation

Historically, Christian exegetes have resolved this apparent discrepancy by understanding the ancient and biblical principle of agency: what one does through another, one does oneself.

Matthew's Gospel frequently abbreviates historical narratives, focusing on the core theological dialogue. While Luke provides the full historical details—that the centurion first sent Jewish elders and then friends—Matthew simply summarizes the event by presenting the words of the emissaries as the words of the centurion himself. Because the friends and elders were speaking the direct intentions and requests of the centurion, Matthew treats the interaction as a direct dialogue between Jesus and the centurion.

This legal and literary maxim is found throughout Scripture and ancient literature. A modern equivalent would be a news report stating "The President announced today..." when in reality, the White House Press Secretary read the President's statement.

Furthermore, Matthew, writing to a Jewish audience, emphasized the remarkable faith of a Gentile centurion. Luke, writing to Gentiles, highlighted that the Jewish elders respected this God-fearing Roman soldier. Both accounts are historically accurate and complementary, revealing the deep humility of the centurion who felt unworthy to approach Christ directly or have Christ enter his home.