Did Jesus speak to the Centurion?

[Guest]

Matthew 8 records the miracle of Jesus healing a Roman Centurion's servant. The Centurion visits Jesus personally to ask for a healing.
Matthew 8:5,6 And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.
Matthew 8:13 And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.

In the parallel passage in Luke 7, the Centurion sends a group of Jewish elders to represent him.

Luke 7:2,3 And a certain centurion's servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die. And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant.
Luke 7:10 And they that were sent, returning to the house, found the servant whole that had been sick.

In Luke's account, Jesus never met the Centurion at all.

 

[Timz]

David,

A press secretary announces President Bush's plan for tax cuts. Later the news reports that President Bush today unveiled a new tax cut plan. In the same way Matthew reports the event by calling the representatives the centurion. no problem.



-Tim

 

[BradtheImpaler]

David,

A press secretary announces President Bush's plan for tax cuts. Later the news reports that President Bush today unveiled a new tax cut plan. In the same way Matthew reports the event by calling the representatives the centurion. no problem.

Or...

Whoever wrote Matthew heard it was the Centurion himself that came, and whoever wrote Luke heard it was representatives who came in his stead. Just like two different news reports of the same incident will many times contain some conflicting details. That's what happens in the real world, and that's what happened in the writing of the gospels. Even in the beginning of Luke the author states that many had undertaken to writing down the gospel events but that Luke claimed a "perfect understanding" of these things so he was going to undertake writing his own account (to "Theophilus"). He does seem to be, in effect, claiming a more accurate knowledge than the other accounts (Mark and possibly Matthew having come before Luke, and who knows how many others?) Here within a gospel itself we see the intimation that some reports were more accurate than others.

Here is the opening passage of Luke in the New Living Translation (italics mine)...

"Many people have written accounts about the events that took place among us. They used as their source material the reports circulating among us from the early disciples and other eyewitnesses of what God had done in fulfillment of His promises. Having carefully investigated all of these accounts from the beginning, I have decided to write a careful summary for you, to reassure you of the truth you were taught"

 

[Gary]

Who brought the Centurion's request to Jesus?
Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:2-10

It clearly states that the Centurion came to Jesus in Matthew 8:5. But it also says that the Jewish elders came to Jesus also. The order of events seem to be that the Centurion first sent the Jewish elders (Luke 7:3). Jesus then agreed to go. Then the Centurion came to Jesus (Matthew 8:5). Jesus walked everywhere he went. Centurions commanded hundred-men groups in the Roman legion. "Such men were prestigious members of a relatively small class governing the military." (Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper’s Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.) 1985.). Therefore, the centurion most probably had a horse upon which to ride to and from Jesus. If this is so, then he probably returned to his home, checked on the servant and then sent friends (Luke 7:6) to speak to Jesus saying that the Centurion was not worthy for Jesus to even enter his home. Jesus continued on. Then, as Jesus neared the home, the Centurion himself approached Jesus (Matthew 8:8) to tell Jesus that he was not worthy for Him to enter his house.

See the table here:
http://www.carm.org/diff/Matt8_5.htm

 

[Gary]

Did the centurion actually come (Matthew) or he send elders, and then friends (Luke)? If you have seen this one before -- and it is a "classic" among uninformed Skeptics .......

http://www.tektonics.org/harmonize/gospelculture.html



Take your pick!

:

 

[Gary]

And more (this time when answering other non-believers like Muslims):

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.

http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm

 

[Gary]

Matthew 8 records the miracle of Jesus healing a Roman Centurion's servant. The Centurion visits Jesus personally to ask for a healing.
Matthew 8:5,6 And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.
Matthew 8:13 And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.

In the parallel passage in Luke 7, the Centurion sends a group of Jewish elders to represent him.

Luke 7:2,3 And a certain centurion's servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die. And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant.
Luke 7:10 And they that were sent, returning to the house, found the servant whole that had been sick.

In Luke's account, Jesus never met the Centurion at all.

We know that DavidDavid plagiarized this from another site. If it was his own, we would have many more grammar and spelling mistakes! (remember the "trails" in Jerusalem??)

So where did he get it from?

Easy to solve.

But I wonder why DavidDavid did not reference the site from which he plagiarized from?

Guess why?

The site also had the ANSWER!!!

Read on.... (from the same site)

Matthew, writing in a condensed style, could be speaking of the centurion as himself doing that which he really accomplished by proxy. Still, it is possible that the centurion first sent the elders, and then, in the intensity of his anxiety and distress, went in person to the Saviour.

http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/ntprob.html#CENTURION

(Busted again DavidDavid)

:roll: :roll:

 

[Vic C.]

Gary =

You're better at than that I am. :

*edited for spelling error*

 

[kwag_myers]

We know that DavidDavid plagiarized this from another site. If it was his own, we would have many more grammar and spelling mistakes! (remember the "trails" in Jerusalem??)

So where did he get it from?

Easy to solve.

But I wonder why DavidDavid did not reference the site from which he plagiarized from?

Guess why?

The site also had the ANSWER!!!

Read on.... (from the same site)

Matthew, writing in a condensed style, could be speaking of the centurion as himself doing that which he really accomplished by proxy. Still, it is possible that the centurion first sent the elders, and then, in the intensity of his anxiety and distress, went in person to the Saviour.

http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/ntprob.html#CENTURION

(Busted again DavidDavid)

:roll: :roll:

I think that it's also important to note that Matthew was most likely present and witnessed this event first hand. Luke's Gospel is a result of his research.

What's also important is to note how these evil-doers of this forum try so hard to discredit God's Word and draw our attention away from the miracle of Jesus healing the sick, what we learn about Kingdom authority, and what Jesus teaches us about faith.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Who brought the Centurion's request to Jesus?
Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:2-10

It clearly states that the Centurion came to Jesus in Matthew 8:5. But it also says that the Jewish elders came to Jesus also. The order of events seem to be that the Centurion first sent the Jewish elders (Luke 7:3). Jesus then agreed to go. Then the Centurion came to Jesus (Matthew 8:5). Jesus walked everywhere he went. Centurions commanded hundred-men groups in the Roman legion. "Such men were prestigious members of a relatively small class governing the military." (Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper’s Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.) 1985.). Therefore, the centurion most probably had a horse upon which to ride to and from Jesus. If this is so, then he probably returned to his home, checked on the servant and then sent friends (Luke 7:6) to speak to Jesus saying that the Centurion was not worthy for Jesus to even enter his home. Jesus continued on. Then, as Jesus neared the home, the Centurion himself approached Jesus (Matthew 8:8) to tell Jesus that he was not worthy for Him to enter his house.

See the table here:
http://www.carm.org/diff/Matt8_5.htm

According to Luke, the fact that the Centurion did NOT come to Jesus personally is an integral point of the message of this passage...

"...the Centurion sent friends, saying to Him - Lord, do not trouble yourself further, for I am not worthy for you to come under my roof; FOR THIS REASON I DID NOT EVEN CONSIDER MYSELF WORTHY TO COME TO YOU but just say the word and my servant shall be healed - for I am also a man placed under authority..." (NASB)

In Matthew, that point is absent...

"A Centurion came to him, imploring him, and saying, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, fearfully tormented. Jesus said to him, I will come and heal him. But the Centurion said, Lord, I am not worthy for you to come under my roof, but just say the word and my servant shall be healed. For I am also a man under authority..."(NASB)

The reason the Centurion sent reps was that he did not feel worthy to approach Jesus himself, which makes more sense of the whole passage. Whether Luke added this detail or Matthew neglected it, we'll never know, but the accounts are NOT compatible.

Secondly - who was present when Jesus said "I have not seen so great faith in all Israel" - the Centurion or the friends he sent?

 

[BradtheImpaler]

I think that it's also important to note that Matthew was most likely present and witnessed this event first hand. Luke's Gospel is a result of his research

So you're saying there is a discrepancy in the two accounts?

What's also important is to note how these evil-doers of this forum try so hard to discredit God's Word and draw our attention away from the miracle of Jesus healing the sick, what we learn about Kingdom authority, and what Jesus teaches us about faith.

You're right - the message of the text and whether or not these events really happened is the most important thing, not that some details lie in contradiction. The reason why "evildoers" ("Holy crimewave, Batman"! ) harp on this type of thing is that Christians refuse to admit the obvious and keep coming up with the most ridiculous "solutions" to these contradictions. All you have to do is admit there are inconsistencies between the writers on some of the same events but it is only a little human error and doesn't change the fact that the bible is basically true. Then we could move on to bigger issues. To expect people to swallow some of these solutions (like to the one in question above) is actually an insult to intelligence. I find it hard to believe that you guys actually believe some of the answers you give on this stuff.

 

[kwag_myers]

I think that it's also important to note that Matthew was most likely present and witnessed this event first hand. Luke's Gospel is a result of his research

So you're saying there is a discrepancy in the two accounts?

Or two different writing styles (as Gary has already suggested). Luke was a physician (Colossians 4:14) and Matthew a publican, or tax-collector (Matthew 10:3). Luke would have had a far superior education to Matthews. Luke would have been able to give a more through account.

What's also important is to note how these evil-doers of this forum try so hard to discredit God's Word and draw our attention away from the miracle of Jesus healing the sick, what we learn about Kingdom authority, and what Jesus teaches us about faith.

You're right - the message of the text and whether or not these events really happened is the most important thing, not that some details lie in contradiction. The reason why "evildoers" ("Holy crimewave, Batman"! ) harp on this type of thing is that Christians refuse to admit the obvious and keep coming up with the most ridiculous "solutions" to these contradictions. All you have to do is admit there are inconsistencies between the writers on some of the same events but it is only a little human error and doesn't change the fact that the bible is basically true. Then we could move on to bigger issues. To expect people to swallow some of these solutions (like to the one in question above) is actually an insult to intelligence. I find it hard to believe that you guys actually believe some of the answers you give on this stuff.

"Holy crimewave"? That's mature. Ain't it just like the devil to try and minimize the evil taking place here?

And what if there was only one account? Would it be any less credible?

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Or two different writing styles (as Gary has already suggested). Luke was a physician (Colossians 4:14) and Matthew a publican, or tax-collector (Matthew 10:3). Luke would have had a far superior education to Matthews. Luke would have been able to give a more through account

If Luke's account is more thorough, why didn't he also include that the Centurion personally went out to Jesus? That's the whole issue, in case you haven't been paying attention.

"Holy crimewave"? That's mature

I haven't heard the term - "evildoers", since that unbelievably hokey 60's Batman series with Adam West. That provoked my "tongue on cheek" response. What's funny is that you were serious when you said "evildoers" :

Ain't it just like the devil to try and minimize the evil taking place here?

So far the only place I'm certain the devil "exists" is in your mind and in the minds of all those who believe he's real. There's no evidence he exists anywhere else.

And what if there was only one account? Would it be any less credible?

The credibility of the event itself is a different issue. We're discussing the credibility of the accuracy of the two accounts of the same incident.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

.....

 

[BradtheImpaler]

....

 

[BradtheImpaler]

....

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Sorry - message came up "could not connect" so I kept sending :

 

[kwag_myers]

If Luke's account is more thorough, why didn't he also include that the Centurion personally went out to Jesus? That's the whole issue, in case you haven't been paying attention.

In Luke's account, the Centurion didn't go to Jesus, he sent others. You could say that he "went to Jesus" in the sense that he looked to Jesus as the solution to the problem, but that's a bit liberal. Luke's sources are unknown, but if you ask any police officer who has ever taken witness statements, they'll tell you that this is hardly a big deal.

I guess that I don't understand why this is so important. Was there a crime committed? Are we trying to establish the whereabouts of the Centurion?

"Holy crimewave"? That's mature

I haven't heard the term - "evildoers", since that unbelievably hokey 60's Batman series with Adam West. That provoked my "tongue on cheek" response. What's funny is that you were serious when you said "evildoers" :

I forgot, you never read the Bible. Psalm 37:1, "Fret not thyself because of evildoers, neither be thou envious against the workers of iniquity."

So far the only place I'm certain the devil "exists" is in your mind and in the minds of all those who believe he's real. There's no evidence he exists anywhere else.

Except in the Bible, which you choose not to read. Once again I'll ask the question, "If you don't belive the Bible's authenticity, why are you in a forum that is specific to its study?" I know that you won't answer this, because the truth will expose your "evildoings".

The credibility of the event itself is a different issue. We're discussing the credibility of the accuracy of the two accounts of the same incident.

Why?