What’s the difference between a contradiction and a tension? It’s an important question to answer if we are going to properly address the difficulties found in the Gospels. We want to treat the text fairly and honestly, and from within the worldview that the Scriptures present of itself. To help us address this we will look at one particular example here. The differences between Matthew and Luke on the account of the healing of the Centurion’s servant help us see clearly the difference between a contradiction and a tension.
The accounts each discuss a Centurion whose servant is ill and Jesus’ commitment to heal that servant. The differences lie in the particular role of the “elders of the Jews.” In Matthew we read that the Centurion makes a request of Jesus, but in Luke we read that the “elders of the Jews” make the request on the behalf of the Centurion. A look at the individual texts reveals the differences clearly. Matthew 8:5-13 reads:
When he had entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, appealing to him, “Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly.” And he said to him, “I will come and heal him.” But the centurion replied, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” And to the centurion Jesus said, “Go; let it be done for you as you have believed.” And the servant was healed at that very moment.
The difference, then, appears in Luke this way:
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. For I too am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me: and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes; and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” When Jesus heard these things, he marveled at him, and turning to the crowd that followed him, said, “I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.” And when those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the servant well.
What are we to make of these differences? Who made the request of Jesus to heal the Centurion’s servant? How should we understand this discrepancy? How should we think about the doctrine of inerrancy in the face of such an obvious tension? A few solutions have been proposed.
In general a few principles should help us consider carefully each difficulty we come across in the gospels. First, we should ask whether or not we are reading about two separate accounts. In some instances similar stories may actually be detailing two different events dealing with the same themes and ideas. In this case we most likely have the same account. The Centurion’s speech in Matthew 8:9 parallels closely the words of Luke 7:8.
We must also remember that each writer is being selective. None of the gospel accounts claims to exhaustively tell the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth. They are choosing not only what they say but how they say it for theological purposes. With relation to this particular example consider what some scholars have suggested: that perhaps the event passed in several stages. Vern Poythress writes:
Consider one solution that has been offered. Norval Geldenhuys and others have put forward the idea that there were several stages in the encounter between Jesus and the centurion. The centurion first sent elders of the Jews (Luke 7:3-5), then sent friends (Luke 7:6-8), then came in person and repeated some of what had been said earlier (Matt. 8:5-9).
Is this a possibility? Yes. It may not be the most satisfying to everyone, but it surely a possibility and an explanation. It is a harmonization attempt. But there are other possibilities too.
Others have suggested that the difference is resolved when we consider the use of intermediaries in ancient culture. That is to say, by not mentioning the “elders of the Jews” Matthew is not denying their presence, rather he is acknowledging that culturally an intermediary spoke so much on behalf of another that it would have been reasonable enough to identify their request as coming directly from the centurion. This was how Augustine understood the problem; Calvin too interpreted the tension this way. He wrote:
There is no impropriety in Matthew saying, that the centurion did what was done in his name and at his request. There is such a perfect agreement between the two Evangelists in all the circumstances, that it is absurd to make two miracles instead of one. (Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. 1. p. 378)
Contemporary scholar R.T. France adds his voice, saying:
[Matthew’s] omission of the means of the centurion’s approach to Jesus is a valid literary device to highlight the message of the incident as he sees it (on the principle, common in biblical and contemporary literature, that a messenger or servant represents the one who sent him to the point of virtual identity). (“Inerrancy and New Testament Exegesis,” Themelios 1. 17)
Is this a possible explanation for the tension? Absolutely. Again, it may not satisfy every reader, but it is certainly a possibility. There are two other principles, however, that we should consider before we move on from this example.
Whenever we encounter a difficulty we want to ask questions of the difficulty. Don’t immediately assume it a contradiction. First, we have seen, we must ask if we are reading about different, if similar sounding, events. Second, we should remember that the writers are selective and ask if the differences reveal a difference in focus more than a straight contradiction. Third, we want to ask what contribution each narrative makes to the whole picture. So what contributions do Matthew and Luke make individually to the account of Jesus’ healing of the centurion?
Obviously Matthew’s account is simpler. Overall Matthew focuses on the main points. He condenses his narratives and focuses the reader on the major issues at hand. Here his avoidance of the “elders of the Jews” and the “friends” allows him to emphasize the key idea that “Jesus has the power to heal at a distance, merely by speaking a word” (Poythress, 22). In addition Matthew is highlighting the idea of genuine faith. His account includes these important words missing from Luke’s account:
I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Luke identifies the value of the centurion’s faith too, but Matthew is emphasizing the differences between the centurion’s faith and those the “sons of the kingdom” who will be cast into “outer darkness.” Matthew’s narrative allows him to drive on this point because of its condensation.
Luke on the other hand has a slightly different theological agenda with the use of this narrative. Luke, in conjunction with Acts, makes a strong case for the salvation and inclusion of the Gentiles into the people of God. That is one of his major themes. Even here in the account of the healing of the Centurion’s servant he is emphasizing that theme. Matthew and Luke both identify the Centurion as a Gentile, they agree on that, but Luke emphasizes it more uniquely. Here he emphasizes particularly the humility of the Gentile. The Centurion does not think himself “worthy” to come to Jesus, which is why he sent the “elders of the Jews,” whom he considers more worthy to make an appeal to Jesus. He says in 7:7 that he “did not presume to come” to Jesus. This emphasis is important because in it there is a recognition on the part of the Centurion of who Jesus is and who he is in relation to Jesus. It is in this light that Jesus makes the statement in verse 9, “Not even in Israel have I seen such faith.” Both Matthew and Luke are telling the same narrative with overlapping themes: faith, Gentileness, Jesus’ healing from a distance. And yet, they emphasize these themes differently. Matthew emphasizing the faith, and Luke emphasizing the humility of a Gentile. Each, we see, makes a positive contribution to the picture as a whole.
Finally, consider carefully whether you are reading a legitimate contradiction. When we say “contradiction” we mean something that these two passages refute one another. But is that truly what we see happening here in Matthew and Luke? Are they actually refuting each other? Matthew does not say “no elders of the Jews came to Jesus.” That would be a refutation. What we have here is a tension. It can be harmonized, it can be discussed and explained, maybe not with perfect satisfaction for everyone, but that is to say there are possible explanations. This is a genuine tension, but not a genuine contradiction.
It’s important to consider carefully what you read and to ask the appropriate and honest questions of the text. It does not good to deny the difficulty (as some Christians may be prone to do), but neither is it fair to jump to “contradiction,” without laboring to understand the difficulty and the unique contributions of the individual narratives. Again, we must treat the text of Scripture fairly and honestly as we wrestle with it.
Sparrow & Heart Soul Care 