Your contributions here were very welcome, and well worth careful consideration. I hope that in due course you’ll be back to participate again.

All the best.

With regard to (iv), the problem is that on the three meeting theory Jesus had already been given the reason not to go under the centurion’s roof. If this was a good reason, then he wouldn’t have said to the centurion “I will come and cure him”. If it wasn’t a good reason, then he would have actually gone under the centurion’s roof.

With regard to (v), as I understand it you’re saying that Jesus wasn’t really amazed the second time but acted as if he were to put on a bit of a show. I’m not quite comfortable with this. The text says that Jesus was amazed, describing his internal response, rather than that he gasped and said “Wow!” (or whatever), describing his external response, so I think that you’re departing from the text here.

For what it’s worth, here’s what I think is the most promising response to these problems (it’s the same in each case): there’s a difference between saying something via a messenger and saying it oneself.

Saying “I am not worthy to have you come under my roof” once via a messenger was one thing, but reiterating it in person was something else, and that was what changed Jesus’ mind.

The “But only speak the word” speech was amazing coming from the messengers, but to see the centurion deliver it himself was something else, and that was what amazed Jesus the second time.

Now I’m not quite convinced by these either–I think that it makes much more sense to say that Matthew edited the messengers out of the story for brevity introducing some (ableit trivial) falsehoods as he did so–but the availability of this kind of response makes me think that the three meeting theory is just about tenable, at a push, if you’re feeling charitable.

Mathew on the one hand had a Jewish audience in mind. For example the earliest church fathers are in agreement that the text was originally in Hebrew and subsequently translated into Greek (though no proof exists in the form of a Heb. manuscript). Mathew never explains Jewish customs and rituals, as he assumes the reader (being Jewish) would already understand them. Jesus’ geneology is traced to his ultimate Jewish ancestor, Abraham. When Jesus is born, the wise men seek “he who is born king of the Jews” (Matt 2:2).

Luke, on the other hand, always seeks to present the universal aspect of faith in Jesus even though he is the Jewish Messiah. When Jesus is born it is good news to “all the people” (Lu 2:10). When Luke quotes the Tenach (O.T.) he almost always selects texts that show God had been concerned about the Gentiles from ancient times, as in his quote of Is. 40 (Lu 3:4-6). Luke’s genealogy traces Jesus’ ancestors well past the Jewish people, all the way to Adam. And, knowing his audience would not understand, he almost always explains Jewish customs and rituals, such as explaining that the feast of unleavened bread is actually the Jewish Passover observance.

This has significant bearing on the passage in question. In the passage, I would say Matthew’s core idea is not focused so much on the faith of the Gentile centurion, as it is on the irony that Gentiles will sit down with the Patriarchs in the kingdom of heaven, while Jews (i.e. those without faith) would be thrown out (Matt 8:11-12). The shock value of that statement was meant to have an impact on a Jewish audience. The dialogue between Jesus and the centurion and/or his delegates is minimized because it is of minimal relevance to Matthew’s main point.

Luke on the other hand omits the entire statement from his narrative, and focuses instead on the centurion and his actions. This I believe supports his core idea, that at least some Gentiles were deeply connected to the Jewish world and the God of Israel, well before the coming of Messiah. But why would the centurion send not one but two delegations ahead of him? This is easy to understand in context. Jews did not associate with Gentiles, especially religious leaders. They risked ritual defilement. The purpose of Peter’s vision in Acts was to show him that he would not be defiled by having contact with Gentiles (Acts 10:28). So it is completely understandable that this man, not being Jewish, yet passionately deferential to the Jewish people, would be reluctant to just march right up to Jesus to make his request. Instead, he first sends Jewish elders, and then his trusted friends. Lastly, he comes in person to make his plea. Jesus’ response is a resounding affirmation of the man’s faith. Again, this serves Luke’s purpose in the narrative.

I think the remaining “difficulties” can be mostly be resolved.

(i) The centurion says to Jesus, via the friends, “I did not presume to come to you”, making it clear that he didn’t speak to Jesus in person.
[Rabbicohen] On the contrary, this is just typical Oriental deference. It is foreign to us, because our social practices are different.

(ii) Luke tells us, “When those who had been sent [i.e. the friends] returned to the house, they found the slave in good health.” Why would the centurion set out to ask Jesus to heal his slave when the slave had just been healed?
[Rabbicohen] Well, good point. But we just are not given all the chronological details, so it’s difficult to tell who is where at any given time.

(iii) The same conversation happens twice: what the friends say to Jesus is the same as what the centurion says to Jesus. Why would the centurion repeat himself? Isn’t it simpler to think that these are two accounts of one conversation?
[Rabbicohen] Maybe I’m missing something. The friends are essentially conveying what the centurion would say if he were there in person, so that when he is there in person the plea is essentially the same.

(iv) The centurion has the friends tell Jesus, “I am not worthy to have you come under my roof”. Then when he asks Jesus to heal his slave Jesus says, “I will come and cure him.” Then the centurion says, “I am not worthy to have you come under my roof”, and Jesus heals the slave remotely. Why would Jesus respond to this the second time but not the first? Had Jesus forgotten that the friends had said this?
[Rabbicohen] That presumes Jesus did not respond to the friends- which he may have. Or he was simply waiting for the centurion to come in order to answer him directly.

(v) When the friends give the centurion’s “But only speak the word” speech, Jesus is amazed. When the centurion gives the same speech, Jesus is amazed again. Wouldn’t Jesus have been less amazed the second time?
[Rabbicohen] Ok, another good point. I do think his “amazement” was more for the benefit of the crowd, though, and his comment as recorded in Matthew would seem to address a wider concern than the faithfulness of one centurion.

What do you think? Are these points problematic for the ‘three meetings theory’?
[Rabbicohen] Yes, they’re somewhat problematic, but only at the detail level. The Oriental practice of deference in conjunction with the centurion’s “outsider” standing would explain the centurion’s actions and motivation, in my view.

Luke wraps up the account by saying “And when those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the servant well.”

Amtiskaw argued that this shows that the centurion was never there. That goes too far, but it _may_ show that the centurion was not in that final returning group. The timeline I originally suggested had the centurion in that final group. So, assuming that this reading of Luke 7:10 is correct, that would be ruled out.

By revising and expanding 8 and 9 into 8′-12′ you address Amtiskaw’s argument. The centurion returns ahead of the final group. The final group consists only of the friends who had been sent, and they return to find the servant well.

It seems to me that as long as the centurion leaves his house before his friends return and trigger the healing, problem (ii), which is the Luke 7:10 problem, has been solved. This is the case on the original (1) to (9) timeline, so why is the expansion suggested above necessary?

But the time-line suggested by rabbicohen is not overthrown by Luke 7:10 either. All that is required is a slight change to/expansion of 8 and 9:

8′) Jesus praises the centurion’s faith and dismisses him.

9′) The centurion immediately returns but tells his friends to wait.

10′) Upon returning the centurion finds his servant well.

11′) The centurion sends a message to his friends that they can return.

12′) When the friends he had sent out in the first place returned to the house, they found the servant well.

With that said, the three meetings timeline that rabbicohen suggests is very interesting. It provides a fresh response to the “Go” argument. I think it can also be refined to address some (all?) of Erancy’s criticisms. Try this:

1) The centurion _approaches_ Jesus through the delegation of Jewish elders.

2) When he learns that that is successful, he sends out the delegation of friends to accompany Jesus.

3) The friends find Jesus as he is on the way to the centurion’s house.

4) The friends have an extended interchange with Jesus as he continues to move toward the centurions house.

5) During this interchange some friends run back and forth to the centurion to report.

6) The centurion, moved by what he has been hearing in the reports, finally comes out himself and joins the delegation of friends.

7) The centurion, now present with Jesus but part of the delegation of friends, finally makes his famous declaration of faith with his own mouth.

8) Jesus praises the centurion’s faith and dismisses him. (So “Go” means “Go home”.)

9) The entire delegation of friends, which now includes the centurion, returns home to find the servant well.