Apparent Contradiction: Who Made the Request—The Mother or the Sons?

Matthew 20:20–21 (UASV) reads:

“Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Him with her sons, bowing down and making a request of Him. And He said to her, ‘What do you want?’ She said to Him, ‘Say that these two sons of mine may sit one at Your right and one at Your left in Your kingdom.’”

Mark 10:35 (UASV) records:

“And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came up to Him and said to Him, ‘Teacher, we want You to do for us whatever we ask of You.’”

At first glance, a surface-level reading may seem to indicate a contradiction: in Matthew, the request comes from the mother of James and John, while in Mark, it is the sons themselves who present the request. Critics of the Bible often point to such differences as evidence of irreconcilable discrepancies between Gospel accounts. However, a closer and grammatically careful analysis through the historical-grammatical lens reveals no contradiction but rather complementary perspectives that together present a fuller picture of the event.

Harmonizing the Accounts: A Unified Historical Narrative

A thorough harmonization begins by recognizing that the Gospel writers often focused on different elements of the same event to serve their theological and narrative purposes, without falsifying or altering the actual events. Each evangelist presents truthful, historically accurate details, though with emphasis on different actors in the scene.

Matthew 20:20 provides a fuller narrative detail by introducing the mother of James and John (traditionally identified as Salome, cf. Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40) as the one who physically approaches Jesus and initiates the verbal petition. However, Matthew clearly notes that her sons are with her: “the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Him with her sons.” This indicates that while the mother presented the request, the sons were not passive bystanders; they were involved in the exchange.

Mark 10:35, on the other hand, focuses on James and John themselves because they were the true initiators of the request and were directly responsible for its content. The focus in Mark is on their audacity and ambition, which sets the stage for Jesus’ subsequent rebuke and teaching about servanthood. This emphasis fits Mark’s thematic style, which tends to spotlight direct personal interactions between Jesus and His disciples.

The most straightforward harmonization is that James and John prompted their mother to speak on their behalf as part of a coordinated request. They were present, complicit, and accountable. After the initial request by their mother, Jesus directs His answer not to her, but to James and John, as seen in both accounts:

“But Jesus answered and said, ‘You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?’ They said to Him, ‘We are able.’” (Matthew 20:22, UASV)

“Jesus said to them, ‘You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?’” (Mark 10:38, UASV)

Both Matthew and Mark record that the response is directed at the two brothers, showing that the responsibility for the request lies squarely on their shoulders. The mother’s role is an intercessory one, likely motivated by her maternal ambition for her sons, but the accountability lies with James and John themselves.

Historical Context: Social and Familial Honor in First-Century Jewish Culture

Understanding first-century Jewish social customs adds depth to this harmonization. In Jewish society, especially among the more prominent Galilean families like that of Zebedee—a successful fishing entrepreneur with hired servants (Mark 1:20)—familial honor and group representation were common. It would not be unusual for a mother to speak on behalf of adult sons in public, particularly in a plea for favor from a revered figure such as Jesus. Involving a maternal figure could have been seen as a strategic move to add weight to the request.

This cultural backdrop supports the idea that the sons desired elevated positions in Jesus’ kingdom and used their mother to help plead their case. Such group petitions do not obscure who the actual instigators were. The Gospels faithfully report the multifaceted dimensions of the event: Matthew highlights the familial intercession; Mark focuses on the individual responsibility of the disciples.

Theological Implications: Authority, Service, and the Nature of the Kingdom

The combined accounts lead into one of Jesus’ critical teachings on leadership and service within the Kingdom of God. Jesus uses the occasion to teach that greatness in the Kingdom is not achieved through political positioning or favoritism but through self-sacrificial service:

“Whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:26–28, UASV; Mark 10:43–45 parallels this)

This lesson, central to Jesus’ mission and teaching, emerges directly from this incident. The fact that both Gospel writers include it underscores that regardless of how the request was presented—by the mother or the sons—the spiritual issue being addressed was the same: a misunderstanding of kingdom greatness.

No Contradiction: Two Perspectives, One Event

Thus, the accounts of Matthew and Mark are not contradictory but complementary. Matthew, writing to a primarily Jewish audience around 41 C.E. in Hebrew and again in 45 C.E. in Greek, includes details like the involvement of the mother to appeal to cultural sensibilities of family roles. Mark, written between 60–65 C.E., aims for brevity and emphasizes personal accountability—James and John themselves.

In legal terms, this would be comparable to a courtroom where two eyewitnesses describe the same event but highlight different participants. One notes who spoke first; the other emphasizes who orchestrated the request. When examined together, their testimonies provide a fuller account than either alone.

This harmonization fits perfectly within the framework of inerrancy. There is no error, discrepancy, or contradiction—only complementary emphases informed by differing audiences and inspired purposes.

You May Also Enjoy

Why Does Abraham Refer to Both Ur and Haran as His Homeland?

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS