The encounter between Jesus and the rich young ruler is recorded in all three Synoptic Gospels—Matthew 19:16–30, Mark 10:17–31, and Luke 18:18–30. Critics of Scripture often claim these accounts demonstrate contradictions. However, a careful and consistent application of the Historical-Grammatical method, under the presupposition of biblical inerrancy, reveals that the accounts are fully reconcilable. Each Gospel writer presents a complementary perspective rather than a contradictory one, and slight variations in detail reflect different emphases or narrative choices, not factual errors. This article will thoroughly analyze the supposed discrepancies and demonstrate their coherence.

Overview of the Rich Young Ruler Accounts

In Matthew 19:16, the scene opens with a man approaching Jesus, asking, “Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?”
In Mark 10:17, the man runs up, kneels before Jesus, and asks, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
In Luke 18:18, a “ruler” asks, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

Each account progresses to a discussion about obeying the commandments, followed by Jesus’ directive for the man to sell his possessions and give to the poor, with the promise of treasure in heaven, and then to follow Him. The man departs sorrowful because he had many possessions.

Discrepancy #1: The Question – “What Good Thing Must I Do?” vs. “Good Teacher…”

In Matthew, the man says, “Teacher, what good thing must I do…?”
In Mark and Luke, the man says, “Good Teacher, what must I do…?”

This is not a contradiction but a matter of emphasis. Matthew focuses on the content of the man’s question—his concern with a good deed that would earn eternal life. Mark and Luke, however, highlight the man’s form of address—calling Jesus “Good Teacher.” These are not mutually exclusive. The man likely addressed Jesus as “Good Teacher” and then followed with a question about the good deed necessary for eternal life. Each Gospel writer selected wording according to his thematic purpose.

Moreover, Jesus’ response is tailored accordingly. In Matthew, He replies, “Why do you ask Me about what is good? There is only One who is good…” (Matthew 19:17). In Mark and Luke, He replies, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone” (Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19). Both replies aim to correct the man’s misunderstanding of goodness and to reorient his focus from human effort to divine standards. Again, no contradiction exists; these are condensed forms of a fuller dialogue.

Discrepancy #2: Was He a “Ruler”?

Only Luke 18:18 identifies the man as a “ruler” (Greek: ἄρχων, archōn), a term that generally refers to a synagogue official or a member of the Sanhedrin. Matthew and Mark do not mention his title.

This is not a discrepancy but an addition of detail. Luke, writing with a Gentile audience in mind, often provides more sociopolitical identifiers. Matthew’s Jewish audience would have understood the man’s social status from the context, while Mark’s Roman audience might not have required the designation “ruler.” Omitting a detail does not equal contradiction—if one writer says, “A man approached Jesus,” and another says, “A ruler approached Jesus,” both can be true if the man was indeed a ruler. The titles “rich,” “young,” and “ruler” are all true descriptors that, taken together, explain why this account is often labeled “the rich young ruler.”

Discrepancy #3: Who Spoke to Jesus—The Man or His Representatives?

This concern is more relevant to the separate incident in Matthew 8:5–13 vs. Luke 7:1–10, involving the Roman centurion. It is a good comparative case, as it shows how biblical narratives sometimes telescope the speech of a representative as the speech of the principal.

In Matthew 8:5, it says, “An army officer came to Him, pleading with Him.” In Luke 7:3, it says, “When he heard about Jesus, he sent elders of the Jews to Him, asking Him to come…” This is easily resolved by recognizing the common ancient literary technique known as agency representation, wherein a messenger’s words are counted as the words of the sender. This was especially normative in Semitic culture and did not require redundant mention of intermediaries if the sender’s intent and authority were fully represented. So, Matthew reports what was effectively done through representatives.

The same principle applies in other instances, such as Moses being told, “You shall speak to Pharaoh” (Exodus 6:29), yet Aaron does the actual speaking (Exodus 7:1–2). Both expressions are true depending on the focus.

Returning to the rich young ruler, this episode involves no intermediary, so the incident does not involve that particular narrative issue. However, the resolution in Matthew and Luke regarding the centurion shows how differences in reporting can still maintain complete historical fidelity.

Discrepancy #4: The Commandments—Which Ones Were Listed?

In Matthew 19:18–19, Jesus lists commandments: “You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, honor your father and mother, and you shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
In Mark 10:19 and Luke 18:20, the list is similar, though “you shall not defraud” appears instead of “you shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

There is no contradiction. Jesus was summarizing the moral commandments from the second table of the Decalogue (Exodus 20:12–17), which concern human relationships. Each Gospel writer includes portions of the list according to the theme and emphasis of the Gospel.

Mark’s inclusion of “you shall not defraud” is particularly insightful. While not a direct Decalogue quote, it encapsulates sins of economic injustice—particularly relevant to a wealthy man. It can be seen as an explanatory paraphrase or practical application of “you shall not steal” or “you shall not covet.” Matthew’s inclusion of “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18) aligns with his Gospel’s emphasis on internal righteousness and kingdom ethics. All these elements are true, and the varied listings serve to enrich the narrative, not contradict it.

Discrepancy #5: Was the Man Sad or Grieved?

Matthew 19:22 says, “When the young man heard this, he went away grieving, because he had many possessions.”
Mark 10:22 says, “But he was disheartened by the saying, and he went away sorrowful…”
Luke 18:23 says, “But when he heard these things, he became very sad…”

All three Gospels report the same emotional response: sorrow due to the cost of discipleship. The Greek terms used—λυπούμενος (lupoumenos – “grieving”) in Matthew, στυγνάσας (stugnazas – “gloomy, disheartened”) in Mark, and περίλυπος (perilypos – “very sorrowful”) in Luke—are complementary. They convey overlapping but distinct aspects of deep emotional conflict: sadness, dismay, and inner struggle. Together, they paint a fuller emotional picture. These are not contradictions but richly textured descriptions.

Discrepancy #6: Jesus Loved Him (Only in Mark)

Mark 10:21 uniquely records, “Jesus, looking at him, loved him…”

This is not a discrepancy but a detail unique to Mark’s theological emphasis. Mark often presents Jesus’ emotional depth, such as His compassion, anger, and affection. The omission in Matthew and Luke is simply a case of literary economy. It does not negate the truth of the statement in Mark. It is reasonable to believe that Jesus did love the man, even if only one writer chose to report it.

Discrepancy #7: Is Perfection Required?

In Matthew 19:21, Jesus says, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your belongings…”
In Mark and Luke, the word “perfect” is not used.

Matthew uses the term teleios (“perfect,” meaning “complete” or “mature”), reflecting the Jewish understanding of wholeness in righteousness. The call to perfection echoes Matthew 5:48: “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” This terminology aligns with Matthew’s frequent highlighting of Jesus’ kingdom ethics.

Mark and Luke present the same challenge—to relinquish wealth and follow Jesus—but do not include the specific word. They convey the same reality: the impossibility of serving both God and wealth. Jesus’ point in all accounts is not that perfection comes through poverty, but that attachment to riches obstructs wholehearted discipleship. The underlying message remains identical.

Conclusion: Complementarity, Not Contradiction

The differences in the Synoptic accounts of the rich young ruler are examples of complementary reportage. Each Gospel writer reports with selective precision according to his theological theme, audience, and literary style. There is no contradiction when one writer includes a detail that another omits or paraphrases. The Gospels harmonize perfectly when interpreted within the historical and grammatical framework, recognizing the ancient literary norms of agency representation, abbreviation, and topical emphasis.

Just as the centurion’s plea in Matthew is harmonized with the delegation in Luke by understanding representational speech, so too the three accounts of the rich young ruler are reconciled by allowing each Gospel to contribute part of a unified narrative.

The integrity and accuracy of Scripture remain intact. The Gospel writers faithfully record the words and actions of Jesus, and no error or inconsistency exists when each account is read in context and compared judiciously.

You May Also Enjoy

What Do Genesis 18:16–19:38 Reveal About Homosexual Perversion, the Archaeology of Sodom and Gomorrah, and Sodom in Ezekiel 16?

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS