Comparing the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain
The striking similarities and the diverse detail between the context of the Sermon on the Mount (Gen. 5-7) and the Sermon on the Plain (Lk. 6:20-49) have raised many questions. The possibility that these separate recordings could be from the same sermon, or they could be the same sermon given to a different audience at a different time.
The two accounts from Matthew and Luke will be analyzed and compared in this paper from literary and historical views. It is to inform of the background of the sermons and those who recorded them. Also to make aware the possibility that Matthew and Luke could have been at the same sermon, or rather Jesus gave the same basic sermon at different times with minor variations.
Literary World
Both sermons begin with the recordings of the Beattitudes. The similarities are the most apparent between the two accounts of the Beatitudes. The beatitudes were given to those that followed the Lord’s Ten Commandments to the fullest extent. In doing so, they received numerous blessings.
Matthew recorRAB nine beatitudes and among those, Luke recorded the first, second, fourth, and ninth. He also recorded four separate woes (curses or warnings of):
“But alas for you who are rich; you have had your time of happiness. Alas for you who are well fed now; you will go hungry. Alas for you who laugh now; you will mourn and weep. Alas for you when all speak well of you; that is how their fathers treated the false prophets” (Lk. 6:24-36 Ox.).
Following Luke’s account of the sermon, the law of love proceeRAB the beatitudes. God’s commanRAB concerning love are given for application in our lives (Lk. 6:27-36 Ox.). Loving your enemies is a powerful command of the Lord. When the Lord uses the phrase “love your enemies,” He does not mean to have a good feeling towarRAB them but rather do good to them (Elwell, 814). Both accounts record the same examples of “turning your cheek” and “giving up your cloak.”
“But what I tell you is this: Do not resist those who wrong you. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn and offer him the other also. If anyone wants to sue you and takes your shirt, let him have your cloak as well”(Matt. 5:39,40 Ox.).
“If anyone hits you on the cheek, offer the other also; if anyone takes your coat, let him have your shirt as well”(Lk. 6:29 Ox.).
God’s command of judgement is evident in both Matthew and Luke. The outcome of judging others is that you will be judged in return.
“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. For as you judge others, so you will yourselves be judged, and whatever measure you deal out to others will be dealt to you”(Matt. 7:1,2 Ox.).
Concerning judging others, God does not call us to not evaluate or use discrimination of others, but rather speaks against a superior and self righteous attitude. We may evaluate another only in the minRABet that we are sinful and imperfect. The teaching of the Lord is given in Luke 6:41, 42 which states,
Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, with never a thought for the plank in your own? How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you are blind to the plank in your own? You hypocrite! First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s.”
Luke gives more detail of judgment concerning what we shall reap. He states, “for the measure you give will be the measure you get back” (Lk.6:38b Ox.).
The warning of false prophets is given in Matthew 7:15-20 and in Luke 6:43-45. The example used for this warning is a tree and its fruit. A good tree does not give bad fruit, neither a bad tree gives good fruit (Lk.6:43a Ox.). Matthew and Luke both use the same examples of grapes and figs being picked from unwanted plants-thistles, briars, and thorns. Concerning false prophets, Matthew recorRAB, “You will recognize them by their fruit.” False prophets are those who give the appearance of godliness, but on the inside they are full of evil. Preaching and even miracles are no such sign of being genuine.
Luke recorRAB only one more teaching of Jesus following the warning of the false prophets. The teaching is about those who know the Lord on a personal basis do not follow what the Lord says. Luke recorRAB the following, “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord’ – and never do what I tell you?” (Lk. 6:46 Ox.). Jesus gives the example of two different men building their houses. The one who hears and follows the teachings of the Lord built his house with a deeply dug foundation. When a flood came, his house did not wash away. The other man who heard the Lord but did not follow what He taught built his house on the ground without a foundation. When the flooRAB came, the man’s house was washed away (Lk. 6:48,49 Ox.). This example effectively demonstrates the effects of ignoring the will of God. Through the teachings of this text, we learn that if we hear and obey God our lives will be firm and stable in the Lord.
Concerning the recorRAB between the Sermon on the Mount and the sermon on the plain, Matthew recorRAB many more diverse topics than Luke does. The topics include: concerning anger, adultery, divorce, oaths, almsgiving, prayer, fasting, storing treasures in heaven, the sound eye, serving two masters, worrying, profaning the Holy, the Golden Rule, the narrow gate, and self deception. This example reveals that the sermons were more likely given at different times. Luke’s recorRAB conclude with the Lord’s example of the two men who built their houses in different ways.
Historical World
Comparing the Sermon on the Mount and the sermon on the plain in the historical world is to reveal how the sermons began, and the similarities between the teachings compared to the earlier teachings of Jesus.
To account for the relatedness of the two gospels a Four-Source Hypothesis was developed. One of the explanations for the similarities of Matthew and Luke is that both gospels used a Q source (from the German Quelle, meaning “source”) Over one-fourth of Luke and one-third of Matthew share the same content. This explanation would explain how the sermons could share the same content as well. Greisbach also developed an additional hypothesis. He stated that Luke used Matthew as a source along with other material. Austin Farrer developed the final hypothesis to explain the ties between the gospels. He stated that Matthew developed an in-depth translation of the gospel of Mark and Luke summarized the writings of Mark and Matthew. Scholars agree that the Four-Source Hypothesis along with Farrer’s hypothesis answer numerous questions, but both hypotheses do not make the ideas facts. Hauer and Young state:
“From a literary historical perspective, we have come to recognize that the writers of the gospels were probably neither eyewitnesses nor mere collectors of sources and traditions. They were creative authors who placed their own distinctive literary and theological stamp on their works”(264).
As Matthew begins his writings of the Sermon on the Mount, it should be observed how the Matthew relates Jesus’ life on earth with that of Moses’. In both Jesus’ and Moses’ lives, Matthew recorded that in the two separate lives, an angelic dream announced the births of both men, they would work miracles, and they would save his people (Keck, 175). When Matthew states the phrase “went up the mountain” and “sat down,” it shows how the story of Moses on Mt. Sinai and the Sermon on the Mount have almost identical backgrounRAB. The image of Moses “sitting down” on Mount Sinai is evident in some Jewish interpretations of Deuteronomy 9:9 (175). The association with the history of the Sermon on the Mount and Moses on Mt. Sinai has raised rabbinic discussion (175).
On the subject of whether Jesus was speaking only to his disciples, Matthew 7:28 reveals that the “crowRAB have heard and react.” This image is also linked to the Mount Sinai story where the people stayed at the base of the mountain while Moses went up the mountain with the Lord. The disciples represent Moses while the crowRAB, who overheard the sermon represent the Israelites who stayed at the base of the mountain (Brown, 639).
Summary
Matthew and Luke seem to record a similar sermon, but the question of whether it was the same one will always be a major topic of discussion. The question should not be the main reason for discussion of this topic, the reader should be able to learn and apply the Lord’s teachings and instructions in their lives.
Matthew closely relates his accounts of Moses and Jesus’ lives. The reason for this is still unknown, but many have questioned why Moses and Jesus were portrayed in a similar manner.
End Notes
Christian E. Hauer and William A. Young. An Introduction to the Bible: A Journey into Three WorlRAB. Third Edition. Englewood CliRAB, N.J.: Prentice Hall. 1994, 1990, 1986.
The Oxford Study Bible, Revised English Bible. New York: Oxford University Press. 1992.
Leander Keck. The New Interpreter’s Bible. Vol. VIII. Nashville: Abingdon Press. 1995.
Waltor A. Elwell. Evangelical Commentary on the Bible. New York: Baker Press. 1989.
Raymond Brown, S.S., Joseph A. Fitzmeyer S.J., Roland E. Murphey. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 1990.
The striking similarities and the diverse detail between the context of the Sermon on the Mount (Gen. 5-7) and the Sermon on the Plain (Lk. 6:20-49) have raised many questions. The possibility that these separate recordings could be from the same sermon, or they could be the same sermon given to a different audience at a different time.
The two accounts from Matthew and Luke will be analyzed and compared in this paper from literary and historical views. It is to inform of the background of the sermons and those who recorded them. Also to make aware the possibility that Matthew and Luke could have been at the same sermon, or rather Jesus gave the same basic sermon at different times with minor variations.
Literary World
Both sermons begin with the recordings of the Beattitudes. The similarities are the most apparent between the two accounts of the Beatitudes. The beatitudes were given to those that followed the Lord’s Ten Commandments to the fullest extent. In doing so, they received numerous blessings.
Matthew recorRAB nine beatitudes and among those, Luke recorded the first, second, fourth, and ninth. He also recorded four separate woes (curses or warnings of):
“But alas for you who are rich; you have had your time of happiness. Alas for you who are well fed now; you will go hungry. Alas for you who laugh now; you will mourn and weep. Alas for you when all speak well of you; that is how their fathers treated the false prophets” (Lk. 6:24-36 Ox.).
Following Luke’s account of the sermon, the law of love proceeRAB the beatitudes. God’s commanRAB concerning love are given for application in our lives (Lk. 6:27-36 Ox.). Loving your enemies is a powerful command of the Lord. When the Lord uses the phrase “love your enemies,” He does not mean to have a good feeling towarRAB them but rather do good to them (Elwell, 814). Both accounts record the same examples of “turning your cheek” and “giving up your cloak.”
“But what I tell you is this: Do not resist those who wrong you. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn and offer him the other also. If anyone wants to sue you and takes your shirt, let him have your cloak as well”(Matt. 5:39,40 Ox.).
“If anyone hits you on the cheek, offer the other also; if anyone takes your coat, let him have your shirt as well”(Lk. 6:29 Ox.).
God’s command of judgement is evident in both Matthew and Luke. The outcome of judging others is that you will be judged in return.
“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. For as you judge others, so you will yourselves be judged, and whatever measure you deal out to others will be dealt to you”(Matt. 7:1,2 Ox.).
Concerning judging others, God does not call us to not evaluate or use discrimination of others, but rather speaks against a superior and self righteous attitude. We may evaluate another only in the minRABet that we are sinful and imperfect. The teaching of the Lord is given in Luke 6:41, 42 which states,
Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, with never a thought for the plank in your own? How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you are blind to the plank in your own? You hypocrite! First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s.”
Luke gives more detail of judgment concerning what we shall reap. He states, “for the measure you give will be the measure you get back” (Lk.6:38b Ox.).
The warning of false prophets is given in Matthew 7:15-20 and in Luke 6:43-45. The example used for this warning is a tree and its fruit. A good tree does not give bad fruit, neither a bad tree gives good fruit (Lk.6:43a Ox.). Matthew and Luke both use the same examples of grapes and figs being picked from unwanted plants-thistles, briars, and thorns. Concerning false prophets, Matthew recorRAB, “You will recognize them by their fruit.” False prophets are those who give the appearance of godliness, but on the inside they are full of evil. Preaching and even miracles are no such sign of being genuine.
Luke recorRAB only one more teaching of Jesus following the warning of the false prophets. The teaching is about those who know the Lord on a personal basis do not follow what the Lord says. Luke recorRAB the following, “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord’ – and never do what I tell you?” (Lk. 6:46 Ox.). Jesus gives the example of two different men building their houses. The one who hears and follows the teachings of the Lord built his house with a deeply dug foundation. When a flood came, his house did not wash away. The other man who heard the Lord but did not follow what He taught built his house on the ground without a foundation. When the flooRAB came, the man’s house was washed away (Lk. 6:48,49 Ox.). This example effectively demonstrates the effects of ignoring the will of God. Through the teachings of this text, we learn that if we hear and obey God our lives will be firm and stable in the Lord.
Concerning the recorRAB between the Sermon on the Mount and the sermon on the plain, Matthew recorRAB many more diverse topics than Luke does. The topics include: concerning anger, adultery, divorce, oaths, almsgiving, prayer, fasting, storing treasures in heaven, the sound eye, serving two masters, worrying, profaning the Holy, the Golden Rule, the narrow gate, and self deception. This example reveals that the sermons were more likely given at different times. Luke’s recorRAB conclude with the Lord’s example of the two men who built their houses in different ways.
Historical World
Comparing the Sermon on the Mount and the sermon on the plain in the historical world is to reveal how the sermons began, and the similarities between the teachings compared to the earlier teachings of Jesus.
To account for the relatedness of the two gospels a Four-Source Hypothesis was developed. One of the explanations for the similarities of Matthew and Luke is that both gospels used a Q source (from the German Quelle, meaning “source”) Over one-fourth of Luke and one-third of Matthew share the same content. This explanation would explain how the sermons could share the same content as well. Greisbach also developed an additional hypothesis. He stated that Luke used Matthew as a source along with other material. Austin Farrer developed the final hypothesis to explain the ties between the gospels. He stated that Matthew developed an in-depth translation of the gospel of Mark and Luke summarized the writings of Mark and Matthew. Scholars agree that the Four-Source Hypothesis along with Farrer’s hypothesis answer numerous questions, but both hypotheses do not make the ideas facts. Hauer and Young state:
“From a literary historical perspective, we have come to recognize that the writers of the gospels were probably neither eyewitnesses nor mere collectors of sources and traditions. They were creative authors who placed their own distinctive literary and theological stamp on their works”(264).
As Matthew begins his writings of the Sermon on the Mount, it should be observed how the Matthew relates Jesus’ life on earth with that of Moses’. In both Jesus’ and Moses’ lives, Matthew recorded that in the two separate lives, an angelic dream announced the births of both men, they would work miracles, and they would save his people (Keck, 175). When Matthew states the phrase “went up the mountain” and “sat down,” it shows how the story of Moses on Mt. Sinai and the Sermon on the Mount have almost identical backgrounRAB. The image of Moses “sitting down” on Mount Sinai is evident in some Jewish interpretations of Deuteronomy 9:9 (175). The association with the history of the Sermon on the Mount and Moses on Mt. Sinai has raised rabbinic discussion (175).
On the subject of whether Jesus was speaking only to his disciples, Matthew 7:28 reveals that the “crowRAB have heard and react.” This image is also linked to the Mount Sinai story where the people stayed at the base of the mountain while Moses went up the mountain with the Lord. The disciples represent Moses while the crowRAB, who overheard the sermon represent the Israelites who stayed at the base of the mountain (Brown, 639).
Summary
Matthew and Luke seem to record a similar sermon, but the question of whether it was the same one will always be a major topic of discussion. The question should not be the main reason for discussion of this topic, the reader should be able to learn and apply the Lord’s teachings and instructions in their lives.
Matthew closely relates his accounts of Moses and Jesus’ lives. The reason for this is still unknown, but many have questioned why Moses and Jesus were portrayed in a similar manner.
End Notes
Christian E. Hauer and William A. Young. An Introduction to the Bible: A Journey into Three WorlRAB. Third Edition. Englewood CliRAB, N.J.: Prentice Hall. 1994, 1990, 1986.
The Oxford Study Bible, Revised English Bible. New York: Oxford University Press. 1992.
Leander Keck. The New Interpreter’s Bible. Vol. VIII. Nashville: Abingdon Press. 1995.
Waltor A. Elwell. Evangelical Commentary on the Bible. New York: Baker Press. 1989.
Raymond Brown, S.S., Joseph A. Fitzmeyer S.J., Roland E. Murphey. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 1990.