THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT

VS

THE SERMON ON THE PLAIN

I) Introduction:

In the introductory comments to Jesus’ oft’-quoted sermon recorded in Matthew chapters 5-7, the first verse sets the stage for His “astonishing teachings.” Matthew indicates that “seeing the multitudes,” Jesus “went up on a mountain, and when He was seated His disciples came to Him” (emp. added). When Luke gives the setting for Jesus’ masterful sermon, he says that Jesus “came down with them and stood on a level place” (emp. added). The question that has been asked by many people is why Matthew recorded Jesus preaching this sermon from a mountain, while Luke said it was while He stood on a level place. Could Matthew or Luke have made a legitimate geographical error here, or is there a reasonable explanation for the difference that exists?

First of all, for these passages to be contradictory one must assume the two sermons were delivered at the same place and at the same time. But, as H. Leo Boles stated in his commentary on Luke, this sermon “may have been repeated a number of times and Luke gives a record of the sermon which was repeated at some later time than the record given by Matthew” (1940, p. 134). It is more than possible that Jesus repeated His teachings on various occasions. He easily could have preached the beatitudes in Capernaum as well as in Cana. He could have taught the model prayer in both Bethany and Bethsaida. Who are we to say that Jesus preached the principles and commands found in Matthew 5-7 only once? There are some men today who travel to a different city nearly every week preaching the same sermons—and do so effectively. Could Jesus not have done something similar?

A more likely solution to this geographical “problem” is simply to understand that Matthew and Luke were referring to the same sermon, and that Jesus was preaching it while being both on a mountain and on a “plain” (KJV) at the same time. The word “plain” (tópou pedinoú) simply means “ level place” (Wycliffe, 1985), and is translated thusly in nearly all modern versions of the Bible. Since a mountain can have level places on it, no one can assert logically that Matthew 5:1 and Luke 6:17 are contradictory. I have been to the top of a mountain in Anchorage, Alaska, that is so level it is known as “Flattop Mountain.” To say Jesus stood on a level place on a mountain is no oxymoron.

9999999999999999999999999

Sermon on the Mount and Sermon on the Plain,
Identical or Distinct
Copyright (c) 2005, by Robert A. Singer
Cottage Grove Bible Church
Cottage Grove, Oregon
RSinger777@aol.com
Evangelical Theological Society 57th Annual Meeting
Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
November 16, 2005, 4:10-4:50 PM
INTRODUCTION
Question of This Paper
It is clear that there are many similarities between the Sermon on the
Mount found in Matthew 5:1-8:1 and the Sermon on the Plain is found in Luke
6:17-49, but are these sermons identical or distinct? In other words, do Matthew
and Luke record the same sermon, or different sermons?
Outline of This Paper
I. MAJOR ELEMENTS INVOLVED IN THIS QUESTION
II. IMPLICATIONS OF THE IDENTICAL POSITION
III. IMPLICATIONS OF THE DISTINCT POSITION
IV. WHERE HARMONISTS WEIGH IN
V. CONCLUSIONS
I. MAJOR ELEMENTS INVOLVED IN THIS QUESTION
Setting
The immediately preceding verses to these sermons would at first glance
seem to describe their settings.
NAU Matthew 4:23 - 5:1
4:23 Jesus was going throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues
and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease
and every kind of sickness among the people.
24 The news about Him spread throughout all Syria; and they brought to
Him all who were ill, those suffering with various diseases and pains, demoniacs,
2
epileptics, paralytics; and He healed them. 25 Large crowds followed Him from
Galilee and the Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea and from beyond the
Jordan.
5:1 When Jesus saw the crowds, He went up on the mountain; and after He
sat down, His disciples came to Him.
NAU Luke 6:17-19
17 Jesus came down with them (the Twelve who were chosen earlier that
morning) and stood on a level place; and there was a large crowd of His
disciples, and a great throng of people from all Judea and Jerusalem and the
coastal region of Tyre and Sidon, 18 who had come to hear Him and to be healed
of their diseases; and those who were troubled with unclean spirits were being
cured. 19 And all the people were trying to touch Him, for power was coming from
Him and healing them all.
There are several major elements to consider in the apparent settings of
these sermons.
HEALING
Matthew and Luke both include an occasion of healing.
THE TWELVE
Luke 6:12-16 records the choosing of the Twelve on the mountain. The
next verse, Luke 6:17, records that Jesus descended with the Twelve (metV auvtw/n)
and met the crowd. Notice particularly that Matthew does not record the
choosing of the Twelve before the Sermon on the Mount but does record his own
initial calling in Matthew 9:9.
NAU Matthew 9:9
9 As Jesus went on from there, He saw a man called Matthew, sitting in
the tax collector's booth; and He said to him, "Follow Me!" And he got up and
followed Him.
AUDIENCE
Matthew records large crowds “from Galilee and the Decapolis and
Jerusalem and Judea and from beyond the Jordan.” Luke records “a large crowd
of His disciples, and a great throng of people from all Judea and Jerusalem and
the coastal region of Tyre and Sidon.”
THE MOUNTAIN & JESUS’ POSTURE
Matthew records that Jesus went up on the mountain and sat down. Luke
records that Jesus came down from the mountain and stood on a level place.
3
Content
LENGTH
The Sermon on the Mount has 112 verses, The Sermon on the Plain has
only 33.
THE BEATITUDES
Matthew records eight Beatitudes:
Chart #1
The Beatitudes in Matthew
Number Verse NAU
1 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the
kingdom of heaven.
2 5:4 Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be
comforted.
3 5:5 Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the
earth.
4 5:6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for
righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
5 5:7 Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive
mercy.
6 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
7 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be
called sons of God.
8 5:10-12 Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the
sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of
heaven. 11 Blessed are you when people insult you
and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil
against you because of Me. 12 "Rejoice and be glad,
for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same
way they persecuted the prophets who were before
you.
Notice that Matthew phrases all of these in the third person.
On the other hand Luke records four Beatitudes with corresponding woes.
(I have numbered these in Luke according to Matthew’s order.)
4
Chart #2
The Beatitudes in Luke
Number Verses NAU
1 6:20
6:24
Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the
kingdom of God.
But woe to you who are rich, for you are receiving
your comfort in full.
4 6:21a
6:25a
Blessed are you who hunger now, for you shall be
satisfied.
Woe to you who are well-fed now, for you shall be
hungry.
2 6:21b
6:25b
Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh.
Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and
weep.
8 6:22
6:26
Blessed are you when men hate you
Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for their
fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same
way.
Notice that Luke phrases all of these in the second person.
TEACHING
These two sermons do contain much teaching that is similar between
them but also with other passages in the Gospels. The following chart identifies
all of those similarities.
(Note: References on the same line indicate that the passages are “parallel” {two
or more evangelists relating the same words or events}. References on different
lines this indicates that the passages are “similar” {two or more evangelists
relating different words or events}.) I have also placed the Sermon on the Mount
and the Sermon on the Plain on different lines.)
5
Chart #3
Similar Teaching - Matthew 5:1-8:1 and Luke 6:17-49
Matt. Mk. Lk. Jn. Content
5:2-12 The Beatitudes
6:20-23
5:13 Salt losing its saltiness
9:49-50
14:34-
35a
5:15 Lamp under a bowl or basket
4:21 8:16
11:33
5:18 One stroke or letter of the Law
16:17
5:25-26 Settle quickly with your legal opponent
12:58-59
5:29-30 If your right hand causes you to sin
18:8-9 9:43-47
5:31-32 Divorce and adultery
19:3-9 10:2-12
16:18
5:34 Swearing by heaven, God’s throne
23:22
5:38-48 Love your enemies
6:27-36
6:9-13 The Lord’s Prayer
11:2-4
6:19-21 Treasures on earth or in heaven
12:33b-
34
6:22-23a Eye is the lamp of the body
11:34
6:24 Cannot serve God and money
16:13
6:26 Consider the birds
12:24
6:25-33 Don’t worry, seek first His kingdom
12:22-25,
27-31
7:1-2a Do not judge, or you will be judged
6:37-38
6
(Chart #3 contd.)
7:2b It will be measured to you with your
measure
4:24b
6:38b
6:39 Blind leading the blind
15:14
6:40 A student is not above his teacher
10:24
13:16
15:20a
7:3-5 Sawdust and plank
6:41-42
7:7-11 Ask, seek, knock
11:9-13
7:12a Do to others what you would have
them do to you
6:31
7:13-14 Narrow gate/door
13:24
7:16-20 Good tree good fruit, bad tree bad fruit
12:33-35
6:43-45
7:21, 24-
27
“Lord, Lord” / House built on the rock
6:46-49
7:23 “I never knew you.”
13:27
25:12
Notice that much Jesus’ teaching found in the Sermon on the Mount and
the Sermon on the Plain is similar to His teaching throughout the Gospels
(including His last journey to Jerusalem in Luke 9:51-19:28).
STRUCTURE
Both sermons have a distinctly similar structure. The both begin with
Beatitudes, and contain some teaching that is similar, and end with the
illustration of the house built on the rock.
Proximity
If Matthew and Luke record the same sermon then the two are not just
proximate in time, they are identical.
7
If Matthew and Luke record different sermons then they were given within
a close time proximity to one another. The evidence for this comes from the
most natural ordering of events when outlining Matthew alone or when outlining
Luke alone. When the two gospels are then compared the Sermon on the Mount
appears earlier than the Sermon on the Plain, but not very much earlier.
II. IMPLICATIONS OF THE IDENTICAL POSITION
If you accept the position that these two sermons are identical then you
must also accept the implications of this position. As you will see, doing so
creates some huge interpretive problems.
Setting
HEALING
The rearrangement of Matthew 4:23-25 in the standard harmonization
pattern today separates the Sermon on the Mount from the context of healing in
that Gospel. These records of healing found in Matthew and Luke before their
respective sermons would then have occurred on two different occasions. I will
illustrate this later in the upcoming chart.
THE TWELVE
Jesus chose the Twelve in Luke 6:12-16, the morning of the Sermon on
the Plain in Luke 6:17-49. Considering the two sermons as identical would
require that His initial calling of Matthew in Matthew 9:9 be placed chronologically
before the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:1.
I stated above that the most natural ordering of events when outlining
Matthew alone or when outlining Luke alone leads to a slightly earlier placement
of the Sermon on the Mount than the Sermon on the Plain. If the two sermons
are identical then a choice must be made. Should Matthew’s account be moved
forward in his gospel to match Luke’s placement, should Luke’s be moved back
to Matthew’s, or should both sermons be moved?
The harmonization pattern commonly accepted today is that of A.T.
Robertson. I have shown his arrangement of passages in this area of the
Gospels.
8
Chart #4
A.T. Robertson1
Matthew Mark Luke John Comments
8:14-17 1:29-34 4:38-41 All three Synoptics refer
to healing here.
4:23-25 1:35-39 4:42-44 Matthew’s reference to
healing is here.
8:2-4 1:40-45 5:12-16
9:1-8 2:1-12 5:17-26
9:9-13 2:13-17 5:27-32 This is Jesus’ initial
calling of Matthew.
9:14-17 2:18-22 5:33-39
5:1-47
12:1-14 2:23-3:6 6:1-11
12:15-21 3:7-12
3:13-19a 6:12-16
5:1-2 6:17-19 Luke’s reference to
healing is here.
5:3-12 6:20-26
5:13-21
5:22-48 6:27-30,
32-36
6:1-34
7:1-6 6:37-42
7:7-12 6:31
7:13 - 8:1 6:43-49
Notice the placement of Matthew 4:23-25 is linked with an earlier occasion
of healing, the placement of Matthew’s initial calling in Matthew 9:9 falls before
Matthew 5:1, and the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain are
identified as identical.
Thirty-nine of the forty harmonists in my bibliography who have taken the
position that the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain are identical
move Matthew forward to meet Luke. Only Fieldhouse does the reverse. (It is
interesting to note that of these thirty-nine harmonies, only the four by Wieseler
(1864), Besse (1901), Coulter (1974), and Fieldhouse (n.d.) place Matthew 9:9
after Matthew 5:1-8:1.)
The pattern of moving Matthew forward to meet Luke is an ancient one. It
seen in LeClerc’s harmony of 1701.2 In fact, the first record of this pattern is with
Tatian in the second century.3
1 A. T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels (San Francisco: Harper, 1950).
2 John LeClerc, The Harmony of the Evangelists (London, 1701).
3 Samuel Hemphill, The Diatessaron of Tatian: A Harmony of the Four Holy Gospels Compiled in
the Third Quarter of the Second Century (London; Hodder & Stoughton, 1888).
9
Here is the reasoning for the majority view as I understand it. When a
harmonization of Matthew 8:2-13:58 is attempted with Mark and Luke (John has
no parallels for these verses), a difficulty becomes immediately obvious. There
are thirteen packets of verses within which Matthew, Mark and Luke all agree.
However Mark and Luke order these packets differently than does Matthew.
Through a line of reasoning, which is outside the scope of this paper, it can be
reasonably determined that Mark and Luke likely have the correct sequence and
that Matthew’s packets are out of chronological order.4
If the verses which are immediately prior to Matthew 8:2 are also to be
considered one such packet (i.e. Matthew 5:1-8:1), then those verses may also
be out of chronological order and could be moved forward to meet Luke. One
important observation to make is that though the other packets in Matthew must
of necessity be moved out of Matthew’s sequence to match Mark and Luke’s, the
Sermon on the Mount does not. Broadus wrote that as Matthew 8:2-13:58 is
arranged topically rather than chronologically, “it is entirely possible, even likely,
that the same arrangement should prevail in ch. 5-7.”5 (emphasis mine) Even
though Broadus used the word “likely,” this statement is founded on his foregone
conclusion that the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the plain are
identical, not on any words he cites in Matthew or Luke. Take note also that A.T.
Robertson’s classic harmony is the harmony of John Broadus with very few
revisions in placements or notes.
AUDIENCE
The descriptions of the audience by both Matthew and Luke are different,
but not all that different. They could be the same.
THE MOUNTAIN & JESUS’ POSTURE
Matthew records Jesus going up on the mountain and sitting down. Luke
records Jesus ascending the mountainside, praying, choosing the Twelve,
descending to a level place, and standing. These two are NOT irreconcilable,
though they do require some slight interpretive gymnastics to see them as two
records of the same events. Matthew is seen as skipping the details of the
ascent that Luke includes, and records Jesus sitting after He initially stood.
Content
LENGTH
Luke’s account is definitely briefer, but that should pose absolutely no
problem if the two sermons are identical. Luke’s account would merely be a
4 Robert A. Singer, A New Harmonization of the Gospels, Rethinking the Common Approach
(Western Seminary, unpublished D.Min. product, 1997) 3-5.
5 John A. Broadus, A Harmony of the Gospels (New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1893), 246.
10
shorter record of Jesus’ teaching, including His flow of thought. There doesn’t
seem to be any problem as long as broad patterns are compared, but there are
major problems when the specifics of Jesus’ teaching in the two sermons are
compared.
THE BEATITUDES
A small problem does exist with the Beatitudes in that Matthew and Luke
ordered them differently, but there are a couple of nearly impossible difficulties
with the combination of Matthew and Luke’s record.
Luke’s account includes parallel woe’s with the Beatitudes. Consider the
first Beatitude in Matthew with its supposed parallel in Luke.
Chart #5
The 1st Beatitude in Matthew (and Luke)
Number Verse NAU
1 Matthew 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the
kingdom of heaven.
1 Luke 6:20
Luke 6:24
Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the
kingdom of God.
But woe to you who are rich, for you are receiving
your comfort in full.
Luke’s corresponding woe would force the meaning: “But woe to you who
are rich in spirit, for you are receiving your comfort in full.” How should this be
interpreted?
Consider also the fourth Beatitude in Matthew.
Chart #6
The 4th Beatitude in Matthew (and Luke)
Number Verse NAU
4 Luke 5:6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for
righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
4 Luke 6:21a
Luke 6:25a
Blessed are you who hunger now, for you shall be
satisfied.
Woe to you who are well-fed now, for you shall be
hungry.
11
Luke’s corresponding woe would force the meaning: “Woe to you who are
well-fed with righteousness now, for you shall be hungry.” How should this be
interpreted?
I suppose it could be postulated that being “rich in spirit” and being “wellfed
with righteousness” are really tongue-in-cheek comments referring to a false
estimations of one’s self, but these interpretations would in themselves create
another problem. Since it is absolutely impossible to arrive at these
interpretations, or even any hint of them, from Luke’s account alone, then Luke’s
use of language to communicate ideas and our understanding of the infallibility of
scripture would be severely diminished. Other postulated interpretations raise
the same specter.
The most natural meanings of Luke’s words are references to actual
poverty and hunger. Matthew’s are not.
TEACHING
There is another huge problem with Matthew’s line of thought in 7:3-20.
Note his use of the second person in these verses.
The Speck in Your Brother’s Eye
NIV Matthew 7:3-5
3 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay
no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother,
'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your
own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you
will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
Throwing Pearls to Pigs
NIV Matthew 7:6
6 "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you
do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.
Ask, Seek, Knock and the Golden Rule
NIV Matthew 7:7-12
7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the
door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks
finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.
9 "Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if
he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil,
know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in
heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12 So in everything, do to others
what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
12
The Narrow and Wide Gates
NIV Matthew 7:13-14
13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the
road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate
and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
There has been clear use of the second person to this point. Now also
notice his emphasis on the third person.
False Prophets, Good and Bad Fruit
NIV Matthew 7:15-20
15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing,
but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them.
Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise every
good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot
bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not
bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will
recognize them.
The reference of Matthew 7:16a (“by their fruit you will recognize them”)
and 7:20 (“Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them”) is clearly to the false
prophets of the previous verse. These false prophets are most naturally
understood in Matthew as being outside the community of the saved.
Now consider the similar words in the Sermon on the Plain.
The Speck in Your Brother’s Eye
NIV Luke 6:41-42
41 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and
pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42 How can you say to your
brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to
see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your
eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
There is no problem to this point, but look closely at the next three verses
in Luke.
Good and Bad Fruit
NIV Luke 6:43-45
43 " (ga.r) No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good
fruit. 44 (ga.r) Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. (ga.r) People do not pick
figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. 45 The good man brings good
things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things
13
out of the evil stored up in his heart. For (ga.r) out of the overflow of his heart his
mouth speaks.
Jesus, by using ga,r to introduce the thoughts of Luke 6:43-45, gives the
reason why His disciples should pay attention to removing the plank from their
own eye before attempting to remove a speck of sawdust from their brother’s
eye. Luke does not use the term, “false prophet.”
Daniel Wallace writes concerning ga,r, ““The coordinate conjunction links
equal elements together, e.g., a subject (or other part of speech) to a subject (or
other part of speech), sentence to sentence, or paragraph to paragraph” and he
notes that ga,r is one of the most common conjunctions for this.6
A.T. Robertson even wrote, “The Greeks, especially in the literary style,
felt the propriety of indicating the inner relation of the various independent
sentences that composed a paragraph. This was not merely an artistic device,
but a logical expression of coherence of thought. Particles like... ga,r... were very
common in this connection.”7
For those who hold the two sermons to be identical there is now a clear
problem. A way has to be found to connect Matthew’s flow of thought in 7:3-5
(plank and sawdust) to 7:15-20 (false prophets and fruit). After all, Luke
connects the two discussions in his Gospel with “ga,r” and clearly establishes
Jesus’ intent to link them. But, trying to add throwing pearls to pigs; ask, seek,
knock and the Golden Rule; and the narrow and wide gates into Matthew’s flow
of thought would have one interpretively bending over backwards double.
There is a more radical solution presented by Wieseler. Broadus wrote,
“Wieseler holds that Matthew has simply brought together detached sayings of
Jesus on different occasions and does not mean to present the whole as one
discourse; Luke’s account being only one of the discourses used by Matthew.”8
An accompanying minor difference in Matthew and Luke’s wording also
exists.
NIV Matthew 7:16b
Do people pick
grapes (stafula.j) from thornbushes (avkanqw/n),
or figs (su/ka) from thistles (tribo,lwn)?
Luke 6:44b
“People do not pick
figs (su/ka) from thornbushes (avkanqw/n),
or grapes (stafulh.n) from briers (ba,tou).”
The words are different, and this difference must be adequately explained.
6 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 667,
669.
7 A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research
(Nashville: Broadman, 1934), 443.
8 Broadus, 248-249.
14
There are clear and intensely problematic differences in the specifics of
content that cannot be explained by Luke’s shortened account, or the recollection
of additional details by Matthew. And consider this. The only reason these
difficulties exist in the first place is because of the historical position that the
Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain are identical.
STRUCTURE
On the surface these two sermons have a similar structure, but as already
put forward the real proof is in the specifics, not in the general pattern.
Proximity
Seeing the two sermons as identical dispatches with the problem of
having similar though different sermons so chronologically close to one another.
III. IMPLICATIONS OF THE DISTINCT POSITION
Setting
HEALING
If the two sermons are considered distinct, Matthew retains its context of
healing, but these two sermons still represent different healing times since the
Sermon on the Plain would be placed later. There were many healing times like
this in Jesus’ public ministry.
Notice that whether the two sermons are considered identical or distinct,
these records of healing are seen to occur on two different occasions.
THE TWELVE
Seeing the sermons as distinct allows Matthew and Luke present their
own most natural ordering of events. The Sermon on the Plain naturally falls
both after the Sermon on the Mount and Matthew 9:9. No rearranging of the
order seen in Luke’s text is necessary. The differing order of the packets seen in
Matthew 8:2-13:58 still stands, but there is no reason to extend that to Matthew
5:1-8:2.
There is an additional minor occurrence that gives a clue that this
approach is correct. Similarities in the Gospels are found in preaching, events,
and narration. Similarities in preaching are by far the most frequent. There are
some similarities in events, and there are just a few similarities in narration. Now
let’s consider a similar event found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
15
There are only three passages in all of the Gospels where it is said that
the people were amazed at Jesus teaching, because He taught as one who had
authority, not as their teachers of the Law.
NIV Matthew 7:28-8:1
28 When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were
amazed at his teaching, 29 because he taught as one who had authority, and not
as their teachers of the law.
8:1 When he came down from the mountainside, large crowds followed
him.
NIV Mark 1:21-22, 27
21 They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, Jesus went
into the synagogue and began to teach. 22 The people were amazed at his
teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers
of the law.
27 The people were all so amazed that they asked each other, "What is
this? A new teaching-- and with authority! He even gives orders to evil spirits and
they obey him."
NIV Luke 4:31-32, 36
31 Then he went down to Capernaum, a town in Galilee, and on the
Sabbath began to teach the people. 32 They were amazed at his teaching,
because his message had authority.
36 All the people were amazed and said to each other, "What is this teaching?
With authority and power he gives orders to evil spirits and they come out!"
These three passages come together naturally when the sermons are
seen as distinct, but are separated when the sermons are viewed as identical. In
the following chart I have shown my arrangement of passages in this area of the
Gospels.
Chart #7
Robert A. Singer9
Matthew Mark Luke John Comments
4:23-25
5:1-8:1 Sermon on the Mount &
“amazed” comment
1:21-22 4:31-32 “amazed” comment
1:23-28 4:33-37 “amazed” comment
8:14-18 1:29-38 4:38-43
1:39 4:44
9 Singer, 248-251.
16
(Chart #7 contd.)
8:2-4 1:40-45 5:12-16
9:1-8 2:1-12 5:17-26
9:9-13 2:13-17 5:37-32 Matthew’s initial calling
12:1-14 2:23-3:6 6:1-11
12:15-21 3:7-12
3:13-19 6:12-16
6:17-49 Sermon on the Plain
AUDIENCE
The audiences are similar, but different. This is hinted at in the slightly
differing description of each.
THE MOUNTAIN & JESUS’ POSTURE
Again, Matthew records that Jesus went up on the mountain and sat
down. Luke records that Jesus came down from the mountain and stood on a
level place. It is easiest to see these occurrences as distinct.
Content
LENGTH
The length of the accounts does differ, but this is no proof that the
sermons are distinct.
THE BEATITUDES
The 1st and 4th Beatitudes in Matthew must be different from those in Luke
for the reasons seen earlier.
TEACHING
The subject of the “good tree - good fruit, bad tree - bad fruit” teaching is
not the same in the two sermons. Jesus simply used two similar illustrations in
two different contexts.
STRUCTURE
Jesus was simply using similar, but not identical illustrations in different
contexts. Itinerant preachers and evangelists do this all the time. Besides, many
of the same stories were used elsewhere in the Gospels, and even in the same
Gospel. The Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain do share many
similarities, but this pattern alone is not sufficient proof to say that they are
different.
17
Proximity
If the two sermons are distinct then the two sermons still were delivered in
fairly close time proximity to one another. Why would Jesus do this when many
would undoubtedly be present in both crowds? The answer is that Jesus often
moved around Galilee preaching. Just as with a visiting preacher today one
would expect Him to deliver different sermons with obvious similarities.
If this were the case it also would certainly be natural that neither Matthew
nor Luke would include both sermons. They could easily be an example of
something commonly found—clearly similar but distinctly different passages
found only in different Gospels. I have provided some examples of these in the
following chart.
Chart #8
Examples of Clearly Similar but Distinctly Different Passages
Found Only in Different Gospels
Matt. Mk. Lk. Jn. Content
1:1-17 Jesus’ genealogy
3:23-38
2:13-17 Casting money changers from temple
21:12-13 11:15-17 19:45-46
4:16-30 4:44 Without honor at Nazareth
13:54-58 6:1-6a
4:18-22 1:16-20 Fishers of men
5:1-11
3:13-19 6:12-16 The Twelve Apostles listed
10:2-4
7:36-50 Woman with alabaster jar of perfume
26:6-13 14:3-9 12:2-8
19:12-27 Parable of minas, talents
25:14-30
The Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain would be an
understandable addition to this chart.
IV. WHERE HARMONISTS WEIGH IN
IDENTICAL
The vast majority of harmonists consider these two sermons to be
identical. What follows is an extensive sampling of forty-five of their harmonies,
which are representative of other harmonies.
Thirty-nine of the forty-five consider the two sermons to be identical. They
are: Tatian (2nd cent.), LeClerc (1701), Jarvis (1845), Robinson (1851), Wieseler
18
(1864), Greenleaf (1874), Davies (1879), Butler (1892), Broadus (1893), Besse
(1901), Young (1902), Kerr (1903), Stevens and Burton (1904), Finney (1907),
Sharman (1917), Burton and Goodspeed (1920), Robertson (1922), Ylvisaker
(1932), Boettner (1933), Goodier (1934), Fahling (1936), Hartdegen (1942),
Stringfellow (1943), Heim (1947), Wieand (1947), Roney (1948), Dietz (1951),
Beck (1959), Carter (1961), Cheney and Ellisen (1969), Coulter (1974), Smith
(1976), Thomas and Gundry (1978), Pentecost (1981), Nevins (1987), Zarley
(1987), Fieldhouse (n.d.), McGarvey and Pendleton (n.d.), and Reid (n.d.).
Only six consider the two sermons to be distinct. They are: Greswell
(1830), Mimpriss (1833), Clark (1870), Campbell (1899), Ebersol (1937), and
Markve (1957). Notice that in the twentieth century only two hold this view, and
none do in the past forty-eight years.
Whether through footnotes or appendices, only ten of the thirty-nine
harmonies above, which present the two sermons as identical, give any reasons
at all for their conclusion. They are: Robinson (1851), Wieseler (1864),
Greenleaf (1874), Broadus (1893), Davies (1879), Robertson (1922), Ylvisaker
(1932), Hartdegen (1942), Thomas and Gundry (1978), and Zarley (1987). As
Davies is merely a distillation of Robinson, and Robertson quotes Broadus nearly
verbatim in both placements and notes, we are really left with only eight of the
thirty-nine who provide reasons.
Hartdegan writes, “That Matthew and Luke relate the same discourse is
evident from the introduction, conclusion, and general arguments, as well as from
the use of the same figures of speech.”10 Thomas and Gundry write, “Similarities
between the two are too numerous to allow for two different sermons.”11
Observe these comments closely. They are comments about generalities of
pattern, not specifics of content.
DISTINCT
Conversely, only Greswell (1830) and Mimpriss (1833) give reasons that
these two sermons are distinct. And, as Mimpriss is a distillation of Greswell, we
really only have the voice of one harmonist who provides his reasoning that the
two sermons are distinct, and that from 1830. Greswell is notable because he
wrote over 2,500 pages, comprising five volumes, giving reasons for the
placements in his harmony. I know of no other harmonist who has accomplished
anything like this.
If you stand on the sheer numbers of harmonists supporting either
position, and not the text of the Gospels, the choice is obvious. The two sermons
are identical. But when the specific content of the sermons is considered then
Greswell’s voice becomes much more inviting.
10 Stephen J. Hartdegan, A Chronological Harmony of the Gospels (Paterson, New Jersey: St.
Anthony Guild Press, 1942), 45.
11 Robert L. Thomas and Stanley N. Gundry, A Harmony of the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Harper
and Row, 1978), 63.
19
V. CONCLUSIONS
IDENTICAL OR DISTINCT?
A good rule of thumb is that when you start multiplying contrived reasons
to support your view, then perhaps you should take a second look at your
position no matter how many people support it. This sort of multiplication is
required to hold the view that these two sermons are identical. It is true that the
two sermons show a marked similarity in structure and that the vast weight of
opinion is that they are the same, but these two reasons are not determinative in
and of themselves or together. Though Broadus wrote the following words in
favor of the two sermons being identical, “There are no objections to this theory
that do not admit of a probable explanation”12, he did not deal with all the
specifics presented above. In reality the biggest reason that these two sermons
are viewed today as being identical that is the vast majority of harmonists have
always done it this way.
There is much more discussion about this question in other circles than
there is among harmonists. For only one example Walter Liefield who
contributed the commentary on Luke for the Expositors Bible Commentary wrote,
“The settings of this passage and of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7 are
not indisputably the same, and there is considerable difference in content.
Therefore many scholars call the Lukan material the ‘Sermon on the Plain,’ with
the implication that it is, in Luke’s opinion, an entirely different sermon. The
probability is that there was one sermon among many that Jesus preached on
similar themes that was something like a ‘keynote’ address.”13
Approach this from another perspective for a moment. Which position is
easier to hold? Which position has the fewer difficulties associated with it?
Which position poses no unanswerable problems? Which position has the better
proof arguing for it? It is easily the position that the two sermons are not only
possibly or probably distinct, but that they are clearly distinct.
SO WHAT?
What difference does it make whichever position you hold? I would give
three responses to this question (which by the way is one I am often asked).
First, if we are going to take a stand for inerrancy and infallibility of the
biblical text, then turn around and dismiss discussions such as this one because
of numerical support instead of specifics of content, then our stand for biblical
truth is to some extent suspect.
Second, good interpretation of the text breeds good application of the text.
For example, consider trying to apply the first and fourth beatitudes in Matthew
12 Broadus, 249.
13 Frank E. Gabaelein, ed., The Expositors Bible Commentary, vol. 8, Luke, by Walter Liefeld
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 890.
20
while holding them to be identical to their corresponding beatitudes in Luke. This
is a strained exercise at very best. But if you hold Matthew and Luke’s
beatitudes to be distinct, then their respective applications are almost selfevident.
Third, This discussion should serve as a canary in a mineshaft.
Insufficient oxygen in the mine would kill the canary before the people, thus
warning them of the problem. The commonly held position that these two
sermons are identical, and the difficulties associated with it, is a symptom of a
much broader problem with harmonies today. Harmonies, though fairly
consistent in their arrangement when compared to each other, many may be
repositories of perpetuated errors as one harmonist copies another’s placements.
Allow me to suggest a few other harmonization issues we should revisit.
(1) Is there a better way to outline Jesus’ Galilean ministry? (2) Why did Matthew
arrange chapters 8-13 differently than Mark and Luke? (3) Why are Luke 9:18-
19:28 and 7:1-11:54 interwoven when there is not one verse, or even a single
word, in common between them? (4) Can a case be made that the Gospels are
essentially chronological in nature, and not topical? (5) Could a persuasive case
be made for a two and a half year public ministry instead of a three and a half,
and this without the historical error of chronologically transposing John 5 and 6?
A FINISHING QUOTE
I would like to finish with a quote from Edward Greswell, the one
harmonist who gives reasons why these two sermons are distinct. It always
reminds me to stay true to the Gospel narrative. "In the course of this
examination, during which I had to consult some of the most popular Harmonies,
I could not but observe in them such remarkable inconsistencies as were
abundantly sufficient to convince my own mind that the principles, upon which
they had proceeded, could not be right. The dissatisfaction produced by this
discovery determined me to lay them aside, and to take the four original
narratives, and nothing more, into my hands, with a view to frame out of them, for
myself, a system which, if it possessed no other merit, might at least avoid such
difficulties as had appeared so glaringly and so palpably in the cases alluded
to."14
14 Edward Greswell, Dissertations upon the Principles and Arrangement of an Harmony of the
Gospels, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1837), I:xii.
21
Bibliography
Beck, William F. The Christ of the Gospels, Saint Louis: Concordia, 1959.
Besse, H. T. Harmony of the Gospels, Cincinnati: Jennings and Pyle, 1903.
Boettner, Loraine. A Harmony of the Gospels, Phillipsburg, New Jersey:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1933.
Broadus, John A. A Harmony of the Gospels, 3d ed. New York: A. C. Armstrong
and Son, 1894.
Burton, Ernest DeWitt, and Edgar Johnson Goodspeed. A Harmony of the
Synoptic Gospels for Historical and Critical Study. New York, Chicago,
and Boston: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1917.
Butler, J. Glentworth. Fourfold Gospel, New York: The Butler bible-Work
Company, 1892.
Campbell, Colin. The First Three Gospels in Greek, Oxford: Williams and
Norgate, 1899.
Carter, John Franklin. A Layman’s Harmony of the Gospels, Nashville:
Broadman, 1961.
Cheney, Johnston M., and Stanley Ellisen The Life of Christ in Stereo, Portland,
Oregon: Western Baptist Seminary Press, 1969.
Clark, George W. A New Harmony of the Four Gospels in English. Philadelphia:
Bible and Publication Society, 1875.
Coulter, Frederick R. A Harmony of the Gospels in Modern English, Los Angeles:
York Publishing Company, 1974.
Davies, Benjamin, ed. Baker’s Pocket Harmony of the Gospels. Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1975.
Dietz, Thomas G. The Gospel, The Unification of the Four Gospels, Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951.
Ebersol, Charles E. The Four Gospels in One Made Plain, London and
Edinburgh: Fleming H. Revell, 1937.
Fahling, Adam. A Harmony of the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing
House, (no date).
22
Fieldhouse, Marvin L. The Whole Gospel Narrative, Nagano Ken, Japan: The
Oriental Bible Study Fellowship, (n.d.).
Finney, Ross L. Huck’s Synopsis of the First Three Gospels, New York: The
Methodist Book Concern, 1907.
Goodier, Alban. The Word Incarnate, A Harmony of the Gospels, London: Burns
Oates and Washbourne Ltd., 1934.
Greenleaf, Simon. The Testimony of the Evangelists Examined by the Rules of
Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice. New York: James Cockcroft &
Company, 1874.
Greswell, Edvardus. Harmonia Evangelica, Editio Quarta, Oxonii: E.
Typographeo Academico, 1845.
Greswell, Edward. Dissertations upon the Principles and Arrangement of an
Harmony of the Gospels, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1837.
Hartdegen, Stephen J. A Chronological Harmony of the Gospels Using the
Revised Text of the Challoner-Rheims Version of the New Testament.
Patterson, New Jersey: Anthony Guild Press, 1942.
Heim, Ralph Daniel. A Harmony of the Gospels for Students. Philadelphia:
Muhlenberg Press, 1947.
Hemphill, Samuel. The Diatessaron of Tatian: A Harmony of the Four Holy
Gospels Compiled in the Third Quarter of the Second Century. London:
Hodder & Stoughton, 1888.
Jarvis, Samuel Farmer. A Chronological Introduction to the History of the Church,
New York: Harper and Brothers, 1845.
Kerr, John H. A Harmony of the Gospels. Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H.
Revell Company, 1924.
LeClerc, John. The Harmony of the Evangelists. London: Printed for Sam.
Buckley in St. Paul’s Church-yard, 1701.
Markve, Arthur. A New Harmony of the Gospels, Minneapolis: Bethany
Fellowship, 1957.
McGarvey, J.W. and Philip Y. Pendleton. The Fourfold Gospel, or a Harmony of
the Four Gospels, Cincinnati: The Standard Publishing Foundation.
23
Mimpriss, Robert. The Gospel Treasury, Expository Harmony of the Four
Evangelists, London, 1862.
Nevins, Albert J. The Life of Jesus Christ, Northport, New York: Costello
Publishing Co., 1987.
Pentecost, J. Dwight. A Harmony of the Words and Works of Jesus Christ. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.
Reid, John Calvin. His Story, A Chronological Account of the Life of Jesus,
Waco, Texas: Word Books, (n.d.).
Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of
Historical Research. Nashville: Broadman, 1934.
Robertson, A.T. A Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ. San
Francisco: Harper Collins, 1950.
Robinson, Edward. A Harmony of the Four Gospels in English, 14th ed. Boston:
Crocker and Brewster, 1869.
Roney, Charles Patrick. Commentary on The Harmony of the Gospels, Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948.
Sharman, Henry Burton. Records of the Life of Jesus, Palo Alto: Sequoia
Seminar Foundation, 1917.
Singer, Robert A. A New Harmonization of the Gospels, Rethinking the Common
Approach, D.Min. product, Western Seminary, 1997
Smith, Talma L. The Gospel Message of Jesus Christ, Alexandria, Virginia:
Vantage Press, 1976.
Stevens, Wm. Arnold, and Ernest DeWitt Burton. A Harmony of the Gospels for
Historical Study, An Analytical Synopsis of the Four Gospels, 3d ed. New
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1904.
Stringfellow, Ervin Edward. The Gospels, A Translation, Harmony and
Annotations, St. Louis: John S. Swift Co., 1943.
Thomas, Robert L., and Stanley N. Gundry. A Harmony of the Gospels. San
Francisco: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1978.
Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1996.
24
Wieand, Albert Cassel. A New Harmony of the Gospels, The Gospel Records of
the Message and Mission of Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1950.
Wieseler, Karl. A Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gospels, Cambridge:
Deighton, Bell, and Co., 1864.
Ylvisaker, John. The Gospels, A Synoptic Presentation of the Text in Matthew,
Mark, Luke, and John, Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1932.
Young, E.S. The Life of Christ, A Harmony of the Four Gospels. Canton, Ohio:
The Bible Student Co., 1902.
Zarley, Kermit. The Gospels Interwoven, Victor Books, 1987.

9999999999999999999999

999999999999999999999999

1. Relevance to the Sermon on the Mount
The Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:20-49) is a significant passage for those interested in the Sermon on the Mount, for the two show  distinct similarities. Indeed, they are similar enough for the footnote on Luke 6:17 NET to suggest that the Sermon on the Plain may be a summary of the the Sermon on the Mount. However, that footnote offers no comment on whether it was Jesus himself or Luke who produced the summary.
2. One occasion or two
There are those who suggest that the Sermon on the Plain and the Sermon on the Mount represent differing descriptions of the one event, a speech delivered from a level place, just below the summit of a hill (see background for the location of the Sermon on the Mount).
The majority of the Sermon on the Plain has parallel passages within the Sermon on the Mount and in most cases these fall in a similar order in both. This strongly suggests that the two are related, rather than independent collections of sayings composed by different authors. However, establishing the nature of that relationship from the sermons themselves is far from easy. Amongst the possibilities to be weighed are whether:
•    the Sermon on the Plain is Luke’s summary of the Sermon on the Mount;
•    the Sermon on the Mount is Matthew’s expansion of the Sermon on the Plain;
•    the two sermons were given on different occasions but Jesus reused material.
Matthew’s version is much longer overall than Luke’s, though the latter nevertheless contains:
•    the longer versions of some parallel passages (e.g. Luke 6:32-34, cf. Matt 5:46-47);
•    material found in Matthew but not in the Sermon on the Mount (e.g. Luke 6:39, cf. Matt 15:14);
•    some unique material (e.g. Luke 6:24-26).
Even where the two are superficially very similar, the underlying Greek can be quite different, with quite similar ideas expressed in a completely different fashion. If the two describe the same event, then they are paraphrasing Jesus’ words in very different ways. All of which suggests that the two sermons arose independently, rather than by simple copying, but from a common basis. Yet this observation alone provides no clue whether the envisaged proto-outline was in the mind of Jesus, or an extant record of some simpler sermon, circulating amongst his disciples.
Significantly, with the exception of the Golden Rule, the ordering of the common material is precisely that required to support the Sermon on the Mount’s exposition of the Ten Commandments, a situation unlikely to have arisen outside that context. Moreover, in terms of their relationship to the Matthean order, the re-ordering found in the Sermon on the Plain provides a chiastic framing for the Golden Rule, the only section significantly displaced from its Matthean order (see ‘Visual summary of parallel passages’ below)
At least in terms of the Beatitudes, Vermes (2004, 312), commenting on the suggestion that both sets originated in the same saying, concludes that “the more reasonable view is that at least in part Luke and Matthew may reflect two versions both of which originated with Jesus.”
Mark Matson (2004) notes how some of the more recent solutions to the synoptic problem require the independence of Matthew and Luke, whilst arguing that it is reasonable to consider that Luke may have been aware of both Matthew and Mark and that he chose to select material from both to meet his particular editorial requirements.
In comparing the Sermon on the Mount with the Sermon on the Plain one can sense that the latter addresses a more difficult situation. Talk of real physical problems replaces talk of their spiritual or abstract equivalents and those who would borrow from you have become those who steal from you (see notes below). Moreover, whilst  the Sermon on the Mount deals with attitudes to enemies and generosity of spirit under the banner of obeying the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Plain makes these its main focus. Hence the Sermon on the Mount has the feel of being a presentation of foundational teaching, whilst the Sermon on the Plain feels much more like a context specific application of it.
In considering the differences between Matthew and Luke, the political implications should not be overlooked. The two Gospel writers addressed very different constituencies. With Matthew keen to play up the role of Jesus as Messiah the Sermon on the Mount was an ideal introduction to Jesus teaching that keyed into Jewish nationalistic aspirations. Luke, being astute enough to anticipate the potential impact of presenting Roman officialdom with such a subversive political statement, but wishing to avoid the charge of serious omission, had every reason to find an alternative way to present the Sermon on the Mount’s sayings. That he could reasonably have done by cherry-picking them from other, less politically charged, occasions on which Jesus re-used his material.
3. The context
Attempting to produce a Gospel Harmony suggests Luke sets the Sermon on the Plain somewhat later than Matthew sets the Sermon on the Mount (for more on this see The Emmaus View).
As its customary title suggests, Luke’s Sermon was delivered after Jesus descended to a level place (Luke 6:16-17). However, the word τόπος (topos) more usually signifies a generic place, e.g.  Matt 14:35; Luke 2:7; 14:22; John 11:48; Rom 9:26; John 20:25,  or an isolated place, e.g. Matt 14:13, 15; Mark 1:35, 45; 6:31, 32, 35; Luke 4:42; 9:12 (Swanson 1997, GGK5536). Its translation as plain in this case is something of an inference from the fact that Jesus has just come down from an ὄρος (oros), the same word used in Matt 5.1.
Jesus, having spent a night of prayer on a mountain, chooses twelve disciples (Luke 6:12-16, cf. Mark 3:13-19), after which -
6:17 “He came down with them, and stood on a level place, with a crowd of his disciples, and a great number of the people from all Judea and Jerusalem, and the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, who came to hear him and to be healed of their diseases; 6:18 as well as those who were troubled by unclean spirits, and they were being healed. 6:19 All the multitude sought to touch him, for power came out from him and healed them all.”
(Luke 6:17-19 WEB)
It is notable that the Sermon on the Mount presents Jesus’ saying concerning those who call him Lord, Lord, but then don’t obey him (Matt 7:21) as a warning of a path not to pursue. In the Sermon on the Plain, the corresponding saying (Luke 6:46) is presented as an accusation against those who have already pursued such a path. This is in keeping both with the sense of conflict we find in Luke preceding the Sermon on the Plain (Luke 5:29,  6:11) and with that incident having a later setting.
4. Summary of parallel passages
The mappings of parallel passages between the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain are summarised visually below. This shows the associations 'in-situ' and, as the same information is effectively repeated in an alternate fashion later on, those with non-visual browsers may wish to skip this section. The colours are assigned uniquely, rather than in pairs, as below)
Sermon on the Mount
Matt 5:1-7:27.
Ch 5: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39a, 39b, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 Ch 6: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 Ch 7: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27.
Sermon on the Plain
Luke 6:20-49.
Ch 6:20a, 20b, 21a, 21b, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35a, 35b, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45a, 45b, 46, 47, 48, 49.
The relative locations of parallel passages in the two sermons are of great interest, for the re-organisation required to derive the shared material in the Sermon on the Plain from the Sermon on the Mount follows a chiastic pattern, except in the removal of the Golden Rule firmly to its centre.
A1, Matt 5:3
B1, Matt 5:4
C1, Matt 5:6
D1, Matt 5:11-12
E1, Matt 5:39-40, 42
F1, Matt 5:44
F2, Matt 5:45
E2, Matt 5:46-48
D2, Matt 7:1-5
GR, Matt 7:12
C2, Matt 7:16
B2, Matt 7:17
A2, Matt 7:18
H, Matt 7:21
I, Matt 7:24-27
A1, Luke 6:20b
C1, Luke 6:21a
B1, Luke 6:21b
D1, Luke 6:22-23
F1, Luke 6:27-28
E1, Luke 6:29-30
GR, Luke 6:31
E2, Luke 6:32-35a
F2, Luke 6:35b
D2, Luke 6:37-38, 41-42
B2, Luke 6:43
C2, Luke 6:44
A2, Luke 6:45a
H, Luke 6:46
I, Luke 6:47-49


This chiastic pattern of mappings may be summarised as follows:
•    Luke 6:20-21 takes Matt 5:6 and inserts it amidst Matt 5:3-4
o    Luke 6:22-23 is in the same order as Matt 5:11-12
    Luke 6:27-28, 29-30 reverses the order of Matt 5:39-42, 44
    Luke 6:31 completely relocates Matt 7:12
    Luke 6:32-35 reverses the order of Matt 5:45, 46-48
o    Luke 6:37-8, 41-42 is in the same order as Matt 7:1-2, 3-5
•    Luke 6:43-45 takes Matt 7:16 and inserts it amidst Matt 7:17-18
•    Luke 6:46, 47-49 parallels Matt 7:21, 24-27
As the Sermon on the Plain contains relatively little material that has no parallel in the Sermon on the Mount, this chiastic pattern of derivation effectively defines the structure of the text in Luke. However, the derivation process is not commutative, the pattern of re-organisations required to arrive at the Sermon on the Mount from the Sermon on the Plain may start out following a chiastic pattern, but then fails to fulfill it, due both to the positioning of the Golden rule and the volume of additional unique material needed to ensure that all the latter five commandments are covered. It therefore seems extremely unlikely that the structure in Luke could, by coincidence and through such a tightly structured transformation, provide an appropriate framework for the complex and multi-layered structure of the Sermon on the Mount .
The existence of this one-way chiastic pattern of derivation, from Matthew to Luke, argues for the Sermon on the Plain being a derivative of the Sermon on the Mount or at least some Sermon on the Mount like template. Assuming that to be the case, the Sermon on the Plain begins to look like a reduced version of the Sermon on the Mount, re-formulated by Jesus for use on a later occasion and under conditions of intensifying opposition.
5. Section by section comparison
The following sections provide a detailed comparison of Sermon on the Mount with Sermon on the Plain.
Luke 6:20, beginning to teach
Luke 6:20 and its parallel in Matt 5:2 begin with completely different introductions, for Luke has “He lifted up his eyes to his disciples, and said” (Luke 6:20a WEB) and Matthew “He opened his mouth and taught them, saying” (Matt 5:2 WEB).
Luke 6:21-26, blessings and woes
Of the beatitudes in Matthew, the Sermon on the Plain has three that concern hardship (poverty, hunger and mourning) and none of those that focussed on positive character attributes (gentle, merciful, pure in heart, peace-making). Moreover, the beatitudes in Luke emphasise the physical rather than the spiritual. Thus Matthew’s “poor in spirit” (Matt 5:3) and “hunger and thirst after righteousness” (Matt 5:6) in Luke are simply “poor” (Luke 6:20) and “hunger now” (Luke 6:21). Matthew’s abstract concepts of mourning and comfort (Matt 5:4) become Luke’s concrete actions of weeping and laughter (Luke 6:22). Whilst the recipients of the blessings in Matthew’s Beatitudes potentially include those beyond his immediate audience (c.f. the use of theirs, αυτων), in Luke the recipients are the audience (c.f. the use of your, ὑμετέρα). It is notable that when Luke’s Gospel describes Jesus reading from Isaiah (Luke 4:18, cf. Isa 61:1) it uses the Septuagint’s πτωχοῖς (the same word used in James 2:2 and Gal 4:9). Matt 5:3uses the same word but qualifies it with “in spirit” so as to preserve the original meaning of Isaiah’s עָנָו. which carries the sense of humble as well as lowly and afflicted (as in Ps 10:12, Pr 16:19). 
In Matthew the beatitudes are entirely in the third person, which is normal for Jewish beatitudes (Beasley-Murray 1987, 159). However, Luke uses an unusual structure for his first three, starting them in the third person and ending them in the second (Beasley-Murray 1987, 159). The fourth is then entirely in the second person (Beasley-Murray 1987, 159), as is its equivalent in Matthew. Beasley-Murray (1987, 159) observes that “the question of whether the beatitudes were originally delivered in the second person, as in Luke, or in the third person, as in Matthew, has been debated at length”, before reviewing a little of that discussion and concluding that Luke has adapted his first three beatitudes to agree with the final one, but that they are found in their original form in Matthew.
Excepting the differences mentioned above, the Sermon on the Plain’s first beatitude,  “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God” (Luke 6:20b WEB), is very similar to the first in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:3). Luke then has two further beatitudes, their closest equivalents in Matthew being the fourth (Matt 5:6) and the second (Matt 5:4), in that order. Luke’s second beatitude, “Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be filled” (Luke 6:21a WEB) is again very similar to Matthew’s version except as mentioned above. The same is true for Luke’s third, “Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh” (Luke 6:21b WEB), although in this case, whilst the sentiments may be similar, the words are quite different. Weeping is a common enough Biblical synonym for mourning and laughter is the natural opposite suggested by Eccl 3:4. Moreover, when the captives return to Zion and those who sow in tears reap in joy (Ps 126:5), then, for those who marked their departure with tears (Jer 13:17), it is time for laughter (Ps 126:2).
Luke’s next two verses are
6:22 “Blessed are you when men shall hate you, and when they shall exclude and mock you, and throw out your name as evil, for the Son of Man’s sake.
6:23 Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven, for their fathers did the same thing to the prophets.”’
(Luke 6:22-23 WEB)
They carry similar sentiments in a similar order to Matt 5:11-12, but the underlying Greek is significantly different.
Luke follows his beatitudes with an equivalent set of woes, for which there is no equivalent in the Sermon on the Mount.
 6:24 “But woe to you who are rich!
 For you have received your consolation.
 6:25 Woe to you, you who are full now,
 for you will be hungry.
 Woe to you who laugh now,
 for you will mourn and weep.
 6:26 Woe, when men speak well of you,
 for their fathers did the same thing to the false prophets.”
(Luke 6:17-19 WEB)
Luke 6:27-30, love for enemies
The next section of the Sermon on the Plain again reverses the order of two passages as found in Matthew, for here the teaching on not resisting evil occurs after that on loving your neighbour. This is significant, for in Matthew it is important that the teaching on “eye for eye” (Matt 5:38-42) comes first, in order to establish the link between this teaching and the ninth commandment (Ex 20:16).
Unlike the Sermon on the Mount, the Sermon on the Plain is not trying to relate its teaching to the Law of Moses. Thus, Matthew’s “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.’” (Matt 5:43 WEB) is missing. However, Luke’s phrase, “But I tell you who hear: love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who mistreat you” (Luke 6:27-28 WEB), is very close to Matt 5:44, except Luke adds “who hear” and omits Matthew’s final “and persecute you.”
The Sermon on the Plain’s reversal of the antitheses’ order sees it move on to parallel part of Matt 5:38-41. Again the introductory link to the law, in this case “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, don’t resist him who is evil” (Matt 5:38-39a WEB), is missing. The two then fall into line with “To him who strikes you on the cheek, offer also the other; and from him who takes away your cloak, don’t withhold your coat also” (Luke 6:29 WEB, cf. Matt 5:39b-40). Matthew then has “Whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two” (Matt 5:41), which is missing from Luke. It is worth noting that a Roman soldier had the authority to compel a civilian to carry goods in such a manner. Thus, through this verse, the Sermon on the Mount explicitly recognises Rome as Israel’s persecutor. Luke, writing for a Roman audience, had good reason to omit this.
Both Luke 6:30 and Matt 5:42 start out in much the same fashion with
“Give to him who asks you” (Matt 5:42 WEB) gaining a couple of initial words to become
“Give to everyone who asks you” (Luke 6:30 WEB). However, The two verses then have different but similar conclusions.  Matthew has “and don’t turn away him who desires to borrow from you” (WEB), whilst Luke has “and don’t ask him who takes away your goods to give them back again” (WEB). The borrower of Matthew, has been replaced by the one who takes away.
Vermes (2004, 353) suggests that, whilst both passages stress modeling oneself on God, the emphasis in Matthew is on God’s active goodness and kindness to all humanity and the stress in Luke is on God’s disinterested love. I would prefer to see the contrast in emphasis as being between generosity in giving with compassion in judgement.
Luke 6:31, the Golden Rule
After paralleling extracts from Matt 5:38-44 one might expect the Sermon on the Plain to move on to parallel parts of Matt 5:45-48. However, it only does so after inserting an equivalent of the Golden Rule.
Luke’s “As you would like people to do to you, do exactly so to them” (Luke 6:31 WEB) is a close equivalent of Matthew’s “therefore whatever you desire for men to do to you, you shall also do to them” (Matt 7:12 WEB). The verse in Matthew, which functions as a concluding summary of Jesus’ teaching on the Ten Commandments, adds “for this is the Torah and the Prophets” (WEB), thereby clarifying its purpose. In the Sermon on the Plain the Golden Rule is not functioning as a summary but as a teaching point in its own right, so no such clarification is appropriate. 
Luke 6:32-35, on loving your enemies
After the Golden rule, the Sermon on the Plain again parallels part of the Sermon on the mount, but reversing the order found in the antitheses. Thus, the equivalent to Matt 5:46-48 occurs before the equivalent to Matt 5:45a.
Whilst the sentiments expressed and the form of individual statements are clearly similar to one another, the overall form of the Luke version of this teaching is quite different from that in Matthew. Luke has -
6:32 If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 
6:33 If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 
6:34 If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive back as much.
(Luke 6:32-34 WEB)
A three-fold repetition on loving, doing good and lending, with comparison against sinners. By contrast Matthew has
5:46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Don’t even the tax collectors do the same?
5:47 If you only greet your friends, what more do you do than others? Don’t even the tax collectors do the same?
(Matt 5:46-47 WEB)
A two-fold repetition based on loving and greeting, with comparison against tax collectors.
In Luke’s Sermon Jesus then summarises his points “But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing back; and your reward will be great” (Luke 6:35a WEB), whereas in Matthew’s Jesus qualifies what this will achieve; “Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect” (Matt 5:48 WEB).
The two then resort to a closer parallel, thanks to the reversal in order already mentioned. Thus, Luke has “and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind toward the unthankful and evil” (Luke 6:35b WEB). With Matthew giving “that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust” (Matt 5:45 WEB).
Once again the sentiment is consistent, but this time Luke’s is the more concise expression.
Luke 36-37, on judgement
After this third reversal of the the Matthean order, the order in Luke reverts again to agree with that in Matthew. Luke has
6:36 Therefore be merciful, even as your Father is also merciful.
6:37 Don’t judge, and you won’t be judged.
Don’t condemn, and you won’t be condemned.
Set free, and you will be set free
(Luke 6:36-37 WEB)
Whilst Matthew, lacking the reference to mercy, has
7:1 “Don’t judge, so that you won’t be judged.
7:2a For with whatever judgment you judge, you will be judged”
(Matt 7:1-2a WEB)
Luke 6:38a, “Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over, will be given to you” (WEB), has no equivalent in the Sermon on the Mount. However, it introduces Luke 6:38b, “For with the same measure you measure it will be measured back to you.” (WEB) which equates to Matt 7:2b, “and with whatever measure you measure, it will be measured to you” (WEB).
Luke 6:39, ‘He spoke a parable to them. “Can the blind guide the blind? Won’t they both fall into a pit?”’ (WEB), and Luke 6:40, “A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher” (WEB), have no equivalents in the Sermon on the Mount (though they find their parallels in Matt 15:14 and Matt 10:24-25 respectively)
Luke 6:41-42, the beam in the eye
This saying concerning the speck and the beam takes a form in Luke, that is very close to that in Matt 7:3-5. Luke has:
6:41 “Why do you see the speck of chaff that is in your brother’s eye, but don’t consider the beam that is in your own eye? 6:42 Or how can you tell your brother, ‘Brother, let me remove the speck of chaff that is in your eye,’ when you yourself don’t see the beam that is in your own eye? You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck of chaff that is in your brother’s eye.”
(Luke 6:41-42 WEB)
Whilst Matthew has:
7:3 “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but don’t consider the beam that is in your own eye? 7:4 Or how will you tell your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye;’ and behold, the beam is in your own eye? 7:5 You hypocrite! First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye.”
(Matt 7:3-5 WEB)
Luke 6:43-45, by their fruit
Luke 6:43’s “For there is no good tree that brings forth rotten fruit; nor again a rotten tree that brings forth good fruit”(WEB) is directly comparable to Matt 7:17’s “Even so, every good tree produces good fruit; but the corrupt tree produces evil fruit” (WEB).
In another minor reversal of order, Luke 6:44, “For each tree is known by its own fruit. For people don’t gather figs from thorns, nor do they gather grapes from a bramble bush” (WEB), is then close to Matt 7:16, “By their fruits you will know them. Do you gather,  grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?” (WEB). The sentiments of Luke 6:45a,“The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings out that which is good, and the evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings out that which is evil” (WEB), then echo those of Matt 7:18, “A good tree can’t produce evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree produce good fruit” (WEB), though a closer parallel with Luke’s full verse, including “for out of the abundance of the heart, his mouth speaks” (Luke 6:45b WEB), is found with Matt 12:35, 34.
Luke 6:46’s “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and don’t do the things which I say?” (WEB) is then a more succinct equivalent of Matt 7:21’s “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (WEB).
Luke 7:47-49, houses on rock and sand
The Sermon on the Plain finishes with the parable of two houses, i.e.
6:47 “Everyone who comes to me, and hears my words, and does them, I will show you who he is like. 6:48 He is like a man building a house, who dug and went deep, and laid a foundation on the rock. When a flood arose, the stream broke against that house, and could not shake it, because it was founded on the rock. 6:49 But he who hears, and doesn’t do, is like a man who built a house on the earth without a foundation, against which the stream broke, and immediately it fell, and the ruin of that house was great.”

(Luke 6:47-49 WEB)
Matthew has an equivalent, though differently worded, parable, as follows:

7:24 “Everyone therefore who hears these words of mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man, who built his house on a rock. 7:25 The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it didn’t fall, for it was founded on the rock. 7:26 Everyone who hears these words of mine, and doesn’t do them will be like a foolish man, who built his house on the sand. 7:27 The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it fell—and great was its fall."

9999999999999999999999999

What is the Sermon on the Plain?


 


by Luke Wayne
2/25/16

The Sermon on the Plain is the term used for the discourse Jesus gives in Luke 6:20-49. The content and the context of the sermon are strikingly similar to the "Sermon on the Mount" that comprises Matthew chapters 5-7. The similarities are striking enough that many commentators see these passages as reporting the same event, though others note that Jesus often preaches similar material on more than one occasion and that they could well be two similar sermons at different times. The fact that both Gospels place the discourse right before the healing of the centurion, however, seems to give much greater weight to the view that they are the same sermon.

The difference in the names comes from the fact that Matthew 5:1 describes the setting of Jesus' address by saying, "When Jesus saw the crowds, He went up on the mountain," (thus the sermon "on the mount"). Luke 6:17 sets up the scene saying, "Jesus came down with them and stood on a level place," (thus the sermon "on the plain" or "level place"). However, Luke 6:12 has already explained that they are indeed on a mountain, and the description of Jesus coming down to a level place implies a mountainous setting. Still, the Gospels are often not strictly chronological, and one need not insist that the sermons reported by Matthew and Luke are indeed the same sermon.

The Sermon on the Plain begins with a series of Beatitudes or statements of blessing. The blessings, however, are all upon the sort of people one would tend to think least to be blessed, such as the hungry, the grieving, and those who are hated and treated ill (Luke 6:20-22). Such are told to be glad, indeed to "leap for joy," not because the suffering itself is good, but because their reward will be great in heaven, with the encouraging reminder that the prophets themselves suffered these same things. (Luke 6:23). Luke reports these blessings more plainly and straightforwardly than Matthew does in the Sermon on the Mount (simply "poor" rather than "poor in spirit" and "hunger" rather than "hunger and thirst for righteousness," for example). Luke also includes a counter list of woes on those who are well fed, laughing now, and spoken well of (Luke 6:24-26) which Matthew did not include. The thrust of the passage, however, is the same. Jesus is explaining that God's blessing for those who follow Him will often mean suffering now, but glory and comfort in the Kingdom to come. Those who seek their comfort and pleasure in this life here and now may appear to be blessed, but in fact, they are to be pitied because in the age to come they will find nothing but weeping, suffering, and want.

Luke does not report Jesus' interpretation of the law, as Matthew does in 5:17-37. He reports the Lord's model prayer (Matthew 6:9-13) elsewhere in His gospel (Luke 11:1-4) rather than in this sermon. He does the same with Jesus' teachings on money (Matthew 6:19-24; Luke 12:22-34) the example of asking, seeking, and knocking (Matthew 7:7-11; Luke 11:9-13) and several other such sections. Likewise, Luke reports Jesus using the example of the blind guiding the blind here (Luke 6:39), where Matthew does not, though Matthew's gospel contains a similar teaching elsewhere (Matthew 15:14).

The Sermon on the Plain, like that on the Mount, proceeds from the Beatitudes to:
•Jesus' teaching on love and generous mercy toward enemies (Matthew 5:33-48; Luke 6:27-36).
•His instructions on proper judgment (Matthew 7:1-2; Luke 6:37-38).
•The example of the speck in your neighbor's eye and the log in your own, (Matthew 7:3-5; Luke 6:41-42).
•The analogy of the tree and the fruit (Matthew 7:15-20, Luke 6:43-45).
•The warning about saying "Lord, Lord" and not doing what Jesus says (Matthew 7:21-23; Luke 6:46).
•The closing illustration of the two foundations (Matthew 7:24-27, Luke 6:47-49).

Historically, the "Sermon on the Plain" passage has received far less attention by commentators and theologians than the "Sermon on the Mount" in Matthew. Luke's reporting of this sermon, however, brings powerful insights that Matthew's does not, and is just as striking a presentation of Jesus' teachings to his disciples. It was given by the same Holy Spirit and deserves to be read just as carefully and frequently. It has tremendous value on its own right, and in conjunction with the material in Matthew, it helps the Christian reader draw out a deeper and fuller understanding of Jesus' words, which is certainly why the Spirit of God inspired the writing of both of these parallel passages.