Two Visions of Blessing: Comparing Matthew and Luke's Beatitudes

A scholarly edition of this page, including full Chicago-style citations and a complete bibliography, is available in the Downloads section.

The Beatitudes are best known from the Gospel of Matthew, where they form the opening of the Sermon on the Mount. But Matthew is not the only evangelist to preserve this remarkable teaching. The Gospel of Luke offers a parallel—and in many ways more provocative—version in what is often called the "Sermon on the Plain."

Both texts begin with Jesus looking at his disciples and pronouncing blessing. But from there, they diverge in tone, structure, and theological emphasis. Understanding these differences reveals not contradictions but complementary visions: two voices singing in harmony but not unison, each addressing different aspects of what it means to live as citizens of God's kingdom.

In a world that needs both inner transformation and outer justice, these twin accounts suggest we are not meant to choose between spiritual formation and social action. Perhaps we are meant to live them both.

Setting the Scene: Mountain vs. Plain

The physical settings already hint at the theological differences to come:

Matthew 5:1-12: Jesus "went up the mountain" and taught the crowds from this elevated position. This deliberately evokes Moses receiving the Law on Mount Sinai, positioning Jesus as a new lawgiver who fulfills rather than abolishes the Torah. The mountain setting emphasizes continuity with Jewish tradition and the transcendent nature of the teaching—a lofty, theological perspective that lifts the mind toward eternal truths.

Luke 6:17-26: Jesus "came down with them and stood on a level place" (ἐπὶ τόπου πεδινοῦ). The setting is intentionally egalitarian, almost democratically so. Luke emphasizes that Jesus positions himself among the people—"a great crowd of his disciples and a great multitude of people from all Judea, Jerusalem, and the coast of Tyre and Sidon." This grounded setting signals Luke's concern with embodied social realities rather than abstract spiritual principles.

Some scholars note that this contrast may be more literary and theological than strictly topographical—both evangelists shape their geographical details to serve their larger narrative purposes. Matthew's "mountain" functions as a recurring motif for divine revelation throughout his Gospel, while Luke's "plain" reinforces his consistent portrayal of Jesus as the friend of ordinary people.

Structure: Eight Blessings vs. Four Blessings + Four Woes

The structural differences reveal each Gospel's distinct emphases:

Luke's symmetrical structure—blessings paired with corresponding woes—follows the classic prophetic pattern found throughout Hebrew Scripture (cf. Isaiah 5, Amos 6:1). This reinforces that Jesus stands in the tradition of the Hebrew prophets, offering not just comfort but critique. The woes aren't afterthoughts but integral to Luke's understanding that the kingdom of God involves reversal of current power structures.

Matthew's structure may reflect a chiastic literary design, with the eight beatitudes forming an inclusio that brackets the larger Sermon on the Mount. This suggests a more systematic theological presentation, fitting Matthew's concern with Jesus as teacher and interpreter of divine law.

Key Textual Differences: What Do They Reveal?

"Poor" vs. "Poor in Spirit"

This represents the most significant interpretive divide:

• Matthew: Blessed are the poor in spirit (οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι)
• Luke: Blessed are you who are poor (οἱ πτωχοί)

The phrase "poor in spirit" appears to be Matthew's theological expansion of an originally simpler saying. Most Q source reconstructions suggest the earliest version likely read "Blessed are the poor," which Matthew adapted for his audience's spiritual concerns while Luke preserved more literally.

Matthew's "spiritualization" isn't necessarily a dilution—it connects poverty to humility and openness to God, aligning with Hebrew traditions that honor the anawim (humble poor) who depend entirely on divine mercy. Luke's version maintains the stark economic reality, fitting his Gospel's broader emphasis on wealth redistribution and justice for the marginalized (cf. Luke 1:53, 4:18-19, 16:19-31).

"Hunger and Thirst for Righteousness" vs. "Hungry Now"

The differences continue:

• Matthew: Those who hunger and thirst for righteousness
• Luke: Blessed are you who are hungry now

Matthew's dikaiosynē (righteousness) is rich with meaning—it can signify personal virtue, social justice, or covenantal faithfulness, but it clearly points beyond physical need to spiritual longing. Luke again keeps the focus concrete and immediate: he blesses the materially hungry and, in his corresponding woe, condemns those who are currently well-fed.

This difference reflects each Gospel's understanding of how the kingdom addresses human need. Matthew emphasizes ethical transformation; Luke emphasizes economic reversal.

The Woes: Luke's Prophetic Balance

Luke's four woes mirror his four blessings, creating a structure reminiscent of Deuteronomic blessings and curses:

1. "Woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation"
2. "Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry"
3. "Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep"
4. "Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is what their ancestors did to the false prophets"

These woes echo the Hebrew prophets' practice of naming not only the blessed but the deluded—those whose comfort blinds them to God's preferred future. The absence of these woes in Matthew doesn't indicate theological disagreement but different pastoral emphases. Matthew reserves his sharpest critiques for religious hypocrisy later in his Gospel, while Luke integrates social critique directly into the Beatitudes themselves.

Theological Emphases: Two Lenses on the Same Kingdom

The differences between Matthew and Luke reflect distinct but complementary theological perspectives:

Audience and Context

These differences likely reflect the distinct early Christian communities each evangelist addressed:

Matthew probably wrote for primarily Jewish-Christian readers concerned with how Jesus' teaching related to Torah and traditional spiritual formation. His version emphasizes continuity with Jewish wisdom while showing how Jesus' interpretation transcends that of contemporary religious leaders.

Luke likely addressed a mixed or Gentile-Christian audience in urban settings, emphasizing social ethics and the inclusion of outsiders. His version makes Jesus' message immediately relevant to questions of wealth, poverty, and social justice that would concern Greco-Roman converts.

Both audiences needed to hear about God's kingdom, but each required different emphasis: Matthew shows what the kingdom looks like in the soul; Luke shows what it means for society.

Historical Development and Source Criticism

Modern scholarship suggests both Gospels draw from an earlier sayings source (often called Q), with each evangelist adapting this material for theological and pastoral purposes. The differences aren't corruptions of an original text but faithful interpretations of Jesus' teaching for different contexts.

Some scholars (following Crossan and Borg) argue that Luke's more concrete version likely stands closer to the historical Jesus, who addressed real economic conditions in first-century Palestine. Others (following Davies and Allison) suggest that Jesus' teaching always included both spiritual and material dimensions, with each Gospel emphasizing different aspects of this unified vision.

The form-critical background reveals that makarisms (blessing formulas) were common in Second Temple Judaism, appearing throughout the Psalms and in texts from Qumran. Both evangelists work within established Jewish literary traditions while adapting them to proclaim Jesus' distinctive message.

Reception History: From Spirituality to Social Justice

The reception of these twin versions reveals how different Christian communities have emphasized different aspects of Jesus' teaching:

Patristic and Medieval Commentary: Matthew's version dominated Western spiritual formation, with church fathers like Augustine and Chrysostom developing elaborate interpretations of the "spiritual" beatitudes. Monastic traditions built their formation programs around Matthew's emphasis on inner virtue.

Modern Social Justice Movements: Luke's version has gained prominence in liberation theology, Catholic social teaching, and contemporary movements for economic justice. The preferential option for the poor draws heavily on Luke's stark economic language.

Contemporary Integration: Modern scholars increasingly recognize that both versions are needed for complete Christian discipleship. The spiritual formation emphasized by Matthew requires the social engagement demanded by Luke, and vice versa.

Living Both Visions Today

Rather than choosing between Matthew's spiritual focus and Luke's social emphasis, contemporary readers might ask: How do we cultivate both the inner transformation that Matthew celebrates and the social commitment that Luke demands?

The Poor in Spirit Who Are Actually Poor: Many of those whom Matthew calls "poor in spirit"—the humble, the teachable, the spiritually hungry—are also materially poor. Both versions speak to their condition, promising both divine comfort and social reversal.

Inner Change and Outer Action: Authentic spiritual formation (Matthew's concern) naturally leads to social engagement (Luke's emphasis). Those who truly hunger and thirst for righteousness cannot remain indifferent to injustice.

Personal Virtue and Systemic Change: The character transformation that Matthew describes creates people capable of the social transformation that Luke envisions. Pure hearts see clearly enough to work for justice; peacemakers address both personal conflict and structural violence.

A Polyphonic Gospel

These aren't competing versions but complementary voices in what we might call a "polyphonic Gospel"—multiple melodies that create richer harmony together than either achieves alone. In our complex world, we need both:

• The spiritual depth that sustains long-term commitment to justice
• The social analysis that prevents spirituality from becoming escapism
• The inner transformation that changes how we see others
• The structural change that addresses root causes of suffering
• The comfort that healing is possible
• The challenge that comfortable assumptions must be questioned

The early Christian movement preserved both versions not as an oversight but as wisdom. They recognized that the kingdom of God requires both changed hearts and changed systems, both personal virtue and social justice, both receiving divine comfort and working for human dignity.

In reading Matthew and Luke together, we discover that the question isn't which version is "correct" but how we can live both faithfully—receiving the kingdom as gift while working to make it visible in our world.

References and Further Reading

Primary Sources

• The New Testament: New Revised Standard Version, Matthew 5:1-12; Luke 6:17-26

Major Commentaries

• Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 1-7: A Commentary. Hermeneia Series. Fortress Press, 2007.
• Davies, W.D. and Allison, Dale C. Matthew (Vol. 1). ICC Series. T&T Clark, 2004.
• Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. NICNT Series. Eerdmans, 1997.
• Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Gospel of Luke. Sacra Pagina Series. Liturgical Press, 1991.
• Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Eerdmans, 2009.

Source Criticism and Q Studies

• Kloppenborg, John S. Q, the Earliest Gospel. Westminster John Knox, 2008.
• Robinson, James M., Hoffmann, Paul, and Kloppenborg, John S. The Critical Edition of Q. Fortress Press, 2000.

Historical Jesus Studies

• Crossan, John Dominic. The Birth of Christianity. HarperOne, 1998.
• Borg, Marcus J. Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary. HarperOne, 2006.
• Sanders, E.P. Jesus and Judaism. Fortress Press, 1985.

Theological and Social Interpretation

• González, Justo L. Luke: The Gospel of the Outcast. Orbis Books, 2002.
• Pennington, Jonathan T. The Sermon on the Mount and Human Flourishing. Baker Academic, 2017.
• Luz, Ulrich. Matthew in History: Interpretation, Influence, and Effects. Fortress Press, 1994.

Comparative and Cultural Studies

• Levine, Amy-Jill. The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus. HarperOne, 2006.
• Malina, Bruce J. and Rohrbaugh, Richard L. Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels. Fortress Press, 2003.

Contemporary Applications

• Stassen, Glen H. Living the Sermon on the Mount. Jossey-Bass, 2006.
• Hauerwas, Stanley. The Sermon on the Mount: A Theological Interpretation. Baylor University Press, 2006.
• Allison, Dale C. Jr. The Sermon on the Mount: Inspiring the Moral Imagination. Yale University Press, 1999.