# The Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain



## Eoghan

I am interested in knowing if there is a tradition that these were two separate events, Luke back down the mountain and Mathew prior to that with the disciples.

One observation of note reinforcing the distinction is that Jesus sits to teach in Mathew (rabbinic practice) but stands in Luke (


----------



## KMK

If I remember right, I think Bullinger states that they were two separate events in his Companion Bible. He also believed there were two cleansings of the Temple.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I can't imagine why we should think they were the same event, other than that a few of Jesus' teachings are essentially the same in each.

On the basis of that rather minor similarity, some interpreters would have us ignore the variable settings, ignore the differences in the presentations, and just assume that one or the other of the gospels have the facts wrong, or that both Gospels just contain fiction based on some vague traditions standing behind the text produced much later, in different places by different men standing in different streams of tradition-development.

If we pause for a moment and consider just how many different places Jesus preached within the Galilean and Judean territories, and even further afield in places like Perea and Tyre and Sidon where we know Jesus traveled--unless we think that Jesus preached a unique message in each place, why wouldn't we think that his teaching in Capernaum was similar to teaching nearby in Bethsaida? Or that he spoke a Sermon on a Mount, and one with comparable content on a plain, on another day?

What if, say, Luke writing a later gospel-version, and possibly having Matthew's on hand (certainly a narrative "set in order"), intends to convey just this fact by representing Jesus in a different setting than Matthew's but preaching on the same themes? Jay Adams, discussing preaching, marvels at how facile many commentators are (who often aren't preachers); it seems to have completely slipped their minds (especially the liberal-types) that itinerant preachers usually have a basic set of ideas that they present in different places.

And not preachers alone. Anyone watch the news these days? In the US election-season is in full swing. If you've heard one stump-speech, you've heard them all. Sure, the order may vary, and in Detroit there's one message for the corporatists, and one for the unionists; and there's something to emphasize in Columbus, OH that is different from what one emphasizes in Columbia, SC. But the message is fairly consistent, place to place. _Of course, I'd argue that the message is also fairly consistent whether the speaker is Obamney or Ryden, but that's a digression..._

My point is: the two Gospels present Jesus' message in two distinct contexts; and one either takes that detail seriously or doesn't; and among those that do, either it indicates that Jesus really was an itinerant who got around and the record reflects that accurately, or it indicates that the Gospel writers are inventors of fables. Take your pick.


----------



## Eoghan

It would appear that the differences are not quite as great as might appear at first. 
[*Mathew 5:1 probably does not mean “up a mountain” or “to a mountain” or “onto a mountainside” but simply “into the hill country”; and interestingly pedinos in Luke 6:17, usually rendered “plain,”commonly refers to a plateau in mountainous regions.* 
p43 Exegetical Fallacies, D.A. Carson, 2nd edition.]

The healing of the centurion's son immediately after both Mark and Luke places these events together, either as the same event from different perspectives or contiguous. (In my humble opinion)


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Mt.5:1 reads, "He *went up* on a mountain... and ,when he _sat down..._" and 8:1 reads, "When he *came down* from the mountain."

Compare to Lk.6:17 (before the speech), "He *came down* and _stood_ on a level place." Just before that moment, v12, "he went out to the _mountain_." The question isn't simply what a particular word (mountain/ or plain) might be stretched to include. We also have contrary directions of movement, and variable posture. There are unique intentions by the authors in recording these details.

For my part, I cannot see how these two are anything other than different moments, however close they could have been; or else either or both writers "made up" a setting for the speech(es). Back in the 1980s, Robert Gundry wrote an evangelical commentary in which he proposed that Matthew injected an artificial setting (howbeit a theological setting) in which Jesus "replicates" Moses' ascent up Sinai. In other words, to his mind Matthew uses a literary device, but there's nothing historic _per se_ about geography around Jesus. Gundry was expelled from the Evangelical Theological Society over this issue.

Honestly, I'm not interested in "dying on this hill" (to use a martial metaphor). It is perfectly fine with me if someone wants to argue that these two reports are the same event from different perspectives. However, I would protest an assertion that opposing such interpretation is stubborn, or anti-intellectual, or myopic.

Personally, I'm convinced that Luke (the later writer) is perfectly familiar with the Matthean rendition of our Lord's typical preaching. And it is Luke's intent to show the Lord in another setting conducting his ministry, not to slavishly reproduce Matthew's account. It is hard to explain Luke's explicit contrary description (going down and standing up) unless he meant to convey this variation.

It should also be recognized that neither author intends his account to be _the definitive chronological_ presentation. There is no question but that a general chronology governs all the Gospel accounts, from John the Baptist to the death/resurrection of Christ. The structure of Matthew's gospel is far more important to his presentation than chronology, with extended teaching blocs alternating with extended acting blocs from start to finish. Luke the historian (we might think) has a greater interest in sequential narrative, but again he does not slavishly follow such a rule.

What this admission recognizes is that the story of the Centurion's servant's healing, following both reports, is no indication that they each refer to the same teaching-moment. For one thing, Matthew inserts another healing between the end of the sermon ("Build on the Rock") and the Centurion's incident; and before that he speaks of the effect of Jesus' teaching on the multitudes. Luke goes straight from a similar ending to the Centurion's incident.

It seems more than mildly plausible to infer that Matthew records Jesus going up into the Galilean hills to teach, which generally happened in more than one locale (cf. Mk.1:38-39), besides giving us a rather full exemplar of Jesus' teaching; while Luke records something nearer to Jesus' coming back home into the region of Capernaum, and much abbreviates the form of Jesus' teaching. And, following one particular itinerancy, Jesus was approached by the Centurion's representatives regarding his servant. All real difficulty dissolves with this interpretation.


----------



## jambo

I have always treated them as two separate events. What preacher hasn't preached the same sermon twice although it is never exactly the same?


----------



## A5pointer

Case for one event, Jesus on a mountain as the true law giver, on a plain as Luke is more concerned with the poor and disenfranchised? Do we need to fear authorial license to emphasize a theme?


----------

