*Harmony of the "Beatitudes" in Matthew and Luke*

There are multiple examples in the different Gospel books where stories and/or teachings are recounted with slight differences. Sometimes the differences are merely a matter of perspective and style. An example would be if one writer wrote that there was one angel at a given scene and another writer wrote that there were two angels there. The writer who wrote that there was one may have only mentioned the one because it was one that spoke. He may have written that there was only one even if there were a dozen. Some of these differences arise from the style and emphasis in the original language. English often has difficulty including these particulars.

Other times differences in passages occur because the context of the stories and/or teachings is unclear. Jesus traveled and taught His disciples for around three years. This was not merely a full-time job during those years, it was a 24-7 life mission and example. It is more than just likely that Jesus would have taught very similar messages at multiple times throughout His ministry. Think about how many sermons you've heard or books you've read on the Great Commission, or the Lord's Prayer, or the Easter story. Many scholars believe that these two accounts of the "Beatitudes" in Matthew and Luke are an instance of Jesus giving a similar teaching at different times in His ministry. The value in the messages comes not from criticizing the differences, but in emphasizing the truths of each and the truths to which they both attest. [*"beatitude" means a state of utmost bliss and often refers to the declarations made in Matthew 5:3-11 wherein the means to this blissful state are given by Jesus.]

D. Bonhoeffer gives an example of this in respect to the first beatitude when he relays,

There is no justification whatever for setting Luke's version of the beatitudes over against Matthew's. Matthew is not spiritualizing the beatitudes, and Luke giving them in their original form, nor is Luke giving a political twist to an original form of the beatitude which applied only to a poverty of disposition . . .. Both gospels recognize that neither privation nor renunciation, spiritual or political, is justified, except by the call and promise of Jesus, who alone makes blessed those whom he calls and who is in his person the sole ground of the beatitude . . .. But in both cases the error lies in looking for some kind of human behaviour as the ground for the beatitude instead of the call and promise of Jesus alone. (Cost of Discipleship, 106)

[*"privation" means being deprived of physical needs, a.k.a. poor in a physical sense; "renunciation" means giving up needs voluntarily, a.k.a. poor in a more spiritual sense]