“Luke’s Beatitudes” on Luke 6:17-26 by Joe Ellis — February 16, 2025

We have four different Gospels in the New Testament and each Gospel paints for us a faithful picture of the life of Jesus. Yet, like any portrait artist, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John each bring out different aspects of their subject based on what they deem to be most important. On the one hand, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John have a very complementary view of Jesus. They all tell the same story, but they tell the same story with striking differences. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John don’t feel the need to slavishly tell precisely the same story. To do so would make the Gospels seem more like highly regulated propaganda than the works of art that each Gospel is in itself. Yes, each portrait of Jesus has its own life based on what each artist sees in the life of the subject, who is Jesus.

The different concerns of the artists really come into play when you look at material that is really quite similar across Gospels. There are some places where the Gospels are exactly alike — they are either borrowing from Mark (the first Gospel that was written), or some other source, and leaving it unchanged. But in other places the portrait artist is making some changes. Not because he’s rewriting history, but because he wants to bring something different to your attention. Take the passage we just read in Luke. It is quickly apparent that Luke’s passage is similar to the section in Matthew’s Gospel that we call the Beatitudes.

There is of course a difference in setting — in Matthew, Jesus relates the Beatitudes on the side of a mountain, and then he launches into his “Sermon on the Mount.” The detail about it being on a mountain was important for Matthew because he was concerned about drawing parallels between Jesus and Moses. Just as Moses gave the law on Mount Sinai, Jesus also went up the mountain to give the new law. In Luke, Jesus comes down from a mountain and gives the sermon on the plain, or a flat piece of land. Don’t let this threaten you too much, wondering if this calls into question the historical reality of the Gospels — Jesus probably preached similar sermons in multiple locations. It is certainly possible that Jesus preached a sermon on the side of a hill or mountain, and a similar sermon on a plateau. The Mount Sinai and Moses connection was important for what Matthew wanted to highlight in the story of Jesus — hence the Sermon on the Mount.

The differences between Matthew and Luke go beyond the simple setting. In Matthew, there are nine Beatitudes. Luke only has four beatitudes — which are followed by four woes. You may have noticed that in Luke the blessings and the woes complement each other. The first blessing blesses the poor, whereas the first woe is a woe to the rich (the poor’s antitype). Matthew and Luke both have Jesus start out with Beatitudes before Jesus moves into the sermon that we are most familiar with in Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount.

Despite the differences in Matthew and Luke, in both sets of Beatitudes Jesus is saying “these are the type of people who are going to fill up My Kingdom.” And, really, that’s the main point of Jesus’ “Sermon on the Mount” in both Gospels — His Kingdom is full of people who love their enemies, people who do good to those who hate them, people who bless those who curse them, people who pray for those who mistreat them. People who know how to turn the other cheek instead of hitting back. In both Matthew and Luke, Jesus describes His Kingdom as full of those who welcome and love the stranger, lend without expecting return, refrain from judgment and condemnation; forgive sacrificially. In both Matthew and Luke, Jesus describes the people who will populate his new Kingdom as people who bear good fruit. People who listen to Jesus’ words and who have built their house upon the rock. Throughout the sermon, Jesus is describing the sort of people who will live in His Kingdom. Yet despite having a goal of describing similar things, Matthew and Luke do give us a different picture of the people Jesus describes as filling up His Kingdom.

Throughout the Beatitudes in Matthew, Jesus mostly describe the actions or disposition of a person who is blessed. The Beatitudes in Matthew describe people who are poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, those who are merciful, who are pure in heart, the peacemakers, the persecuted.

But in Luke’s Beatitudes, we meet a different (for the most part) sort of people who are welcomed into the Kingdom. This will become most clear when you see Matthew and Luke side by side.

In Matthew, Jesus says: “Blessed are the poor in spirit.”

In Luke Jesus says, “Blessed are the poor.”

Notice the difference. In Matthew, Jesus is talking about something close to a personal disposition, and in Luke, Jesus seems to be describing an economic reality.

In Matthew, Jesus says, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.”

In Luke, Jesus says, “Blessed are those who hunger.”

In Matthew Jesus is talking about a personal disposition, someone who is hungry to see God’s justice. Whereas in Luke, Jesus is talking about someone who is just hungry for a meal. Fairly different.

In Luke, Jesus then says “Blessed are you who weep, and blessed are you when men hate you, and exclude you, and revile you, and cast you out.”

Both of these blessings are similar to what we have in Matthew — but the way Jesus frames the first two Beatitudes frames how we hear the second two Beatitudes in Luke — that is, when you hear Jesus in Luke, you wonder if people are weeping because they are poor and hungry. That is, their economic conditions bring them to weeping. Whereas in Matthew, there may be more of a sense of mourning for the state of the people of God.

There are incredibly strong reasons (that I don’t have time to go into here) why the arguments that say ‘we can’t know what Jesus said, or that who Jesus really was is lost to us because his story was taken over by the church which said whatever they wanted about Jesus’....those arguments do not hold water. The Gospels give us an incredibly faithful picture of the historical Jesus. Quickly, there are a lot of stories in the Gospels that it would have been far easier for the early Church if those stories never existed. But the main point here is that Matthew and Luke, like any good portrait artist, are drawing our attention to see different realities about the subject of their painting. So they are differences in the Beatitudes.

Of course, yes, there are definitely overlaps between the ‘Blesseds’ in Matthew and the ‘Blesseds’ in Luke — but there are also some significant differences. Unlike Matthew’s Beatitudes (which mainly gives us a picture of the type of people who will flourish in God’s Kingdom), in the ‘Woes” verses in Luke, Jesus gives us a picture of the type of people who won’t flourish in the Kingdom.

To contrast his blessings on the poor, Jesus says, “Woe to you who are rich, you have received your consolation.”

To contrast the blessings on the hungry, Jesus says, “Woe to you that are full now, for you shall hunger.”

To contrast blessings on those who weep, Jesus says, “Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep.”

To contrast the blessing on the hated, Jesus says, “Woe to you, when men speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.” Again, this seems to be a contrast of economic realities — the people who are high on the hog now will be soon trampled underfoot.

Speaking personally, I feel like Luke’s Beatitudes are a bit more revolutionary than Matthew’s (although the difference may be more apparent than actual). In Luke we have the economically poor receiving the Kingdom, and the rich being cast aside. This feels like an upending of the class structure. This might feel like something out of the French Revolution. The hungry are satisfied, and the ones who have gorged themselves learn what hunger feels like. Those who were previously weeping over their circumstances, now know what it is to laugh. And those who were laughing, discover what it is to mourn and weep. Again, in the context, this seems like laughing and weeping have everything to do with economic realities. And then there is that final woe: “Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you,” for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.” The only thing in store for the popular — is woe.

Luke’s Beatitudes are good news for the losers in history, the deported, the refugees, the poor, the marginalized, the defrauded, the ridiculed, the discarded, the hated. Good news for them — they come out on top. It’s not immediately apparent that these Beatitudes are good news for us who aren’t poor, hungry, weeping or rejected. This is unsettling for wealthy Christians (which compared to the majority of the world, we are wealthy). We don’t as readily find ourselves in this list. Perhaps it is easier to find ourselves in Jesus’ Beatitudes in Matthew: I can be poor in spirit, I can hunger and thirst for God’s justice, I can be a peacemaker. But in Luke Jesus says, “Blessed are the poor.” Does that mean I should sell all I have and give to the poor — so as to be poor myself? “Blessed are the hungry.” Generally, I’m not hungry unless I’m intermittent fasting because I just listened to an Andrew Huberman podcast and want to try it out for the health benefits.

Jesus is not speaking directly to us. We are on the outside listening in as He proclaims a powerful word of encouragement to those who find themselves on the losing side of history. You who are poor, you who are hungry, you who are weeping, you who are hated — the Kingdom of God is for you! Us Western Christians, who enjoy living in a world class economic and health care system, we are on the outside of this conversation listening in. There are certainly times when many of us painfully identify with those who Jesus identifies as blessed. So I’m painting with a broad brush here. Yet, broadly speaking, as Christians living in one of the richest nations of the world, we are far more likely to align with the woefully rich, well fed, laughing and well-liked — than we are with the blessed poor, hungry, weeping and hated.

And at this point, our natural reactions, that are less than helpful, are to squirm, feel bad about ourselves, get defensive, or try to squeeze ourselves into being a part of the blessed poor, hungry, weeping and hated. Should we be sombre Christians and never laugh? Should not accumulate wealth? How far should we go? Should the whole family should share one toothbrush? Should try and be as contrarian as we can and take it as a matter of pride when the rest of society thinks Christians are nuts?

The way I just set that up invites us to laugh and say no, but then what do we do when we hear Jesus say to the rich young man in Matthew 19:21, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” Or in Mark 8:38, “If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when He comes in His Father’s glory with the holy angels.” Maybe the main invitation here is for us is to sit with this tension. But let me resolve this tension a bit for us. Poverty is not good. True poverty is evil. To make an obvious point, a missionary who preached it was good that children had bloated stomachs because of malnutrition, of course, is not a good thing — that would be a most profound abuse of this passage.

In fact, Jesus says that the poor are blessed not because they are poor, but that they will be rich in His Kingdom! The hungry are blessed not because they are hungry — but because the Kingdom is for them, and when the Kingdom fully comes to Earth, the hungry will be satisfied. The weeping are not blessed because they are weeping, as if weeping is somehow good. The weeping are blessed because when the Kingdom comes, they will be filled with laughter.

Jesus is saying, “I see you! Now is not forever! You will not be forever poor, hungry, weeping or hated. The Kingdom is for you and it will get better.” Jesus then points to those who are rich, full, laughing and well-liked — And I believe that we need to see this group of people as those who either have accumulated their wealth off the backs of the poor (again, that’s not exactly reassuring for us in our economy), or we can hear Jesus addressing a group of people who do not use their wealth in the service of bringing about His Kingdom. As Jesus said in Matthew 12”30, “Whoever is not for me is against me.” Jesus reassures the poor, hungry and hated — don’t worry, your day will come.”

So, where does that leave those of us who feel like we are on the outside listening in? Where does that leave those of us aren’t in the camp of the impoverished blessed, but don’t want to be in the camp of woe?

Here’s where we…. It’s where Jesus obligates us to use our power, the power of our wealth, the power that comes with not having to worry about where your next meal is coming from, the power that comes with having the mental space to laugh, the power that comes with being well liked and accepted in our society — we use the power at our resources to bring about the Kingdom of God. Live into the Sermon on the Mount. Someone once said, ‘with great power comes great responsibility.’ Jesus challenges us to wield the power God has gifted us to advance His Kingdom. What are the signs that we are using our power in accord with the advancement of Jesus’ Kingdom?

Jesus clearly tells us the answer: The poor are blessed, the hungry are satisfied, the weeping know what it is to laugh, and the hated are welcomed. May it be so.