In chapter 6 this is followed up. We see the Lord on the two Sabbath days: the defense of the disciples for plucking the ears of corn, and the well-nigh defiant cure of the withered hand in the synagogue. The Lord does not pluck the ears of corn Himself; but He defends the guiltless, and this on moral ground. We do not here meet with the particulars set forth dispensationally as in Matthew’s Gospel: though the reference is to the same facts, they are not so reasoned upon. There the object is much more the approaching change of economy: here it is more moral. A similar remark applies to the case of healing the withered hand. The Sabbath, or seal of the old covenant, was never given of God, though abused by man, to hinder His goodness to the needy and wretched. But the Son of man was Lord of the Sabbath: and grace is free to bless man and glorify God. Immediately after this, clouds gather over the devoted head of our Lord; “They were filled with madness; and communed one with another what they might do to Jesus.”
The Lord retires to a mountain, continuing all night in prayer to God. On the next day, out of the disciples He chooses twelve who were preeminently to represent Him after His departure. That is, He nominates the twelve apostles. At the same time He delivers what is commonly called the sermon on the mount. But there the striking differences between the manner of Luke and Matthew, in conveying that sermon to us; for Luke brings two contrasts together; one of which was dropped by Matthew—at any rate in this, the beginning) of his Gospel. Luke couples the blessings and the woes; Matthew reserves his woes for another occasion. Not that one would affirm that the Lord did not proclaim the woes of Matthew 23 on another and later occasion; but it may be safely said, that the first evangelist passed by all questions of woes for the discourse on the mount. Luke, on the contrary, furnishes both. Who can fail to recognize in this circumstance a striking mark both of the evangelists, and of the special designs of Him who inspired them? Luke does not confine himself to the bright side, but adds also the solemn. There is a warning for conscience, as much as there is grace which appeals to the heart. It is Luke that gives it, and most gloriously. Besides, there is another difference. Matthew presents Christ more as the lawgiver. No doubt greater than Moses He was; for He was Jehovah, Emmanuel. Therefore He takes the place of deepening, enlarging, and ever bringing in principles so infinitely better as to eclipse what was said to them of old. Thus, while the authority of the law and prophets is maintained, there is now an incalculable change, in advance of all before, suitably to the presence of His glory who then spoke, and to the revelation of the Father’s name. More even was yet to be; but this was reserved for the presence in power of the Holy Spirit, as we are told in John 16.
Here, in the Gospel of Luke, another course is pursued. It is not as One who lays down principles, or describes the classes that can have part in the kingdom, as “Blessed are the poor,” and so forth.; but the Lord views, and speaks to, His disciples, as those immediately concerned; “Blessed ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.” It is all personal, in view of the godly company that then surrounded Him. So He says, “Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now,” and so forth. It was sorrow and suffering now; for He who fulfilled the promises, and psalms, and prophets was rejected; and the kingdom could not yet come in power and glory. “First must he suffer many things.”
Thus all through it is not description alone, but a direct address to the heart. In Matthew it was most appropriately a general discourse. Here it is made immediately applicable. That is, He looks at the persons then before Him, and pronounces a blessing upon them distinctly and personally.
For that reason, as also for others, He says nothing about suffering for righteousness’ sake here. In Matthew there are the two characters—those blessed when persecuted for righteousness’ sake, and yet more those who were persecuted for His name’s sake. Luke omits the righteousness: all persecution here noticed is on account of the Son of man. How blessed it is in Luke to find that the great witness of grace acts Himself in the spirit of that grace, and makes this to be the one distinguishing feature! Both sufferers are surely blessed; each is in his own season precious; but the least portion is not that which characterizes the word of the Lord in his Gospel who has mainly in view us who were poor sinners of the Gentiles.
In Luke the points pressed are not detailed contrasts with the law, nor the value of righteousness in secret with the Father, nor trust in His loving care without anxiety, but practical grace in loving our enemies, merciful as our Father is merciful, and so children of the Highest, with the assurance of corresponding recompence. Then comes the warning parable of the blindness of the religious world’s leaders, and the value of personal reality and obedience, instead of moralizing for others, which would end in ruin. In the chapter that follows (vs. 7) we shall see the Lord still more evidently proving that grace cannot be tied to Jewish limits, that His was a power which the Gentile owns to be absolute over all—yea, ever death as well as nature.
But before we pass on, let me observe that there is another feature also that strikes us in Luke, though it does not call for many words now. It appears that various portions of the sermon on the mount were reserved for insertion here and there, where they would it in best for comment on or connection with facts, the reason is, that moral grouping of conversations which has been already shown to be according to the method of Luke. Here there is not at all the same and of formal order of discourse as in Matthew. There were, I doubt not, questions asked during its course; and the Holy Spirit has been pleased to give us specimens of this in the Gospel of Luke. I may show on another occasion, that this which occurs not unfrequently throughout the whole central part of Luke is found in Him only. It is for the most part made up of this association of facts, with remarks either growing out of That has occurred, or suitable to them, and therefore transplanted from elsewhere.